The Next Conservative Leader

[The_Falcon]

Career politician, career politician, career politician, lawyer, lawyer.  ....Sigh....

Well the the last liberal leader wasn't a career politician or lawyer, and look how well that turned out for him and his party.

 

[Journeyman]

Peter McKay plays rugby; he's got my vote. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Lawrence Martin, a commentator with whom I routinely disagree, makes an insightful contribution in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/stay-or-go-harpers-party-has-to-know/article10869396/

Stay or go? Harper’s party has to know

LAWRENCE MARTIN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Apr. 09 2013

If Stephen Harper is to serve his party well, he has a critical decision to make within a few months. He has to let it be known whether he will lead the Conservatives into another election.

If he delays that decision until next year, he will leave his successor – factoring in the many months it takes for a leadership race – up against the wall. The successor will have no time to establish a presence or record before going into the 2015 election campaign.

Mr. Harper has seen what happens when other leaders delay the decision. Brian Mulroney waited until the last year of his second mandate to turn the crown over to Kim Campbell. She had to call an election right away. She was unprepared and got trounced. Pierre Trudeau waited until his fourth mandate’s last year before calling a leadership convention in 1984, leaving John Turner little time – though he could have waited a bit longer – to call an election. He, too, was crushed.

The problem for Mr. Harper is that he needs more than a few months to make a well-informed judgment on whether he has a good chance of winning again. The assumption is that he wants another term. He loves power, he has had a good run and he wants to extend that run.

But the arrival of Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader has changed the political dynamic. If the opinion polls are to be believed – a big if – the Liberals are a big player again – meaning there are new risks in Mr. Harper’s trying to go for another win.

The Trudeau name is his worst nightmare. Mr. Harper’s animosity toward the Liberalism of Pierre Trudeau was what ignited and drove his political ambition. Nothing would plague him more than having a Trudeau succeed him and begin turning back his conservative advances.

Justin Trudeau is likely to enjoy a honeymoon, as most new leaders do, for several months after his coronation this weekend. Even by the end of the year, it might still be too early to know whether or not Sir Galahad’s bubble will burst.

By that time, potential successors to Mr. Harper will be becoming restless. There’s John Baird and Jason Kenney who would represent the party’s right flank. And there’s James Moore and former cabinet minister Jim Prentice who could represent the moderate side. But would any of them have a better chance of winning than Mr. Harper? Not likely.

The Prime Minister will bear that in mind. At the same time, he has the comfort of knowing that, should he step down, he will do so as one of the great Conservative success stories, having led the party from nowhere when he took over the Canadian Alliance in 2002, through the subsequent merger with the Progressive Conservatives and then three election victories.

If he decides to stay, he must not only face the Trudeau phenomenon but also the problem – as an Ipsos Reid poll shows – that people are getting tired of him and his secretive, closed style of governance. Some tried to defend him for his latest muzzling effort, one that targeted his own MPs. They failed to see beyond the abortion issue to the broader context, the gagging here being only one of dozens of examples of this kind of conduct.

Some leaders hesitate to reveal their departure dates, using the rationale that it leaves them as lame ducks. But American presidents are lame ducks for their entire second term, and still get much done. Jean Chrétien got more done after announcing in 2002 that he was stepping down than he did in the earlier years.

Conservative Party transitions have not been handled well. Besides the Mulroney-Campbell example, there was the wrenching internal party wars that followed John Diefenbaker’s election loss in 1965 and Joe Clark’s 1980 election defeat.

Mr. Harper can avoid the pitfalls of the past by making his decision to stay or go at a time his party would best benefit to know.

The progressives, a group within which Lawrence Martin is numbered, are putting a HUGE load of faith and hope on M. Trudeau's shoulders.

But, Mr. Martin is right: Prime Minister Harper must, eventually, step down and he needs to manage his departure better than most of his predecessors (in all parties).

My sense remains that the 2015 election is still Mr. Harper's to lose ~ and he can manage to do that. But 2019 is a different story. By then I am sure that Harper government will be stale and bereft of good ideas, sustaining a Conservative government will require new, fresh leader with new, fresh ideas. Although I would favour Mr. Prentice for 2015 I suspect that by 2019 he will be seen as "over the hill" and one of the younger contenders will be more likely to win the leadership and, potentially, the country.

 

[ARMY_101]

My sense remains that the 2015 election is still Mr. Harper's to lose ~ and he can manage to do that. But 2019 is a different story. By then I am sure that Harper government will be stale and bereft of good ideas, sustaining a Conservative government will require new, fresh leader with new, fresh ideas. Although I would favour Mr. Prentice for 2015 I suspect that by 2019 he will be seen as "over the hill" and one of the younger contenders will be more likely to win the leadership and, potentially, the country.

Harper will stay the course for 2015 and beyond.  If he leaves at the peak after 10 years in office (i.e. 2016ish), balancing the budget, and with many positive achievements under his decade in office, he'll be leaving as one of Canada's greatest prime ministers.

Then again, Harper will (only) be 60 in 2019, and could very well remain leader if enough fresh ideas continue to be brought up and be implemented. (The party's policy declaration is far from fulfilled.)

As for my insights into the next leader, as someone involved in the party:

1. Jason Kenney (con: single male)

2. Peter MacKay (con: new son)

3. Tony Clement (con: he's Tony Clement)

4. Rona Ambrose (pro: she's female and is seen as the government spending savior when it comes to Public Works and the F35 project)

As someone who knows him and who has spoken to him, I don't see John Baird wanting or lusting for the PM job.

 

[CougarKing]

1. Jason Kenney (con: single male)

2. Peter MacKay (con: new son)

 

There was a recent Maclean's article about Kenney's role as the immigration minister, that hinted that Kenney may just be the next pick for PM, given his role in reaching out to immigrant communities and getting them to vote Conservative. The said article also stated that his outreach work was behind the Tories winning around seven majority immigrant ridings (some of which were traditional Liberal strongholds) in the past Federal election, if I can recall correctly.  I doubt being single or unmarried is a "con" that would prevent him from being a PM; there are other heads of government who are unmarried.


Maclean's excerpt:

Once charmed, the document added, ethnic communities could stay loyal for a very long time. Ten “very ethnic” ridings—where immigrants represent more than 20 per cent of the population—were targeted in pre-election Conservative advertising: four in Ontario, four in B.C., one in Quebec and one in Manitoba. On election day, May 2, the Conservative party won seven of them.

The aforementioned article even began with anecdote of how Jason Kenney abruptly left a rally for the Sikh since he didn't want to be seen as endorsing a group that favoured that the Sikhs carve out their own "Khalistan" homeland in India. This is one instance which shows he exercises good judgement, especially with regard to public perception.


Maclean's excerpt:

Jason Kenney scans the dense crowd of roughly 20,000 Sikh Canadians in traditional dress and multicoloured turbans here to mark Vaisakhi—the annual celebration commemorating the foundation of this community originally from India’s northeast. Sitting cross-legged on the thin grey carpeting covering the enormous stage, the minister is inwardly cringing.

He doesn’t like what he sees. In front of him, a dozen yellow and blue Khalistan flags are splitting the crowd near the podium, held by men fighting the hot early May sun in T-shirts. The man at the mic, speaking Punjabi, suddenly speeds up and radicalizes his tone. He speaks of genocide, of violent clashes and of the independence of Khalistan—a country that a faction of Sikh nationalists would like to carve from India. It’s too much. Kenney, who’s picked up some Punjabi since becoming minister of citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism in 2008, stands mid-sentence, crosses the room and exits as three baffled Conservative MPs look on, unsure whether or not they should follow.

At the bottom of the steps, Kenney puts his shoes back on and raises his hand as if to rip off the orange bandana that all visitors wear inside Rexdale’s Sikh Spiritual Centre. He takes a deep breath, and restrains himself. A Sikh organizer approaches, looking contrite. “You are trying to exploit my presence here,” Kenney shouts, his stare fixed on the man in a white turban. “This is not a civilized way to behave. I warned you, and you did it anyway. I am aware that you would like to entertain the Prime Minister next year. You can forget it. He won’t be coming.” The minister makes his way to the exit, the Sikh organizer fast on his heels, apologizing profusely.He finally pulls off his bandana and explains that Sikh nationalists are now waging their war in Canada. They hope to convince the roughly 450,000 Canadians of Sikh origin, the majority of whom live in the suburbs of Toronto and Vancouver, to put pressure on their families still in India, but also on the Canadian government, to support their demands. They want Ottawa to recognize a genocide in which Sikhs were victims, in 1984 in India.

(...)

“It was an extremist speech,” he says. “I had to leave the room, otherwise the community would think I endorse such a campaign. Certain groups have sometimes tried to wield my prominence to advance their cause. I have to be vigilant at all times. They shouldn’t be encouraged to reproduce, in Canada, the tensions of their homelands.” It’s a message he reiterates to new immigrants from China and Tibet, Greece and Turkey, Israel and Iran.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving on, here's another article which explores other rising Tories who may be headed for the cabinet...

National Post link

John Ivison: Ambitious young Tories hoping for Cabinet posts are mere pawns in Harper’s game

Watching Michelle Rempel in the House of Commons Thursday, it was obvious why so many people think she’s a lock for a job in Cabinet when Stephen Harper shuffles his deck this summer.

The 32-year-old from Calgary is pretty — can we still say that? — and shrewd. She was taking part in a debate on climate change and revealed that as a 10-year-old “science geek,” she read about Earth Day and started worrying about climate change.

She had been preceded by Michael Chong, the 41-year-old from Fergus, Ont., who is less pretty but telegenic in his own way and an excellent debater. He gave a vigorous defence of the government’s environment policy, such that a jury would be left with a reasonable doubt about the opposition charge of negligence on the file.

The received wisdom in Ottawa — and therefore the least likely outcome — is that Mr. Harper will refresh his Cabinet this summer by promoting the best and brightest of his parliamentary secretaries into key portfolios.

While Mr. Chong is clearly able, he resigned from Cabinet in 2006 because he did not support a government motion recognizing Québec as a nation within Canada. Mr. Harper rarely forgives or forgets, so the MP for Halton Hills may have to be patient before he is rehabilitated.

But the consensus is that Ms. Rempel, and her fellow parliamentary secretaries Chris Alexander, Candice Bergen, Shelley Glover and Pierre Poilievre are Cabinet bound.

Hmm. All five have done their time in the trenches and been good soldiers, often accepting politically dangerous assignments with enthusiasm.

But they are already the friendly public face of the government, appearing nightly on political talk-shows and acting as the front-line of defence when the Conservatives are taking fire.
When the accusations fly that the Tories are a bunch of old, white guys who are happy to befoul the environment in their quest for profit, they wheel out Ms. Rempel, not the 70-year-old minister, Peter Kent.

When Vic Toews, the Public Safety Minister, has said something perceived as particularly outrageous, they send out Ms. Bergen to explain what he really meant.

Is Mr. Harper really going to put either into some invisible portfolio such as Minister of State for Seniors? He could drop them into a senior portfolio but we have seen that movie before, when he over-promoted Rona Ambrose in 2006. It didn’t end well.

In any case, there is a natural progression in politics and parachuting someone into a top job would create a brigade of malcontents from those passed over.

It seems that to be young, telegenic and quick on your feet in the Harper government is as much a curse as a career-enhancer.

That’s not to say there will not be promotions from the ranks of parliamentary secretaries. But, this being Canada, merit is a tertiary consideration behind gender and geography. Good candidates for promotion like Mike Lake, James Rajotte and Rick Dykstra are likely to find themselves falling short on both counts.

Only one in four Cabinet ministers is female, so there is a drive to fill any vacancies with women.

Then there is the delicate provincial balance. For that reason, Winnipeg MP Ms. Glover is likely to ascend, since it seems certain that Mr. Toews will retire.

Gordon O’Connor, the chief whip, is 74-years-old this year and may also step down, which would open a Cabinet position from the national capital region. Mr. Poilievre’s luck would be in, were that the case.

Peter Penashue’s apparently doomed bid to get re-elected in Labrador means Mr. Harper is going to have to find another minister in Atlantic Canada. New Brunswick MPs Rob Moore and John Williamson would be ready and able to step up, even if the latter has annoyed his former boss by recently arguing for more independence for backbench MPs.

And then there is the linchpin of the whole shuffle — Jim Flaherty.

The Finance Minister says he knows what is going on — he is going on. But suggestions that he will call it quits this summer continue to abound. If he does, candidates for his job would include Tony Clement, the Treasury Board president, Ted Menzies, currently Minister of State for Finance, and John Baird, the Foreign Minister (who is quite happy where he is, thank you very much).

Of the other heavy hitters in Cabinet, Jason Kenney is the strongest performer in Cabinet and has done a good job at Immigration. But that may work against him as Justin Trudeau seeks to usurp the Conservatives in the suburbs. In any case, having the Prime Minister and Finance Minister from the same city would likely cause palpitations east of the prairies.

James Moore, has turned Canadian Heritage, from a “shield” department, where the Tories were always playing defence, into a “sword.” He has also performed well in Question Period when asked to pinch-hit for the Prime Minister. For the record, he is 36 and his attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder.

Lisa Raitt is another who is widely judged to have performed well in her Labour portfolio. She is overdue a move — something she would undoubtedly welcome, since, as has one smartass noted, three years in labour is enough for any woman.

The job for the Prime Minister, therefore, is quite simple: placate the revolting backbenchers through promotions (or by bringing in a less confrontational House Leader and chief whip); usher in a younger Cabinet, without removing all the stars who stem the tide of opposition criticism on a daily basis; fill in the major departures with replacements of proven ability; and, last but not least, shake up departments that need a new vision — Fisheries, Defence and Industry spring to mind.

Fortunately for him, the Prime Minister understands that there are no true friends in politics and so doesn’t try to cultivate any. The results have been clinical but, generally, effective.

The young and the restless in the government caucus may have to seek solace in the fact that they are mere pawns in this particular game of thrones.

 

[ARMY_101]

I doubt being single or unmarried is a "con" that would prevent him from being a PM; there are other heads of government who are unmarried.

Very few Prime Ministers of Canada and no President of the United States has ever held office while not being married. Most PMs and Presidents have been married, or at least widowed, while they held office.

The reason, to me at least, is simple: getting married and having children is the purpose humans are on this Earth.  What Canadian would view a Prime Minister as 'normal' when he has no wife and no children?  Kenney is a tireless worker no doubt, but that strong work ethic may work against him should he intend to seek the leadership: what does it say about a man who prioritizes his work above getting married and starting a family?

Even sterile women are publicly called out and humiliated when seeking top office. Why? Because they're not seen as normal.

(One purpose of) government is to allow families to grow and prosper - who wants a single guy making policies when he has no real experience in dealing with the demands of a family?

 

[Monsoon]

Very few Prime Ministers of Canada and no President of the United States has ever held office while not being married. Most PMs and Presidents have been married, or at least widowed, while they held office.

Unmarried Prime Ministers governed Canada for almost third of the last century. I would suggest that in Canada, at least, the image problems you highlighted exist more in theory than in fact.

 

[Bass ackwards]

Very few Prime Ministers of Canada and no President of the United States has ever held office while not being married. Most PMs and Presidents have been married, or at least widowed, while they held office.

The reason, to me at least, is simple: getting married and having children is the purpose humans are on this Earth.  What Canadian would view a Prime Minister as 'normal' when he has no wife and no children?  Kenney is a tireless worker no doubt, but that strong work ethic may work against him should he intend to seek the leadership: what does it say about a man who prioritizes his work above getting married and starting a family?

Even sterile women are publicly called out and humiliated when seeking top office. Why? Because they're not seen as normal.

(One purpose of) government is to allow families to grow and prosper - who wants a single guy making policies when he has no real experience in dealing with the demands of a family?

101, do you think that would apply as much today after a half century or so of social engineering has made the traditional family almost...passe'?
It seems to me that being a "first (insert your new and improved demographic of choice here)" is all the rage these days.
And the major voting bloc that ordinarily would lean towards the stable, traditional family man (or woman); the older generation - is now filling up with people who grew up in the sixties and seventies and who started all this crap.

 

[ARMY_101]

Unmarried Prime Ministers governed Canada for almost third of the last century. I would suggest that in Canada, at least, the image problems you highlighted exist more in theory than in fact.

Besides Pierre Trudeau, the unmarried PMs were in the 1920s-1940s (King and Bennett). I would suggest during those times the Canadian public was more concerned with crisis and war than whether their PM had the right values.

 

[ARMY_101]

101, do you think that would apply as much today after a half century or so of social engineering has made the traditional family almost...passe'?
It seems to me that being a "first (insert your new and improved demographic of choice here)" is all the rage these days.
And the major voting bloc that ordinarily would lean towards the stable, traditional family man (or woman); the older generation - is now filling up with people who grew up in the sixties and seventies and who started all this crap.

The major voting bloc IS the people who grew up in the 1960s and 70s. The highest turnout rates are seen in men between the ages of 55 and 74. This is also, not coincidentally, the bloc most likely to vote conservative: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/part/estim/41ge&document=report41&lang=e.

Besides that, the Canadian public doesn't elect the Conservative leader,  the Conservative Party of Canada does.  Do you think the party standing for family values and marriage would elect a leader who has neither?

 

[dapaterson]

Besides that, the Canadian public doesn't elect the Conservative leader,  the Conservative Party of Canada does.  Do you think the party standing for family values and marriage would elect a leader who has neither?

They would elect a single, bald, bearded, one-legged, one-eyed pervert in a thong if they thought he would get elected.  As would any party - ideological purity is for the Ed Broadbent NDP; political parties are all about power.

 

[Bass ackwards]

The major voting bloc IS the people who grew up in the 1960s and 70s. The highest turnout rates are seen in men between the ages of 55 and 74. This is also, not coincidentally, the bloc most likely to vote conservative: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/part/estim/41ge&document=report41&lang=e.

Besides that, the Canadian public doesn't elect the Conservative leader,  the Conservative Party of Canada does.  Do you think the party standing for family values and marriage would elect a leader who has neither?

That's what I was getting with regards to the largest voting bloc. It is my belief (and I hope I'm wrong) that we will see more and more of a trend towards the left in older voters as time progresses.

You have a good point about the CPC not electing a single or childless man or woman although I would argue that the absence of a family is by no means proof of the absence of conservative values.
I want my leader to have those values but I also want them to be capable and most of all -I want them to be someone that a majority of Canadians will be happy to see in office.
Ozzie Nelson's no good to me as the head of the CPC if his job consists solely of badgering Prime Minister Trudeau (or Mulcair or -shudder- May) from the opposition bench.

 

[Bass ackwards]

They would elect a single, bald, bearded, one-legged, one-eyed pervert in a thong if they thought he would get elected. 

Great! When do I start? 

 

[Monsoon]

Besides Pierre Trudeau, the unmarried PMs were in the 1920s-1940s (King and Bennett). I would suggest during those times the Canadian public was more concerned with crisis and war than whether their PM had the right values.

To believe that, I would have to accept that the voters of the 1920s (King's first election) were primarily concerned with "crisis and war" (which?), and that Pierre Trudeau was for some reason unique enough for the normal rules you assert to not matter. That's an awful lot of hand-waving.

And then there's Bowell (1894-1896)... I'm not saying that being single couldn't be used against a candidate for PM, I'm just saying that in Canada there's a pretty long history of that line of attack not succeeding.

 

[cupper]

Very few Prime Ministers of Canada and no President of the United States has ever held office while not being married. Most PMs and Presidents have been married, or at least widowed, while they held office.

Go back and recheck your reference. James Buchanan was a bachelor during his presidency.

 

[CougarKing]

Is this Andy Radia just pulling things out of his a** with his usual commentary or does he have a point this time? I disagree with Radia's assessment that Mackay should leave.

link

No more jets or tanks: it’s time for Defence Minister Peter MacKay to retire from politics
By Andy Radia

It's time for Peter MacKay to call it quits.

On Wednesday, Postmedia News became the latest media outlet to speculate that maybe, potentially, perhaps the Defence Minister would be retiring from politics in the near future.

After all, they said, both MacKay's long-time chief of staff and communications director recently quit, he's had some problems with his portfolio and he's a new papa.

Will MacKay actually leave? That remains to be seen.

Should he? Absolutely yes!

MacKay was once seen as a rising star in Ottawa — some even predicted that he would, one day, replace Stephen Harper as the leader of the Conservative Party.

But, over the past couple of years, MacKay's stock has dropped substantially after a series of gaffes and blunders as defence minister.

He's been forced to defend himself over a 10 minute trip on a search-and-rescue helicopter in July 2010. The helicopter picked up MacKay from his personal fishing trip in central Newfoundland at a cost to taxpayers of $32,000.

In 2011 , reports surfaced that MacKay incurred pricey hotel tabs during conference stays in Europe, which saw one bill reach $1,452 per night.

He's also been ridiculed for the F-35 boondoggle and other military procurement nightmares.

Earlier this week, the Canadian Press reported that "civilian staff numbers at National Defence grew by almost 30 per cent over six years, despite budget cuts and warnings the military has too much 'tail and not enough teeth.'"

And, on Thursday, MacKay was involved in a photo-op to 'deliver' Canada's first new CH-147F Chinook transport helicopter. That is good news but the process was marred with controversy. The NDP put out a statement claiming the helicopters are five years late and millions over budget while CBC reminds us that, in 2010, Auditor General Sheila Fraser complained that National Defence "underestimated and understated" the complexity of the contracts for the Chinook.

Certainly defence is a difficult portfolio, but overall MacKay has proven that he's not up for the challenge.

Right-leaning political consultant Gerry Nicholls contends that MacKay doesn't have much of a future in the Conservative Party.

"If MacKay is interested in career advancement, he’d be wise to leave federal politics," he told Yahoo! Canada News.

"His infamous “Orchard deal”, his seeming incompetence in dealing with the F-35 jet controversy; his resolute opposition to allowing “one member one vote” for Conservative leadership contests, have soured him with large elements of the party’s base.

"In other words, as far as Conservative politics goes, MacKay has no place but down or out."

For his benefit, MacKay could probably make a lot more money in the private sector.

And if he still wants to be leader of the Conservatives one day — maybe stepping a way for a couple years would be the smartest thing for him to do.
Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien took a so-called 'strategic retreat' from politics in 1986 and only returned in 1990 to take the over the Liberal leadership.

If MacKay — a very likable and intelligent guy — left politics he could spend some time with the new wife and baby, get some real world experience, become a part-time commentator and maybe regain the respect of the Canadian public.

How does that old saying go: Absence makes the heart grow fonder?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Is this Andy Radia just pulling things out of his a** with his usual commentary or does he have a point this time? I disagree with Radia's assessment that Mackay should leave.

link

See, also, this.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Just because it's a slow news day week season, Liberal insider Warren Kinsella pours a little gasoline on the CPC leadership fire with this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Sun, about why Prime Minister Harper should resign before the 2015 general election:

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/06/28/why-harper-will-quit-while-hes-ahead

Why Harper will quit while he’s ahead

BY WARREN KINSELLA, QMI AGENCY

FIRST POSTED: MONDAY, JULY 01, 2013

It’s (finally) summertime, when the political speculation is easy.

Heretofore, the subject that no longer seems as crazy as it once did: Will Stephen Harper quit before the next federal election in October 2015?

There are plenty of reasons why he shouldn’t, or why he won’t.

But there are 10 very good reasons why he just might, too. Here they be:

    1. Ten years is a long time: By the time the next election takes place, Harper will have been in power for nearly a decade. Very few last that long, and those who overstay their welcome inevitably end up regretting
        their decision. After that much time has gone by, voters start to get sick of your face.

    2. He could lose. As pollsters have been saying for months, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is the real deal. By now, it is clear that his popularity is no passing fad. For the first time, Harper needs to consider the
        possibility that he could to lose to someone he clearly considers his inferior. He doesn’t want to do that.

    3. His party is getting restless. As Alberta Wildrose supporter Rod Love once observed: “When the water dries up, the animals begin to look at each other differently.” So too in politics. Harper’s backbench is no
        longer afraid of him, and rebelling. His PMO is heartily detested throughout the Conservative hinterland. To many Conservatives, Harper is being quietly regarded as a liability, and not an asset.

    4. Leadership shenanigans abound: Jason Kenney has been running a leadership campaign for months; Peter MacKay is warning he will quit the party if he doesn’t get his way on leadership selection rules. Harper,
        mindful of what Jean Chretien endured, may be persuaded to choose discretion over valour.

    5. He is not a wealthy man: Harper and his wife own their Calgary home, but not much else. And, as Calgary Conservative legend Harvie Andre once queried: “Why is it more profitable to know Harvie Andre than to
        be Harvie Andre?” Harper, knowing this, may decide he needs to build up a retirement nest egg while he still can.

    6. He’s a young man: Not even 60, Harper has many prime earning years ahead of him — as a corporate rainmaker, as a member of lucrative boards, as the giver of big-ticket speeches. Why wait until he can’t enjoy
        the fruits of his labours? Why not go while the getting’s good?

    7. Everything starts to look the same: After 10 years in the same job, new files aren’t as exciting or as challenging as they once were. Things develop a sameness to them; boredom and sloppiness start to set in.
        When that happens, it’s time to go.

    8. The Cons don’t stand for anything anymore: Even the party faithful are admitting the mission statement is long forgotten. They have become, in effect, what they came to Ottawa to destroy. Even Harper, a policy
        wonk and partisan, would be hard pressed to express his party’s raison d’etre. Canadians sure can’t.

    9. The job is done: Harper wanted to do three things. One, reduce the Liberal Party to a shadow of its former self. Two, unite conservatives as a single political force. Three, make conservativism a less radical
        political choice. He has indisputably done all three. His legacy is achieved.

    10. Him: Watch him. Listen to him. There is no joy in the job for him anymore. There is no challenge. He looks unhappy.

Will he go?

Who knows?

But no one should be surprised, now, if he does.

Most of them are not bad reasons. Numbers 5 and 6 are good, practical reasons to call it a day. Numbers 1, 4 and 9 are good political reasons to go, too. Numbers 7 and 10 are personal reasons but they could be compelling.

Numbers 2, 3 and 8 are nonsense, but, even so, there are seven good valid reasons to go.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Although I never factored him into the leadership sweepstakes, it is still a bit of a surprise, to me, to learn that Ted Menzies will not run again in 2015.

Ted Menzies is Minister of State for Finance and might, in my mind, have been in line for the Finance job IF Jim Flaherty moves on. Maybe his resignation signals that Flaherty will not move.

 

[a_majoor]

I think Kinsella may be right on the (7) reasons for Prime Minister Harper to retire, but he has the date wrong: Harper will leave office with the Young Dauphin's scalp on his belt.

The leadership race will begin after the 2015 election so the new leader is in place and has time to reshape the party for 2019.