Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
What do you see for the future of the Wildrose? That's a serious question. I look at the people that are presumably waiting in the wings for the leadership and there isn't a lot compelling there. Smith was rolling along pretty well, until Prentice came in, but failed to capitalise. Now she says she will resign if they don't win in 2016. That looks like a more daunting task today than it was a couple weeks ago when she made that announcement. It reminds me of Ralph Klein announcing that he would retire a few years down the road, and people were less than impressed to stay on behind him.
|
Honestly I don't think the Wildrose has much of a chance of forming government in the next election because of Prentice. Like you I don't see a natural evolution for the leader, but I think Smith's push to make the Wildrose a party focused on reduced spending and balanced budgets is what made them the official opposition in the first place.
The socially conservative element of the party has always wanted to be a stronger voice within (and outside?) the party, but the libertarian leaning Smith has always been able to bring into focus that any broad base of support for the Wildrose has to be found within a socially moderate agenda focused instead on the shared valus found within fiscal conservatism. This is where the Wildrose has made inroads.
I think Smith leaving would be a real loss for the party as a mainstream player. Even right now she struggles to present her preferred image of the party as socially moderate, and perhaps is a source of her willingness to move on.
If the party isn't able to move further away from social conservatism it will never form government. If it moves any further towards social conservatism it will likely not be a viable opposition party either, and that's the fear I would have with new leadership.