Why Canadian prime ministers always stay well past their expiration date

·21 min·2 clips

Why do Canadian prime ministers cling to power long after their popularity collapses, unlike leaders in the UK or Australia?

The episode opens by contrasting Canada's political culture with the UK and Australia, where unpopular leaders are often quickly removed by their caucus, while in Canada, voters typically dispense with leaders at the ballot box. Host Dave Breakenridge introduces guest Tristan Hopper, a National Post columnist, to discuss why Canadian parties hold onto leaders whose political fortunes have turned, using Justin Trudeau's sinking poll numbers as a current case study. Hopper details Trudeau's precipitous decline, noting that for 12 consecutive months, each new poll has been worse, with the Liberals now tied with the NDP in some demographics. He highlights a historic shift: for the first time, the Conservative Party's strongest base of support is among younger Canadians under 44, a demographic traditionally less conservative. The discussion then broadens to Canada's historical pattern, with Hopper explaining that only one prime minister, Mackenzie Bowell in 1896, was ever swiftly ousted by his caucus after a mistake. Instead, Canadian leaders typically stay until their party faces existential collapse, as seen with Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, and Jean Chrétien. Hopper contrasts this with recent examples in other Commonwealth countries like Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, where leaders like Jacinta Ardern have stepped down when internal popularity fell. The structural reasons for Canada's uniqueness are explored, focusing on the prime minister's control over candidate appointments—with half of Liberal candidates in the last election being appointed—and the use of perks and patronage to maintain caucus loyalty. Hopper cites the SNC-Lavalin affair, where former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould was expelled from caucus after criticizing Trudeau, as an example of this power. The conversation also touches on provincial examples, like Alberta, where easier leader removal has sometimes contributed to longer party tenures. Looking ahead, Hopper speculates that Trudeau is unlikely to step down before the next election, as dissenting MPs risk losing perks and positions if they speak out publicly. The episode concludes by noting that while media speculation about leadership changes is dramatic, the Canadian system makes such ousters rare, leaving voters as the ultimate arbiters.

As heard by us

A clear look at why Canadian prime ministers can outlast their political momentum.

The episode looks at why Canadian prime ministers can linger after their political momentum has faded. Dave Breckenridge and National Post columnist Tristan Hopper use Justin Trudeau's weak polling as a way into a larger pattern: leaders in Canada often stay until voters force…

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

You get a brisk explanation of why Canadian leaders can linger even as their parties slide toward danger.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from 10/3: Canada Covered