In a memorable scene from Robert Bolt’s play, A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas More confronts Richard Rich, a man who has betrayed him in order to advance his own political career.“That is a fine chain of office you are wearing Richard, may I see it?”“Master Rich has been made Attorney General of Wales…”“Ah, but Richard,” replies the soon-to-be-executed More, channelling Christ Himself. “It profits a man nothing to gain the whole world if he should lose his soul… but for Wales, Richard?”I was going to write that there is something wrong with the way Conservatives choose their candidates these days. There is. We shouldn’t expect people to be political science grads, but when you’re schmoozing at a party chat-fest, and you find yourself explaining why free speech matters…But, it's worse than that. Having checked old Facebook and Instagram posts, the party seems to think the job is done. It isn't. Nobody in the party's Albert Street office seems to have thought it necessary to put a box on the form indicating the candidate’s conservative credentials had been examined and found satisfactory. No wonder these duds reveal themselves as traitors when their selfish ambitions aren’t realized.In the case of floor-crosser Michael Ma, appointed to his candidacy, perhaps a nomination battle would have been useful, as well. It would have been the opportunity to question him about whether he really was a director of the Chinese Canadian Conservative Association, as alleged, an organization some analysts have linked to Beijing’s United Front influence network..Seriously, what’s to make of it when four people quit the Conservative Party and now sit as Liberals? Each departure is explained as a matter of conscience, what's best for constituents, or “working across party lines.” Ah, the sacrifices these people would have you believe they make. But taken together, The Gang of Four Sale tells a different story — not about personal sacrifice for the common good, but about character, incentives, and selection. One defection you can understand (and deplore as faithless), but four (with the possibility of more to come?) means there’s something wrong with the selection process. Petty people for sure, but why does the party pick petty people?That question is no longer rhetorical anymore. It is operational.The Conservative Party needs ambitious people, yes. Ambition is the engine of public life. But ambition for what? A “fine chain of office?” The pension?Let the Liberals select for résumé and compliance rather than conviction. The Conservatives must screen for loyalty, judgment, and steadiness under pressure. Those are not ideological traits. They are professional ones. Let us be done with candidates chosen for manageability rather than durability..When a caucus loses multiple members to the governing party in a single Parliament, the issue is no longer personal betrayal alone. It is institutional failure. Something in the system is rewarding the wrong instincts.How does this happen?Start with the disappearance of contested nominations. Competition is not a nuisance; it is a stress test. A candidate who cannot withstand scrutiny from fellow party members is unlikely to withstand pressure from a prime minister’s office offering advancement, committee chairs, or a promise of relevance. Contested nominations force candidates to articulate beliefs, build relationships, and earn trust. Acclamations require none of that. Conservative leaders are reviewed; maybe it's time to do the same thing for Conservative MPs.Then there is the obsession with optics — regional balance, demographic symbolism, and résumé polish. These things matter, but they are not substitutes for conviction. A candidate who is selected primarily to satisfy a (woke) checklist will inevitably treat the party as a vehicle rather than a cause. Vehicles can be traded in.The governing party understands this dynamic perfectly. It does not need to defeat its opponents if it can recruit them.Which brings us to the claim — repeated endlessly in headlines — that the prime minister “won” a majority..He did no such thing.At the 2025 election, the government fell short of the number required to govern with a majority in the House of Commons. That was the verdict of voters. The present majority was assembled later, seat by seat, through defections and political arithmetic. It is legal. It is constitutional. It is not, however, a mandate from the people. (Between the four defectors, 120,000 Conservative voters have effectively had their votes ‘stolen’ by their representative and given to the Liberals.)Language matters in politics because legitimacy flows from it. A government that wins a majority at the ballot box possesses a direct endorsement from citizens. A government that constructs one afterward possesses a parliamentary advantage. Those are not the same things, and pretending they are blurs the distinction between electoral consent and procedural success.None of this is offered as criticism of the prime minister. Now that he has a majority, there will be time enough for that, no doubt. But politics is a competitive enterprise, and Mr. Carney has played the game effectively. If opponents offer themselves, a government would be foolish not to accept.Indeed, he is welcome to them. .He should not trust them.A politician who abandons one caucus for another has demonstrated flexibility at precisely the moment when steadiness is most valuable. Today’s recruit can become tomorrow’s defector. Loyalty is not a one-time transaction; it is a habit. Once broken, it rarely repairs itself completely.In this case, the deeper responsibility lies not with the government anyway but with the Conservative Party of Canada. They are responsible for the people they nominate. Every defection is, in part, a hiring mistake, revealed under pressure.So what is the solution?There is no single reform that will eliminate ambition or prevent betrayal. But here are some suggestions..First, the Conservatives should restore genuine nomination contests wherever possible. Let members choose, and let candidates earn their place. Competition exposes weaknesses early, when the cost of failure is low.Second, decentralize authority. Local associations should have real power to select candidates rather than ratify decisions made elsewhere. Ownership builds accountability.Third, prioritize demonstrated commitment over résumé credentials. Somebody who has invested years in the party — volunteering, organizing, defending its principles — is less likely to abandon it when circumstances become inconvenient.Finally, accept that loyalty is foundational. A successful political movement is not merely a coalition of interests; it must be a community bound by trust. Without that trust, parliamentary numbers become fragile and victories temporary.The lesson is older than any modern party rulebook. It is captured perfectly in that scene from A Man for All Seasons. The villain gained office, status, and influence, alright — but at the price of something harder to measure and impossible to recover — integrity.
