The author is a former conservative strategist. He was a political adviser in the Harper government as well as in the opposition.
Today is the deadline to cast ballots for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). The results will be known on Saturday, September 10, in the evening. Barring a twist, everything indicates that Pierre Poilievre will be the next leader. Some analysts will sum up Jean Charest’s probable defeat with a simplistic conclusion: a Progressive Conservative cannot win a Conservative leadership. I do not agree.
Mr. Charest entered the race with the conviction that he was the only one who could — and even had to — lead the country. His detractors called him an opportunist. But this is precisely the feeling that anyone who aspires to be a chef must have. Mr. Charest’s main opponent, Pierre Poilievre, certainly thinks the same.
The reality is that in politics we are all opportunists. Every day, we scan the news to identify issues that will strengthen our vision for the country and that will advance the political values that we defend.
I don’t doubt Mr. Charest’s conservatism. Being a progressive does not make him a liberal disguised as a conservative. In the previous leadership race, Erin O’Toole’s use of this tactic proved deeply unfair to his opponent Peter MacKay, whom he labeled “quasi-liberal”. . It is unfortunate that this strategy has been repeated in this race.
Let’s be clear: the CCP is a coalition. Balance and respect between progressive, libertarian, social conservative and fiscal conservative members are the condition for a return to power.
To position yourself
It is often said that success happens when preparation and opportunity meet. In the case of Mr. Charest, it is the lack of preparation that is in question. A return to politics is planned. And this is exactly the recipe for victory for Pierre Poilievre, whose work began several years ago.
When you cherish this kind of ambition, a particular feeling must animate you. A small voice must be heard in your head with each speech, each meeting or each trip. “Is this position likely to harm me in the long term? “Can this enthusiastic supporter I met at an event become one of my future organizers in this region? »
We thus gradually build our database of possible donors, volunteers and future collaborators. We feed our social networks to increase our ability to reach supporters. We select files that will become workhorses to strengthen its positioning.
The key word here is “positioning”. Because we don’t comment on everything, only what aligns with our values and our positions. We intervene in the news at regular intervals by writing opinion letters and selecting specific forums to speak.
We also do a lot of volunteer work and we give up business opportunities, no matter how profitable, as Mr. Charest should have done with Huawei. You pay attention to who you associate with and cultivate your relationships, because it’s easier to ask a favor from someone you’ve been talking to regularly for years. We visit university campuses to meet the future recruits who will one day make the leap into politics.
During election campaigns, we help candidates in the field, by giving their time or contributing to their fundraising, knowing that one day they will remember it. You hang out with your party, you offer your help to the leader and you make yourself available to riding associations across the country. We do all this preparatory work to ensure that we have an effective organization when the time comes.
The grasshopper and the ant
Jean Charest did not prepare, and his team was not up to the challenge. Whether we think of the number of members recruited, the quantity and level of donations raised, the number of events organized and supporters who participated, or the support in the caucus, none of the key indicators have been achieved. Mr. Charest hesitated before starting. Meanwhile, Mr. Poilievre’s machine was already sending communications to hundreds of thousands of people.
We compared this race to that of the hare and the turtle by speculating on Jean Charest’s chances of beating Pierre Poilievre at the finish line. The truth is that the fable of the grasshopper and the ant would be more appropriate here. Mr. Poilievre had been preparing for a very long time.
This reminds me of a story from a friend. In the 1990s, she had crossed paths with a young MP named Stephen Harper. He had insisted on speaking to her in French, because he was taking lessons at the time. This assiduity in learning French had seemed strange to him for an elected member of the Reform Party of Alberta… This is because Mr. Harper was preparing to live up to his ambitions.
When Peter MacKay launched his 2020 leadership campaign in Halifax, the media coverage focused almost entirely on the poor quality of his French. How could a former party leader, minister for nine years, have neglected to maintain an adequate level of French in view of his return to politics? Mr. MacKay’s organization was also deficient, especially in Quebec. And it cost him the win over Mr. O’Toole.
Mr. Charest, meanwhile, neglected to advertise himself as a Conservative long before the race, to do the necessary groundwork during previous campaigns and to maintain ties with party members before launching again.
It is not their progressive positioning within the conservative family that will have got the better of Peter MacKay and soon Jean Charest, no doubt. It’s far too easy a shortcut. No, what changed the game is that Pierre Poilievre, like Stephen Harper before him, prepared himself. He reaps the rewards of his hard work, quite simply