After the old Hype, before the new Hype
It will likely not come as any surprise to people who know me well, that I am in support of the merger betweent he Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative parties. Although my membership has since lapsed (I had been a party member since '96, when it was still the Refooooorm party), I feel that the newly proposed merged party is a good thing for this country. It is of course a complicated issue, and I will respond to it by breaking it down into smaller parts.
Brian Orchard
Mr. Orchard comes across as being very concerned and wanting the best for his party, and I applaud him for his awareness of the history of this country and of his party. However, Brian Orchard embodies much of what I see as being wrong with politics in this country. He is right that we need to remember the work of John A. MacDonald and John Diefenbaker etc., and recognize the significance of the national railway, among other thinggs, all brought to us by the Progressive Conservative party of Canada. He is wrong, though, that these are reasons to block a merger between these two parties. By using that logic to keep the party, they are only perpetuating the notion that they are an antiquated party. There are plenty of more valid arguments against this merger, and against various things that got this merger in motion, but the history of the party shouldn't be one of them. Shouldn't you keep the party together based on it's superior current political mandate? If the strongest defense to keep a party together now is what it did before, long before, then really what can the party offer now?
Mike Harris
The latest news out of the merger is that former Ontario premier, Mike Harris, has dropped out of the race. He was, up to this point, the highest profile politician to have considered entering the race. He was said to have been the party's best chance of winning seats in seat-rich Ontario. I really wonder if Harris' legacy would have any impact on a national level, when it wasn't even enough to prevent a Liberal landslide in Ontario. Also, his unilingualism would have been an impediment to breaking through in Quebec. The leadership race for the new party will be critical, more critical than anything else the party will have to deal with, including the ratifying vote from the current PC party members. They'll need someone who is recognizable to most Canadians, can speak French, and can withstand a barrage from the seemingly liberal media. If only were older and more recognizable on a national level, I would gladly take the job. Maybe I can get a radio station to pay my entrance fee, and support my leadership bid, even if it's as a farce, that'd be a blast.
The NDP
Although I felt it was both inevitable, and a necessary evil, I never fully supported the "Unite the Right" compain. My thinking was always that instead, we should divide the left. I heard an interview where a woman said, "Canadians don't want social conservatism, and so the right wing party(ies) will never win." That statement is wrong on a few different levels. Many Canadians do want social conservatism, and not just in the west. Many Canadians also want social liberalism (if that's the correct term for it). People on both sides however, still want able leadership, and they are not always sure that they can get it from the Canadian Alliance, the NDP, or even the Progressive Conservatives. The Alliance fail to instill confidence partly because of the bonehead things Alliance and Reform party MPs have said over the years, and partly because of the left wing media's tendency to blow them out of proportion. The NDP fails to instill confidence, because they've never had a sizable representation in the House of Commons, and people don't feel they can trust Alexa MacDonnaugh as a leader. The PCs are still reeling from the Mulroney era. All three parties have trouble getting votes, because it's been so long since any of them had any power at all. If the NDP became a stronger party, mostly on the backs of former liberal supporters, then all three parties would be able to step out of the shadow of consecutive liberal majorities. Of course four relatively equal parties would reek of minority governments, but it would also speak about increased representation of the wishes of Canadians.

   [ posted by William @ 11:33 AM ]