Fractures in the Conservative Party?

Yesterday, in my travels through the web, I found an article on the Toronto Star website which was talking about Stephen Harper's leadership. It characterized him as "Intelligent, but Cold" - probably a fairly accurate comment on how Harper comes across on the public stage. Most interesting were the following comments from a couple of members of the so-called "Calgary School" group that influenced Harper's political beliefs:

Bercuson, however, complains that Harper has made too many concessions to the social conservatives and instead has compromised what he calls the far more important economic and constitutional agenda.
...
But what may be most telling from the musings of Bercuson and Cooper is that even they — who are Harper's intellectual bedfellows and long-time associates — don't have much of a personal relationship with the Conservative leader and, in fact, rarely speak to him.

Cooper says he had dinner with Harper in Ottawa a couple of years ago but hasn't talked with him since.

Bercuson says that by talking to the Star openly about his criticisms of the Conservatives, "I'm probably cooking my goose with Harper. But he has to hear this."

In the streets of Calgary, few talk about the Belgian model or Harper's views on Kyoto.

Very interesting - two of the people that should be among Harper's strongest backers are apparently not there any more.

Then, on the Globe and Mail's website this morning, I found this article talking about Conservative riding nominations. The upshot of it? People in the Conservative party with ties to radical "Christian" organizations like "Focus on the Family" out of the United States are winning nominations to run as candidates for the Conservative party in a Federal Election (likely to occur either in the fall or winter of this year).

To me, this is no big surprise. I've said for a long time that I do not believe that the "Christian" right-wing elements in the Conservative party were satisfied with the outcome of the policy convention this spring, nor do I believe that the policies that were adopted do much more than place a veneer of moderation over top of the seething moral outrage of the social conservative set in that party. Outfits like "Concerned Christians Canada, Inc", have been trying to flex their muscles with Harper ever since he was chosen as leader of the party, with tactics that range from outright threats to backroom maneuvering.

Once again, conservative elements in this country are dividing along fiscal and social lines. In spite of the protestations of people like the Byfields, fiscal conservatism is not ideologically compatible with social conservatism. (at least not in the long run)

Then, just to round things out, the following poll was in released today. What does it say? Well, it doesn't that Harper's leadership is a problem for voters (I'd say it is - but that's my opinion, and I'm but one vote). Instead, it suggests that nationally, voters in this country are not particularly comfortable with the social conservative line, and they sense that it is lurking not too far below the surface of the Conservative party. For all that the social conservative set don't want to admit it, Canada is not a socially conservative country by and large - it tends towards a moderate, small-l liberal position overall. Voters (outside of Alberta) won't trust parties that they even suspect of being affiliated with the extremism of organizations like Dobson's "Focus on the Family".

What's that sound I hear? - Oh nothing, just the Conservative party calving off another party.