Happy New Year! I hope you had a joy and rest-ful holiday season and are entering 2025 emotionally prepared for a politically turbulent year: Trump’s official return to office, presumed Ontario and federal elections, and, oh yeah, maybe an LPC leadership race wedged somewhere in between.

There have been a range of suggestions regarding how the next leader should be selected, including caucus choosing an interim leader/automatic Prime Minister, anointing Chrystia Freeland, and a full-fledged leadership race. As a pollster and a Liberal, I strongly believe that a leadership race is essential for conveying renewal to Canadians. The party also needs to engage the base, by every definition. 

There are two types of leadership races - those that are internally focused and those that are external. In some contests, the driving force is frustration with the party status quo, so members rally behind a truer ideological champion (ex. Paul Martin in the 1990s/2000s). In cases when the opponent feels like an exceptional threat, broad appeal and winnability take precedence (ex. Joe Biden in 2020). I think the Liberals are entering an externally-focused “winnability” race, but with down-shifted goals. This isn’t about achieving electoral victory. Rather, members should select a leader who can 1) maximize damage to Poilievre’s brand and 2) save the furniture - i.e., elect a caucus that can hold the government to account and retain a party infrastructure that can fight another fight. To that end, here’s the framework I’m using for assessing potential leadership contenders. 

Trudeau Differentiation  

Justin Trudeau is the main character in Canadian politics today. Disaffection with him is a key driver of the Conservatives’ current dominance in the polls, and it’s the reason why outrage over the cost of living is not equally directed at the provinces. He’s eating up much of Canadians’ capacity for rage. 

The next Liberal leader will need to be significantly removed from the Prime Minister. Purely from a persuasion point of view (as opposed to governing), an outsider who has not been involved in government decision-making will find the path easier. This doesn’t mean that the next leader can’t be a member of Trudeau’s government, but they’ll have to thoughtfully and credibly create space from the Prime Minister. 

It’s most important that this differentiation is centred on economics. I’m not saying this means the next leader needs to be pro-austerity—I don’t have enough data to recommend exactly what the policy proposals should be—but the Liberals need a leader who relates to the economy differently than the Prime Minister does and can restore confidence in a system that feels fundamentally broken. 

Poilievre Contrast 

A miserable position for incumbents is when the election turns to a referendum on your government. Everything centres on the government’s shortcomings, giving the opposition a pass on their weaknesses. But still, they’re there. So what are they? ICYMI, I’ve written a few articles about this (here, here, and here), but to summarize, Poilievre’s top weaknesses are: 

• His demeanour—Those who dislike him most find him extreme and Trumpian. They also have concerns about his ability to empathize, collaborate, and act respectfully. 

• A Conservative agenda—Some of his weaknesses are simply the Conservative Party's brand baggage—that he will cut spending on social programs and healthcare and that Canada will do less to fight climate change. 

• Not especially well known—While Poilievre is polarizing, a sizable portion of Canadians don’t know a lot about him. There’s a lack of awareness of his plans or doubt that he would make significant changes vs. today. 

• He’s still just a politician. Poilievre has shown Canadians one side of himself – that of a fierce (albeit very partisan) fighter. This can be a strength, but there are also moments, such as on trade, where he seems more concerned about his opponents losing than Canadians winning. 

Conversely, his top strengths are: 

• Competence—He’s broadly viewed as being smart and competent, an impression fostered by his direct and calm communication style.

• Strength—He’s also commonly viewed as strong and, relatedly, decisive. This feels compelling in a moment where many Canadians feel that things in Canada, particularly the economy, are out of control. 

• Not Trudeau—Much of the interpretation of Poilievre is with Justin Trudeau as a point of comparison. His strengths feel stronger because they’re stacked against Trudeau’s perceived weaknesses.

The next Liberal leader needs to neutralize Poilievre’s perceived strengths and emphasize his weaknesses. This means competing on strength and competence while being undeniably decent. While it may come as a surprise, it’s possible to debate and be a fighter without being a complete (insert your preferred expletive). It might also mean demonstrating such things as *shock* empathy, humour, and optimism. 

I also see strong potential for a doer vs. talker contrast. The Liberals need a way to recontextualize what many Canadians feel when they watch Poilievre speak. They think he sounds smart. As I propose in “the blowhard” narrative statement in this article, Liberals need to urge people to pay attention to what he’s saying and not just how he says it. It’s also worth reminding voters that he sounds compelling because this is all he’s ever done. He’s a career politician with one goal: winning. That doesn’t mean he’s right.

Meeting the Policy Moment 

We’re in a very urgent-feeling moment. Canadians were already deeply anxious and frustrated with the state of the economy, and this has been exacerbated by the reelection of Donald Trump. Both as a point of contrast to Trudeau’s perceived weaknesses, and in meeting the policy moment, the next leader should be seen to be experienced on one or both of these issues. I hate to break it to my fellow bleeding hearts, but this isn’t the moment to center new social spending or climate action. 

Political Capacity  

Last but obviously not least is political capacity. This is multi-dimensional and includes: 

• Multi-modal communication skills—Giving a good speech is important, but it’s just scratching the surface in modern campaigning. How are they on camera? Are they quick on their feet? Do they have experience debating? How do they deal with confrontation? Can they tell a story that’s interesting to the average voter? Do they already have a social media presence? The list goes on.

• Experiencing campaigning and winning—Putting your name on the ballot and running requires a level of grit (especially in the cesspool that is social media) and stamina that’s unlike any other role. The Liberals need someone who knows how to perform under extreme pressure and judgment. 

• Organizational experience—Being a party leader is not just campaigning. It’s also building a team, fundraising, making decisions etc., etc., etc. It also requires the humility to know that you don’t know everything and must take advice from your team. Ok, that last point might be self-serving. 

• French and regional foothold—This is Self-explanatory. We can’t take any region for granted, so having someone with a strong regional presence is beneficial. Speaking French passably is table stakes. 

I’m working on ranking Anita Anand, Christy Clark, Chrystia Freeland, Dominic LeBlanc, François-Philippe Champagne, Mark Carney, and Mélanie Joly on these 4 attributes, but I want to know what you think! If you want to (anonymously) do your own ranking, you can do so here, and I’ll report what the readership thinks next week!