Part 3 of our look at what happened to Reform Canada and the dangers we must avoid in Reform UK
In the late 1990’s Reform Canada had concluded that to win, they must somehow bring the Tory membership onboard. Unless they could unite the right, the split vote would always allow the Liberals to win. The preceding articles charted the progress of Reform in establishing themselves in the constitutional campaign, challenging and overtaking the Tories (known as the Progressive Conservatives), and the attempts of the establishment to smear them with an extreme-right label. This article examines how Reform attempted to work with the Tories in Canada to unite the right. It was a difficult process given that the Tory leadership were not supportive of the idea.
First step to creating a unified right – the United Alternative process
In 1998 the long-term leader of Reform, Preston Manning reached out to the membership of the Progressive Conservatives suggesting they become part of a new Party. These ‘Unite the Right’ initiatives became part of a United Alternative framework of localised meetings to facilitate joint meetings and discussions between Reform and Tory Party members. These were opposed by the Tory Party parliamentary leadership. Some Reform Party members, including leading-light Stephen Harper (who would become an important figure) remained unconvinced about a hook-up. Harper worried that a new party would be a soft-centre miss-mash. He was not against a new party as such but stressed it must be “distinctly conservative – not just a party that seeks to replace Liberals.”
Manning and the Reform leadership outlined four main planks for United Alternative initiative meetings to discuss as the basis around which a new party could coalesce.
1. The need for fiscal reforms, such as cutting taxes and a new law requiring balanced budgets.
2. A commitment to social responsibility, such as a promise to give families with a stay-at-home parent a tax break equal to the deduction for child-care expenses and the welfare of seniors.
3. Changes to make government more directly accountable to citizens, possibly by increasing the power of individual MPs.
4. A commitment to devolve power away from central government to the provinces and thereby stymy demands for separatism.
Manning then called a national United Alternative ‘convention’ where delegates (composed of members from both Reform and Tory associations) could thrash out policy positions. Reform members would then be balloted on whether to create a new party based on the policy outcomes. Manning was confident Reform members would approve and so they did. The proposal required that a majority of Reform members voted ‘Yes’ and that at least 6 of the 10 regional Reform organisations voted Yes. In the event a majority of members voted Yes overall and Yes carried the vote in 8 of the 10 regions.
Whilst Manning enjoyed success in convincing individual Progressive Conservative members and local associations to accept and welcome a new Party creation, there was huge resistance from the Progressive Conservative Party’s leadership and national organisation. The response of one Tory MP summed up the attitude towards Manning, “I find it ironic that the individual who split the right now decides the right should come together again.” However much to the annoyance of the Tory Party leadership, many actual members of local associations were so inclined to support the creation of a new party.
Manning accepted he would have to move on and create the Party without the support of the Tory leadership and hope that it would have sufficient momentum to overwhelm the Progressive Conservative rump.”Some of the Conservatives think we Reformers destroyed their party in the West, which I guess is to some degree true,” he says. “Some of the old diehards will never forgive us for that.” He insisted, Reform was making “a genuine offer and an invitation.”
A new Party formed
After further discussions a new Party was formed without the endorsement of the Tory national organisation. It was called the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance (commonly known as the Canadian Alliance). Manning had been particularly successful in attracting so-called ‘Blue Conservatives’ that is to say those Tories supporting a more economically liberal stance including smaller government and tax cuts. These right-wing Tories were not as socially conservative as the prairie belt Reformers of Alberta who were numerically very strong in the new Party.
The first task of the new party was to elect a new leader. Manning and the leadership generally had expected him to be elected easily. He had enjoyed widespread support in Reform for many years. Not only was he the Reform Party’s founder, but he was very much its national face. His own Christian record and his previous role as a pastor resonated with many in the Canadian west. However, Manning had been very circumspect about letting his personal views leak into the public arena, regarding many of his personally conservative religious views as private matters. So, whilst he had steadfastly promoted traditional family values he had tended to focus on fiscal responsibility and constitutional matters to ensure broad support in metropolitan Canada..
A disastrous change of leader?
Perhaps the more socially conservative Reform members of the new party thought Manning would be even more drawn towards fiscal conservatism. So ironically, it was not the new Party’s ex-Tory intake that ousted Manning when it came to the vote, but Manning’s own Reformers. For whatever reason, they decided the Party might do better with a fresh face and a strong, openly evangelical Christian one at that. Manning’s nemesis was an ex-Progressive Conservative but from the right. Stockwell Day was a former pastor in a bible-bashing evangelical Church with a long personal history of socially conservative views. In hindsight it was clearly foolish move. At a stroke the new Party had removed a tried a trusted leader with a strong national profile and substituted an individual who, whilst appealing to their own socially conservative views, might not go down well in Eastern Canada. And it was in Eastern Canada where the new Party (Canadian Alliance) had to win seats to form a government.
It’s difficult to find a British analogy in terms of British public figures but try to imagine Nigel Farage successfully bringing on board a tranche of right-wing Tories, only to find Reform Party members pick an obscure evangelical bible basher from Essex as the new leader. The lesson here is best stick with what you know or it could be somewhat damaging as indeed it was for the Canadian Alliance when they were faced with an election within a few months.
Whilst Manning enjoyed success in convincing individual Progressive Conservative members and local associations to accept and welcome a new Party creation, there was huge resistance from the Progressive Conservative Party’s leadership and national organisation. The response of one Tory MP summed up the attitude towards Manning, “I find it ironic that the individual who split the right now decides the right should come together again.” However much to the annoyance of the Tory Party leadership, many actual members of local associations were so inclined to support the creation of a new party.
Manning accepted he would have to move on and create the Party without the support of the Tory leadership and hope that it would have sufficient momentum to overwhelm the Progressive Conservative rump.”Some of the Conservatives think we Reformers destroyed their party in the West, which I guess is to some degree true,” he says. “Some of the old diehards will never forgive us for that.” He insisted, Reform was making “a genuine offer and an invitation.”
A new Party formed
After further discussions a new Party was formed without the endorsement of the Tory national organisation. It was called the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance (commonly known as the Canadian Alliance). Manning had been particularly successful in attracting so-called ‘Blue Conservatives’ that is to say those Tories supporting a more economically liberal stance including smaller government and tax cuts. These right-wing Tories were not as socially conservative as the prairie belt Reformers of Alberta who were numerically very strong in the new Party.
The first task of the new party was to elect a new leader. Manning and the leadership generally had expected him to be elected easily. He had enjoyed widespread support in Reform for many years. Not only was he the Reform Party’s founder, but he was very much its national face. His own Christian record and his previous role as a pastor resonated with many in the Canadian west. However, Manning had been very circumspect about letting his personal views leak into the public arena, regarding many of his personally conservative religious views as private matters. So, whilst he had steadfastly promoted traditional family values he had tended to focus on fiscal responsibility and constitutional matters to ensure broad support in metropolitan Canada.
Perhaps the more socially conservative Reform members of the new party thought Manning would be even more drawn towards fiscal conservatism. So ironically, it was not the new Party’s ex-Tory intake that ousted Manning when it came to the vote, but Manning’s own Reformers. For whatever reason, they decided the Party might do better with a fresh face and a strong, openly evangelical Christian one at that. Manning’s nemesis was an ex-Progressive Conservative but from the right. Stockwell Day was a former pastor in a bible-bashing evangelical Church with a long personal history of socially conservative views.
In hindsight it was clearly foolish move. At a stroke the new Party had removed a tried a trusted leader with a strong national profile and substituted an individual who, whilst appealing to their own socially conservative views, might not go down well in Eastern Canada. And it was in Eastern Canada where the new Party (Canadian Alliance) had to win seats to form a government.
It’s difficult to find a British analogy in terms of British public figures but try to imagine Nigel Farage successfully bringing on board a tranche of right-wing Tories, only to find Reform Party members pick an obscure evangelical bible basher from Essex as the new leader. The lesson here is best stick with what you know or it could be somewhat damaging as indeed it was for the Canadian Alliance when they were faced with an election within a few months.
The 2000 Election – the right ridiculed and another Liberal victory
No sooner than Stockton Day had assumed the leadership of Canadian Alliance, a General Election was called. As could be expected the new Party leader was subjected to intense scrutiny. Almost immediately Day’s personal beliefs came under scrutiny and with it came relentless mockery. Past pronouncements on homosexuality, abortion, single mothers and same sex marriage were highlighted.
The media had great fun with Day’s views on ‘young Earth’ creationism. This religious theory compressed earth’s history to just six thousand years thereby repudiating the established history of the earth and evolution. By necessity ‘young Earth’ required its adherents to believe that dinosaurs and mankind had coexisted rather than evolving completely separately in different timelines.
Since the popular Flintstones cartoons featured Fred and Wilma living alongside dinosaurs, a leading Liberal Party strategist appeared on a TV election programme and to much hilarity waved a Flintstone Barney Doll around and then suggested Day and the Conservative Alliance thought the Flintstones was a documentary. This became a running theme for the election.
Journalists dubbed the Canadian Alliance campaign bus Prayer Force One and hummed the Flintstones theme tune when Day would board. Despite all Day’s best efforts to focus coverage on his main talking points; lower taxes, parliamentary reform, increased health funding, the damage was done. It was made all the worse by the constant presence of evangelical social conservatives turning up at Conservative Alliance meetings expressing the hope Day would grant a national referendum on abortion. It was not the image the Party was looking for. As the election progressed and the pressures grew, Day’s inexperience as a campaigner began to show.
A disappointing result
Suffice to say the framing of the Canadian Alliance as reactionary Christian fundamentalists and bigots damaged the party’s standing and proved disastrous in the eastern provinces. Their chance to make inroads and appeal to Progressive Conservative voters and thereby defeat the Liberals was destroyed. There was a modicum of success when the votes were counted.
There were now 66 Canadian Alliance MP elected on 25.49% of the vote, an increase of just 6 seats and they became the official opposition. But the bad news was the new Party won only two seats in Ontario and they had failed to finish off the Progressive Conservatives who had stubbornly refused to join then. The Progressive Conservatives managed to increase their tally to 12 seats up from 2 on 12.19% of the vote.
Bitterly disappointed with the result, the Canadian Alliance descended into factionalism. Thirteen Canadian Alliance MP’s who lost confidence in Day’s leadership and were either pushed out or resigned. Some formed their own bloc attached to the Progressive Conservatives. Despite this welcome addition to their ranks, the Progressive Conservatives were well aware they had failed to make a significant comeback but still refused talks of a merger. This stance was reaffirmed by a new Progressive Conservative Leader, Joe Clark who rejected any attempts to unite the right. Canada seemed doomed to perpetual Liberal Party Governments. That was to change with a move against Day and the election of a new leader from the old Reform Party to lead the Canadian Alliance which is covered in Part 5.
