Three questions to ask of the Conservative convention

Share

Politics Insider delivers premium analysis and access to Canada's policymakers and politicians. Visit the Politics Insider homepage for insight available only to subscribers.

As I've written in the past, a good way to look at any political initiative is to ask three questions: What are they trying to do? How well are they doing it? Should they be doing it in the first place? As the Conservative convention wraps up, let's look the event through the three-question lens.

What did they try to do? The party originally wanted to use the convention as a springboard to launch the back half of this majority government's mandate: trading with Europe, balancing the budget and advancing the latest tranche of the tough-on-crime agenda. But the Senate expenses scandal has overwhelmed all that.

The revised goal was to use the convention to reassure the Conservative base that the government remains on track, Stephen Harper is on top of the Senate situation, and that this, too, shall pass.

How well did they do it? Mostly, well. Delegates passed a raft of policy resolutions Saturday, many to the right of current government policy, giving comfort to those who see conservatism as the last, best hope for those who believe in individual liberty and smaller government, whatever the political imperatives of governing.

Mr. Harper used his convention speech to paint a picture of the Conservative Party as an insurgency fighting the entrenched interests of the Central Canadian elites. However fanciful the notion may be after almost eight years of national government, the word among delegates afterward was that Mr. Harper got the job done.

Should they have been doing it in the first place? This question is often the hardest to answer. Many observers – few of them committed conservatives – thought Mr. Harper should have used his convention speech to apologize for the bungles of the Senate imbroglio involving the expenses of senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau. An act of contrition, goes this theory, would have helped to put the scandal to bed, or at least convince uncommitted voters that Mr. Harper understood the anger out there.

Others thought he should go in the other direction, and announce a referendum on abolishing the Senate entirely, in an effort to cauterize the political fallout from the affair.

But apologizing, apart from not being in Mr. Harper's genetic makeup, is hardly the way to rally the base. And calling a referendum on Senate abolition before the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of the current reform legislation would be badly timed and contemptuous of the court.

From the Conservatives' own perspective, then, the convention rallied the base, gave the Prime Minister a platform for a never-surrender speech that he delivered effectively, and sent everyone home feeling that a corner might have been turned.

Whether it has, or whether a long, weary road of scandal lies ahead, is a fourth question for which there is no answer just yet.

John Ibbitson is the chief political writer in The Globe's Ottawa bureau.

Editor's note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly referred to a "referendum on abortion." In fact, it was supposed to say "referendum on Senate abolition." This online story has been corrected.