Having brought Reform so far, its leader may now be its biggest handicap

By ANDREW COYNE

f he were to fall under the proverbial bus tomorrow, Preston Manning could count on being remembered as one of the most successful leaders in Canadian political history. To have built a political party from scratch into the Official Opposition within a decade, to have had such a profound influence in the national debate on everything from the constitution to the federal debt: these are real and lasting accomplishments. But Manning wants more. His ambition has always been to form a broad-based national party, with no necessary ideological underpinnings beyond an almost mystical faith in populism--"the common sense of the common people"--that would one day carry Reform to power.

Manning stands closer than ever to his goal--with, poignantly, his own leadership as perhaps the main obstacle remaining. For the irony is that Manning, the man who built Reform, is today its biggest liability.

The opportunity and the impasse are bound up in the question of what links Reform should have with the Progressive Conservatives, from whose disillusioned supporters Reform was born and whose lingering appeal has stymied Reform ever since. Jean Charest's departure as Tory leader removes a significant source of opposition to closer ties between the two parties. Ralph Klein's reluctance to replace him extinguishes another.

All that leaves the Tories in a painfully exposed position, less a body without a head than a head without a body. Still shell-shocked from the catastrophe of the 1993 election, the party's centrist establishment has grown increasingly disconnected from the grass-roots membership, many of whom would be only too happy to see some sort of reunion with their estranged Reform cousins.

Yet outright merger looks the least likely option. In the unlikely event of a new Conservative leader sympathetic to the idea, the Red Tory faction of the party would probably secede, either to form its own party or to join the Liberals --or even the New Democrats. So Reform could under those circumstances claim title to the Conservative name, and perhaps half its supporters. No Tory leader, however, would embrace a merger if it meant simply enlisting as one of Manning's foot soldiers. He (or she) would demand a significant share of power in the united party. This--and it's the heart of the problem--is something Manning has shown no sign of being willing to accommodate.

And why should he, if he can accomplish much the same thing on the ground? Rather than a corporate merger, a Reform-Tory alliance could well take the form of a creeping takeover, as right-leaning Conservative voters desert the party en masse--especially with the advent of a Red Tory leader. The Tories would be reduced to a pinkish, eastern rump. Manning evidently has something like this in mind: witness his call, in the wake of Charest's departure, for a "united alternative" to the Liberals--which, it seems, could take any form so long as it kept Reform's name and policies.

But is this enough? Attracting Conservative voters into the fold is an issue only in Ontario: there aren't many Tories left in the west, while in Quebec and Atlantic Canada the Reform brand name is too toxic. And even if every Ontario Conservative voted Reform, it wouldn't break the Liberal stranglehold on the province.

It isn't Reform's policies that make it unelectable: after all, the Grits did well enough with them. Nor should it be assumed that Reform just doesn't sell in Ontario: Official Opposition status can do wonders for a party's credibility. But if the party wants to broaden its base, pulling in not only Conservatives but also right-leaning Liberals, it has to begin to draw some bigger names to its side. Some star candidates might be found among the four Conservative provincial governments, especially the Harris Tories in Ontario, who had little use for the federal party when Charest was leader and have even less now. Ontario transportation minister Tony Clement would have crossover appeal, as would former Alberta treasurer Jim Dining. Both are adept at making radical, Reform-style policies sound mainstream. But they are unlikely to jump while Reform remains so tightly in Manning's grip.

A leadership race would be the obvious vehicle for a rassemblement of the right; an Ontario-based leader, in particular, might be the last piece of the puzzle Reform needs to one day form a government--on its own, or at least as the senior partner in a coalition with Quebec and Atlantic Tories. Neither is possible until Manning goes.

This probably explains why Manning was so quick to talk up a merger himself. By getting out in front of the parade, he hopes to control its route. No one else but Manning, with his shrewd strategic insight and remarkable communications skills, could have brought Reform this far. But it may be someone other than Manning who will have to take it to the next level.

Andrew Coyne, based in Toronto, is a national-affairs columnist with Southam News.