Ontario Tories: Do you want to be angry or govern?
ELLIOTT, MULRONEY OFFER BEST ALTERNATIVE FOR ONTARIO VOTERS
An illuminating moment took place during the second debate for Ontario’s Progressive Conservative leadership.
Christine Elliott and Doug Ford were positioned next to one another on the stage. Their families have been friends for years; Elliott’s husband, former federal finance minister Jim Flaherty, served with Ford’s father in the government of former premier Mike Harris.
Though Elliott has consistently called for unity among candidates, arguing t he focus should be on defeating Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals, Ford unexpectedly unleashed an attack, accusing Elliott of flip-flopping on key issues and accepting a patronage appointment from the government.
Neither was true. The barrage, clearly pre- planned, was nasty and uncalled- for. It appeared to unsettle Elliott, who nonetheless responded without firing any of the retaliatory missiles she could have launched at Ford. Though Elliott says Ford later apologized, the moment served to delineate the difference between the two candidates, and — more importantly — the stark choice the PCs face as voting takes place this week.
As one of the candidates noted, it’s been almost 20 years since the once-dominant Tories won an election. It’s not as if they’ve been up against a juggernaut in that time. Neither Wynne nor her predecessor Dalton McGuinty attracted much love from Ontarians. Four times, under three different leaders, the PCs fumbled away winnable elections, with bad ideas, poor campaigns or faulty leadership. They came very close to another nailbiter under the leadership of Patrick Brown, whose sudden fall revealed how little support he had within the party itself.
Now party members have a choice between two sorts of leader. Elliott and Caroline Mulroney have pledged a determined, professional conservatism aimed at ending the costly, intrusive and often ineffective ideological forays of the big-spending Liberals. Ford and social conservative candidate Tanya Granic Allen are loud, brash and angry, skilfully channelling the populist displeasure of voters infuriated at the Liberal legacy.
While Ford and Granic Allen may satisfy an urge for righteous vengeance, PC members have to decide what they want more: the fun of attacking Liberals over the past, or a calibrated plan to oust them and rule in their place. Elliott and Mulroney have shown themselves to be intelligent, skilled and promising as candidates. Elliott is the most experienced, an advantage that has been evident as she maintained her composure under duress and persistently kept her focus on the governing Liberals rather than fellow Conservatives. When the most recent debate threatened to plunge into name- calling, it was Elliott who reminded the others that Liberals were the opponent, not one another.
Mulroney has obvious political skills and potential, but her inexperience has been evident, and she has appeared rattled and frustrated at times. It takes time to get accustomed to the barefaced nastiness of politics. Her lack of familiarity with the inner workings of the legislature and the many hidden corners of Ontario’s bloated and bureaucratic superstructure could prove a serious liability against as skilled and ruthless a practitioner as Wynne. Should the Tories win in June, she might benefit from time in a PC cabinet before she’s ready for the top job.
Granic Allen is a one-note instrument who manages to turn every issue into a diatribe about the evils of Patrick Brown. She knows how to command a stage and has handled herself remarkably well for a first- time candidate, but other than her obsessive dislike of Brown and fury over the Liberals’ sex education curriculum she offers little outside the cathar- tic effect of a primal scream. Her remedy for the windmills erected across much of rural Ontario in the name of alternative energy is to “rip them out” regardless of legal contracts, costly reimbursements or the impact on farmers who have come to rely on the income the leases generate. Her relentless onslaughts on the ousted leader bring to mind a parrot trained to squawk “Patrick Brown! Patrick Brown!” at every cue.
Of the two populist candidates, Ford is the more experienced, though PC members will have to decide how eager they are to replicate the Ford family’s often chaotic reign at Toronto’s city hall. The Ford campaign is an unapologetic echo of Donald Trump and his one- man presidential extravaganza. Ford, a millionaire born into a privileged family who inherited his father’s business, tours the province denouncing “elites,” assailing critics and offering simple slogans in response to complex problems. His assault on Elliott showed his willingness to risk a longstanding friendship for the opportunity to score political points. He demonstrates a Trumpian belligerence in the face of opposition, and an obliviousness to his own inconsistencies: he was in the midst of questioning Mulroney’s “commitment” when she noted that, until a month ago, he wanted to be mayor of Toronto. His solution to Ontario’s many challenges is straightforward: make him premier and he’ll figure it out.
Ford unquestionably has a strong base of support in parts of Toronto, an advantage he tried to leverage by urging the party to abandon its online voting process in favour of an old-fashioned convention with paper ballots. The switch would have benefited him over the others, making it easy for his local enthusiasts to attend while members in more distant communities faced obstacles of cost and convenience.
It has been argued that Elliott is a “two- time loser,” having sought the leadership twice before. It could as easily be said that the party has twice made the same mistake, first choosing Tim Hudak and then Patrick Brown over Elliott. Hudak blew two elections that were his to win. His peremptory promise to fire 100,000 civil servants in the midst of the 2014 election handed Wynne a majority even she didn’t expect. Brown’s victory was a surprise many PCs have regretted ever since.
The Tories have spent two decades trying to recreate the successes of the Harris years, and there remains a wing of the party convinced that a return to red-blooded “real Conservatism” is the key to victory. But Harris was an anomaly; Ontario has its share of right- wingers, but overall is not a hardline province. It’s moderate, middleof- the- road, a bit squishy and willing to go along to get along. The population is highly diverse: a fifth of the immigrants in Canada live in Toronto; almost half of the country’s new arrivals each year settle there. The party’s greatest years were those when it offered a big tent to all comers.
Every sounding indicates voters are eager to rid themselves of the Liberals, given a credible alternative. Mulroney and Elliott — but in particular Elliott — represent that opportunity. Choosing Ford is inviting a fifth straight disappointment, and any party that makes the same mistake five times doesn’t deserve to win.