Though the subject of this thread may seem obvious, I think that both the NDP and The Conservative Party are missing the boat on this.
On a number of occasions, I have heard Conservative jounalists say that the Conservative Party cannot win running as Liberals - they have to be a true conservative party if they want to win power. I think this is a mistake.
The reason the Liberals have the dominant history of governing Canada they do is BECAUSE they are a party of the center (that is, "center" as defined on the Canadian political spectrum). I think that Canadians crave an alternative centrist party that they would feel comfortable with and would without hesitation dump the Liberals in a heartbeat if one was presented to them. I don't mean a party fractured by splinter groups (see the PCs and the Reform/Alliance era), but a true, dare I say, "progressive conservative" party...?
Just as the NDP has not even come close to ever forming a federal government because they are too far left (newsflash to the NDP: Tony Blair's 'thrid way' seems to be working wonders for the Labour Party in Britain, look into it), so too will it be difficult for a true right Conservative Party to form a stable (read "majority") government. Oh sure, if the Conservatives wait long enough, they will eventually form a government, but as you can see, even large-scale scandal will not move the electorate their way for longer than a few weeks.........but if the Conservatives want a government with any sort of staying power, the center is where the bulk of the Canada-wide vote is.
Putting up leaders like Preston Manning, Stockwell Day, and Stephen Harper as leaders isn't going to cut it. All these men have admirable qualities, but they also have histories that are just too far right for the typical mainstream Canadian voter in many regions of the country to get elected on a national scale.
Recently, I heard Deborah Grey on a radio talk show complain about why the people in the East have once again turned their back on a Conservative leader (Stephen Harper) and said words to the effect that "They wanted a person who can speak French, and Stephen Harper speaks French very well.". Good heavens Deborah, people look at a lot more in a leader than just speaking french.....that's like selecting a quarterback soley because he has memorized the playbook.
Stephen Harper has said a lot of things since becoming leader that try to promote him as a moderate, but his history is filled with instances where he has shown himself to be no moderate (the "firewall around Alberta" comment, the editorial in the Wall Street Journal apparently apologizing for Canada not joining George W Bush in the Iraq war, being head of the National Citizens Coalition, etc.). This makes people leary about his true desires if he were to become PM, and cause them to shy away from him. In fact, I bet that, had Harper remained head of the National Citizens Coalition instead of Conservative Party Leader, he would have priased the recent policy paper on private healthcare published by Preston Manning and Mike Harris, not condemned it.
Add to this the fact that, though no fault of his own, Harper is Canada's answer to Al Gore in terms of charisma and personality, and it's hard for many people to get exited about him as PM (the fact is, much like a TV talk show host or stand-up comedian, vying for the presidency or the prime minister's office does require certain social skills - if you don't like mingling with tons of people all the time and are not comfortable and relaxed when addressing large crowds, stick to being a policy wonk or be satisfied as an MP in a riding that strongly supports the party you are running for).
If the Conservatives want to win national elections on even a semi-regular basis, a true centrist leader (with some charisma) and a centrist platform that people feel the leader truly believes in is, I think, the way to go.
I wonder how long Frank McKenna wants to remain Canadian Ambassador to the USA..........?
On a number of occasions, I have heard Conservative jounalists say that the Conservative Party cannot win running as Liberals - they have to be a true conservative party if they want to win power. I think this is a mistake.
The reason the Liberals have the dominant history of governing Canada they do is BECAUSE they are a party of the center (that is, "center" as defined on the Canadian political spectrum). I think that Canadians crave an alternative centrist party that they would feel comfortable with and would without hesitation dump the Liberals in a heartbeat if one was presented to them. I don't mean a party fractured by splinter groups (see the PCs and the Reform/Alliance era), but a true, dare I say, "progressive conservative" party...?
Just as the NDP has not even come close to ever forming a federal government because they are too far left (newsflash to the NDP: Tony Blair's 'thrid way' seems to be working wonders for the Labour Party in Britain, look into it), so too will it be difficult for a true right Conservative Party to form a stable (read "majority") government. Oh sure, if the Conservatives wait long enough, they will eventually form a government, but as you can see, even large-scale scandal will not move the electorate their way for longer than a few weeks.........but if the Conservatives want a government with any sort of staying power, the center is where the bulk of the Canada-wide vote is.
Putting up leaders like Preston Manning, Stockwell Day, and Stephen Harper as leaders isn't going to cut it. All these men have admirable qualities, but they also have histories that are just too far right for the typical mainstream Canadian voter in many regions of the country to get elected on a national scale.
Recently, I heard Deborah Grey on a radio talk show complain about why the people in the East have once again turned their back on a Conservative leader (Stephen Harper) and said words to the effect that "They wanted a person who can speak French, and Stephen Harper speaks French very well.". Good heavens Deborah, people look at a lot more in a leader than just speaking french.....that's like selecting a quarterback soley because he has memorized the playbook.
Stephen Harper has said a lot of things since becoming leader that try to promote him as a moderate, but his history is filled with instances where he has shown himself to be no moderate (the "firewall around Alberta" comment, the editorial in the Wall Street Journal apparently apologizing for Canada not joining George W Bush in the Iraq war, being head of the National Citizens Coalition, etc.). This makes people leary about his true desires if he were to become PM, and cause them to shy away from him. In fact, I bet that, had Harper remained head of the National Citizens Coalition instead of Conservative Party Leader, he would have priased the recent policy paper on private healthcare published by Preston Manning and Mike Harris, not condemned it.
Add to this the fact that, though no fault of his own, Harper is Canada's answer to Al Gore in terms of charisma and personality, and it's hard for many people to get exited about him as PM (the fact is, much like a TV talk show host or stand-up comedian, vying for the presidency or the prime minister's office does require certain social skills - if you don't like mingling with tons of people all the time and are not comfortable and relaxed when addressing large crowds, stick to being a policy wonk or be satisfied as an MP in a riding that strongly supports the party you are running for).
If the Conservatives want to win national elections on even a semi-regular basis, a true centrist leader (with some charisma) and a centrist platform that people feel the leader truly believes in is, I think, the way to go.
I wonder how long Frank McKenna wants to remain Canadian Ambassador to the USA..........?
