Article content continued

Waiting for the convention and the membership to have its say would have been both the decent and the dignified thing to do

Even more to the point, what was it precisely that made it so urgent for Scheer to leave now? Day recounted the good points in Scheer’s favour. He nearly doubled the seats in ‘leftish’ B.C. He stripped Justin Trudeau of his majority. He fully captured the disenchantment of Western Canada. “He increased the money. He increased the votes.” But the “GTA activists” weren’t content with that and so mounted “a very concentrated move to get Andrew out of there.”

That’s a very large criticism, coming as it does from a person who knows the Conservative party, and knows as well its appetite for fractiousness and internal dissent. And it’s right. Why should a core of “high influencers” be in a place where they can take advantage of circumstances and impose their view (that’s what this amounts to) on what the party is, or where it should go? Why shouldn’t the membership be given the opportunity to have their say?

I have no inside or privileged insight into the operations of the Conservative party. None. But there is something about Scheer’s abrupt departure Thursday that is very sour. All the criticisms of his performance stand. That he was not aggressive enough in going after the Liberals and particularly Trudeau for their various and multiple flaws. That he was not “inspirational” or that he was “Liberal” lite. Have at him on these points and others.

Photo by Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

But the leader of a national political party is not a piece of luggage to be left on the sidewalk when it becomes inconvenient or a bit of a chore to carry it. There are questions of simple dignity here, the dignity of the person who took on the position, and the dignity of the political party itself. Yes, such exists — even if it is more frequently recognized by its absence in the swirl of modern politics.