Debate analysis

I watched the Conservative leadership debate on CPAC this afternoon (well, actually, I watched about half and listened to the other half from another room). In case you're wondering how Canada's public broadcaster covered a debate between the three candidiates for Leader of the Opposition, Newsworld was showing Antiques Roadshow. Your tax dollars at work, folks.

I want to see Belinda Stronach run a strong campaign. I really do. But this debate confirmed what I've been saying from the start: she is simply not ready to take over the leadership of the Conservative Party. For most of the debate it felt like she was reading from a script, and it seemed like she was incapable of answering any question without muttering platitudes about "growing the economy". Yet the closest thing to an economic policy she revealed was some stuff about letting workers share profits and own shares in the companies for which they work - a program which has obviously worked very well for Magna, but is she going to introduce legislation making every company do it? (What party does she want to lead again?)

Clement and Harper seem pretty close on most policy issues, but I was thrilled to see Clement outline exactly what is wrong with the United Nations, heretofore a sacred cow among Canadian politicians - that even the most vile dictatorships have a say equal to democracies, and that democratic nations should be pushing for serious reform. That alone would make me lean toward supporting him, but I was also impressed by his aggressiveness - put him in a debate with Paul Martin, and I think he'd really have Martin on the ropes.

As I noted the other day, Stephen Harper might be leading in the polls, but his support is overwhelmingly concentrated among Alliance members, particularly in the West. The Conservatives are very vulnerable to accusations that the merger was simply an Alliance takeover, and Harper could have serious trouble shaking them off. Tony Clement will not carry such baggage.

It's funny - not too long ago I was mocking Clement for his lame webpage (now improved, mercifully), but right now I think he's my preferred candidiate for the leadership. Who says campaigns can't make a difference?

Update: one of my readers points out that Clement is opposed to gay marriage and legalization of marijuana, and that's a shame. But all three candidates are opposed to liberalizing marijuana laws, and only Stronach supports gay marriage. I might be with Belinda on that one, but that doesn't make her any more plausible a leader.

Another reader chides me for using "electability" as a reason for choosing Clement over Harper; if Harper would be the better leader, he writes, he should be elected regardless of how well he may do in an election. And I agree that it shouldn't be the sole reason for choosing or rejecting a candidate; really, the only thing Stronach has going for her is that she looks so "electable" on paper. But when you feel that two candidates are otherwise pretty close - as I feel about Harper and Clement - then it is something which should be taken into account.

Posted by damian at February 22, 2004 06:13 PM