All Fantasies Aside...for A Change...

[sir_springer]

Assuming we end up with a new "Conservative Party"...and the potential looks greater than ever now...

Who's actually going to run for its leadership?

Harper will run...and he is the man to beat right from the get-go. Westerners will line up by the tens of thousands to make sure of it, I have no doubt.

However...

Will MacKay run? Can he afford to? Knowing he hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell? Especially after the Orchard sellout fiasco?

Will Harris run? On such short notice? Why? Especially following the shellacking Eve's just took in Ontario...of which at least half of is being blamed on Harris?

Lord is out of the picture, he made that patently clear today on Politics.

Fleherty? Maybe...but he's got to know that Harper would be real tough to beat. Would he not do better to back Harper and then run for the new party?

Who else, realistically, is there?

Mulroney? That's absolutely silly. Please don't go there.

Prentice? Turn over a brand new party, on the verge of an election, to a complete rookie? A la Stock Day? And run against Harper? Who is a relative veteran of federal politics?

When one gets serious about this topic, one finds that the list of contenders on such short notice is remarkably short.

So short, in fact, that the obvious solution is to declare Harper leader by acclimation and get on with the bigger job at hand...which, of course, makes too much sence for a Tory to accept.

But...

Who could possibly defeat him?

He has almost total support from his own caucus...if not absolute.

And he's very popular within the CA membership, and with Reformers since day one.

Not to mention that no one knows "conservatism" better than this man...not even close.

Hmmmm....

Maybe Harper has already figured all this out.

Indeed, I can't imagine that he hasn't.

[dnsfurlan]

Assuming we end up with a new "Conservative Party"...and the potential looks greater than ever now...

Confirming that sentiment:

Talks to unite Canadian right set to resume

Reuters, 10.06.03, 9:04 PM ET

OTTAWA, Oct 6 (Reuters) - Canada's two right-wing parties said they would resume merger talks on Tuesday in a bid to end the decade-old dominance of the ruling Liberal Party.

Spokespeople for the Progressive Conservative and the Canadian Alliance parties, which have long had bitter words for each other, said late on Monday that party representatives would meet in Toronto on Tuesday.

Asked if it was a sign the two were close to a deal, a Progressive Conservative spokesman told Reuters: "We're not far from it. ... It's the next step on the long road."

"We're pretty hopeful," said Alliance spokeswoman Carolyn Stewart-Olsen.

The Liberals have more support than all opposition parties combined. But a recent poll showed that together, the two right-wing parties would be within striking distance.

The Liberals are expected to call a federal election soon after April 1 next year.

Talks between the two parties broke off a week ago with the Alliance complaining that their rivals had not offered any proposal on paper. Since then, the Progressive Conservatives have prepared a document that is set to be discussed in Toronto.

Both favor tax and debt reduction and limits on government spending. But the Alliance tends to be more conservative on social issues such as gay rights.

The parties have agreed that if they were to unite, the resulting group would be called the Conservative Party.

Copyright 2003, Reuters News Service

As for the issue of a new leader, the two obvious candidates do seem to be Harper and Harris, although I wouldn't rule out Mackay as a candidate to preserve "the values and traditions of the PC Party of Canada" or something to that effect. But maybe the hill would be too high for him to climb. I don't know if there is anyone else who could play such a role.

Clearly, Harris would have all the immediate momentum. There seem to be conservatives all over the place (these boards are evidence of that) that think Mike Harris is a good blend of small-C conservative, voter-rich Ontarian, and good old Tory to boot. (Remember, he never did come out in support of the Alliance). But I still don't know if he is up to the job. He does seem open to the idea. And I don't think he would be unless he thought he had a good shot at winning it.

Will Harris run? On such short notice? Why? Especially following the shellacking Eve's just took in Ontario...of which at least half of is being blamed on Harris?

I don't think any of it should be blamed on Harris. One of Eves' failings was to flip-flop on the common sense revolution. I don't think Harris would ever be guilty of that.

Harper is a contrast to this. Although long on policy and organizational skills, Harper has yet to prove he can be popular west of Manitoba. What better way of proving so than in a leadership run against the Mike Harris the Giant. But I'm not completely convinced he wants the job. But I also don't think he would dissapoint the Alliance faithful by completely abandoning their interests and not running.

One observation about Harper. Either: 1) He's boring and what we have seen is what we will get. Nothing more. 2) He is saving his best for when it counts. I think a leadership run for a new conservative party might be one of those times.

The great thing about a united conservative party is that people who would not have considered putting their careers on the line for either the Alliance or the PCs might well come out of the woodwork.

As for this idea of just giving the leadership to Harper, I don't think it would fly. First, I don't think he's earned it. Like I mentioned above, he hasn't done much to increase his appeal beyond traditional Alliance country. Second, I don't think it would do much to unify the new party. PCers are already skeptical of being "swamped" by the Alliance. Just giving it to Harper could throw some fuel on the fire. A well run leadership campaign by Harper could alleviate the fears. But even that is a big "if" at this moment.

I think Flaherty is too much of an unknown from a federal perspective. That means a lot can go wrong within a short period of time. Just ask Stockwell Day.

As for other names, no other surprises have arisen yet.

Would we be in for a Harris vs. Harper matchup? And if we are, who would win?

[Kiraly]

Between Harper and Harris, I would hope that Harper would prevail.

Intellectually, Harper is far and away the best leader.

I think an election campaign would be a great vehicle for him and the party to demonstrate this. Not many people have really heard him speak or read his speeches. The election campaign should change this.

I think Paul Martin will come up short when he has to discuss policy face to face with Harper.

Harris doesn't instill a lot of hope in me that he is up to the challenge. Some people may find Harris more personable at this time, but if he cannot handle the inevitable liberal/media onslaught than it doesn't really matter, does it?

[sir_springer]

I think Martin will rip Harris to pieces. Harris simply is not up to Paul Martin intellectually. By the end of it all, many people will decide that Martin is the more credible of the two.

Both have a ton of negative baggage with which to deal...thus leveling the playing field between the two. That being done, Martin will emerge.

On the other hand...

Harper has virtually no negative baggage relative to Martin.

Harper is, in the minimum, Martin's match intellectually...in fact, he's far superior. Watch Martin under pressure, and then watch Harper. Martin starts stumbling and stuttering, staring over heads, avoiding eye contact. Harper only gets better, more passionate and intense, rarely missing a beat, and never taking his eyes off his audience.

This is where Harper will kill Martin.

Harper is not boring. He's just not worried about entertaining the pundits.

When you listen to people who have gone to meetings and listened to him, you hear constantly that they are very impressed, and that their ideas of him have greatly changed. His ability to relate concepts and ideas in understandable terms, with acuity and clarity is rather impressive. He does not dodge issues and tough questions, but rather cuts to the heart of them and responds with well reasoned thoughts and commentary.

Martin is all over the page, dodging, dancing, desperately trying to avoid controversy, and attempting always to say just the right thing. IOW, he's as phony as a $3 bill. And he's gutless. He's a total fraud, perpetrating an illusion upon Canadians...aided by the Liberal's mutts in the media.

Harper will tear him to pieces.

Much to the shock of everyone, I assure you.

Aside from that...

Harper is shrewd, patient, and...as Manning put it...a "brilliant political strategist".

He knows that, while this Liberal leadership crap is going on, he's wasting his time trying to compete for media attention.

He also knows that eventually Martin will have to come out of his closet and face him, man to man.

Something I suspect Martin is not looking forward to...for he knows Stephen Harper well enough.

[dnsfurlan]

Springer, I tend to agree with a lot of what you have to say.

I have never seen the appeal people have for Martin. He has always looked like a bit of a bumbler to me. I guess people ignore it when they think he's some kind of financial whiz.

Come to think of it, kind of reminds me of Defence Minister John McCallum. While he was chief economist at Royal Bank, it was easy to see him as some kind of financial guru. Now that he's in politics, he looks like he has trouble finding his own office - and buying armoured vehicles for our troops.

As for Harper, I also agree with much of your sentiment. I think he's a cool customer. He has openly admitted to spending the last year mainly engaged in policy development. He is also aware of the traditional mid-term status of the Alliance in the polls. People have gone Alliance in the run-up to an election. Logic dictates that it is possible again.

Having said that, all of our hopes for Harper are still speculation. He is still vulnerable because of his low poll numbers. The recent Mike Harris bandwagon is a good example of it.

Saying he is capable of big things is one thing. Him proving it is another. Thats what a leadership race would test, wouldn't it? Certainly, I don't think Harper could be leader of a new party without one. And Harris does seem like the very popular frontrunner - if a new party is indeed formed. You know, popularity means a lot in politics. Harper doesn't have much of it beyond Manitoba. Harris does. So does Paul Martin.

You and I might see the substance in Harper. Many others probably don't. It'll be interesting to see if he has a few tricks up his sleave, as all good politicians do.

[westcoast99]

Mike Harris
Jim Prentice
Brian Pallister
Stephen Harper

Who else?

Edited August 12, 2015 by Gugsy

[Neal.F.]

I would not rule out Stock Day or Jason Kenney. They may well take a stab at it. Day has shone as Foreign affairs critic, and has learned many a lesson.

Kenney has long been seen as leadership material. He's got the smarts economically, and the social conservative credentials as well.

Both Kenney and Day speak French. Though Day was not at his best in the debate, I have heard him him being interviewed in depth on French radio here.

They'd be longshots, but possible candidates. And if either get into the race, I would be inclined to support either one.

I also would not rule out another insurgency campaign from "Enza"

As for Flaherty, not only is he unknown outside of Ontario, he has his eye on the PC leadership there as well. Word is, Eves is gone as soon as he lines up a directorship or two.

[Mr. Chater]

I would have to say either Harper or Harris. Thats my conclusion. I think it would be nice to have a new face, but if Harper gets it, he has to step it up a notch, so we may all hear his voice.

[westcoast99]

I would not rule out Stock Day or Jason Kenney.

I don't think we'd be doing Canadians any favour by giving them Stockwell Day, yet again Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Neal.F.]

Dalton McGuinty got a second chance, and made the mosty of it.

Jean Charest, all but written off, even by me, got a second chance, and kicked Landry's gluteus maximus.

Gordon Campbell won on his second time out.

Enough examples for you?

As for Stock, I remain convinced that he is not in the PMO today for two reasons: He was on the job 3 months before the weasel called the election.

Joe Clark threw a "hail mary" pass, since he was at 8% aand had nothing to lose. he shone in the dbate, and split the vote.

Add to that, the CA was unprepared for Kinsella's smear campaign.

If Stock is in the race, I'll back him.

Now Gugsy, what is your problem with Jason Kenney?

Has Mr. Kenney ever promised someone something in writing , and then 30 days later entered into negotiations with exactly whom he promised not to negotiate?

[dnsfurlan]

Has Mr. Kenney ever promised someone something in writing , and then 30 days later entered into negotiations with exactly whom he promised not to negotiate?

Ouch!

[westcoast99]

Has Mr. Kenney ever promised someone something in writing , and then 30 days later entered into negotiations with exactly whom he promised not to negotiate?

I think Mr. MacKay should be commended for doing something that's right for this nation, against the advice and wishes of the people around him. Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Neal.F.]

And Joe Clark resembles a chipmunk.....

Now what is it about Mr Kenney, apart from his appearance that you don't like? the fact that he is dead set against abortion (slaughter of unborn human beings) and homosexual "marriage"?

If Mr MacKay wants a merger, credit is due him. However, he is going to face a tough sell in the leadership campaign on account of his record of keeping agreements.

[westcoast99]

He's a good MP.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Gugsy

[Pellaken]

Springer

its too bad you werent paying closer attention to my thread on leaders. I asked this same question.

lemme take a look...

Harris is probably almost a certainy. while eves only got 26 seats in ontario, that's 23 more seats then the PC's a CA have in ontario federally.

Harper? I think he'll run

MacKay? I think he may take the offer to be temp-leader, and to be sure of being on TV for a month, then risk losing the leadership, and getting nothing.

Flarhety? I think he might. He lost Provincially, so I dont really know.

Prentice is a good bet. Right Wing PC'ers and Left Wing CA'ers will both support him.

Craig Chandler? Possibly. He'd do horribly though.

But what about who wont run?

Bernard Lord

he's just not ready yet

Gary Filmon

he's busy in BC

John Hamm

would look bad to leave now

Elwin Hermanson

same

Godron Campbell

Same

Here's my list: (Yes's and Maybe's)

Dianne Ablonczy

Grant Hill

Brian Pallister

David Orchard

Jason Kenny

Stockwell Day

Steven Harper

Peter MacKay

___ Flarhety

Jim Prentice

Craig Chandler

Mike Harris

Ralph Klien

Pat Binns

I think that there are some who dont have a real chance on this list. Logically, there are only a few contenders:

>Ralph Klien - If he runs

>Mike Harris

>Jim Prentice - The Con's are not gonna win anyways. Martin is too strong. 5 years as leader of the opposition will put him in a great position to win next time

>Steven Harper

There are also others who have a good chance

>Jason Kenny

>Brian Pallister

>Pat Binns (who would have the support of most current PC MP's)

>___ Flarhety

In the end, one of two things will happen.

If Klien does not run:

Harris will come out on top on the first ballot. The Question will be who is second. If Harper is 2nd, then Harris has it. If Prentice is 2nd, then he will edge Harris out.

However, if Klien runs, he will take the leadership no matter who else runs. But from what I can tell, Klien may support Harris, which may make him edge Prentice out...

[sir_springer]

So much for hold the fantasies, eh?

Prentice: The only reason he came second in the PC leadership race was because no one credible was involved.

Handing over the leadership of the new party to a complete rookie would just about as stupid as it could possibly get. Day was a 14 year veteran of provincial politics with a winning record...and look what happened to him. Making Prentice leader would be a wet dream come true for the Liberals.

Prentice is a non-starter.

Harris: He's not going to run on such short notice, and he has to know that he's not a shoo-in to beat Harper, not by any stretch. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why he's considered a contender. He quit provincial politics because he was tired of it all...now he's the man for leader federally??? The idea that westerners will accept him as a compromise is hogwash, voiced mosty by Ontario conservatives. It won't wash out here.

MacKay: Couldn't win this one if his life depended upon it. Blew it with Orchard, and hasn't said or done anything since...besides look totally amateurish throughout this process on merger.

Clements: Not leadership material, placed poorly against Eves. However, I will bet he runs federally and wins. Good cabinet material for Harper's new government.

Fleherty: Most likely would rather takes Eves job than lose yet another leadership bid in a federal contest. He probably has the best shot at leader of the Ontario PCs. Why would he throw that away?

Brison: Not even remotely a contender...nor worth any more comment.

Lord: Probably the only one who could beat Harper...but he's not running.

Manning: I doubt he wants to go there again. Manning would back Harper. But it would be interesting, eh?

Day: I'd be very surprized to see him try this again...although he has gained a lot of respect. Won't happen.

End of the day...

Harper is the man, there are no others either worthy or willing.

And Harper is the right man.

As we will all come to see, I have no doubt whatsoever.

[Rob1963]

Gugsy,

Not all want a merger. And believe me, I'm not the only one who does not want it!

[Neal.F.]

Red tories are going to be politically homeless. That is for certain. All red tories do is make sure we get Liberal governments. They succeed in driving away the social conservatives, without whose participation in the coalition, a conservative party will never form a government.

Real conservatives can't bringthemselves to vote for a guy who serves as garnd marshall in the Calgary gay pride obscenity, and backs Svend Robinson on most social issues.

So either you Red tories are going to have to vote Liberal, or you'll hold your noses and vote for a real conservative, or you'll stay home. If you stay at home, no matter. there are alot more blue Tories who have been staying home who will come out once we're all rid of Joe Clark and his ilk.

On the other hand, I don't share Springer's enthusiasm for Stephen Harper. While I do not doubt his conservative credientials, his command of the issues, and other such things, whaty I do doubt is his ability to pull votes beyond the west. I note that he has been working very hard in the maritimes, to his credit, but can he overcome the perception of his (defeatist) comments? And why are Alliance numbers so low in Ontario?

I don't know if Mike Harris is the magic elixir, maybe yes, maybe no. What about Brian Pallister? He has distinguished himself in parliament, and stands solidly for the very family values that the Chretien government is selling down the river, yet is not perceived as a Bible thumping radical. What about Vic Toews? Jason Kenney & Gary Breitkreuz (who have stood up more for the unborn in Parliament than anyone else in memory).

I would discount Chuck Strahl. He's left too much of a bad taste in too many people's mouths.

Now back to Stock Day for a moment. For all the damnation he gets from the Harperites, he is a bridge builder. He brought the CA from zero in Quebec to 3d in terms of votes, beating out even the once-mighty Progressive Conservatives. He had succeeded in reaching out to a province which 3 1/2 years earlier had felt slapped in the face by the Reform party. Now, with Harper, one of the faces of Old reform back at the helm, support in Quebec has flatlined. Given another election there might havbe been some seats. an election after that, and they'd be a real player in Quebec.

In the Maritimes, the CA nearly won Tobique Mactaquac, and fared respectably in several other seats such as Fredricton, Moncton, Southwest NB, and West Nova. It was taking root. Harper's comments, rightly or wrongly burnt many of those bridges.

In all, the biggest mistake the United Alternative cum CA made back in 2000 was to have approached the PCs with a shotgun, rather than a bouquet. Whether that would have succeeded in bringing all tories over is doubtful, but a goodwill approach certainly would have pulled the carpet out from under Joe Clark's feet, and there would not have been the partisan backlash there was that enabled Joe Clark to steal enough votes to cost several seats in Ontario, one in NB, and to retain party status, which I remind everyone, he did only by 352 votes. (André Bachand barely held on, and only because the Liberals nominated a septuagenarian farmer who was also inarticulate).

[Rob1963]

So either you Red tories are going to have to vote Liberal, or you'll hold your noses and vote for a real conservative, or you'll stay home. If you stay at home, no matter. there are alot more blue Tories who have been staying home who will come out once we're all rid of Joe Clark and his ilk.

So why haven't the Blue Tories voted for the Alliance in the past rather than staying home and 'letting' the Liberals win?

[Neal.F.]

Loyalty to a 137 year old party, for one thing. And , as I pointed out the Alliance's original shotgun approach to the wedding. Let's face it Manning's "either you join us, or we'll crush you" approach was not a hot ticket.

Thankfully, cooler heads seem to be prevailing at this time.

[theWatcher]

In regards to Stockwell Day. I supported him on his leadership bid and I admire the man greatly.

But he has had his chance and I don't see how things could work out any different a second time around.

The liberals woould skewer him.

The red tories would leave en mass if he regained power.

And the general population would consider it a step back and not a step forward.

He is still young, there is time for him to try again later. He is learning so much and he performs better as a senior cabinet member where the pressure is less for him.

I think he would only server to bleed votes from Harper and cause other candidates to win.

Plus I think he wouldn't run anyhow out of respect for Harper.

[Neal.F.]

Stock has shown he can shake things up in Quebec. Harper is anathema here. By and large he is equated with the "No leaders from Quebec" faction of old Reform. Any third party voting will go NDP with Jack-O-Layton there. They might well get to eat alot of scraps from the Bloc table.

The Alliance cannot afford to write off Quebec for another election. It's like giving the Lieberals a 50 seat head start.

They should target ridings in the Beauce/Chaudiere regions which have a tradition of going against the grain. for example, 3 of four Adequistes were elected there. The Socreds used to come from there, including their last leader, Fabien Roy. They should also go after Joliette, another traditionally independent riding. They elected Tories for years while the rest of the province went red. And Quebec City is an area where the Alliance did well in the last election, as did the ADQ (They placed strong second to the Quebec Liberals in , I believe, 9/11 city ridings) .

The Bloc is imploding, anyway, and not all of its support were separatists. It just became a convenient way to stop Liberals from getting elected. Some are social democrats and will go NDP if Layton works properly with Ducasse (Don't underestimate the fact that Layton grew up here) . Others might well vote for the Alliance if they are seen to have a Quebec friendly leader...as in Stock Day.

The Alliance needs to build a beachhead NOW for the next election...if they get 10% and 1-2 seats, that would be a major achievement, and makes them a credible player for 2008. If they wait for 2008, they may have lost their drawing power from among protest voters to the NDP. Remember , after the votes are counted, nobody asks why. A vote is a vote, protest or otherwise, and gratefully accepted.

Red Tories are liberals anyway. A party that gives into their weasely little demands (ie: gay marriage, choice on abortion etc.) isn't worth a damn. Might as well vote Liberal for all the difference it'll make.