Enduring appeal of the printed word
The popularity of e-books seems to have plateaued, writes Andrew Cohen,
If the Ontario Progressive Conservatives are trying to convince the public they are not fit to govern, they are doing a good job of it.
For no particularly good reason, sections of the party seem determined to kneecap its leader, Tim Hudak. There is no serious prospect of removing him, nor have more than a handful of party members come out openly for a leadership review, just 18 months after the last. Such a review would in any case require a change in the party rules, making it doubly unlikely.
Yet the murmurings of discontent continue, egged on by a couple of failed former leadership rivals and others who ought to know better, under a mask of concern for party democracy or even — such tenderness — the leader’s own interests. It would be hard to find an example of more feckless and irresponsible behaviour.
This is not an endorsement of the divine right of leaders. If the party were genuinely opposed to Hudak’s leadership — not vaguely dissatisfied, or idly hoping for something more, but convinced his removal was an urgent practical necessity — that would of course be its prerogative. Such is not the case, and even if it were, would still require some sort of coherent rationale, if the public were not to be left with the impression of a party of Borgias.
There are circumstances that would justify such desperation: if the party were trailing badly in the polls; if the leader were demonstrably incompetent; if there were a clearly superior alternative; and if there were ample time to organize his removal and replacement before the next election.
None of these conditions apply. The party is first or at worst a close second in the polls. Hudak has a solid grasp of policy and is an effective, if uninspiring communicator. There is no obvious leader in waiting ready to take his place. And an election, given the Liberals’ precarious minority, could happen at any time.
So Hudak cannot be replaced. None but a small minority want to replace him. And no obvious good would be achieved by replacing him. Why are we even discussing this?
Because, the dissidents complain, of the party’s disappointing performance in the recent by-elections, in which it won but one of five seats. Yes, yes, what a calamity that was. Never mind that the party won its first seat in Toronto since 1999, or that it finished no worse than second in any seat. Consider, rather, the total vote for each party across the five seats, all of them previously Liberal-held.
With about 35 per cent of the vote, the Tories finished nearly five percentage points ahead of their nearest rivals, the Liberals. More to the point, the Liberals and NDPs finished with roughly equal numbers of votes. If the same pattern were repeated in a general election, the Tories would stand a very good chance of victory. No, it wasn’t a ringing endorsement, but it was hardly the disaster Hudak’s critics have been painting it as.
Hudak’s record is hardly unblemished. He threw away a 15-point lead in the last provincial election, soft-pedalling substantive differences with the governing Liberals in favour of a grab-bag of silly wedge issues. Worse, he came across as a phoney, a perception that lingers: He continues to trail his party in the polls.
But Hudak has clearly learned from his mistakes. His performance since that defeat has been solid, beginning with a note-perfect speech to the party convention afterwards that saved his leadership. He has rallied his caucus behind a set of bold policy proposals that have served to sharply differentiate the Conservatives from the Liberals and the NDP. If he still seems too glib at times, he at least sounds like he believes what he is saying. When the campaign starts, and the public starts paying close attention again, Hudak’s standing might well improve.
That at any rate seems a bet worth making. Even so, Hudak has plainly staked his all on defining the next election as a battle of policy, rather than personalities. That carries its own risks. Moderates might argue the party has swung too far to the right, though they have the burden then of explaining the failed leaderships of Ernie Eves and John Tory, moderates to their core.
But standard-bearers of the party right, such as the social conservative Frank Klees or the populist-libertarian Randy Hillier, have no business complaining. That it is precisely they who have been providing oxygen to the malcontents suggests they are either wholly incapable of governing their tongues or harbour undimmed personal leadership aspirations.
But as they cannot replace Hudak before the election, they can only hope to replace him after. And since he would hardly be likely to step down after a win, their chances must lie in the party’s defeat. If that’s their game, as I say, they have every prospect of success, though the party might not be too anxious to reward them for their efforts.