Conservative problems don’t end with Scheer

As he rose on the floor of the Commons to say his farewells, it was a humble, sincere and likable Andrew Scheer who spoke. Where was this man in the 56 months he was given by Conservative membership to convince Canadians he should replace Justin Trudeau?

It no longer matters. The narrative woven through early headlines suggested the final affront by Scheer had been accepting payments from the party to help fund his children’s private education. But let’s be honest: If he’d been a winner, that money would not have been the issue.

But Andrew Scheer did not win. And the knives out for him did not stay sheathed. In the days following the election, polling data by the Angus Reid Institute showed his own base was evenly split over his future. Forty-one per cent of Conservative voters said he should stay on to lead his party into the next election. Forty-two per cent said he should go. By contrast, vast majorities of their own respective bases wanted Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Sign to stay at the helm of the Liberal and NDP ships.

Scheer’s supporters attempted to counter by suggesting a pro-secular, anti-religious electorate had been his undoing. This too was debunked by data when Canadians professed they were as aware of Scheer’s devout Catholicism as of Singh’s Sikh orthodoxy (twothirds were in each case), but were more likely to view Scheer negatively for his faith than Singh. It wasn’t Scheer’s religion. It was just Scheer.

Now he is gone. This has cheered many Conservatives who simply see a change at the top as the cure to what ails them. Let me warn otherwise.

While the desire to win may be strong enough for some party members to choose a leader who would pivot to the centre, drop any resistance to attending pride parades, ban public discussion on the issue of abortion, and get sharper and more coherent on climate change, it is not a given that this is what the grassroots want.

Note the rather dismal result in the 2017 CPC leadership race of a centrist such as Lisa Raitt. Peter Mackay and Rona Ambrose gave that race a swerve altogether, not only because Trudeau’s re-election at the time seemed a fait accompli, but also, perhaps, because they knew that while they might have better than even odds with swing voters outside the blue tent, they’d be battling forces inside it almost constantly.

Really smart people remind me that the clammy, damp feeling of being stuck in opposition — combined with a true loathing of Trudeau — will be enough for the Conservative Party of Canada to move in a more politically palatable (read: centrist) direction this time in choosing its new leadership.

I, in turn, remind them that the grassroots, already alienated by Ottawa, may feel just as strong an urge to choose a leader who reflects their values. Further, the faction that wishes to see the party stay committed to social conservatism remains strong.

Today’s Conservative party was born of an arranged marriage in 2004 of the Reform party and the Progressive Conservatives, both equally motivated to stop losing. Crucially, in that union, the word progressive was dropped, and strong Reform DNA imprinted itself on culture and policy. Its love child, Stephen Harper, knew how to make it work at the time.

But almost 16 years later, the electorate has changed. If the party is to truly put the “progressive” back in its step, it must first look deeply, existentially inside itself and answer the question, “What does it mean to be conservative in 2020?”

For some, the answer will be as simple as being winners, and moving in whichever direction it takes to get there. But as we have seen, one cannot ignore the strength and weight of party orthodoxy.

As the CPC moves forward, it will have to find a way to keep the orthodoxy on side, while becoming more electable. At best, it will be a house rejuvenated. At worst, it will fracture. Scheer’s departure does little to solve the bigger, more foundational conundrum.

Shachi Kurl is executive director of the Angus Reid Institute, a national, not-for-profit, non-partisan public opinion research foundation.