Back to the core topic.
I don't think anyone should under estimate the 'Conservative' brand, even if it is struggling a bit right now.
Others wrote off the Federal Liberals (rather too soon, in hindsight).
I think that its important for the Liberals to face a serious competitor, be it from the right or the left; and if it can be both, so much the better.
But, clearly the Conservatives have no been in tune with a good chunk of urban Canada for some time.
I don't think it necessarily follows that they need to go all 'touchy-feely' or move holus bolus to the left to be electable in urban regions.
Mike Harris captured a noticeable chunk of the Toronto vote, whether I was in that percentage or not.
One part of that, was clearly minimizing the 'social conservative' aspect of the party.
Arguably, Harper did that in some ways, in so far as the party really ignored abortion, the death penalty and some other social issues throughout
his mandate.
However, particularly in the second term, there was a lot of 'red meat' to the base rhetorically, as well as with 'tough on crime' stuff, so much so,
it wore out some folks in the middle and centre-right who might have supported him previously.
I also think the confrontation with the Supreme Court, was a profound lack of judgement, as that institution has a much higher regard in the broad Canadian
public that does its U.S. counterpart.
***
Beyond that, and the need for some 'symbolic' gestures of inclusion (the party must look less white, less male, etc.)
There is a need for it to appeal to some of the best of what Conservatism can offer.
That means (to me) some strategic Libertarianism, ie. more consumer choice, less nanny-state etc. I think they moved on some of these files while in office, albeit it slowly (see pick n' pay cable TV)
But that sort of thing is a sore spot with many voters across the electoral spectrum; such that, if you don't seem too extreme otherwise, there are votes to be won on such things.
Likewise, Conservatism in its literal form (to conserve) tend to imply a slowing of the pace of change and placing some value on those things that are treasured. In a world of fast-paced change
and volatility there is room for a party suggest a slow down.
The key is realizing when certain change has already arrived. (broad acceptance of the gay community and related issues such as marriage, cultural pluralism etc.)
A fiscal emphasis from time to time that says something like 'lets do what we all support well, and stop doing new things till we have the existing ones right) is also not a bad offer.
For me, the Conservatives failures were many.
Cutting the HST instead of cutting income taxes for low-income and moderate income Canadians.
Doing the above before they were in real surplus, resulting in more debt that was necessary.
Taking anti-science positions on certain things that made no sense whatsoever.
Focusing on mandatory minimums, over crime prevention.
Needlessly provoking confrontation with various groups, particularly at a rhetorical level.
******
To succeed, they need a leader who allows them to reach out to new groups.
They need a few 'core' conservative principles (balanced budgets, lower net debt, a portion of surpluses, after debt reduction goes to tax reduction) etc.
Balanced by some key innovative ideas with strong evidence behind them.
Some of which must appeal across the political spectrum.
I'm not sure I see anyone currently committed to running who is likely to offer that.
So while I think the party has a future, barring some catastrophic blunders by Trudeau.......its a future that may be a bit further off, in terms of success, than they would like.
