What really boggles my mind is that Tory – who worked for Bill Davis – didn’t get that the religious school issue would open up persistent divisions in Ontario. The same rural conservatives that stayed home in 1985 over Catholic schools (even when Frank Miller, one of their own, led the party) don’t like paying for the schooling of people that aren’t them.

Unfortunately, the state Ontario is in demands more than a counter-revolution. Our main industry is failing fast. We don’t need to go back to 2003, we need to go forward to 2011. Instead of picking winners (McGuinty’s economic approach), the Tory alternative should be creating an environment conducive to the emergence of new industries to replace the dying manufacturing sector. I should think that means lower corporate taxes, deficit reduction, and a shift in post-secondary strategy from tuition subsidization to encouraging leadership in research. Silicon valley or Detroit are, or have been leading industry clusters at some point in history. That didn’t happen because a beneficient state threw money at them. It happened because each had the right institutions at the right time. Creating an environment conducive to economic growth is something the Tories can absolutely do. The trouble is that such a message may get drowned out by cries for short-term “stimulus” solutions that only create more problems in the long run by propping up failed industries.

Tory thought he was getting a two-for-one there – support from the simplistically appeased social conservatives, as well as applause from the centre-left for taking on a discriminatory current state of affairs slammed by the UN. Funny how that worked out.

Re: the numbers, I don’t buy your argument that PC voters stayed home, because turnout would naturally be down for a by-election, even a high-profile one. Seems to me that instead Liberal voters flocked to the polls, or the undecideds went Liberal. I wouldn’t take that as a yearning for Harrisism. Besides, wasn’t the 2007 debacle the direct result of the PCs’ bowing to red-meat social conservatism on schooling?

What I make of that is not that turnout was equally depressed across the board for all parties’ supporters, but was disproportionately affecting the PC vote; something like eight to nine thousand former PC voters simply didn’t show up. Do you really think Tory’s failure to close the deal with that bloc was because he wasn’t far enough left?

I think Tory probably would have made a very good mayor of Toronto (and I’m not a Miller-basher either, I like Miller) but your “damaged goods” line is the salient point. As I implied, I really quite like Tory as a person, and I think he’s an intelligent and worthy public servant, but the voters of Toronto have already rejected him once, and not to be harsh, but pretty much everything he’s touched since then has turned to mud. Even if one feels that Miller is unpopular, bound to be dumped, and too “extreme” (which, frankly, the people of Toronto – who actually make the decision – by and large DON’T) Tory’s image is just too far gone to be rehabilitated at this point.

It’s not entirely “fair”, and he deserves better, but I’m afraid Tory’s name politically is now synonymous with “loser”, and to an extent to which I don’t think any politician could recover.

Look at the results from the by-election. The Liberal candidate didn’t win dramatically more votes than the 2007 election; the PC vote simply stayed home in large numbers. I somehow doubt they’d have been more inspired to turn out if Tory had just a little more squishy Toronto progressivism to him.

It’s always been my fantasy (muted, of course) that the Toronto law firm “Torys” (formerly “Tory & Tory,” IIRC) would both revert to its former name and somehow ensure that one partner’s son might marry the daughter of a man named Moore; the grandchild could then be taken on as a partner and you’d have “Tory, Tory, and Moore-Tory.”

First, she should remember that this conservative party has Progressive in its name. She should highlight that.

Next, she should make a very public showing of removing the back-room, wedge issue nutbars currently running things behind the scenes of that party.

After those two (relatively simple) things are done, she can concentrate on providing alternatives to Dalton McGuinty’s ideas (or lack thereof).

No issues designed to divide Ontarians. No ‘puffin-poop’ type partisan attacks. Treat the job like its serious–propose sound yet compassionate fiscal policies, force McGuinty to raise his game or get out of the way.

Oh yeah, and realize that sometimes a convenient name, well, isn’t always that convenient.

Hypothesis: Surely there will be more Dippers here than Ontario
Result: No Dippers in Manitoba!
Discussion: Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is at least one Libby west of the Ontario-Manitoba border, and there is a Con living in Winnipeg.

Remember, this is the guy who ok’ed the “Is this a Prime Minister?” ads for Kim Campbell in 1993.

And I believe the Liberal member from Scarborough Centre (current Minister of Aboriginal Affairs) ought to succeed Dalton McGuinty as Premier. Brad Duguid can do no wrong.

And who knows? Maybe heartless fiscal conservatism may start looking palatable to a majority again, by 2011.

Like most Conservatives, methinks.

An ideologically driven opposition is still better than no opposition at all.

Does this mean Deficit Jim quits Federal politics to take the job? I hope so!

I’ll bet McGuinty was tossing in his sleep last night….