AHC WI: Preston Manning becomes Canadian Prime Minister
- Thread starter Pericles
- Start date
Going with the WI...
He'd make an attempt at implementing some of his populist, "anti-politician" agenda, like cutting MPs' pensions and expenses. But, as in OTL, he'd be faced with recalcitrance from his own caucus(some of whom apparently hadn't calculated the financial impact of renouncing the pension, prior to getting elected), and back down.
The difference in the ATL is that Manning would actually be the PM, so he'd be the subject of way more media scruitny, and end up with even more egg on his face when he reverses course on his populism. He'd try to cut a few meaningless perks here and there as compensation, but the damage would have already been done.
On social issues, he'd probably try to bring in some sort of law to restrict abortion(such legislation was not completely ruled out by the Morgentaler decision), and end up provoking a lot of backlash from all ends of the political spectrum, especially after a few of his backbenchers got up and made some intemperate speeches about it. Best takeway for the "pro-lifers": A largely symbolic bill passed by parliament saying something like "We respect the rights of the provinces to legislate abortion as they see fit."
re: the third person of Manning's holy populist trinity, immigration: Anyone who has spent time eavesdropping on the conversations in a Canadian donut shop can tell you that there actually would be a lot of support for a reduction in immigration. However, even if he ever had been seriously contemplating that(and I can't recall the exact wording of the Reform platform), once he got into power, he'd realize that it's not as simple as just signing an order to kick 'em all out. There are whole host of considerations, not least of them economic, to take into account. He'd likely just end up doing what subsequent Liberal and Conservative governments did, ie. tilt the process more toward "business class" immigrants, and tighten up the refugee screening process. But he'd be more overtly popuist about doing it, try to sell it to his base as a tough-minded, harda$$ed crackdown on those queue-jumping, welfare-pillfering, turban-wearing foreigners.
He'd make an attempt at implementing some of his populist, "anti-politician" agenda, like cutting MPs' pensions and expenses. But, as in OTL, he'd be faced with recalcitrance from his own caucus(some of whom apparently hadn't calculated the financial impact of renouncing the pension, prior to getting elected), and back down.
The difference in the ATL is that Manning would actually be the PM, so he'd be the subject of way more media scruitny, and end up with even more egg on his face when he reverses course on his populism. He'd try to cut a few meaningless perks here and there as compensation, but the damage would have already been done.
On social issues, he'd probably try to bring in some sort of law to restrict abortion(such legislation was not completely ruled out by the Morgentaler decision), and end up provoking a lot of backlash from all ends of the political spectrum, especially after a few of his backbenchers got up and made some intemperate speeches about it. Best takeway for the "pro-lifers": A largely symbolic bill passed by parliament saying something like "We respect the rights of the provinces to legislate abortion as they see fit."
re: the third person of Manning's holy populist trinity, immigration: Anyone who has spent time eavesdropping on the conversations in a Canadian donut shop can tell you that there actually would be a lot of support for a reduction in immigration. However, even if he ever had been seriously contemplating that(and I can't recall the exact wording of the Reform platform), once he got into power, he'd realize that it's not as simple as just signing an order to kick 'em all out. There are whole host of considerations, not least of them economic, to take into account. He'd likely just end up doing what subsequent Liberal and Conservative governments did, ie. tilt the process more toward "business class" immigrants, and tighten up the refugee screening process. But he'd be more overtly popuist about doing it, try to sell it to his base as a tough-minded, harda$$ed crackdown on those queue-jumping, welfare-pillfering, turban-wearing foreigners.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
I'm not sure how this would work. Manning was a top football prospect pretty much his entire life, that was always the direction he was going in. Maybe if he got injured as a kid, that could stop it, but that still doesn't get him to Canada.
If Manning was successful at uniting the right, maybe, you just have to get rid of Charest and Joe Clark. The latter is possible, but only if the Tories are better off and thus not as desperate for a leader. Yet if the Tories are better off, than Manning still doesn't become PM and merger talks don't happen.
I honestly don't see a credible path for Manning becoming PM unless Quebec decided to leave Canada in 1995 (As seen in True Grit's awesome wikibox TL).
I honestly don't see a credible path for Manning becoming PM unless Quebec decided to leave Canada in 1995 (As seen in True Grit's awesome wikibox TL).
Maybe, but making Orchard leader is a huge if. If Clark doesn't go for it I can easily see Hugh Segal getting it, maybe Brian Pallister under the right circumstances.
Ok are those people good leaders or could they allow the PCs to die early?
Hugh Segal is more or less on par with Clark, he might make the party a bit more competitive in Ontario and the Atlantic in the long-term, but not by anything significant. Pallister would eat away at Alliance support in the West, so he'd be the more dangerous.
All I'm saying is that unless there was a merger, the Liberals are going to stay in office. Pollsters weren't predicting a 200+ seat win for Paul Martin for nothing back in 2002/2003.
Manning and other Reformers tried this, and that's what they hoped creating the Canadian Alliance would cause, but the Progressive Conservatives refused to go along with this.
It's hard to think of an easy way for this to change, but as CanadianTory has already outlined the key factor necessary is for the PCs to be weaker, but as long as Charest's in the picture for 1997 that's going to be difficult, as under his leadership (at least up until 1997) the PCs were still seen by many as the main opposition party.
Thus, I think this becomes a lot easier with Charest out of the picture. If Charest loses his riding in 1993, either due to a stronger Bloc Quebecois or just a far worse local campaign, then I can see the PCs being in real trouble. Their only MP would be the only recently elected Elsie Wayne, who by no means would have the leadership qualities that Charest did, and after being reduced to just a single seat I doubt that many potential leadership candidates (such as Clark, Segal, etc.) would want to run. As it was, Charest was basically forced into the leadership role by default.
Without Charest as leader, I can see the PCs doing far worse in 1997, likely failing once again to win official party status. If this was the case, I imagine many PC members would be far more willing to merge with Reform than IOTL.
As a non-Canadian I don't know how plausible this is, but here it is:
"The Biography that Never Was: Prime Minister Manning grew up around politics, as the son of Alberta’s longest serving Premier, Ernest Manning. In fact, from his first birthday to his University graduation, Preston lived in a province run by his father.
Manning founded the Reform Party in 1987 and, a year later, ran for them in an election where his party was shut out. The Reformers got their first real breakthrough in the 1993 election, winning 51 seats. Under the unofficial “The West Wants In” slogan, Manning’s Reformers played on the feeling that Mulroney had “sold out”, while preaching economic responsibility and promising democratic reform.
Given the strong social conservative views of many in the Reform Party, it is hard to imagine Manning ever becoming Prime Minister if not for the events of 1995. Few in Canada will forget where they were when Jacques Parizeau stood up on October 31st and claimed victory by the slimmest of margins, following the Referendum campaign. Jean Chretien’s Liberals appeared completely caught off guard by the loss and, even more so, by the speed with which Parizeau unilaterally declared independence the next day. In the chaotic weeks that followed, many in what remained of Canada were wholly unimpressed with the Liberals and their chief negotiator, Brian Tobin, who appeared to give Parizeau whatever he desired. In the end, the mish-mash European Union style arrangement which was agreed upon pleased few in English Canada. Many wondered why Quebecers were being allowed to keep their Canadian passports and use the Canadian dollar if they had voted to separate, a feeling Manning’s Reformers were quick to pounce on, with their hard line approach which, at first, refused to recognize the results of the vote and, secondly, demanded an “all or nothing” resolution.
After a snap leadership convention replaced Jean Chretien with rival Paul Martin Jr., Manning’s Reformers roared to massive win in the 1996 election. Between their handling of the Quebec situation and the country’s now dismal economic state, Manning’s tough love approach to both problems seemed like the best solution to most Canadians.
On June 10th, 1996, Preston Manning became Canada’s 22nd Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Manning..."
http://calgarygrit.blogspot.com/2006/08/what-if-politics-manning-versus.html