dnsfurlan

Norman Spector was one of Brian Molroney's top aides and I don't think he's been a supporter of the Alliance in the past. So, for Harper to get a compliment from Spector in that way I don't think is a small gesture. I have always said that we still haven't seen what Harper would be like in trying to be a big-tent political leader. He has spent that past two years shoring up his base within the party, something he has done successfully, as was seen with the unity of the party behind him in the merger discussions. But we are seeing some of what that mind of his has been up to for all these months and I do think it looks pretty good. There is one factor in politics that Harper has going for him while Martin doesn't - low expectations. Every politician wants this, except for Martin, of course, who has built such high expectations around himself to the point where there is almost very little room for error. Bush had low expectations. Chretien did too. And they both used this factor brilliantly. I hope Harper is capable of this too. I have see a lot of signs of it, but it is still way too early, of course. And there is still some talk of a Bernard Lord entry into the leadership race. However unlikely this is, the broader the field the better it is for the party. And I would definitely like to see how Brison challenges Harper on some of the progressive social policy issues he is so keen on. It looks like to me that Harper is more than ready for the challenge. But we'll see.

Although the press focused on a small part of the speech, they seemed more interested in the Orchardites protesting outside or the fact that Mackay was in attendance. So, in the interest of getting out the full message of the new conservatism in this country, here is the speech. It really is an excellent statment on what the new party should be, and how it's different than what Paul Martin is or is making himself out to be. One Conservative Voice One Conservative Voice FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 12, 2003 Stephen Harper Vancouver Leader’s Dinner Notes for Address by Stephen Harper, MP Leader of the Opposition Vancouver, British Columbia Wednesday November 12, 2003 - CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY – The new Conservative Party As you know, there are real changes taking place in federal politics today – big, positive, exciting changes. It has been almost a month since I stood in Ottawa with Peter MacKay, to announce our Agreement-in-Principle to unite the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives, to create the new Conservative Party of Canada, and to ensure that we fight the next election from coast to coast with One Conservative Voice. This is a historic step forward. This new party that we will build together will combine grassroots democracy and energy of the Canadian Alliance with history and governing experience of the PC Party. Getting here was no easy task. These exciting new opportunities were brought about by the hard work of our emissaries, the support of tens of thousands of grassroots members of both parties, and through the groundwork and advice provided by senior statesmen like Preston Manning and former prime minister Brian Mulroney. But, in the end, it takes two to tango. We all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to my very special guest tonight – the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, Peter MacKay. To those who oppose Peter and oppose this merger – that minority in the party – I ask you: What is your vision of the future? How would you advance our common cause? Would you have part of the PC party join with us, a second part join with David Orchard, and a third part just go it alone & die? That is unacceptable. We must retain the history and tradition of the PC Party and move, as equal partners, together into the future. Anything else is unacceptable – it is unacceptable to our members, unacceptable to your leaders, and unacceptable to the Canadian people. There are risks here; I know that. In the last ten years, however, our party has re-formed Canadian politics. We are now poised to re-form Canadian politics again. We will need your support to join with thousands of like-minded Canadians to take our place in this new national conservative partnership and make it a force across Canada. Are you ready to accept this challenge? We will shortly ratify the new party and put its organization in place. We are recruiting 308 local leaders to be our candidates across the country. And the new party will select its national leader in March. This plan is achievable because we bring our mutual strengths to the table. Peter & I have been rebuilding our parties, and we’re committed to our new party. We will not be sidetracked by those who want our leadership race to pit the Alliance against the Tories. We will not be overcome by those outside this agreement and those opposed to it who now want us to fall into division and pointless conflict. We are stronger than that. We are committed to emerging united and strong for the real leadership race – the one that will pit our new Conservative Party against the Liberals; the one where we battle Paul Martin, not each other. Only if we keep our eyes on that battle, will we end up with one conservative voice. What Kind of Party? Let’s look ahead and ask ourselves what kind of party our new Conservative Party will be? What issues will it tackle? What kind of platform will we offer? How will we come together and truly be “one conservative voice”? Let us not fall for the spin. Our new Conservative Party doesn’t start life with a blank page. It starts with the common philosophy the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives already share: our common commitment to free enterprise, free trade and fiscal responsibility. Our common causes, however, go beyond economic matters. In recent months, our caucuses have largely been on the same side of big parliamentary battles. In controversies as diverse as those over the failed gun registry, the Kyoto Accord, the war against terrorism, and the definition of marriage, we have found ourselves on the same, conservative side. But let’s look at the broader questions: What kind of Conservative Party will this be? How will it stay together? How will it avoid the fragmentation problems of the past? My views have been on the record since I first started writing about conservative unity eight years ago – through my days as a Reform MP, as a conservative outside of partisan politics, as a prospective Progressive Conservative leadership candidate, and as an actual Canadian Alliance leadership candidate. We have begun with the most important step. We have created the new Conservative Party of Canada – not as the consequence of a long and destruction war of attrition, but as a deliberate act of political will. And so we can – and we will – consciously shape its character. Now we must go the rest of the way and correct the mistakes of the past. We must admit that a national Conservative Party can only succeed if it welcomes all kinds of conservatives under its banner. Our new Conservative Party must be a party of the broad right of centre. That is where most Canadians are and that is where our new party must be – open to everyone who holds conservative beliefs. Getting to this point has been long and difficult. Let us remember that this was not because the forces of conservative unity lacked vision. It was not because others who tried lacked conviction, or that personal ambitions blocked their way. No, getting to this point was difficult because, at the dawn of the 21st century, conservatism is a complex force. And it is only by appealing to all conservatives that we can move forward together. Our new party creates an opportunity, yet that opportunity will be squandered if we start by listing the types of conservative views, of conservative policies and of conservative people that we don’t want in the party. That is a path that leads to failure. It may be where we’ve come from, but it is not where we are heading. Our new Conservative Party must address the challenge of unity by welcoming the diversity of conservative opinion – not bowing to those who demand a narrower party as the price of their participation. Economic Conservatives We face several challenges. The first challenge in creating one conservative voice revolves around issues of taxes and the economy. There will be pressure for the new Conservative Party to focus its attention almost exclusively on economic issues: to promise tax cuts – the deeper the better. Economic conservatives will want us to tackle deregulation and privatization. And of course we will. Naturally our new Conservative Party will stand for free trade and private enterprise. We will always stand for limited government. And, we have got to get our taxes down in this country. We have, after all, good reason to stand for economic freedom. Canadians know that tax cuts and economic freedom are powerful forces. They power our economy, and fuel economic opportunities that will otherwise drift south. They open up new possibilities to build our society and our communities. They draw wave after wave of new Canadians to our shores. And let us never forget that when we fight to keep taxes low, we show that government is supposed to serve the public – not the other way around. So, our new party will stand for economic conservatism and lower taxes. But to truly have one conservative voice, we must offer more. Social Conservatives Let us learn the lesson of recent years. Our party must offer more than tax cuts and a few economic ideas. In an era where few serious people believe in the old dogmas of liberal socialism, liberals are all too willing to pretend they are economic conservatives and tax cutters at election time – just as Paul Martin did in the last federal election. Let Liberals pretend that what the state costs is not related to what the state values. As conservatives, we can afford no such illusions. Our new Conservative Party must also address concerns about the moral fabric of our society. Social conservatives, including traditional Christian Canadians as well as new Canadians from other religious traditions, must be welcome in the new party. Our party should admit, for example, that the frequent failure of politicians to express moral values is directly related to the failure to demonstrate ethical behaviour. We must stand for the central importance of the family to our history and to our future. We must lower taxes for families, and make the tax system family-friendly. We will stand for the primacy and the protection of children. We must fight sexual exploitation and outlaw all child pornography without exception. We must stand for law and order – for a criminal justice system that values victims and their property over criminals and their priorities. We must respect custom and tradition and the historic and essential institutions of our society. And we have good reasons to stand for these things. Canadians know that our society should not be some kind of toy, to be disassembled and reassembled by Liberal elitists and social engineers. The moral and economic fabrics of Canadian society are woven together. This does not mean we are theocrats. We will not ask the state to impose our values, but we must demand that the state stop undermining them. We will stop all efforts to deny free speech and freedom of religion to people who speak out about the issues of the day. And we will not stand idly by while Liberals use the courts to push through agendas because they lack the honesty and moral fibre to openly take these agendas to Parliament or to the people. Under my leadership and that of most PC leaders, issues sensitive to moral and religious opinion, like the definition of marriage, have usually been subject to free votes by our elected members, regardless of the opinion of the leader. I am committed to that principle. But I am committed to more. Our party has led the effort to ensure that all Private Members’ Business in the House of Commons be votable. We will continue these efforts and we will not turn away from allowing our members to express a diversity of opinion on moral and social issues, including the views held by social conservatives. Democratic Reformers Our commitment to free votes leads me directly to a third element that we must embrace – one dear to all who have fought for fundamental change over the past 15 years: the agenda of democratic reformers. You know that there is something wrong with our system of government when even a Liberal starts talking about Canada having a “democratic deficit”. The new Conservative Party must take up the cause of democratic reform. The agreement to create the new Conservative Party already enshrines important steps taken in this direction. Conservative candidates and the leader will be elected by the direct votes of members –not by brokered conventions. Future assemblies will be dominated by elected grassroots members – not ex-officio delegates. Policy resolutions must be passed by double majorities, incorporating the notion of provincial equality into this party’s very structure. And, of course, this entire agreement is subject to a direct vote of our membership, which has been undertaken without delay. The Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance put democratic reform on the Canadian political agenda; and, in recent years, the Tory party embraced most of these ideas. We advanced this agenda together during the years that Paul Martin stood for party discipline, top-down politics, and a Senate of appointed cronies. We are not for some form of extreme populism, re-writing the Canadian constitution from abstract first principles, or making it impossible for public officials to fulfill their mandates. We want to borrow the best practices from other democracies to restore freedom, representation, and accountability to our own system. In other words, we want to modernize Canadian democracy to reflect the highest ideals of our traditional institutions. We have already made strides. The Alliance has established a strong tradition of caucus democracy. The previous Tory government set the precedent of popular ratification of major constitutional amendments. But much more needs to be done. And so our new Conservative Party must not just talk about the democratic deficit; we must end it. Let me repeat what I have been saying for years, and let us say it with one conservative voice. We need free votes in the Commons. We need free elections in the Senate. And we need direct democracy, so that the people can have a say between fixed election dates, not dates set just for the personal benefit of the prime minister. “Red Tories” The last challenge I want to discuss tonight is the challenge of those conservatives who focus on issues with which conservatives have not often been associated: environmental welfare and social policies. There are those in the PC party – the so-called “Red Tories” – who treasure the word “Progressive” because they want us to remember the needs of the less fortunate. This tradition is not, of course, restricted to the Red Tories. The word “Progressive” refers to the old “Progressive Party”, a party with the same political roots that led to Reform. Whatever the lineage, we must not abandon that tradition in the new Conservative Party. We cannot relegate the poor and dispossessed to the trash bin of society. We cannot ignore the scandal of Aboriginal policy in Canada. We must remember the needs of immigrants and those who struggle to make their mark in Canadian society. We must also face the challenges of our major social programs, like health care, while understanding the importance of the needs that they serve. The new Conservative Party must offer a conservative program for all these issues – and we must do so because we believe in them. We are not in politics to emulate the NDP. We are not going to promise bigger and bigger government as a response to every social problem. We must never buy into the Liberal idea that citizens just can’t care for themselves. We must demonstrate a strong social conscience – not to buy votes, not to feel superior, but because we ourselves are ordinary Canadians, with ordinary worries and, occasionally, extraordinary needs. With one conservative voice, we must stand for social programs that have as their objective the pride and independence of every Canadian. We must treat all Canadians as citizens capable of caring for themselves and responsible for caring for others. We must be the party of opportunity – of the hand-up, not the hand-out. One Conservative Voice We have embarked on an exciting new course, with immense possibilities. This time, we have the opportunity to get conservatism right – from the beginning. We must have a party with room for all conservatives: for economic conservatives, for social conservatives, for democratic reformers, for Red Tories. Each must have their say and their issues, but none can be allowed to perform litmus tests for the members – or for the leaders – of this party. We must not play the Liberal game of saying that some kinds of conservatives are, somehow, inherently extreme or un-Canadian. I say that every Canadian conservative who is prepared to work with our fellow conservatives is welcome in our new party – because we have much to build and to re-build. We have a conservative movement to be rebuilt and, far more importantly, we have a country to be restored. Imagine if, after the next election, we could have the kind of government that Canada deserves. Imagine, for a moment, what Canada would be like if we had the government we deserve: a country with all the incredible wealth of the land God gave us – and with the enterprise of the hard-working people who came to it. It would be a country that rewards independent citizens, not political cronies; a country of freedom and rights for ordinary people, taxpayers and families, not just for criminals, political elites and special interests. This would be a country with real power, with powerful allies, and with a say, internationally; not one that neglects its friends and citizens, and turns a blind eye to evil in the world. Canada would be a country with the best 21st century democracy – not best 19th century democracy. A country built on solid values, not expensive promises. What you envision is a country the Liberals would not recognize. It would be a country built by a new alliance of conservatives that ran for election as one conservative voice.

How is the Canadian government's behaviour "facist"? By that, I assume you mean fascist. Certainly, Canada's role in the deportation of a Canadian citizen should be examined. But fascist? I really don't get that one. One further note: although I do agree with the outrage over the treatment of a Canadian citizen, I just wonder if people are conferring upon Arar an innocence that one cannot assume because of the lack of facts in this case. Yes, people are innocent until proven guilty. But I also don't think the Canadian govt. would finger this guy just because they felt like it, or on the basis of a signature on a lease document. Until we do know all the facts, maybe some people should wait to portray the guy as some kind of a martyr? Treated unjustly? Absolutely! Hapless victim? We don't know yet.

Hugo , You raise a fascinating point. I'll add two more things. First, notice how conservatives are about ideas. Preston Manning wrote a book. Hugh Segal wrote a book. And now there is meaningful dialogue about what the new party will be about. Take a look at the Liberals. Can you honestly tell me what political philosophy drives any of the prominent MPs in that party? Power seems to be about it. Second, notice how the political discourse about Left-Right in this country is skewed. When conservatives unite, it is "unite-the-right". Yet no one talks about the Liberals being a "left-wing" party, which is basically what they are. Even their notion of fiscal conservatism is left-wing. Yet, somehow, they're suppposed to be a magical centrist party. Furthermore, there are virtuallly NO Liberals on any of the message boards I tend to visit, including this one. I guess they don't believe in the idea of debating ideas. Power seems to be all that matters.

That's not true. The polls have danced around during this period. But, whichever way you look at it, both parties were hovering somewhere near the 15% level. Only Ekos was giving the kind of results you seem to be suggesting. Now, the polls seem to say that the new party would have about 30. Which makes sense, right? And if you could tell me how the PC Party would be better off without merger than with it then that's something I'd really like to hear. All I hear from some PCers is a bunch of fear-mongering and sloganeering - the same stuff we've been hearing from Joe Clark and the gang for the past ten years. When are you going to pull your heads out of the sand?

Rob, Needless to say, perhaps, I find your outlook on the situation to be a very narrow one, much like that of the people who are opposing merger in the first place. The new party will take on the shape of its membership. There is no questioning that. First, what is your alternative? To have the PC Party has it currently stands dwindle down to the point where it has only a handful of seats and a membership that could be fit into a classroom at a local public school? The fact that the PC Party feels that it is in a position of weakness in the new party is a testamnent to its rump status as a party as it already is. Second, I think the new party will indeed attract supporters who did not find either party attractive anymore, including those PCers who left the party because it no longer appealed to them anymore. You know 1+1 doesn't have to mean 1.5 for the Canadian Alliance. It could mean more than 2 for ALL Canadians, as recent polls bear out. You ask, "Where will Canadians turn then" Well it hasn't been the PC Party for a long time. Now they have one option that will be big-tent in nature, something the PC Party isn't in its current form. There are a number of factors that will temper the Alliance takeover fears. But the two main ones are: 1) A renewed membership that will include people from all regions in the country. 2) Political survival. No one who is in charge of the new party is solely interested in appeasing Alliance members. Politics doesn't work that way. If you want to form government, you have to put on a face that can win seats in more than one region in the country. And, whoever becomes leader, whether it be Stephen Harper, Jim Prentice, or the tooth ferry, they will need a message that is broad in scope. You know, I don't hear the Alliance complaining about "takeover" every time Bernard Lord or Jim Prentice's name is mentioned. I guess a double standard is OK in all of this. If PC leaders are suggested, hey, that's OK. If Alliance ones are, all Hell is going to break loose. Give me a break, man!

Gugsy, You completely missed the point of my post. I don't care who anyone supports for leader. What I do care about is all this crying over some kind of "takeover", which is an easy copout for staunch PC supporters. Again, if Bernard Lord runs and wins, is this some kind of a "takeover" by the PC Party? If you don't like Stephen Harper, that's completely cool. That's what democracies are about - differences of opinion. But, and I'm not accusing you of this, if you don't like him then don't pull out the "takeover" crap. No one is taking over anyone. If Harper wins its because he convinced the members and delegates of the new party that he's the best guy, not because he's somehow magically forced his will on some group of hapless victims. I'm sick and tired of everyone describing this merger as some kind of "takeover" When the deal was signed, it was an Alliance "takeover". When Harris pulled out, it was some kind of an Alliance takeover. When the sun rose yesterday, it was because of an Alliance takeover. To the people employing this tactic, give it a rest. Start engaging in some constructive comments about the merger without attributing every world event to the takeover of the Canadian Alliance Party of Canada. Sir Springer, I again have to agree with your assessment of Harper. (Yes, Gugsy, that's my opinion. And you're certainly entitled to yours). And I have noticed a trend within the establishment of rallying around this guy. Even during the merger discusions I got the sense that PC backroom guys liked who they were dealing with in Harper. And since the merger, even some prominent media types have said good things about the guy, which is shocking coming from an institution in this country that is usually allergic to anyone who is proud to be a so-called small-c conservative. Yes, there are those who continue to moan about Harper. But I don't think they see the long-term capabilities of the guy. The fact that he is where he is today should say something about the man's abilities. And I do think a lot of people have taken notice, despite some of the cheap shots being taken at him. RT_1984, You said, Of course, I disagree with that sentiment. Debate should never be discouraged in politics. Furthermore, the ratification process isn't over yet. Even thought Harper may now be the frontrunner, we should see what the process bears out before prcoclaiming anyone leader. Having said that, I think Harper is the guy for the job too, especially given the kink of leader they nead for the party right now. They don't need someone to sweep the country. They need someone who can run a smooth maching and whether the storm of the next election. I think Harper is that guy. Maybe in the election after that we can start talking about Bernard Lord, Mike Harris, or Jean Charest. But, for now, I think Harper has the skills to manage this party so that it can survive its initial steps. And I certainly think he's smart enought to deflect the rather short-sighted criticisms about himself. Just my opinion.

I'm sick and tired of this "takeover" crap :angry: . Is it Stephen Harper's fault that he is the strongest candidate being talked about? Now there is some pressure being exerted on Lord again. If he comes in an wins, by the same logic, wouldn't it be a "takeover" by the PC Party of Canada? All I hear is this whining from some Red Tories and the media about how the Alliance is so powerful that it can exert its own will on the PC Party. Yet, when it comes to elections, it has no chance in hell. How in the world can the Alliance be so powerful yet so weak at the same time? Its time people stopped acting like a bunch of babies and started to look at this from a mature political standpoint. All the candidates have their merits and weaknesses. No party is evil. And if Harper is set to become the leader, its because he's the strongest choice, and ALL conservatives will rally around him, despite what the whiners continue to complain about.

Another image popped into my mind as I was thinking about this recent development: Does Stephen Harper now take on the challenge of becoming slayer of the Dragon we have come to know as Mr. Paul Martin, Liberal Heir-Apparent to the throne of 24 Sussex? I, for one, think he might be the guy who's up for that challenge. But, we'll see! Stephen Harper: Dragon-Slayer? Hmmm. Stephen Harper: David vs. the Goliath Paul Martin? Hmmm.

What surprises me about Harris' decision to stay out of the leadership bid is not the fact that he made it, but when he made it. I thought he would wait until after ratification, so as to give the new party some added exposure and even credibility. But, alas, Harris bails out just like he did in Ontario. Conservatives (small-c) love the guy. He had that kind of mane recognition across the country. But there was too much other baggage, including the french thing. His personal life didn't help considering he would have been running for a party with a faction of social conservatives within it, etc. etc. Now, it does look like Stephen Harper becomes the consensus frontrunner, unless some star candidate comes out of the woodwork somewhere. Can you say "Tony Clement"? Or perhaps some other Ontario Tory? Harris' departure completely paves the way for some of these people. Maybe even Jim Flaherty? (Although I think he's needed in Ontario). And Jim Prentice, even thought a darkhorse, could start billing himself as the "unity" candidate. But something tells me that people will start rallying around Harper. Some of that has already happened. And even some small part of me has been saying that the people who have had merger in mind for tha past few months may have even had Harper in mind as their new leader. He has some image re-making to do. But I think he might be the guy. I hope this development doesn't make merger ratification more difficult for the PC Party!

I completely agree with your assessment of Harper. He does have some baggage. But I think his performance thus far as leader of the Alliance has shown that he is capable of doing a lot in a relatively short period of time. The one concern I have is whether he can actually excite people to the extent that they would want to vote for him. But, given that Martin isn't much of a charmer either, in my opinion, I don't know how much of a problem that might be. Actually, I have noticed a small shift in favour of Harper, in terms of general commentary - even in the media. It think there is some acknowledgement of his accomplishments thus far, and of his qualifications to lead the new party into its formative stages.

I just read the speech as it was posted on opinionjournal.com. This is one of the best speeches I have read in a long time. Wow! This is the kind of role Canada should be playing in the world - as a conduit between the States and the rest of the world. But also providing some moral leadership. I guess the Wall Street Journal thinks so too. Instead, we got Johnny Cruton giving the States the finger any chance he gets. About the general dislike of Mulroney: 1) It is not as pronounced as you might think. The media hated him, so they tend to give the impression that everyone else does too. 2) I have heard him say countless times that you can't govern to be popular but to do what is in the interest of the people - regardless of what they might think of it. This is a horrendous definition of political leadership. And one that will fail unless you're Churchill facing the onslought of the German Luftwaffe across the English Channel. And, for Mulroney, the bad luck and political judgement never seemed to end. Bad image in the press; GST advertised on every purchase made in the country; ongoing constitutional wrangling; alienating a true political base out West by trying to cater to a shallow one in Quebec; perhaps unwise handling of patronage scandals, singing with Ronald Reagan; leaving things to Kim Campbell; trusting Lucien Bouchard, etc, etc, etc. At some point, any political leader has to look at the political implications of his actions and exercise judgement to that effect. I don't think Mulroney did. And I still think he denies that. The problem with the Liberals is that's all they do: look at the political implications of their decisions without displaying any kind of leadership, in my humble opinion.

Keep up the good work, guys! The Libs are hating every second of this. Believe me! They know they have had a free ride because the two conservative parties by themselves looked like weak alternatives to Canadians. Now, they see this consolidation in Canadian federal politics and know they finally have to start working for their treasured status. They WILL try to kill this thing! I smell fear! So, lets make sure we get this this merger through! Canada needs it. The Libs don't.

You did that all by yourself? Looks pretty good, man! Nice work.

Its certainly not a pure solution. However, it is being endorsed because of the Orchard factor. If you think this guy, and the 25% of the membership he carries, has the best interests of the PC Party at heart, I'd think again. Many members of your own party don't like the guy and don't like the fact that he has hijacked a good portion of it. And what's wrong with allowing new members in? Many of them may well be PCers who saw the current state of the party as no reason to renew membership. And, if the sentiment against merger is strong enough within the party, I don't think it should be any problem for them to hold off any "swamping". You have the Orchardites already. A full 90% of the rest would need to vote yes in order for merger to pass. If merger does pass, the majority of true Tories will have given their approval. Isn't this the kind of bickering we've been engaged in for the past decade? The PCs think the CA is weak and vice versa. This merger means an end to all those petty fights, doesn't it? Well think about this. The new party has recieved the endorsements of Bernard Lord, Brian Mulroney, and John Crosbie - among others. This is hardly a takeover by Reform that the naysayers are portraying it to be. Does anyone really think Mulroney would simply put his stamp of approval on a party that stabbed him in the back? For that matter, would Bernard Lord or John Crosbie support a new entity they tought was a simple makeover of the Alliance? Let's try to get some perspective in this discussion. Many people on both sides feel they are losing out. (Many "Reformers" believe the merger deal means the end of their movement). Many more, including the people I mentioned above, think there is far more to gain.

You mean a Conservative, now, right?

This is pretty much my sentiment too. We have over a month to ratify this merger. I certainly would like to get more info before doing so. However, this deal is less about specific policy and more about getting relatively like-minded people together again to provide an option to Canadians that neither the Canadian Alliance or the PC Party of Canada could for over a decade. I mean, what were our options? Either: 1) Keep hoping that Canadians would finally see that one party was right and the other wrong? 2) Forget about the past, and move ahead into the future with one party that has a far better chance of selling itself as a serious alternative to the Libs. I think I like 2) better myself. There is still a long road ahead in the development of this new party. Most of us probably won't like some of what happens with it. But, at the end of the day, will it provide the democratic option we can all live with? I sure hope so. And I think that's what we'll be voting for come Dec. 12.

Well, I'm from Ontario myself. Have lived here all my life. I haven't supported the Alliance because I see it as simply a regional party but because 1) it actually stood for something 2) some of that was principled conservatism, not the muddled version provided by Joe Clark and others. And I'm not a social conservative either, at least if that term implies Evangelical Christian. Well, at least you're a lot more open-minded than I thought. Everyone is not going to get exactly what they want from this new party. Part of the difficulty in the past is that thats what everyone wanted. I believe there has to be a place for moderates in the new party. And thats what the challenge will be for the prospective leadership candidates. Indeed, that would have been the challenge for Harper in the next election if no merger would have taken place. Whoever the leader will be, and whatever policy process develops within the new party, it will have to accomodate a heck of a lot of people. I just hope, given some of the tragic history, no one group becomes too demanding, yet no one gets left from the table either. Just how to manage this balance is a mystery to me. Stephen Harper may have given some clue in a recent interview. He said that the PCers and CAers have much more in common with each other than they think. And, where they don't, the issues are not at the forefront of a public debate anyway. So, if this is a hint of what's to come, my guess is that a policy platform will develop which stresses these common principles and leaves the other stuff for the back-burner. I doubt the Death Penalty will be a current focus, for example. Neither will abortion, another example. The trick is to have something that doesn't alienate one particular group while also standing for something. I'd like to see how this is done too. But at least something is trying to be done. And that something I think will probably be better than what the Liberals are about, I hope. Its a huge challenge. That's why a step-by-step approach is wise. Martin's pending coronation also has a way of unifying people in a hurry. So does the memory of past failures. We'll see what happens.

This is the year 2003, in case you haven't noticed. Thanks for your support, buddy. Chater, I had the same problem myself. They tell you to try phoning them after 9am every day until the problem is resolved. They have too many people signing up - its overloading their system.What I did is I emailed them my info. Its not the most secure way of doing it, I know. Maybe they have a fax? Or you can mail them the info? Or, just be patient. They're probably working on the problem. Agreed. How can people label this party as extreme when Super-Moderate Bernard Lord has endorsed the deal? Mulroney was also not an "extreme" politician and he has endorsed it too.Funny how the all-so-intolerant "centrists" yell and scream "extreme" whenever a conservative alternative presents itself to the oh-so-delightful Liberal Party of Canada. They're gonna try. But this party now has back-up the Alliance never had - respected people from all over the country supporting a choice they haven't had in over a decade. And the "centrist" mongers are already crying "Rape! Rape!" Looks like they're scared of something, alright. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Thats not true. Many members of Orchard's gang are NDPers. They are against free-trade an many other policies that clearly belong to a modern conservative party. Heck, they even endorse wage and price controls. That's right: wage and price controls!! These people are not conservatives, nor do they really want to have anything to do with a conservative party. They have their own agenda, and were hoping to hijack the PC Party of Canada in pursuit of it. This merger ruins everything for them. Funny how so many Tories, who certainly don't consider themselves to be "extreme" in any way, are joyous over this merger. Since when does conservatism exclude moderates? Orchard and some of his gang aren't moderates. In fact, I think the new party will attract many people who otherwise didn't think they previously had a choice other than the Liberals. Funny how people are already trying to paint this party as extreme. Keep trying. I think this party is going to be endorsed by a lot of people who you can't label as Alliance or "extreme".

It works both ways. Keeping the memberships open probably means more CAers will join the PCs than Liberals and others trying to sabatoge the deal. I aslo think the fatigue over Liberal rule is stronger than the fear of a united Conservative party - another factor in support of the open membership decision. P.S. I'm assuming a person can be a member of both the CA and the PC Party?

If this merger does indeed happen, I think the general consensus is that Canadian federal poitics returns to its traditional configuration: two parites battling it out for government, with other parties hanging around on the sidelines. Now, Layton and company are trying to sell this merger as one that alienates the new party even further to the right of Paul Martin. But don't believe the hype. A new Conservative Party already polls somewhere in the 30% range. The NDP would climax over such numbers. Layton is trying to scare off "progressives" from this new entity. Its a nice little strategy. But Layton has to do more than tell people why not to support other parties. So far, has he given regular Canadians a reason to vote for him? I think not. Just think how easy Jean Chretien has had it with the absence of any party consistently providing an alternativea to government. Like Bill Clinton, Chretien is one of those politicians who seems to survive partially on luck. Go figure.

And I just can't help but look at Joe Clark as somewhat of a hypocrite. He always said that he wanted to build a coalition of conservatives. Remember the PC/DRC thing? Now people are trying to really build that coalition and he wants to pout like some kind of rejected schoolgirl. If I didn't know better, I just think he's sour because this merger does seem to be Brian Mulroney's baby, at least in part. Makes you wonder how this guy survived so long as one of Canada's "most respected politicians". I think one of the things with Joe Clark is that he sounds serious when he makes public statements. Its one of the reasons he was seen as winning the debate in the last election. However, this guy - time and time again - has a record of making one blundered decision after another. The DRC thing was another example. So is this thumbs-down on merger. Its amazing how much political capital he has on such a record of bad judgement. I guess superficiality can succeed in politics, can't it?

New PC memberships from now until the ratification vote may change things but, as the numbers stand now, Orchard controls about 25% of the members. That means 90% of the rest need to approve the merger. That is an awfully high number for a party that can't go to sleep at night over its insecurity of being "swamped".But, as Star columnist Chantal Hebert pointed out, now that the merger deal has been signed, the PC Party of Canada is all but dead anyway, at least in its present form (actually, I think the Conservative Party now is a rebirth of the old Conservative Party). There is nowhere for them to turn now. If the PCs fail to ratify this deal, they will lose Mackay as a credible leader and have left a rump of Tories who, like Joe Clark, were blinded by their own stubborn ideology. Think about that. If the PCs refuse this deal, the one thing they fear most would probably happen anyway: the Canadian Alliance would have won and the PC Party will be destroyed outright.

You know, Harper has surprised me with the wit and intelligence he has in making public statements. The consensus frontrunner seems to be Mike Harris. But I think I'm gonna put in a word for Stephen Harper at this early stage. I do think he is the most qualified of all the candidates mentioned thus far, except maybe for Bernard Lord - but even that's a stretch. The one drawback for Harper is that he will be seen as the face of the Canadian Alliance for a party that is trying to sell itself as something more. If he is going to win the leadership contest, he will need to start impressing people other than us CAers. Some PCers have already suggested some openness to Harper. They prefer him much more than Mike Harris, apparently. And, in many ways, I think Harper is the right kind of candidate for the upcoming election specifically. But he will need to overcome the image of simply being another Canadian Alliance face from out West.