With the support of almost 90 per cent of party delegates, Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative party leadership review results are clear and decisive.
These results not only demonstrate that the party continues to believe that he is their best option to win the next federal election, but that a large majority of Conservatives remain broadly united behind his leadership and message.
Post-election reflection
Poilievre entered the review following a period of assessment and recovery. As is typical after an election loss, this phase involved internal debate, intense media scrutiny and renewed attention to the leader’s perceived weaknesses.
Critics pointed to a familiar set of concerns: Poilievre’s attack-dog political style, his strained relationship with much of the national media and his perceived alignment with American populism, particularly Donald Trump.
His approach, they argued, had been designed for Justin Trudeau and was less effective against the former prime minister’s replacement, Mark Carney. Polling reinforced the sense of unease. While the Conservative Party continues to be seen as a better economic manager, Poilievre also lags behind Carney in personal popularity.
Organizational concerns also compounded these doubts. Controversies over nomination processes and strained relationships with other Conservative politicians, particularly Ontario Premier Doug Ford, raised questions about party management and coalition-building.
Within conservative intellectual circles, there has also been extensive ideological debate about tone, strategy and the party’s electoral ceiling.
Poilievre, after all, had to win an Alberta by-election after he lost his Ottawa seat in the federal election and has faced high-profile floor crossings over the past several months.
Yet this moment of reflection proved more cathartic than transformative. Much of the criticism levelled against Poilievre by Conservatives proved fleeting, an emotional response to loss rather than a durable movement to replace him. Instead, it reflected a familiar post-election pattern: disappointment amplified by punditry and frustration rather than a genuine collapse of confidence within the party.
Election results
How did Poilievre survive? Likely because the election results themselves were ambiguous. Although the Conservatives failed to form government, they were otherwise successful by many other measures.
They increased their vote share, expanded their support to new voter constituencies — especially young adults and recent immigrants — and demonstrated strength on core issues such as affordability, housing and cost of living. From the conservative perspective, this suggests incompletion — an inability to seal the final deal — rather than total rejection.
With the largest share of the popular vote for any Conservative party in Canada since 1988, the only thing that stood between the party and governing was a few percentage points.
This creates a powerful argument for continuity. Replacing Poilievre would have required the party to gamble that a new leader could quickly unify the coalition, define themselves nationally and outperform an already familiar figure in Carney — all without the benefit of incumbency or clear front-runner status.
Compounding this, of course, was the absence of a clear successor. No alternative candidate commanded widespread loyalty or offered an obviously superior electoral profile. In such circumstances, continuity becomes the least risky option.
The broader political and electoral context also matters. While Carney may be more personally popular than Poilievre, he governs on top of a coalition that is internally complex, undefined and potentially short-lived.
Carney’s electoral success depended heavily on the collapse of the NDP vote and the broader political disruption caused by Trump’s threats to annex Canada. With a new NDP leader, the New Democrats could recover and cut into Liberal margins.
Meanwhile, the government’s more mixed response to issues such as pipeline development, housing and the cost-of-living crisis could push enough voters toward the Conservatives by the next federal election campaign.
Young voters like Poilievre
All this said, however, Poilievre’s support cannot be explained solely by institutional inertia or a lack of alternative leadership candidates. His leadership has and continues to generate genuine enthusiasm among some voters — especially those who are young, recently immigrated or working in trades. This support is fuelled by economic frustration, declining living standards and the sense of a lost promise.
At a moment when centre-right parties elsewhere are struggling with internal upheaval and fragmentation, Poilievre’s Conservative Party has remained cohesive and even expanded by organizing around what former communications director Ben Woodfinden calls the “locked-out:” voters who feel shut out of prosperity amid weak growth and chronic productivity problems.
In this context, Poilievre’s orthodox centre-right agenda — cutting regulatory burdens, boosting competition and removing interprovincial trade barriers — continues to attract broad, cross-class support that transcends cultural and regional divides.
The success of this can be seen from the fact that, throughout his keynote address at the Conservative Party convention, Poilievre’s core message and policy proposals haven’t changed substantively.
Read more: Why does Pierre Poilievre appeal to young Canadians? It’s all about economics
But there has been a shift in style. Poilievre has begun to pair his combative style with a more personal, reflective and occasionally vulnerable public persona, an adjustment aimed at consolidating support while expanding appeal among undecided voters.
Finally, although Poilievre’s coalition wasn’t large enough to win the 2025 election, Canadian electoral history suggests that his prospects aren’t bleak. There’s a long history of decisive results or shifts playing out across two electoral successes, as coalitions are consolidated and expanded. Both John Diefenbaker and Stephen Harper, for example, endured defeats before securing durable governing mandates.
By endorsing Poilievre so decisively, Conservatives signalled their belief that he remains on an upward trajectory. The leadership review was less about absolution than affirmation: a collective judgment that the party is closer to power with Poilievre than without him.
