Days of Liberal political monopoly are numbered (Canadian political right merger)

Historic indeed. Canada's possible return to a functional two-party political system after a merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative party -- if it actually happens --has huge implications.

The possibility that the government in Ottawa could really change hands in the next election, will not only wipe the smirks off the faces of Liberal organizers from St. John's to Vancouver, but will have the effect of awakening the country to a meaningful debate about ideas and policies. It will suddenly matter what Liberal politicians say because they will now be held accountable. They can actually be beaten! Conservatives will have to be taken seriously, too. They might actually form a government!

No matter who emerges as leader of the new party, the next election will still be a contest between a Conservative David and the Liberal Goliath. But goliaths do get taken down, and the mere possibility of this will marvellously sharpen the wits of politicians of all stripes. There is enough anger at years of Liberal complacency and misgovernment in Canada, enough of a demand for a change (the new party would begin with the support of about one-third of the electorate) that Liberals will have to get very serious about wooing voters whose support they could take for granted. The days of monopoly politics are over. Now there will be real rather than sham competition for the political hearts and minds of Canadians.

If, of course, the deal holds. Many slip-ups are possible en route to ratification of the agreement between the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive-Conservative leadership on Dec. 12. Remember the fate of that other "historic" deal, the Meech Lake accord and its equally historic Charlottetown offspring. There will instantly be pressures to amend controversial provisions of the deal, there might be a grass roots rebellion, someone will try to tie everything up in the courts, and ultimately, both parties might suffer minor schisms from disaffected ideologues.

On the other hand, the current leadership has already gone more hard miles along a difficult road than many observers thought possible. Virtually every literate PC and Alliance supporter knows the parties have no hope of forming a government unless they unite, and there will be even less hope if this agreement fails. Thus the deal, once announced, takes on a new momentum.

It's too important, too promising, too fraught with consequences, to be allowed to fail. Now that moderates have agreed to compromise, opponents will come across as sour Grinches. Rejection may be more likely by the PCs than the Alliance, but the road of rejection would clearly be the road to oblivion. Defections by disgruntled Orchardite Conservatives or Western nationalist Alliancers would not be fatal. Indeed, it might be a good thing for the new party if the extremists leave, just as the NDP functions as a safety-valve for the Liberals.

Is there really time to get a new organization, a new leader and new policies in place? No doubt the least-principled of Liberals are today considering the temptation to find a way of crushing a half-formed, leaderless Conservative Party in an early election. Neither Paul Martin nor most of the party's leadership dares have the time of day for such a strategy. It would so deeply offend Canadians' sense of fair play that the rebound effect on Liberal fortunes could be catastrophic.

The biggest hurdle will be the ratification fight this autumn. If it succeeds, the new Conservative Party would go on to hold what could be one the most spectacular leadership races in recent Canadian history. It would be wide open, money and media interest would flow liberally, the contrast with the Liberals' coronation of Paul Martin will be striking, and anything could happen. Both Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay ought to be candidates to lead the new party. Former Ontario Premier Mike Harris would also run, but would not necessarily stand out from a field that would also include Alberta's Jim Dinning, Nova Scotia's Scott Brison, and one of Harris's best Cabinet ministers, Tony Clement. And why not the reappearance of Preston Manning?

The beauty of policy formation in a two-party system is that an opposition, which is large and credible enough to be thought of as a possible government, can run on a three-word platform, "Time For Change." Or maybe two words, "Had Enough?" Given the Chrétien government's record, this will be a sufficiently frightening scenario to smoke out Paul Martin and force him to outline what he might actually do with a new mandate.

The new party would then support its claim to govern by hammering out policy alternatives on the whole range of public issues. Former PCs and CAs would have no trouble agreeing to oppose Liberal waste and corruption, champion free enterprise and fair taxes, support a new deal for the provinces, and advocate a long list of reforms to our Parliamentary system.

The Liberals would have to respond with increasingly specific proposals of their own, reactivating the democratic dialectic in Canada in ways we haven't seen in more than a decade. No matter who won the next election, for example, Canadians would finally get meaningful Senate reform, a responsible ethics commissioner, public hearings on judicial appointments and more checks on prime ministerial power.

The hard policy questions for the new Conservative Party revolve around such deeply divisive social issues as same-sex marriage and the culture of dependency in Tory Atlantic Canada. A key function of leadership in our system is to find ways to bridge, or fudge, or broker, such differences. In Canada every governing party is inevitably a coalition, a big tent housing a lot of diversity. An agreement to be flexible on policy is inherent in the agreement to make the new party.

Plus ça change ... The single most frustrating policy/electoral problem the new Conservative Party will have to face is its weakness in Quebec, where 0 plus 0 still equals 0 (the PC's do have one Quebec MP, who is said to be opposed to the merger). It is hard to imagine any circumstances under which Paul Martin, who comes across as an honorary Québécois, will not sweep that province. The new Conservatives will have to resist the old temptation to play footsie with separatists, many of whom are becoming loose fish as the Bloc Québécois and the PQ face a grim future. All the old PCs will remember that the man who really ruined their organization as a national coalition was Lucien Bouchard, not Preston Manning.

A solidly Liberal Quebec can be bracketed by Conservative strength in Eastern and Western Canada, leaving Ontario as the bloody battleground where Canada's political future will be decided. The strongest argument in favour of the merger is to pave the way for a real fight in Canada's heartland province, which, in the last three elections, has been a 100-seat throwaway to the Liberals. Ontario may now be ripe for plucking if its voters, having turned out the PCs provincially, rebound in the realization that they may have given themselves too much of a Grit thing.

Ironically and to the intense pleasure of many Canadians, an election that seemed a serious two-party fight might result in a minority government. Third of fourth parties, the NDP and/or the Bloc Québécois could wind up holding the balance of power. If anything, the impetus to reform and revitalization in our system would become quicker still.

At the end of the day, Canadians may not want a respite from Liberal governance. It may well be that the right will unite and Paul Martin will still sweep the country. If Canadians could vote on whether they want an effective one-party or two-party system, however, the result would be a landslide. The deal to begin to revive our politics is wildly popular with the people who should count the most. It's in the best interests of Canada. The choice for PC's and Alliance supporters on Dec. 12 is between a new beginning and a dead end.

Conservatism is on life support in Canada. As it looks right now, the Liberals will probably pick up Quebec and sweep Ontario. They don't need to worry about Western Canada; politically it doesn't count in a House Of Commons apportioned on the principle of representation according to population. With 308 seats up for grabs in the next election, the Liberals have to win virtually of the 106 ridings in Ontario to form a fourth straight Liberal majority government.

"It's too important, too promising, too fraught with consequences, to be allowed to fail. Now that moderates have agreed to compromise, opponents will come across as sour Grinches. Rejection may be more likely by the PCs than the Alliance, but the road of rejection would clearly be the road to oblivion."

I'm no Canadian but it looks as though the author believes that this new party would be dominated by the CA. What are the actual voter breakdowns? If there are more Alliance supporters, it would seem to me that they would dominate the combined party.

There'll be plenty of opportunity for Western Separatists if this re-unification on the right goes sideways.

I'd prefer that Canada stay together, myself. My parents were both born in Alberta to pioneers who settled there when it was still the NWT. Two of my sons were born there - two other sons live there now. Our Canada was hi-jacked by Trudeau's Liberals and a generation of complicit Canuckleheads - possibly we can restore it. We owe it to our ancestors to try, at least.

"Conservatism is on life support in Canada. As it looks right now, the Liberals will probably pick up Quebec and sweep Ontario

You got that right. So who shoulders the blame?. Us dummy consevative Canadians, that's who.

When Mulrooney took over from Trudeau in 1984, the country was a mess. Interest rates were at 20%. Homes and business were being foreclosed. Canada was on its knees.

Mulrooney changed all that. Had interest rates down to 10%, oil businesses were booming. Happy days were here again.

But after 8 years of paradise we Canadians couldn't stand it. The conservatives were completley destroyed, and IMHO will never recover. You just can't make us Canadians happy.

"Us dummy conservative Canadians" are to blame.

Joe Clark couldn't count, it seems, and through his clumsiness, let Trudeau back at the country's throat.

Trudeau's second turn at power and that regime's usurpations was what spurred Western Separatism to its high point. If the Tories had selected John Crosbie in '84, instead of Lyin' Brian, they wouldn't have ended up in bed with Bouchard and the other Quebec creeps that Mulroney brought on board, and there never would have been a Reform Party. So it's 'stupid us' all the way! ;^)

Let's hope something good comes of this merger.

BULLSH!T

Nothing in Canada will happen PERIOD.
Not a single, solitary change will occur in Canada because the country is ruled by either rabid SOCIALISTS (the Liberal Party) or outright COMMUNISTS (the New Democratic Party (NDP)).

All media and media CONTENT in Canada is government controlled (by the CRTC) or owned as a "CROWN Corporation".

The two largest broadcaster's in Canada are CBC and CTV. CTV Networks is owned by Baton Broadcasting Corp. which the controlling shares are held by the Bassett family. The CEO is Douglas Bassett Jr. His father is Douglas Bassett Sr. and he is the head of CSIS or Canukia's version of the KGB. CBC is a Crown Corporation and is run directly from Ottawa. Standard Broadcasting which owns most of the larger AM radio stations across Canada is likewise, not politically independent and is an organ of the Liberal Party Of Canada.

Almost all print media such as newspapers are either owned or controlled by NDP or Liberal Party supporters. Even the National Post was recently sold to people with Liberal Party interests.

As I've said, NOTHING will change in Canada. Canada IS and will remain a THREAT to the security and interests of United States and should be treated as such.

Until Canukians change their far, far, Berkeley like LEFTIST governments all across their country, Canada will remain a complete lost cause, completely undeserving of existing as a sovereign nation.

"Us dummy conservative Canadians" are to blame.

We are pretty stupid aren't we? When you think about it, what was the point of the Reform Party-CA in the first place? The west is no more influential or better represented than we were in 1987. We have no EEE Senate. No provincial equality. No referendum or recall. Our relationship with the States is poison. As a result we ended up with 10 more years of Liberal rule.
Now, after all this work that went in to building the Reform Party, the UA and the CA, we're back to square one.

Do you think it's a coincidence that Preston Manning was not only responsible for leading westerners down the garden path while rendering the Canadian conservative movement useless for a decade, he also managed to press the self destruct button on his own party by sabotaging Stockwell Day. I'm not so sure.

I hope that history will not be kind to Preston Manning. I think there's no question now that the west should have followed the Western Independence Party in the mid 80's, for I guarantee within a decade there would have been significant change of some kind.

I can say quite literally, thanks for nothing Preston.

IIRC, the Western Independence Party had few credible spokesmen, and the membership saw their legitimate energies squandered by ineffective and 'cranky' leadership.

Manning would never have gained traction had not Mulroney turned the Tories into an even more squalid version of the Liberal Party...with Quebec seperatistes in the cabinet.

There's no political point to rehashing conservative fumbling - we've got to toss out the Liberals!

If we can't convince Ontario to vote Conservative, then Western Independence will surge immediately to the forefront, imho. And this time, it will be for real.

Let's try to make Plan A work instead. ;^)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.