Hello Newman

Far be it for me to disagree with a respected historian like Peter C. Newman but…I’m going to disagree with Peter C. Newman.

In Saturday’s Globe and Mail, Newman explains his theory of how Liberals choose their leaders:

If history doesn't exactly repeat itself, it sets significant patterns, such as the astonishing fact that the carpetbagging Mr. Ignatieff, after an absence from Canada for 30 years, finds himself after the briefest of apprenticeships in contention for the country's top political post.

Curiously, this has been the rule, not the exception. All of the Liberal leaders who became prime minister during the six decades between the 1920s and 1980s were also carpetbaggers - in the sense that they wrested the leadership from the party's veteran worthies, who were shoved aside for the newcomers.

Newman goes on to explain how Liberal leaders – from King to Martin, have fit into this outsider mould. And, at first glance, he does have a certain point. Like Ignatieff, St. Laurent, Pearson, and Trudeau were all recruited into politics and none of them were what you would call "typical" politicians. And in the case of Trudeau, like King, Newman's characterization of them wrestling the crown away from the “party’s veteran worthies” is certainly apt.

However, St. Laurent and Pearson were about as establishment as you can get. St. Laurent had 7 years in Cabinet before winning the party’s leadership in 1948, while Pearson had a decade as a Cabinet Minister before being anointed a decade later. These were not newcomers on the scene – rather, they’d been groomed as leaders-in-waiting for years.

Where Newman’s theory really hits pot holes though, is in recent times. Although he admits that Dion was a break from the pattern, he takes great pains to portray Turner, Chretien, and Martin as outsiders due to their brief breaks outside of the party (or, in Martin’s case, outside of Cabinet) before taking on the leadership. Yet all three were the embodiment of “veteran worthies” – lifelong Liberals, forever viewed as the party dauphin, who had 50 years in Ottawa between them prior to winning their respective leadership races. A few years at a Toronto law firm or on the party backbenches doesn’t change that in the least.

I also question how distinctly "Liberal" this leadership philosophy is. Stephen Harper and Newman's buddy Brian Mulroney were political outsiders when they inherited the Tory crown, while Kim Campbell and Joe Clark had only been MPs for four years when they took over. Sifting through the dust-bin of Tory leaders, you’ll also find that party’s habit of selecting provincial politicians over established Ottawa veterans.

But let’s put all that aside, and let Newman explain why this strategy has been successful:

All this hocus-pocus has been political sorcery of the highest order because instead of having to defend their predecessors' records, each freshly minted leader could innocently protest, "Who, me? I wasn't even there ..."

Again, portraying Louis St. Laurent as an agent of change after the King years seems like a bit of a stretch. And, hell, when you’re in power for 22 consecutive years and are considered the natural governing party, defending your predecessor’s record isn’t that hard to do. Yes, Paul Martin did try the “I wasn’t even there” line a few times, but that didn’t turn out so hot for him, now did it?

So, what’s the moral of all this? Ignatieff may mark a bit of a return to the party’s habit of recruiting from outside of its own ranks, but there’s no “secret Liberal recipe” to finding a good leader.

The League of Below Average Prime Ministers Endorses Green Shift

Kinda:

The report calls for a $30-a-tonne price tag on emissions, and says a "staggering" investment in green technologies is required.

The document has been signed by four former prime ministers, Joe Clark and Kim Campbell, both Progressive Conservatives, and Liberals Paul Martin and John Turner.

[...]

The report stops short of endorsing the Liberals' Green Shift carbon plan, which would offset a tax on emissions with income tax cuts, but Roy said funds generated by an emissions tax must be redistributed to those who would be hit the hardest.

Biggest Election: It's 88

With 56% of the vote, the 1988 Federal Election has been crowned Canada's biggest by Calgary Grit readers, knocking off Tommy Douglas' 1944 Saskatchewan win in the final.

With a federal election about to start up, it was probably appropriate to look back at some of the big elections from the past. And there are certainly lessons all parties can learn from '88, as there are from all past elections.

Without a doubt, 1988 was Canada's most exciting election. There was a real policy debate, an unfolding national unity crisis, great ads, a mid-campaign coup attempt, an exhilarating debate, a real three-party race, and a see-saw campaign that was in doubt until the end. And, for better or worse, Mulroney's second term would shape Canadian politics for the next 20 years thanks to the Meech collapse, the Tory collapse, the rise of Reform and Bloc, free trade, and the GST. So I don't think this election won just because it was more familiar to voters (after all, my Greatest PM contest featured a Laurier-MacDonald final) - I think it truly is a deserving winner.

A big thanks to everyone who voted, and to John Duffy for seeding the elections. And now, the attention of this blog can turn squarely to the present and the next "big" election we're about to embark on. It certainly doesn't appear to have the makings of a historic one but, then again, the element of surprise is why a lot of the elections in this contest can truly be called "historic".


Final Vote
Provincial Final
Federal Final
Provincial Semis
Federal Semis
Provincial Quarters
Federal Quarters

The Federal Final

We now have our final four. On the federal side, a pair of Tory election wins will duke it out - 1988's free trade election is up against the 57/58 fall of the Liberal dynasty. On the provincial side of things, the 1976 Quebec election (a winner with 53% of the vote against 1960 Quebec) will take on the 1944 Saskatchewan election (blowing out 1943 Ontario with 84% of the vote).

Voting is now open on the federal final until 10 pm on Wednesday - next week a provincial champion will be crowned, and then the two will go head-to-head for the title of Canada's Biggest Election.


1957/58 (6) vs. 1988 (1)

Arguments For The Two Elections: Click Here

What If...1988: The problem with writting a good "what if" scenario for the 1988 election is that there are so many plausible outcomes. But let's look at the obvious one: what if the Tories had been reduced to a minority and, having won the referendum on free trade, the Liberals and NDP decided to form a coalition government. The NDP would have had major influence on Canada's economic and foreign policy, NAFTA would never have come into being, and the Meech debate would have taken a bizarre unpredictable twist.

A minority government would likely have set up another election in '90/'91 - on the heels of a Bob Rae win in Ontario could the NDP have formed government federally? Prime Minister Ed Broadbent anyone? Would the Bloc and Reform Party have ever gathered critical mass to become legitimate political players? If not, could the Tories have returned quickly to power and, if so, would it have been under Mulroney's leadership? It seems likely that Chretien would have eventually replaced Turner regardless, but with no second term to give Campbell and Charest cabinet experience, who would have been the heir apparent to Mulroney?

What If...1957: Given that the Liberals were widely expected to win the 1957 election, it's not hard to imagine the King/St.Laurent dynasty being extended. It seems likely that the Grits would not have made good on C.D. Howe's promise to "run St. Laurent stuffed", so that likely would have meant a Lester B. Pearson Prime Ministership three or four years earlier. So the real question is, would Pearson have made the same reforms he did in a minority with a majority or would he have have employed the same cautious, gradual progress the Liberals had become known for over their 22 years in power? I'd suspect the later.

So if '57 hadn't happened in '57, when would it have happened? The Liberal dynasty had to end at some point but one wonders how it would have without a Tory who could campaign like Dief. Another interesting question, related to the provincial side of the bracket, is whether Jean Lesage would have left federal politics in '58 had the Liberals been in power? Would Lesage have stayed in Ottawa to replace Pearson as Prime Minister? Or would it have been Paul Martin senior? And how would all of this affected the goings-on in Quebec? Again, too many questions with very few answers.

Which Election Was Bigger?
(6) 1957/58 (Diefenbaker over St. Laurent, Pearson)
(1) 1988 (Mulroney over Turner, Broadbent)
See Results

The One Take Home Message From Last Night

A once proud party lies in shambles. Serious soul searching is needed.

It's always hard to compare byelections to general elections due to low turn-out, different candidates, and altered voting tactics. The exception would be when the same candidate runs in both elections and the reasons to vote for him are identical in both instances. Luckily, in Vancouver Quadra this was (kind of) the case.

1988 Vancouver Quadra

John Turner (Rhinoceros Party): 760 votes, 1.4%

2008 Vancouver Quadra

John Turner (NeoRhino Party): 110 votes, 0.4%

And, to think, 1988 John Turner had to deal with a split "John Turner" vote, due to the presence of (fringe?) candidate the Right Honourable John Napier Turner on the ballot.

Tough times to be a rhino...