When the end approaches, the victims tend to say anything. That’s the show Erin O’Toole put on for her judges.
Posted at 8:02 p.m.
In a meeting with his caucus on Wednesday, the former Conservative leader promised three things: he would anticipate the vote of confidence from party activists, he would listen to his MPs and he would be willing to revise his positions.
Deputies were incredulous, I was told. What ? Will he change position again? That’s not a solution, that’s the problem!
But he was already too late. Even former allies had dumped him after his Monday night tweet.
He had issued the following warning: “Two roads are open to the Conservative Party of Canada. The first is that of Randy Hillier and Derek Sloan. She is angry, negative and extreme. It’s a dead end. It would make the Confederation party a right-wing NDP. »
Basically, it wasn’t wrong. Still, it was a rare clumsiness. Shortly before the vote, he equated his critics with Mr. Sloan, this oddball ejected from caucus after accepting the gift of a neo-Nazi. It was taken as an insult. With him, party unity became impossible.
Mr. O’Toole did not only displease his right wing. His opinions fluctuated like the tide. He ended up drifting offshore, drowning.
What he lacked, in a word: authenticity.
So was Andrew Scheer. When he spoke of abortion, his position was ambiguous. We felt a gap between his thought and his word.
The more time passed, the more Canadians had an unfavorable opinion of MM. O’Toole and Scheer.
But this problem does not only come from the chef. The causes are deeper.
To win the leadership race, you have to please the activist base. To become prime minister, you have to address all Canadians. What wins the first vote often loses the second.
Of course, nothing new here.
In 1983, Brian Mulroney promised his activists never to support free trade with the United States. It would be like a mouse sleeping with an elephant. A painful relationship.
We know the rest: the party chose him, he became Prime Minister and he did the exact opposite…
What’s different today? It is no longer the same party. The merger with the Canadian Alliance added a more ideological right. These activists distance themselves from the concerns of the general population. A good example: the environment.
In convention last spring, members refused to acknowledge the existence of climate change. The more time passes, the more radical this denial becomes.
To unite these factions, the best cement remains the perspective of power.
In principle, the Conservatives are not that far off. They have won the popular vote in the last two elections and are statistically tied with the Liberals in the polls. Time will only wear down the Trudeau government, which will help them.
But they believe that Mr. Trudeau is a bad dream, an almost illegitimate prime minister because of his incompetence, so they can’t stomach the risk of losing a third time.
Among the candidates approached, there is Pierre Poilievre. It is authentic to the point of caricature. He provokes, and activists love him. The hyperpartisanship of Trumpism seems to inspire him. For him, politics is an extreme fight. His presence risks dissuading his colleagues from taking the plunge, with the possible exception of Leslyn Lewis, whose chances of success are completely nil.
PHOTO JUSTIN TANG, THE CANADIAN PRESS ARCHIVES
Pierre Poilievre
Some progressives want Peter Mackay back. Its interest remains to be confirmed. His loss to Mr. O’Toole left him with bad memories.
Its mission: to reconcile with the conservative right and clarify its positions. In short, learn from Mr. O’Toole’s mistakes.
It’s easier said than done…
How could the future chef do the splits? To be both authentic and reasonable?
Dimitri Soudas says that Stephen Harper, of which he was director of communications, symbolically drew a square. Inside: the subjects defended by the party. The rest, like abortion, was banned.
It was clear. And it was done with respect.
Estimates vary on the number of social conservatives. They would be around thirty. They know they won’t win, but they want to be heard. And be able to express themselves at least a little. The challenge is to find moral issues for them that will not displease the majority of Canadians too much. That’s what Mr. Harper was doing with minimum criminal sentences and changing the age of sexual consent.
Today, the pressure is strong to go much further, as seen in Mr. Poilievre’s enthusiastic support of the “freedom convoy”. Certainly, many ordinary people are sick of the pandemic, and they should be listened to with respect. But that does not justify trivializing to this extent the excesses and the membership of certain organizers in the extreme right.
In that sense, Mr. O’Toole was right. By courting hard-line activists, conservatives risk talking to each other. To become some sort of right-wing NDP. But the deputies no longer control their fate. Their activists will decide for them, probably by the end of the summer. This once again leaves the way open to the liberals.