Flying into Stephen Harper international airport

Even though most of the champagne and reflection flowed on the 5th anniversary of his 2006 election night win, it was five years ago tomorrow that Stephen Harper was sworn in as Prime Minister.

But today might be the more interesting milestone. Assuming he doesn't quit to go form his own rock band by the end of the day, Harper will pass Lester B. Pearson to become the 11th longest serving Prime Minister in Canadian history. I'm not sure Harper's legacy will ever be as great as Pearson's - after all, you don't get airports named after you for cutting the GST 2 points. But, still, it's worth noting.

In another 78 days, Harper will pass fellow Calgarian RB Bennett for 10th place on the all-time list. If he lasts another year, he'll move ahead of Dief to become the fourth longest serving conservative Prime Minister and the longest serving westerner (well, Etobicoke-born westerner).

Celebrating longevity without accomplishment is a bit hollow, but it's still a lot more than we expected out of him. Remember 6, 7, 8 years ago? It was impossible to say "Prime Minister Stephen Harper" without laughing.

And now? He's lasted longer than Mike Pearson. Not bad.

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 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