Jean Charest is pondering a bid for the leadership of the Conservative Party. Winning the leadership wouldn't be easy. Chantal Hebert writes:
Over the past few days, Charest has not so much looked for advice as to the wisdom of throwing his hat in the ring as started to make a case for why he is the leader Conservatives need to win.
Someone else with the same high-profile track record would not leave what has been a successful transition to the private sector without a reasonably certain prospect of victory.
His big problem is that the party has changed since the time he spent on its benches:
There would be no coronation and the campaign would not be a bed of roses.
At this juncture, Charest has a surplus of have-been fans and a deficit of up-and-comers streetwise as to the current lay of the Conservative land.
It speaks to that transformation that the former premier needs Scheer’s Quebec lieutenant Alain Rayes in his corner more than he needs Brian Mulroney.
As premier, Charest advocated both for carbon pricing which he introduced in Quebec and for vigorous gun control. Neither stance would be an asset with the Conservative base. But even in a Liberal capacity he never renounced the central Conservative creed of provincial autonomy.
Few expect Stephen Harper’s clan to hand the Conservative party to a former Tory leader such as Charest on a silver platter.
The thinking until this week was that many Harperites were looking to [Rona] Ambrose as their lead choice to take the reins.
The latest developments may increase pressure on her to jump in.
A duel between Charest and Ambrose could deepen some of the existing fault lines within the Conservative movement.
It could turn the campaign into a showdown between former Tories and former Reformers and between Quebec and the party’s Prairie base.
Who knows what will happen? But Charest has one distinct advantage over Ambrose. He's a native son. And, in Quebec, that's a distinct advantage -- regardless of what party you represent.
Image: Macleans
4 comments:
According to an article on Charest in yesterday's La Presse, Harper is looking for a leader who satisfies three requirements: bilingual, progressive stance on moral issues, and federalist.
Charest fits the bill, but Ambrose does not. While Ambrose speaks good Portuguese and Spanish, her French is not up to par. If selected as leader, she would be the third in an unbroken line of Con leaders from the Prairies. She would be hard-pressed to make any headway in Quebec, although she may be able to make gains in Ontario.
I think neither Ambrose not Charest will be acceptable to the party base. They're both Red Tories, which the media love but the base hate. Today's Con party is not your father's PC party, despite the fairy tales the media like to spin.
Cap
You're right, Cap. Today's Conservative Party is actually Ernest Mannning's party. Charest probably would have a tough time with the party's base.
!?
@cap: What does Harper mean by a "progressive stance on moral issues"?
Peter McKay has started a family: Would he sacrifice the kids for a noother shot at the leadership?
It really is strange to hear Harper use the word "progressive," !?. After all, he removed that word from his party's name.
Post a Comment