The day after the Liberals and NDP inked their new confidence-and-supply agreement,1“The arrangement lasts until Parliament rises in June 2025, allowing four budgets to be presented by the government during this time. To ensure coordination on this arrangement, both Parties commit to a guiding principle of ‘no surprises’. The agreement will mean that the NDP agrees to support the government on confidence and budgetary matters – notably on budgetary policy, budget implementation bills, estimates and supply – and that the Liberal Party commits to govern for the duration of the agreement.” https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2022/03/22/delivering-canadians-now interim Conservative leader Candice Bergen arrived in Question Period intent on making some mischief. Bergen thundered that the government was “the new NDP-Liberal government,” called prime minister Justin Trudeau “the leader of the new NDP-Liberal Party,” and awarded the title of deputy prime minister to NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. None of this is, strictly speaking, true, and it drove indignant political scientists crazy. Nevertheless, Bergen is a superb parliamentary performer, and her rhetoric was both cutting and funny.
But to what end? Do most Canadians care about these parliamentary machinations between parties? I doubt it. But there is one group of Canadians who likely care a great deal: Conservative Party members and, in particular, members willing to contribute money to the party. Bergen’s questions seemed to come out of a fundraising email designed to rile up the base and provoke them to chip in a few dollars.
While most Canadians likely care little about the Liberal-NDP agreement, they might care a great deal about some of the measures that will come out of it. The two centerpieces of the agreement are pharmacare and a dental care plan. When the text of the agreement was released,2Delivering for Canadians Now, A Supply and Confidence Agreement I was shocked to discover Singh had successfully nailed down hard targets and delivery dates on dental care, which would have to be met for the Liberal government to maintain the NDP’s confidence. Dental care will be rolled out in phases, appropriately beginning with coverage for low-income children in 2022.
As this program comes online, it will, like Medicare, become instantly and massively popular with Canadians. The same will be true of Pharmacare.
Despite this, the Conservatives came out against dental care for low-income Canadians, arguing it was unnecessary given workplace insurance plans and assistance programs in some provinces.3“Speaking to reporters after Trudeau formally announced the confidence-and-supply agreement, Bergen said the deal effectively hands the reins of government to the ‘socialist’ NDP. She warned that could mean a massive expansion of government and tax hikes to pay for billions of dollars in new spending on promised social programs.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-slam-liberal-power-grab-ndp-pact-1.6393205 Leadership contender Pierre Poilievre took to social media to argue the agreement was a “radical and extreme agenda and encouraged his supporters to “help me fight against the coalition.”
Does this mean the Conservatives will campaign on abolishing dental care and pharmacare programs in the next election? Does anyone think this will turn out well for the party? It feels like the Conservatives have set a trap for themselves in the next election.
This episode illustrates one of the central problems facing the Conservative Party currently: the seemingly omnipresent impulse to raise funds from existing party members. Any event or occurrence can and is framed in such a way as to rile up the party’s base and push them to donate. Obviously, raising money is great, and parties desperately need to keep the coffers full. But the impulse to fundraise can be destructive when it imperils the party’s future electoral prospects. Raising money today cannot come at the cost of votes tomorrow.
Why is the party engaging in seemingly self-destructive behavior? In a thought-provoking Twitter thread, consultant Kyle Olsen argued that there was a structural explanation for this. The party relies to some extent on outside fundraising consultants who are paid based on their success. To keep the money flowing, these consultants reinforce messages from the party leadership that resonate with members and downplay messages that are less popular. If the leadership is consistently saying things that don’t play well with potential donors, there are always verbose MPs willing to say the right things who can be amplified.
So what’s the problem? Outside consultants may care little about the long-term strategic implications of the messages they amplify to the membership. This brings them into conflict with the party leader, who is supposed to be focused precisely on long-term strategic implications, particularly the next election. Pressure from outside consultants and other actors, particularly MPs, makes it difficult for leaders to develop strategic themes that may not play well today but could pay dividends tomorrow. Leaders in this situation are likely to find it difficult to broaden the appeal beyond the existing party base. Instead, the focus is on money today.
So what would have happened if Bergen had responded to the Liberal-NDP agreement by arguing that while the backroom nature of the deal was dubious, assuring quality dental care for Canadians is a responsible and civilized public policy measure that will go some way toward alleviating suffering among low-income Canadians, particularly children? This argument would position the party to pull the rug out from underneath the Liberals in the next election, neutralizing dental care as a wedge issue. And this view is certainly consistent with several conceptions of conservatism as a political worldview, though I guess not with Poilievre’s hard-edged libertarianism. Further, some segment of Conservative members would agree with that sentiment, or would be open to or persuaded by the leader’s argument.
But they would not be fired up, and the money might not flow as freely. Bergen would come under pressure to change her messaging to more effectively poke at the base. And if she was unwilling to do so, another Conservative MP would step up to the plate. One can see from this counterfactual example how current structural arrangements can constrain the leader’s actions in undesirable ways.
Olsen’s structural argument is persuasive, but there is another factor at play here: the relationship between the leader and the party’s membership and activist base, which is something that is baked into the culture of the party. Much more than any other federal party, the Conservative Party is streaked with western Canadian ideals of internal party democracy. It is the inheritor of Preston Manning’s populism. Conservative politicians, in my experience, are much more concerned about being tuned into the thoughts and wishes of the party grassroots than politicians from other parties. And, in a country where politicians often become elitist and Canadians are disconnected from our politics, that’s an admirable thing.
But I wonder if it has gone a little too far. The party leader (and other party elites) should be sensitive and receptive to party members. But the leader is also a teacher, and at times should lead, not follow, opinion in the party. That no longer happens as often as it perhaps should, although in fairness the middle of a leadership contest is not the best time to gauge this.
Maybe we could blame Manning for the party’s current state of affairs in this respect? In fact, what we learned from the writings of Tom Flanagan was that Manning’s populism during his time as leader of the Reform Party included a great deal of stage-managing, twisting of arms, and persuading party members and officials behind the scenes.4Waiting for the Wave: The Reform Party and the Conservative Movement Does this mean Manning was a phony populist? Not at all. Rather, he had a healthy conception of leadership as a two-way street, in which he received and acted on member concerns but also took the bull by the horns when the long-term interests of his party were at stake.
Stephen Harper was not as overtly populist but he learned from Manning. He had an unmistakable connection with members of the party, and successfully conveyed concern and sympathy for them and their views even when the imperatives of governing seemed to be dragging him in the opposite direction. And, after he became prime minister, no one ever seemed to question that he was in charge. That is not to repeat the tired and incorrect cliché that he was a dictator, but rather to say that Harper, having established a reputation for responsiveness among party members, was given wide lee-way to lead. And lead he did. The same can perhaps be said of Andrew Scheer, though perhaps not Erin O’Toole.
The party undoubtedly faces challenges, whether structural, cultural, or both. I’m not sure these will be successfully addressed in the wake of the party’s current leadership race. But they will continue to handicap the party until they are dealt with.
