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."
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."