Fighting the Urge to Merge

[Mark Fournier]

Connie Wilkins &
Mark J. Fournier
<a href=http://www.freedominstitute.ca/articles/detailArticle.php?id=117>Freedom Institute</a>
June 30, 2003

<center>Fighting the Urge to Merge
The ironic battle that's uniting the grassroots right</center>

Scores of Canadian pundits have written thousands of pages on the fractured state of Canada's political right. With few exceptions, most have predicted perpetual Liberal rule if the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party fail to agree on some form of cooperation.

In stark contrast to this is the mood of the grassroots membership of both right wing parties.

In 2002, Canadian Alliance members sent a forceful message to the party leadership when over 92% of their votes were cast for the candidates who were not running on a unity platform.

In a similar move several months later, Progressive Conservative members voted overwhelmingly to keep their 301 rule...effectively blocking cooperation at the constituency level.

The members of both parties were clear. No amount of political maneuvering was going to result in the elusive conservative hybrid they sought. It would be simpler to mix oil and water.

In recent months, the siren call of a united right has gotten steadily stronger.

Stephen Harper, whose leadership election platform promised no truck and trade with Joe Clark's Tories, walked straight out of the convention and into negotiations with Clark, himself.

Predictably, negotiations failed, and Harper's supporters hastened to proclaim that Stephen had been merely playing a political game.

But was he?

In a memo to his caucus dated March 9, 2003, Harper stated the following:

<i>"We would like to see a single slate of candidates between the two parties. This electoral coalition would see each -- the CA and remaining PCs -- sponsor about half of the candidates in a national election."</i>

And, at a leadership dinner on June 16, 2003, Harper elaborated on his plan for a single slate of candidates by saying:

<i>"What the public expects is that Peter and I will be willing to agree to an electoral coalition and, when we do so, to show the leadership necessary to ensure our parliamentary caucuses, our national executives and our grassroots activists follow that lead."</i>

And:

<i>"Our parliamentary system requires leadership, and the laws of our land give the leaders of our political parties, and the leaders alone, the sole power to decide when and where our parties will field candidates. This cannot be overridden by a party’s private rules, and certainly not held hostage by secret convention deals. "</i>

It is becoming increasingly apparent that Stephen Harper intends to push forward with a single slate of candidates, and it is unclear if he intends to involve the membership in the process or use his 'sole power' to carve out a deal on his own.

Peter MacKay has also been making statements that seem to indicate he is open to cooperation. He responded to Harper's fundraiser speech with these words on June 19th:

<i>"Given the histories, standings and prospects of our two parties, I believe we must first find common cause and common goals and establish trust before setting out a common electoral strategy."</i>

<b>The Urge to Merge</b>

Grassroots members of the CA and the PCPC have been watching this political game of leadership cat and mouse with great interest and many agree that the leaders are exhibiting signs of an urge to merge.

As members of both parties have gathered on Free Dominion to discuss this issue, an interesting phenomenon has begun to occur.

In expressing their mutual frustration over the prospect of a topdown cooperation deal, Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance rank-and-file members have started to reach a new level of understanding. Bridges are being built between individuals who hold dear the principles of grassroots democracy.

Common mistrust in their party's leadership is resulting in growing trust between average members. People who are vehement in their opposition to topdown cooperation are finding that the grassroots members of the other party are ready to unite with them in fighting such a deal.

The message to Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay is becoming louder with the combined voices of their parties’ members. If they are forced to unite in electoral cooperation, they will also unite in their efforts to replace the leaders that did it.

<b>Delicious Irony</b>

There is a delicious irony in the present situation.

While the leadership seems bent on forcing PC and CA members to work together in the next election, they are actually causing them to work together to stop their leaders.

Lasting relationships are being built through mutual opposition to topdown cooperation. As members begin to trust one another, the prospect of cooperation at a grassroots level becomes a very real possibility.

Some people have said that a topdown merger would never work, and it is very likely that this is the case. But the leaders' urge for a topdown merger could very well be the catalyst for a bottom-up merger that would really work.

Unfortunately, for the two leaders, it would likely also spell the end of both of their leadership positions.

<b>Questions</b>

It seems the questions on everyone's minds are the same.

Party members are tired of speculating on whether both leaders would agree to a single slate of candidates, how the slate would be selected, if the leaders will follow their respective constitutions, and if the members will have any input.

So, we are cutting to the chase. This week we will be asking Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay to help us clear the air.

Hopefully they are planning to encourage grassroots cooperation from coast to coast, and they are trusting their respective party members to develop the relationships that are already being built - until the members can find satisfactory ways of working together.

If instead they are planning an unconstitutional, topdown cooperation scheme, the right may well become united...in their opposition to Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper.

[Ipberg]

The solution couldn't be more obvious: the CA and PCP agree that whichever of the two of them elect fewer MPs in the next election will fold. Its MPs can join the other's or sit as independents. Each party puts their futureb directly in the hands of the Canadian electorate, winner-take-all.

[mw]

I think Ipberg must be a gambler... you are stuck on this wager scheme.

Nice article Connie & E.S.

[Ipberg]

:lol: I think Ipberg must be a gambler... you are stuck on this wager scheme.

I'm willing to "roll the dice" as your former leader so eloqently put it on a different issue.

[Carl McDermott]

In order for cooperation to succeed the leaders have to hammer out the details. Present these ideas to the membership of both parties for ratification. If the decision to cooperate is top down, we will be busy fighting ourselves and each other, rather than the liberals.

[Ipberg]

In order for cooperation to succeed the leaders have to hammer out the details. Present these ideas to the membership of both parties for ratification. If the decision to cooperate is top down, we will busy fighting ourselves and each other, rather that the liberals.

That's the modus operandi both leaders have in mind.

[springer]

I'll repost this article here, I think it's relevant...as far as polls go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poll finds support for unity on right
86% in Alliance, 63% in PCs want to end vote-splitting

Francine Dubé
National Post

Monday, June 30, 2003

Voters support the unite-the-right movement, according to a pair of COMPAS surveys, which found that if an election were held today, the split between the Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance would hand the federal Liberals another landslide.

"Strong majorities of both Tory and Alliance voters said that they would feel comfortable voting for candidates of the other party if their own party leader gave his blessing," according to the polls, one a survey of 400 delegates to the recent PC leadership convention, the other a survey of 1,000 Canadian voters, conducted June 18-22.

The polls, conducted for the National Post and Global Television, uncovered a marked difference in attitude between the two groups.

A slight majority (54%) of delegates to the PC leadership convention in May supported Peter MacKay's backroom deal with leadership rival David Orchard. The deal, which allowed Mr. MacKay to win the leadership, prevents the Tories from joining with the Canadian Alliance to run one candidate against the federal Liberals in any ridings in the next election.

In the national poll, 45% of PC voters and 53% of Alliance voters opposed the idea.

The national poll also found that 63% of PC voters and 86% of Alliance voters feel Mr. MacKay and Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper should come up with an arrangement to end vote-splitting between their parties so they can elect an alternative to the Liberals.

"Voters in general, PC voters from across the country and PC voters in the seat-rich province of Ontario believe that newly elected Progressive Conservative leader Peter MacKay should renege on his commitment to leadership hopeful David Orchard not to run a single slate of federal candidates in conjunction with the Alliance party," the polls found.

Mr. MacKay was elected on the fourth ballot at the leadership convention after Mr. Orchard, a Prairie farmer, threw his support to him in exchange for a promise from Mr. MacKay that he would not try to unite the PC and Alliance parties. Mr. Orchard, a long-time opponent of the North American Free Trade Agreement, also extracted a promise that the party would strike a panel to review the agreement.

Among supporters of Mr. Orchard at the convention, 87% supported his proposal to keep the two parties separate.

However, 25% of Orchard delegates said they would vote for parties other than the PC party if an election were held today, with 15% responding that they would vote for the NDP. PC delegates who liked Mr. Orchard at all also approve a great deal of NDP leader Jack Layton.

"There were two significant findings," said Conrad Winn, the principal investigator on the polls. "One was how much support there is in the general public, including among Tory voters, for a joint slate, and the other significant finding I thought was the systematic evidence that the Orchard faction is so unlike normal Conservatives. It's the volume of evidence that was striking."

Chuck Strahl, deputy house leader for the Canadian Alliance, said the results do not surprise him.

"It reflects what Stephen's been saying all along, which is that the conservative movement shouldn't give a veto to David Orchard. His supporters are not consistent with the voters at large, and certainly not consistent with conservative voters at large."

Mr. Strahl said voters want the two parties to co-operate to return a conservative government to power.

"We've been through two terms of official opposition, but for most of our folks, they say, 'Time to go to the other side of the house,' and the easiest way to do that is to work together with the Tories," said Mr. Strahl.

The national poll also found that if an election were held today, 45% of voters would vote for Mr. Chrétien and the Liberal party, 16% would vote for Mr. Harper's Canadian Alliance and the same percentage would vote for the PC party and Mr. MacKay. Fourteen per cent would vote for the NDP and Jack Layton. Nine percent would vote for Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc Québécois.

The delegates were surveyed between June 27 and June 28, and the findings of that poll are considered accurate to within 4.5 percentage points 19 times out of 20. The poll of 1,000 Canadians is deemed accurate to within 3.2 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

© Copyright 2003 National Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMHO...

Harper is responding to political pressure both within and without the party to at least address this issue one more time in light of new leadership of the PCs.

I don't think MacKay has any intention whatsoever of veering off the party line laid down by Orchard, or the vote of their membership in Edmonton.

Harper has nothing to lose by this, and everything to gain.

I think far too much is being read into the tea leaves at this point.

[JOE HUEGLIN]

Peter and David's agreed to affirm the Constitution 2.2.3 but Peter altered it to have the flex room for the House...which he mentioned in his speech and which I take as the first steps to build trust.

There is the potential for co-operation in the House in Question Period and in House Committees in that the former was done in the Shawinigate period with Stock and Joe ... and the latter would hold the Liberals to account as well in a more on depth organized basis.

The rest is posturing to be seen as having the other being the one standing in the way of unity for those who view this as the HOLY GRAIL on the one hand and see things in corporate merger or as a simple move to accomplish on the other.

Neo-cons, money and armchair quarter backs to be less gracious.

Both Stephen and Peter are aware of the negative sentiments existing within their own parties and that top down moves would more than negate any gains.

The bottle half empty, bottle half filled analogy is at play here. Whatever the poll quoted percentages are (and were talking 32% of the total ) there will be losses to the Liberals or sitting things out with single candidates.

Ignore each other and focus on alienating the non-partisans from the Liberals...Governments are voted out more often than in.

[hiti]

If the past 135 years have taught us anything, it's that hardcore ideology, right or left, does not translate into electoral success in Canada. In typical Canadian fashion we are a people of the "radical middle." Canadians want good government that can effectively manage the affairs of the nation.

Running only the best conservative contender against Liberal candidates certainly sounds like a logical way to maximize opposition votes but is it both workable and effective? Not according to the polls.

POLLARA pollsters always asks voters not just for their party preference, but also their second choice preference. By doing so, we know that 57% of Alliance supporters would vote PC if there were no Alliance candidate in their riding. Some 25% would vote Liberal, and 14% would go to the NDP.

If we examined a riding that was a microcosm of all of Canada in the last election, returning votes in proportions of 40.8% for the Liberals, 25.5% for the Alliance, 12.2% for the PCs, 8.5% for the NDP and 10.7% for the Bloc, the absence of an Alliance candidate would indeed provide some PC gains. The results could be projected to: Liberals 47%, PCs 27%, NDP 12%, and Bloc 11%. This is a net gain for the PCs, but the Liberal plurality has now grown to 20%, up from 15%.

So in the average riding in which the Alliance candidate had been "pulled" the PCs would increase their support, but the Liberals would be positioned to win by an even greater margin than before.

The other side of the coin is even better. Tory supporters, without a PC candidate in their riding, would break 24% to the Alliance, 19% to the NDP, 3% to the Bloc, and 53% to the Liberals. In our microcosm riding therefore, the new numbers could be projected to: Liberals 47%, Alliance 28%, NDP 11% and Bloc 11%.

By pulling the PC candidate, the Alliance would take a small gain from the last federal election, while the Liberals would make a much larger one. Clearly both of these scenarios benefit one party only, the Liberal Party.

Why does Hapless want to benefit the Liberal party????

[Andi]

I don't think there could ever be such a thing as a "bottom-up merger". And if any more elected leaders get kicked out that is going to mess up the system even more.

What happened was Harper waited for an ideal time and situation to be pro-unity. Now he looks like the initiator and the conciliator. He is no longer Mr. Divisive.

Stephen Harper (and possibly Peter MacKay sees it too) waited until the party memberships of the PCs and the Alliance were totally fed up with merger wrangling. Now that those grassroots who used to be interested in working out a compromise have gotten fed up, packed up their bags and gone home, Harper and MacKay have an opportunity to "unite the Right" without the citizens really caring to say anything about it. Their deal will be free from public "interference". If the deal works out, who will complain? But if the deal doesn't work people will just grumble some more.

Harper has picked a time for unity talks when the people of Canada are so desperate to get rid of the Liberals that possibly they will bend much further to compromise than they would otherwise.

As I see it, Harper waited until the public was fed up with unity talks; now he can work on a merger with the other party's leadership, virtually free from public scrutiny and the press. Now there is going to be a merger from the "top down" (what other way would a merger work?) and if it succeeds, noone will criticize, or if they do it won't matter. The conservative parties have nothing to lose.

If the conservative parties actually do unite, which of you FDers are going to bail?

[JOE HUEGLIN]

"If the conservative parties actually do unite, which of you FDers are going to bail?"

A hypothetical question for this Tory.

Andi your view are open to question when you state " the people of Canada are so desperate to get rid of the Liberals ". Were this so are the 45% who said they'd vote Liberal hypocrites, liars, speaking against what they desperately believe?

Your premise that "Harper and MacKay have an opportunity to "unite the Right" without the citizens really caring to say anything about it.", citizens taken to mean party activists in that others have never cared particularly,
is erroneous, within the Conservative Party in any case.

Leaders come and go but for Tories the Party continues.

Joe

[springer]

Little bit of insight here...

What we have to keep in mind is that, prior to Harper's bid for the leadership, he was very much a "backroom" sort for the Reform/CA.

While pretty much all of us knew of Harper, I don't think many of us knew all that much about him. He was instrumental behind the scenes, but rarely in the limelight. His name was more famous amongst Reformers as a key policy man than was he himself...if you can understand what I mean.

Watching what turned out to be a rather unusually heated debate between Specter and Anderson on Politics regarding this matter, Specter charged that Harper ran his leadership on a "no truck nor trade with the PCs" platform...

To which Anderson reacted strongly, stating that in fact Harper was one of the prime movers behind the UA from the very beginning. Anderson would know this because he was there, and a key player himself.

The exchange got cut off...

I think Harper's sentiments regarding coalition talks with the PCs have been badly...if not deliberately...misconstrued and/or misrepresented by many, and for various reasons depending on where they stand.

It is no real secret nor surprize that Harper had...and likely still has...utter contempt for Joe Clark...

For no one has done more to thwart coalition or unity than has he, and right from the very beginning.

It is clear to me...and it always was... that Harper's "no truck nor trade" policy was aimed directly at Joe Clark.

Not the PCs in total.

It is not really that much of a surprize...unless one has ulterior motives to state otherwise, of which I'm certain some do...that once Clark was officially history, and a new leader was in place, that Harper would initiate this debate anew. In fact, if we are honest, we know that Harper has maintained all along that coalition with the PCs would be contingent upon Clark's retirement from the leadership. And that until that time, the entire matter was a moot point of discussion.

That MacKay happened to be the new leader, I believe is incidental to his intentions.

However...

That MacKay set himself up so beautifully behind the proverbial 8-ball right from the get-go, a la Orchard, was pure bonus.

Bonus because it allowed Harper to position himself as the facilitator all the bloody way home on this...and in front of a pretty influential crowd at precisely the right moment.

Call it a fortuitous turn of events that no one, including Harper, could ever have forseen.

But one that nevertheless Harper simply cannot pass up the opportunity to exploit, and for all it's worth.

An attempt to re-open this discussion with the new PC leader was a matter of fact...it was going to happen no matter who won.

Orchard merely provided Harper a wildcard to go with his aces...

With which to call MacKay's hand publically.

And thus leaving MacKay nowhere to go but to lay them down...albeit stalling all the way.

This is a no-win situation for MacKay, no matter how it plays out.

Harper is clearly the leader, and MacKay clearly is not...not even close.

MacKay is so outclassed and out of his league here, it's almost amusing.

They can talk behind closed doors until the cows come home...which Harper is not the kind to indulge...

At the end of the day, MacKay has to play his cards...and he has no draws left.

Work with Harper, and take a beating from some of the party membership and diehards like Wayne and Crosby, as well as get publically carved up for betraying a very public deal with Orchard.

Deny Harper, and take a public beating from the general electorate, as well as from Bay Street and Ontario's Big Blue...who will be ruthless in insuring that Harper and the CA have every possible means at their disposal to unite Ontario conservative voters against both the Libs and the intransigent federal PCs who will not have, despite the absense of Joe Clark, changed one iota. Joe could at least merit some sort of slack within that crowd. However, this crowd owes MacKay absolutely nothing...even less, considering the Orchard effect.

IMHO.

It's the only scenario that even begins to add up.

[JOE HUEGLIN]

"It's the only scenario that even begins to add up." IYHO springer, let me suggest another that allows for co-operation in the House as a positive action should your Leader accept it as a first step. And he bearing the perception of intransigence should he not.

Fron Confederation Club Speech

"I am prepared to sit down and discuss policy, and how to work more cooperatively in Parliament, and how to advance the interests of all Canadians . . . I believe we must first find common cause and common goals and establish trust before setting out a common electoral strategy. . . . The first steps are important. Let's take the time to make sure they are the right ones, in the right direction, and in the spirit of true cooperation. . . . I respect the Party's constitutional aim to run 301 candidates in general elections."

Stephen Harper a year ago and recently "put forward his proposed solution to the challenge of vote splitting in certain ridings". Then and now as Peter said "I, nor anyone else, have seen the details of what he proposes."

Then it was a take it or leave it proposition on his part.

His proposal at this point aimed at having him and his party be perceived as the white knights to those voters, and more particularly those donors, who see no reasons for the two parties merging.

Our Leader's speech placed the onus for building a trust relationship upon the Leader of the Canadian Alliance, he who a year ago cavalierly dismissed the proposals brought to him by Joe Clark regarding co-operation in Parliament.

My consistent position is focusing our efforts on weakening support for the Liberals, girding ourselves for the coming general election and ignoring each other.

For whatever it be worth I am convinced the Confederation Club speech will enable Conservatives to do these things more so than before

Our Leader's words in his opening paragraphs were:

"Within a year, we will be standing before the public in a general election.

We must lay the groundwork now to maximize the number of Progressive Conservative candidates elected. And as a first step, we must move quickly to heal the natural divisions of the leadership race. Unity begins within the existing family further efforts to unify the larger community will follow."

Let's both get on with working at our reasons for corporate existence.
maximizing the numbers of candidates elected.

Joe

[hiti]

Yes Peter..... nice kick-back.

Your move, Hapless.

[Andi]

Peter complaining about lack of details a year ago constitutes a kick-back? I don't think so.

It's still Peter's move. Maybe he will ask for details today, and then we can possibly get somewhere.

Of course, I would prefer Ipberg's proposition, the winner takes all, to any merger. How can we merge when the proud-to-be-elitists and the Left wing "my grandpa was a Tory" Tories are still so strong?