"It was more of a campaign speech. He needed to come across as more serious, have a stance on Canada's place in the world: how it will secure prosperity and get into a good economic position if we're going into an era where we can't rely on the US. He spent a little bit of time criticizing Carney, but also offering solutions, like pipelines and home building as an engine for economic growth."
"The narrative coming out of the campaign was that he had to be more prime ministerial, because he comes from an opposition role and he excels in an opposition role. The concern was that he comes off as a little negative, as an attack dog, as hyper political. I think it produced what was at times a pretty bad contrast to Carney, who comes off as very serious and very established and competent."
Pierre Poilievre positioned himself with conventional campaign messaging that prioritized economic resilience, a more prime-ministerial demeanor, and concrete policy proposals. He emphasized securing prosperity and improving Canada's economic position if reliance on the United States diminishes. He criticized Mark Carney while proposing infrastructure and housing initiatives—pipelines and home-building—as engines of growth. He sought to temper an opposition-style, negative persona by presenting seriousness, family background, and statesmanlike qualities to reduce contrast with established, competent figures. The approach aimed to broaden appeal beyond core supporters while retaining campaign momentum.
Read at The Walrus
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]