I agree with @Dathi THorfinnsson that I don't see Harper stepping down. The public's growing dissatisfaction with Harper didn't matter, because he remained (and remains) popular within his party and with his base. When the Tory strategy for the 2015 election was always to rely on a split opposition to keep them in power, popularity on your end of the spectrum is all you need.

More importantly, as we all know, Harper's leadership was all about balancing the various wings of the party, papering over divisions and providing a united front. Harper's resignation, then, would reveal the cracks as these groups try to assert themselves. Basically, the kind of thing we're seeing from the party now, but they're in government, so it'll be quicker and a little uglier. The last thing Harper wants is for the social conservative faction to be angling for government, because that's the kind of thing that spooks your moderate suburban Ontarians.

I think 2014 is too late to retire-- if the leadership election exposes divisions, then it doesn't give the new leader enough time to smooth them over all while presenting themselves as a worthy leader-- and I think Harper did, too.

The other trouble I see-- though nobody could have known this at the time-- is that the subsequent economic downturn would do the party no favours. It's hard to campaign as the "steady hand on the tiller" if they're also "the new guy."
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
Harper's win in 2011 scared the media establishment in a way that I don't think any other election had done in Canada, because it proved essentially that he didn't need them and won instead by appealing to Asian immigrants in suburban Ontario who liked his stances on law and order and lack of environmental hysteria. The Conservative Party not kowtowing to the obvious corrupt First Nations leadership and openly disdaining Quebec separatism in an effort to win an election (in 2008) had to have been a scary thing for the Toronto media, but it was also electorally successful. There was obviously going to be a mobilization against him, and incumbent fatigue can be a powerful force.

But I think that a resignation on his part might lead to a worse result for the Tories, mostly because it would be seen as a sign of weakness, and most of all, might allow the social conservatives a way into leadership, which would triple the media attack on the party. Harper was privately quite socially conservative but he realized that his party could not have that out in the open. The only issue that probably he allows his personal religious beliefs to have an influence on is support for Israel, as Harper indeed made Canada the best ally Israel had while in power. As an ex-Reform and ex-Alliance member, he had to have remembered the smear job done on Stockwell Day. It would tank their standing in Ontario.
 
Last edited:

Minty_Fresh

Banned
As for a replacement leader, I think McKay is the natural choice in terms of what is best for the party's chances, as he could help them in the East in a way that only Charest also could, but he wouldn't totally disappoint the base and lead to rumors of another split on the right. Ambrose might be better for the base and she certainly doesn't have issues with the media, but there also isn't really a lot to say for her experience and gravitas in a way that would inspire much confidence going into the election the way McKay could command.

Harper Derangement Syndrome might have fueled more zeal in the part of Liberal and NDP volunteers to turn out more money and time in the campaign, but it really did not lead to a substantial amount of defections from the Conservative party. The Niqab issue was what led the Liberals to consume the NDP's vote share and win. McKay might be able to avoid it entirely.
 
Harper resigning (voluntary or otherwise) in 2014 would likely result in a Tory majority in 2015. If you look at the polls leading up to election night, the Tories were ahead of the Liberals up until there were 2 weeks left to run, so a campaign that doesn't run past 37 days is unlikely to exhibit this downward trend. A new leader lances the boil better known as HDS, so the media and the opposition parties would need to find new issues to complain about. It also makes the Duffy issue the sideshow that it truly was, as demonstrated by the interest in it after the election.

McKay is the Tory version of Trudeau, somewhat better educated and with a slightly longer CV outside of being an MP, but still a lightweight, and from watching him from the wilds of NS, his "coattails" have never been so long as to think he has much drag with voters outside of Pictou. My preference is Kenney, who has proven he could handle any file given him, and demonstrated his outreach into the immigrant communities (which was a key deciding factor in the 2011 victory. With him in the PM's chair, the burka issue doesn't turn toxic to the Tories. Atlantic Canada probably still goes red, but the new seats in Ontario and out west are more than enough to off set these losses.
 

Quebec_Dave

Banned
Me and a friend were discussing this issue recently. I proposed that had Stephen Harper resigned sometime before the 2015 federal election, as was rumoured, than perhaps the party would have had a better shot at winning re-election. My friend, an avid supporter of the NDP, didn't think so, claiming that whoever the Tories had as leader wouldn't have changed the final outcome. She actually claims, oddly enough, that the NDP might have had a better chance at winning without Harper, although she didn't get the chance to elaborate on why.

So what do you all think? Would a different Tory leader and thus Prime Minister change the outcome of the election? Who would the Tories pick? Would Jason Kenney, with a shot at 24 Sussex without the waiting prove too tantalising? If Harper stepped down in 2014 would Jim Prentice make his move? What about the other Cabinet heavy hitters like James Moore or John Baird?

I actually don't think parties changing leaders just before an election actually helps their chances of re-election. If anything, people see it for the cynical ploy for what it is and has a detrimental effect on the party in the coming election. If a party is going to lose, it is better for the leader to go in and fight the good fight and take his or her lumps. I honestly believe the PC's would have won many more seats in 1993 had Brian Mulroney stayed in as leader.

I think Jason Kenney would have been a disaster for the party's electoral prospects, particularly if he were to be chosen as leader and become PM immediately. He is one of those leaders that is far more popular among the party regulars than he is with the general public. He'd have the worst possible combo of being an unpopular PM but without the time necessary to prove himself and turn people's perceptions of him around in time.

Winning an election after nearly 10 years in power is tough for any party. As a member of the Conservative Party myself, I think , in hindsight, that the best possible outcome would have been holding either Trudeau or Mulcair to a minority government, say 15 or 20 seats short of a majority so that it is not so weak that it is in constant danger of collapse yet just weak enough that conditions will allow a new election in 18 to 24 months. That would allow the party to have a couple years to rejeuvenate and elect a strong PM in waiting and then beat Trudeau or Mulcair in 2017/2018. I think now, looking back and without all the emotional investment being in a campaign entails, that a Conservative 2015 victory would have been akin to the UK Tories in 1992. That is, just one victory too far. Of course, the OTL Liberal majority (which was borderline ASB before the campaign began) is probably the worst of all outcomes although time will tell.
 

Quebec_Dave

Banned
Did Jean Charest actually have a chance?

That would be interesting.

Jean Charest would have probably been the worst choice. He had lost his seat of Sherbrooke in the 2012 provincial election and the federal and provincial ridings have a lot of overlap. There is a chance that he wouldn't have won his own riding. If the leader's seat is in doubt, he or she has to spend time there nursing it rather than getting on the bus and campaigning across the country.

Granted, had the bright eyed and bushy tailed Charest of 1993 been chosen leader instead of Kim Campbell, he would have likely performed far, far better. The Charest of 2014/2015 was totally different. Instead of a young and fresh government minister, he is a former Premier that has the stink of corruption attached to him and has won two anemic victories against subpar opposition before losing to Pauline Marois of all people and losing his own seat. Any flaws that the Liberals and NDP could be neutralised by them just pointing to Charest's own faults. He literally brings nothing to the table electorally. In Quebec OTL, we actually improved our performance over 2011. Having Charest as leader would have had a reverse coattails effect. I could see the entire Quebec caucus consisting solely of Maxime Bernier. I could also see right-wing independents running in Alberta that not only didn't run OTL but never even considered it. With Charest as leader, there could be independent Alberta MP's that are obscure nobodies in OTL precisely because he wasn't leader.
 
Yeah, Charest isn't happening. No way, no how. MacKay would be the "obvious" pick.

What about Prentice?
 
Yeah, Charest isn't happening. No way, no how. MacKay would be the "obvious" pick.

What about Prentice?

That depends if he's premier or not. It was rumoured that he was using the office as a stepping stone, but he denied it so many times I'm not sure he could if he wanted to
 
Top