I was always of the opinion that the CPC was better off with a unified party, having the social conservatives under their umbrella. Not front and center and in charge, like now, but under the umbrella to avoid vote splitting.
I am no longer sure that is the best plan.
1) any trace of social conservatism in the party causes many progressive conservatives to slide to the LPC.
2) while vote splitting is a concern, the social conservatives are concentrated in a relatively small number of ridings - particularly rural and western. They would only be a threat to win a limited number of seats, and wouldn't pose any significant drain in any of the urban ridings, which are the tightly contested ones anyway.
3) the CPCs can't win seats in eastern Canada, when there is any smell of social conservatism in the party.
4) even if there is vote splitting, the two parties would co-operate in a minority government situation, and against any more left-leaning parties (much like the LPCs and NDP can usually co-operate, probably more so)
So the question is: would the CPCs get more seats in the east than they would lose in the west? Or would it be less than what is lost by vote-splitting? I think more.
I think the CPC has to purge the social conservatives from the power and governance of the party. If they want to stay anyway: great. If they want to leave: knock yourselves out.
|