What do you think?
The Poilievre Project
As Pierre Poilievre closes in on power, journalist Martin Lukacs reveals the playbook behind his rise and exposes his radical vision for reshaping Canada.
Masquerading as an anti-establishment firebrand, Poilievre aims to ride anger about inequality and the cost-of-living crisis into office, then hand the keys to the corporate elite.
Drawing on investigative research and first-hand reporting, Lukacs reveals how Poilievre has built a political machine with the backing of tech oligarchs, real estate tycoons, oil barons, and Bay Street billionaires—all poised to profit from a Conservative government in Ottawa.
With sharp and biting analysis, Lukacs traces Poilievre’s trajectory from his early embrace of free-market fundamentalism to later efforts to rebrand his agenda of deregulation, privatization, and cutbacks as worker-friendly populism.
He warns that Poilievre’s commitment to a rapid-fire corporate makeover of Canada could cost the country dearly—from cherished public institutions to hard-won social programs to a liveable planet.
Masquerading as an anti-establishment firebrand, Poilievre aims to ride anger about inequality and the cost-of-living crisis into office, then hand the keys to the corporate elite.
Drawing on investigative research and first-hand reporting, Lukacs reveals how Poilievre has built a political machine with the backing of tech oligarchs, real estate tycoons, oil barons, and Bay Street billionaires—all poised to profit from a Conservative government in Ottawa.
With sharp and biting analysis, Lukacs traces Poilievre’s trajectory from his early embrace of free-market fundamentalism to later efforts to rebrand his agenda of deregulation, privatization, and cutbacks as worker-friendly populism.
He warns that Poilievre’s commitment to a rapid-fire corporate makeover of Canada could cost the country dearly—from cherished public institutions to hard-won social programs to a liveable planet.
150 pages, Paperback
Published April 10, 2025
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
May 16, 2025
Exceptionally well researched and written, mapping both the ideological upbringing of Pierre and the well-funded organized infrastructure that has emerged over the last couple decades to support and create the kind of politics he has come to embody.
Pierre may be defeated but his role in electoral politics is far from over. Especially good, and frustrating read for NDP supporters who may find some lessons and explanations for how to and why haven’t we been able to seize on the working class outrage of the country.
Pierre may be defeated but his role in electoral politics is far from over. Especially good, and frustrating read for NDP supporters who may find some lessons and explanations for how to and why haven’t we been able to seize on the working class outrage of the country.
August 14, 2026
Summary of the review:
I don't know who this book is ultimately for.
Even in a dream, it would be difficult for me to imagine a politically neutral reader arriving at its conclusions without already sharing much of the author's worldview.
That said, I learned things from it. It has given me criticisms to consider and things to watch for if Poilievre is elected. I don't think the answer to a book I dislike politically is to dismiss it. Reading arguments that irritate me forces me to articulate why I disagree.
There are legitimate criticisms of Poilievre worth considering: whether his policies will produce the outcomes he promises, his relationships with donors, his rhetoric, his treatment of institutions, his environmental policies, and whether his populist rhetoric translates into coherent policy.
My problem is that the book too frequently seems to answer those questions before asking them.
Rather ironically, the overall effect has been almost the opposite of what I suspect the author intended.
I started the book supporting Poilievre.
I now support him even more strongly.
Unlike the author, I'm actually interested in seeing what a more Friedmanite economic approach could look like in Canada. That doesn't mean Friedman was infallible or that every policy associated with “neoliberalism” is good. It means I'm considerably less convinced that markets, private enterprise, deregulation, fiscal restraint, or resource development are inherently synonymous with exploitation.
I also have essentially zero faith in the idea that Canadian companies would simply be permitted to destroy the environment with impunity under such a system. Canada already has environmental laws, regulators, courts, liability regimes, property rights, public scrutiny, and elections capable of punishing governments that fail to enforce them.
There is a perfectly reasonable argument over how stringent regulations should be, how efficiently they should be enforced, and whether some impose unnecessary economic costs.
But that is very different from the picture presented in which embracing market economics necessarily means abandoning environmental protection.
The book has convinced me of one thing, at least:
I probably wasn't the intended audience.
And perhaps that's exactly why I found it worth reading.
(I wrote the review myself and used ChatGPT to edit my review)
Detailed Review:
The author is very pro-union. He broadly defines “neoliberalism” as Friedmanite economic philosophy before gradually extending the label to encompass so-called far-right ideology, think tanks, deregulation, environmental “dumping,” union transparency, and fiscal restraint. He eventually summarizes it as “privatization, deregulation, and social cutbacks” (p. 80).
This broadening of the term is one of the book's more interesting features. “Neoliberalism” starts as an economic philosophy and gradually becomes a catch-all description for much of modern conservatism. The author also introduces complex political and economic terminology without always adequately defining it.
I see almost everything from a different perspective, so I was reading the book at least as much for entertainment as relatability. Still, it has been genuinely interesting.
If anything, after reading it I find myself even more firmly supportive of Poilievre.
Friedman and Chile
Early in the book, the author portrays Milton Friedman almost as a radical revolutionary, then uses Chile as an indictment of Friedmanite economics. In my view, he doesn't adequately distinguish between Friedman's prescriptions and what Chile actually implemented.
In particular, he gives insufficient attention to Chile's fixed exchange-rate policy and the extraordinarily rapid, non-incremental nature of some reforms. Friedman was hardly advocating simply tearing apart an economic system overnight. Incrementalism—gradual, sustained reform—was an important part of his thinking.
If Chile is evidence that “Friedmanism” failed, the author should explain which Friedmanite prescriptions were actually followed. Otherwise the argument becomes: a government implemented some Friedman-associated ideas alongside policies Friedman opposed or criticized, experienced a disastrous crisis, and therefore Friedmanism failed. Those aren't necessarily the same proposition.
Nor does the author seem particularly interested in Chile's subsequent recovery. That doesn't erase the costs of the earlier period or prove Friedman correct, but it complicates the neat narrative that his ideas were simply tried, failed, and discredited.
More fundamentally, the caricature of Friedman here seems closer to a populist anti-right-wing trope than an analysis of what Friedman actually meant by “neoliberalism.” In his 1951 essay Neo-Liberalism and Its Prospects, Friedman envisioned government establishing the rules and institutions necessary for decentralized competition while preventing government itself from becoming the dominant economic actor.
You can disagree with that. But that is considerably more nuanced than simply reducing it to “privatization, deregulation, and social cutbacks.”
Monopolies and Conservatives
In “Not Radical Enough,” the author criticizes Stephen Harper for abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, portraying the decision as destructive. Yet elsewhere he criticizes Harper for supposedly empowering monopolistic interests.
Which is it?
One can argue that the Wheat Board served legitimate interests of farmers and that dismantling it imposed costs. That's a reasonable criticism. But abolishing a government-created monopoly should at least be recognizable as a move toward competition. Criticizing conservatives both for eliminating monopolies and for empowering them requires considerably more explanation than the author provides.
More broadly, the author repeatedly constructs a one-sided picture of conservative intentions. Rarely does he seriously entertain a plausible reason for what he portrays as the brutish, anti-democratic, or inhumane inclinations of conservatives.
I suppose the reader is expected to conclude that conservatives simply are extreme.
Perhaps they're violently opposed to Canadians having the greatest possible opportunity to provide for themselves through work, initiative, and merit. Perhaps they secretly want environmental destruction and corporate exploitation. Perhaps they simply hate unions, workers, and the poor.
The book often leaves those assumptions hanging in the air rather than actually defending them.
Corporate Influence and Astroturfing
In “From Memes to a Movement,” the author criticizes conservative Jeff Ballingall for accepting corporate money.
What exactly is the alternative?
There is nothing inherently sinister about a business owner supporting a political movement whose policies they believe will benefit the economy. A small-business owner, an oilfield worker, a tradesman, and a large corporation can all support resource development for different reasons while reaching the same political conclusion.
The author conflates astroturfing—manufacturing the appearance of spontaneous grassroots support—with the possibility that corporate interests can genuinely align with public interests.
He seems to portray corporate involvement as a malignant force capable of turning ordinary people into useful idiots who don't realize the companies employing or benefiting them ultimately want to exploit them.
And, at least in the sections I've read, there is conspicuously little discussion of organizations such as Arabella Advisors or the political networks associated with George Soros when discussing wealthy donors and institutional influence.
That asymmetry is difficult to ignore.
As a conservative reader, the framework seems almost impossible to falsify. If I support resource extraction, I am being astroturfed. If I believe organizations or foreign interests are trying to undermine Canada's resource sector, I am apparently being astroturfed by people who are themselves being astroturfed by climate scientists, academics, and policy experts.
If I agree with the author's preferred position, I'm informed. If I disagree, my disagreement can be explained as evidence that someone successfully manipulated me.
That's a remarkably convenient framework.
MGTOW
The author describes MGTOW as “a misogynistic online movement” and “a large community of male supremacists who denigrate women and attempt to cut them out of their lives.”
I'd never heard of it, so I looked it up.
Rather than simply accepting his characterization, I looked at material from the movement itself. I found material presenting MGTOW as a philosophy of male independence and withdrawal from relationships.
One passage states:
“Every man should ask himself honestly whether he is choosing independence or excusing failure.”
Can that be interpreted misogynistically? Absolutely. But is the statement itself misogynistic? I don't think that is nearly as self-evident as the author suggests.
The material also describes MGTOW in terms of self-mastery, Stoic resilience, minimalism, and self-improvement.
None of this proves misogynistic elements don't exist. They certainly can, and online movements are rarely ideologically uniform. But if the argument is that MGTOW contains misogynistic elements, demonstrate those elements. Don't simply define the movement in the most hostile possible terms and treat that definition as proof.
COVID and the Freedom Convoy
The author quotes an opinion piece from his own outlet predicting that COVID would radicalize tens of thousands of disaffected people on the right and direct them toward the far right.
This reflects another recurring tendency: political dissatisfaction on the right is treated as an inevitable road toward extremism.
He spends considerable effort portraying the Freedom Convoy as a far-right, xenophobic, anti-vaccine coup d'état. The convoy certainly contained people with extreme views and some ugly rhetoric, but that doesn't establish that the movement as a whole was fundamentally far-right or xenophobic.
His treatment of Poilievre's response to protests is similarly selective. He points out that Poilievre supported the convoy while opposing earlier blockades associated with First Nations activists that disrupted CN Rail.
The implication is hypocrisy.
But circumstances matter. A politician isn't obligated to support every protest simply because it is a protest. If Poilievre's positions are contradictory, the author needs to explain why the protests' causes, legal circumstances, demands, and economic consequences are irrelevant.
Otherwise it looks less like an examination of Poilievre's principles and more like an attempt to manufacture contradictions.
Housing and Crime
In “Fake Firebrand,” the author criticizes Poilievre's approach to housing. Poilievre's basic proposition is straightforward: build more housing through construction incentives, faster permitting, and reduced barriers to development, alongside substantially reducing the pace of Liberal immigration.
The author's apparent alternative is rent control.
No extensive explanation is required. It's simply presented as the easier and more obvious solution.
But if the fundamental problem is insufficient housing relative to demand, restricting the price of existing housing doesn't itself create additional housing. Rent control can provide short-term protection for existing tenants, and there are legitimate arguments for it, but it is reasonable to ask about supply, maintenance, investment, and long-term availability.
If the author thinks those concerns are outweighed by rent control's benefits, make that argument. Don't simply present rent control as self-evidently correct.
He also criticizes Poilievre's focus on crime, citing a 6% decline over the previous decade and more than 33% since 2000.
Even assuming those figures are accurate as presented, context matters. Canada's population has grown substantially, including by more than two million people in less than a decade. Raw offence counts aren't the same as per-capita rates, nor do they tell us what is happening with particular categories, severity, geographic concentration, or reporting.
A decline in crime also doesn't automatically make concern about crime illegitimate.
NAFTA
In “Billionaire-Backed Rebellion,” the author states that NAFTA “destroyed more jobs than it created, depressed wages, worsened inequality, and has today greatly increased corporate power over public policy.”
Again, this is presented almost as settled fact.
Perhaps it is defensible, but each component is independently contestable. How many jobs were destroyed? How many were created? Over what period? What happened to productivity and consumer prices? How much of the change in wages or inequality can actually be attributed to NAFTA rather than technology, globalization, monetary policy, taxation, or domestic labour-market changes?
And what is the causal mechanism by which NAFTA supposedly “greatly increased corporate power over public policy”?
These could have been interesting arguments. Instead, propositions that should be argued are frequently presented as premises.
Poilievre as a “Fake Firebrand”
The author portrays Poilievre as a wave on the sea, pushed along by prevailing political winds rather than shaping them.
He accuses Poilievre of pretending to represent grassroots, middle-class workers, as though his genuine popularity among those people is itself evidence of some nefarious ulterior motive.
There is a strange circularity here.
If Poilievre responds to populist sentiment, he's opportunistic. If ordinary people agree with him, they're potentially victims of astroturfing. If he doesn't respond to that sentiment, presumably he's out of touch.
My favourite example is the criticism that Poilievre borrowed a phrase originally used by a news outlet “owned by the Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party.”
As a voracious learner, I've adopted plenty of phrases and ideas from people I profoundly disagree with.
Apparently, according to this logic, borrowing a useful phrase from someone you dislike is tantamount to reorganizing your own DNA until you become that person.
I don't know who this book is ultimately for.
Even in a dream, it would be difficult for me to imagine a politically neutral reader arriving at its conclusions without already sharing much of the author's worldview.
That said, I learned things from it. It has given me criticisms to consider and things to watch for if Poilievre is elected. I don't think the answer to a book I dislike politically is to dismiss it. Reading arguments that irritate me forces me to articulate why I disagree.
There are legitimate criticisms of Poilievre worth considering: whether his policies will produce the outcomes he promises, his relationships with donors, his rhetoric, his treatment of institutions, his environmental policies, and whether his populist rhetoric translates into coherent policy.
My problem is that the book too frequently seems to answer those questions before asking them.
Rather ironically, the overall effect has been almost the opposite of what I suspect the author intended.
I started the book supporting Poilievre.
I now support him even more strongly.
Unlike the author, I'm actually interested in seeing what a more Friedmanite economic approach could look like in Canada. That doesn't mean Friedman was infallible or that every policy associated with “neoliberalism” is good. It means I'm considerably less convinced that markets, private enterprise, deregulation, fiscal restraint, or resource development are inherently synonymous with exploitation.
I also have essentially zero faith in the idea that Canadian companies would simply be permitted to destroy the environment with impunity under such a system. Canada already has environmental laws, regulators, courts, liability regimes, property rights, public scrutiny, and elections capable of punishing governments that fail to enforce them.
There is a perfectly reasonable argument over how stringent regulations should be, how efficiently they should be enforced, and whether some impose unnecessary economic costs.
But that is very different from the picture presented in which embracing market economics necessarily means abandoning environmental protection.
The book has convinced me of one thing, at least:
I probably wasn't the intended audience.
And perhaps that's exactly why I found it worth reading.
(I wrote the review myself and used ChatGPT to edit my review)
Detailed Review:
The author is very pro-union. He broadly defines “neoliberalism” as Friedmanite economic philosophy before gradually extending the label to encompass so-called far-right ideology, think tanks, deregulation, environmental “dumping,” union transparency, and fiscal restraint. He eventually summarizes it as “privatization, deregulation, and social cutbacks” (p. 80).
This broadening of the term is one of the book's more interesting features. “Neoliberalism” starts as an economic philosophy and gradually becomes a catch-all description for much of modern conservatism. The author also introduces complex political and economic terminology without always adequately defining it.
I see almost everything from a different perspective, so I was reading the book at least as much for entertainment as relatability. Still, it has been genuinely interesting.
If anything, after reading it I find myself even more firmly supportive of Poilievre.
Friedman and Chile
Early in the book, the author portrays Milton Friedman almost as a radical revolutionary, then uses Chile as an indictment of Friedmanite economics. In my view, he doesn't adequately distinguish between Friedman's prescriptions and what Chile actually implemented.
In particular, he gives insufficient attention to Chile's fixed exchange-rate policy and the extraordinarily rapid, non-incremental nature of some reforms. Friedman was hardly advocating simply tearing apart an economic system overnight. Incrementalism—gradual, sustained reform—was an important part of his thinking.
If Chile is evidence that “Friedmanism” failed, the author should explain which Friedmanite prescriptions were actually followed. Otherwise the argument becomes: a government implemented some Friedman-associated ideas alongside policies Friedman opposed or criticized, experienced a disastrous crisis, and therefore Friedmanism failed. Those aren't necessarily the same proposition.
Nor does the author seem particularly interested in Chile's subsequent recovery. That doesn't erase the costs of the earlier period or prove Friedman correct, but it complicates the neat narrative that his ideas were simply tried, failed, and discredited.
More fundamentally, the caricature of Friedman here seems closer to a populist anti-right-wing trope than an analysis of what Friedman actually meant by “neoliberalism.” In his 1951 essay Neo-Liberalism and Its Prospects, Friedman envisioned government establishing the rules and institutions necessary for decentralized competition while preventing government itself from becoming the dominant economic actor.
You can disagree with that. But that is considerably more nuanced than simply reducing it to “privatization, deregulation, and social cutbacks.”
Monopolies and Conservatives
In “Not Radical Enough,” the author criticizes Stephen Harper for abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, portraying the decision as destructive. Yet elsewhere he criticizes Harper for supposedly empowering monopolistic interests.
Which is it?
One can argue that the Wheat Board served legitimate interests of farmers and that dismantling it imposed costs. That's a reasonable criticism. But abolishing a government-created monopoly should at least be recognizable as a move toward competition. Criticizing conservatives both for eliminating monopolies and for empowering them requires considerably more explanation than the author provides.
More broadly, the author repeatedly constructs a one-sided picture of conservative intentions. Rarely does he seriously entertain a plausible reason for what he portrays as the brutish, anti-democratic, or inhumane inclinations of conservatives.
I suppose the reader is expected to conclude that conservatives simply are extreme.
Perhaps they're violently opposed to Canadians having the greatest possible opportunity to provide for themselves through work, initiative, and merit. Perhaps they secretly want environmental destruction and corporate exploitation. Perhaps they simply hate unions, workers, and the poor.
The book often leaves those assumptions hanging in the air rather than actually defending them.
Corporate Influence and Astroturfing
In “From Memes to a Movement,” the author criticizes conservative Jeff Ballingall for accepting corporate money.
What exactly is the alternative?
There is nothing inherently sinister about a business owner supporting a political movement whose policies they believe will benefit the economy. A small-business owner, an oilfield worker, a tradesman, and a large corporation can all support resource development for different reasons while reaching the same political conclusion.
The author conflates astroturfing—manufacturing the appearance of spontaneous grassroots support—with the possibility that corporate interests can genuinely align with public interests.
He seems to portray corporate involvement as a malignant force capable of turning ordinary people into useful idiots who don't realize the companies employing or benefiting them ultimately want to exploit them.
And, at least in the sections I've read, there is conspicuously little discussion of organizations such as Arabella Advisors or the political networks associated with George Soros when discussing wealthy donors and institutional influence.
That asymmetry is difficult to ignore.
As a conservative reader, the framework seems almost impossible to falsify. If I support resource extraction, I am being astroturfed. If I believe organizations or foreign interests are trying to undermine Canada's resource sector, I am apparently being astroturfed by people who are themselves being astroturfed by climate scientists, academics, and policy experts.
If I agree with the author's preferred position, I'm informed. If I disagree, my disagreement can be explained as evidence that someone successfully manipulated me.
That's a remarkably convenient framework.
MGTOW
The author describes MGTOW as “a misogynistic online movement” and “a large community of male supremacists who denigrate women and attempt to cut them out of their lives.”
I'd never heard of it, so I looked it up.
Rather than simply accepting his characterization, I looked at material from the movement itself. I found material presenting MGTOW as a philosophy of male independence and withdrawal from relationships.
One passage states:
“Every man should ask himself honestly whether he is choosing independence or excusing failure.”
Can that be interpreted misogynistically? Absolutely. But is the statement itself misogynistic? I don't think that is nearly as self-evident as the author suggests.
The material also describes MGTOW in terms of self-mastery, Stoic resilience, minimalism, and self-improvement.
None of this proves misogynistic elements don't exist. They certainly can, and online movements are rarely ideologically uniform. But if the argument is that MGTOW contains misogynistic elements, demonstrate those elements. Don't simply define the movement in the most hostile possible terms and treat that definition as proof.
COVID and the Freedom Convoy
The author quotes an opinion piece from his own outlet predicting that COVID would radicalize tens of thousands of disaffected people on the right and direct them toward the far right.
This reflects another recurring tendency: political dissatisfaction on the right is treated as an inevitable road toward extremism.
He spends considerable effort portraying the Freedom Convoy as a far-right, xenophobic, anti-vaccine coup d'état. The convoy certainly contained people with extreme views and some ugly rhetoric, but that doesn't establish that the movement as a whole was fundamentally far-right or xenophobic.
His treatment of Poilievre's response to protests is similarly selective. He points out that Poilievre supported the convoy while opposing earlier blockades associated with First Nations activists that disrupted CN Rail.
The implication is hypocrisy.
But circumstances matter. A politician isn't obligated to support every protest simply because it is a protest. If Poilievre's positions are contradictory, the author needs to explain why the protests' causes, legal circumstances, demands, and economic consequences are irrelevant.
Otherwise it looks less like an examination of Poilievre's principles and more like an attempt to manufacture contradictions.
Housing and Crime
In “Fake Firebrand,” the author criticizes Poilievre's approach to housing. Poilievre's basic proposition is straightforward: build more housing through construction incentives, faster permitting, and reduced barriers to development, alongside substantially reducing the pace of Liberal immigration.
The author's apparent alternative is rent control.
No extensive explanation is required. It's simply presented as the easier and more obvious solution.
But if the fundamental problem is insufficient housing relative to demand, restricting the price of existing housing doesn't itself create additional housing. Rent control can provide short-term protection for existing tenants, and there are legitimate arguments for it, but it is reasonable to ask about supply, maintenance, investment, and long-term availability.
If the author thinks those concerns are outweighed by rent control's benefits, make that argument. Don't simply present rent control as self-evidently correct.
He also criticizes Poilievre's focus on crime, citing a 6% decline over the previous decade and more than 33% since 2000.
Even assuming those figures are accurate as presented, context matters. Canada's population has grown substantially, including by more than two million people in less than a decade. Raw offence counts aren't the same as per-capita rates, nor do they tell us what is happening with particular categories, severity, geographic concentration, or reporting.
A decline in crime also doesn't automatically make concern about crime illegitimate.
NAFTA
In “Billionaire-Backed Rebellion,” the author states that NAFTA “destroyed more jobs than it created, depressed wages, worsened inequality, and has today greatly increased corporate power over public policy.”
Again, this is presented almost as settled fact.
Perhaps it is defensible, but each component is independently contestable. How many jobs were destroyed? How many were created? Over what period? What happened to productivity and consumer prices? How much of the change in wages or inequality can actually be attributed to NAFTA rather than technology, globalization, monetary policy, taxation, or domestic labour-market changes?
And what is the causal mechanism by which NAFTA supposedly “greatly increased corporate power over public policy”?
These could have been interesting arguments. Instead, propositions that should be argued are frequently presented as premises.
Poilievre as a “Fake Firebrand”
The author portrays Poilievre as a wave on the sea, pushed along by prevailing political winds rather than shaping them.
He accuses Poilievre of pretending to represent grassroots, middle-class workers, as though his genuine popularity among those people is itself evidence of some nefarious ulterior motive.
There is a strange circularity here.
If Poilievre responds to populist sentiment, he's opportunistic. If ordinary people agree with him, they're potentially victims of astroturfing. If he doesn't respond to that sentiment, presumably he's out of touch.
My favourite example is the criticism that Poilievre borrowed a phrase originally used by a news outlet “owned by the Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party.”
As a voracious learner, I've adopted plenty of phrases and ideas from people I profoundly disagree with.
Apparently, according to this logic, borrowing a useful phrase from someone you dislike is tantamount to reorganizing your own DNA until you become that person.
February 7, 2026
A great overview of the modern right-wing movement in Canada as personalized by Pierre Poilievre, regardless of whether one agrees with the exact politics of the author or not.
August 20, 2025
THEE primer on pierre poilievre, Canada's increasing privatization and downfall to neoliberalism, and how we move forward under corporate rule. loved the scene setting and the gender critique (one of the few canadian politics books to incorporate feminist political economy without question) and the historical research: support the breach, the breach books, and martin's reporting and writing!
the photo-negative of this piece (and the questions of whether it'll be relevant in our news cycle and the liberals' win) is that it also decisively tracks how and why someone like mark carney can ACTUALLY run on poilievre's message and govern accordingly.
the photo-negative of this piece (and the questions of whether it'll be relevant in our news cycle and the liberals' win) is that it also decisively tracks how and why someone like mark carney can ACTUALLY run on poilievre's message and govern accordingly.
December 27, 2025
Christmas is over, but this is a great gift for the working class Poilievre supporter in your life. Rips the wool off our eyes and shows that he's the opposite of pro-working class.
A lot of typos and grammatical errors, though. Probably wouldn't affect the average reader's experience but I'm unusually insensitive to it and I noticed it a lot.
A lot of typos and grammatical errors, though. Probably wouldn't affect the average reader's experience but I'm unusually insensitive to it and I noticed it a lot.
April 29, 2025
tl;dr, PP shouts that he’s for the people, then has private fundraisers with billionaires, has a staff filled with lobbyists, and thinks wide open markets will solve every issue.
good book. explained PP’s policies and who they’d actually benefit despite their window dressing.
good book. explained PP’s policies and who they’d actually benefit despite their window dressing.
July 26, 2025
Wanted to know more about Poilievre & what his fans saw in it - & this book certainly did not convince me to become one of them! Will be reading a more comprehensive one soon.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews