Speaking of Canada, how about this one where Jack Layton doesn't suffer a second bout of cancer. He manages to lead his party to victory in the 2015 election. Although they win a minority thanks to a resurgent Liberals, they manage to form a minority government with support from the liberals. Layton, as PM, reforms the Senate to make it more American-esque, reforms the voting system, blocks all oil pipelines and invests in green energy instead. I imagine not all of it would be perfect, some on the left of the party would be angry that Layton is not a left economically as they would have liked, but his plain-spokenness and compassion reach a cord with everyone and he becomes one of the most popular PM's in Canada's history.
![Canada_provinces_blank[1].png](https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/attachments/canada_provinces_blank-1-png.328513/ "Canada_provinces_blank[1].png")
(Same timeline as here: [URL="https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/alternate-wikipedia-infoboxes-iv.405334/page-2#post-13792118"]Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes IV #30[/URL], and Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes IV #6)
Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes IV (Do not post Current Politics Here)
- Thread starter Glide08
- Start date
- Status
An ATL of an ATL. 
And a further development of an idea I had a few days ago.
(ATL by @Nivek and @RySenkari)
And a further development of an idea I had a few days ago.
(ATL by @Nivek and @RySenkari)
First, a note on style: Wikiboxes look nicer if all the links are blue. You can pipe links to other, unvisited pages like so: [[chicken|Jack Layton]]. Your boxes are also a little small; are you zooming out to capture them? It's better to stitch together multiple screenshots.
As for the concept, you're vastly overestimating what a Layton government could or even would do. A minority is a precarious situation for any government and they aren't going to take on anything that's too divisive, because it burns their political capital and maybe sends them back to the polls sooner than they'd like (and with an angry electorate, at that). With that in mind, there's no way he'd block all pipelines (not even something the NDP advocated under Layton), nor would he move to reform the Senate (which opens the Constitution, anathema to politicians). Forget both; if Layton attempted to do either of those, the NDP would be out of office in a year.
I also feel like the Liberals wouldn't go with Trudeau in a Layton lives scenario, but maybe that's just me.
Canada's most recent e.ections being held earlier than America's doesn't make them not current politics.
Nazi Space Spy
Banned
It's in an alternate scenario. If I'm not mistaken, a current politics info box has to have a current politics POD.
In the ten years since the 1994 federal election, Canadian politics had undergone many changes. The Conservatives, who opted to drop the “progressive” moniker come 1999, had been defeated after a decade in power, first under Brian Mulroney and then Jean Charest. Paul Martin was poised to implement a radical agenda of cuts, but instead became the first Canadian leader to be assassinated, throwing the country into uncertainty. Herb Gray provided immediate stability. Allan Rock mishandled boondoggles and suffered the consequences. Pierre Pettigrew provided the Liberals renewed popularity and a majority, and seemed poised to continue Liberal Party dominance into the next decade. Who would stop them? The Bloc Quebecois was restricted to Quebec, and after losing both the 1995 referendum and their brethren’s provincial defeat, they appeared to be no significant threat. The New Democrats were perpetually in the political wilderness, their only success limited to provincial elections. Reform? Beat up, broke, and under constant threat of being absorbed by the Tories, who in turn appeared to be in trouble of their own. On paper, Gary Filmon was the perfect candidate. Successful Premier, experience balancing a budget, slayer of a more charismatic opponent, it was all there. Unfortunately, his provincial record came back to haunt him and the Conservatives, dashing their hopes of ending the Liberal’s hold on parliament. But further changes had occurred since then.
For instance, most of the political parties were headed by new leaders coming into 2004. Although he had led them amiably following the sudden and shocking death of separatist icon Lucien Bouchard, Michel Gauthier had failed to grow the party in any meaningful way. He would be replaced by his deputy leader, the fiery Gilles Duceppe. The Tories had ditched one fiscally conservative provincial politician in favour of another fiscally conservative provincial politician, only this time from Alberta. Jim Dinning was the architect of the Klein Revolution, having turned a growing economic and budgetary crisis into one of the healthiest markets in the entire country. He had swiftly dispatched more than a dozen opponents to narrowly claim the Tory crown, but voters still worried that both the Tories and the new leader of the opposition was too conservative for the average Canadian voter. His handling of the Same-Sex Marriage Bill in parliament had certainly earned him some critics in the media and across the country. Despite all of this, Dinning was still able to capture the seat of Calgary Southwest from the retiring Preston Manning, who had opted to abandon his seat in favour of the new Conservative leader than wait another two years sitting with a party that had, he felt, betrayed him and his allies. Aside from Pettigrew, it appeared the only leader with staying power was Lorne Nystrom. The longest serving party leader in the House of Commons, Nystrom had oversaw only minor gains after taking over from his predecessor, Audrey McLaughlin. But he had kept the increasingly fractured party together for nine years, managing both the moderates and the growing number of left-wingers disenchanted with his leadership. Those with the connections and the political understanding had begun to openly wonder what would occur after the Saskatchewan MP stepped down from the leadership, which he had signaled was soon coming. After the 2004 campaign, the New Democrats would no doubt begin their search for a new leader.
What of the Liberals and their record? Certainly, the government had suffered scandals and resignations, but Pierre Pettigrew still topped the polls and was the preferred choice as Prime Minister by the public. But his sheen had dirtied since his majority victory four years earlier. Relations between the predominantly centre-right provincial governments, like Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec, and the centre-left Prime Minister had grown contentious over the years. Small breakthroughs were made with respect to healthcare, but Pettigrew’s plans for a Pan-Canadian climate deal had been dismissed by his provincial counterparts, who were more concerned with their economies rather than ceding more power to Ottawa. The Prime Minister had garnered the reputation of being a macromanager, the type more interested in visions and the end results than actually getting there. Getting there was the job of his cabinet ministers, who were often left to explain the government’s positions without significant help from the PMO. There was also the matter of his vacations and his frequent use of taxpayer’s money to fuel them. Drivers, pilots, and entire entourages were rumoured to have been paid on the taxpayer’s dime to accompany the Prime Minister on various travels, both official and unofficial. His critics charged that it smacked of a major scandal, of the Prime Minister lining his own pockets, enjoying a luxurious life on other people’s money. Still, the Prime Minister had achieved some accomplishments in his tenure. The aforementioned healthcare deal with the provinces had alluded his predecessors. The passage of Same-Sex Marriage was heralded as a milestone in Canadian history. His relationship with world leaders, specifically Presidents Gore and Juppe, had appeared to strengthen Canadian influence on the world stage at a time of conflict, tension, and paranoia. As was always the case, voters liked the idea of Canada wielding influence on the world stage, of standing tall as a uniquely “progressive” North American nation. Voters disagreed with the government’s handling of the economy, which had remained relatively weak since the 90s recession, but liked Pettigrew personally, dilatant he may have been.
The campaign initially seemed to be a rerun of the 2000 federal campaign. Pettigrew, speaking of his Trudeau-esque vision for the country’s bright future, facing off against a western Conservative leader who called for balanced budgets and renewed economic prosperity. Polls showed that the Liberals were still favoured to win, but the size of their victory was in doubt. Jim Dinning had undergone a cross-country tour since becoming Tory chief, and had made the necessary connections with his party faithful from Saint John’s to Vancouver. The trouble was striking the winning balance between keeping the country’s right-wing voters, who had only recently begun to return to the party, and reach out to the more ideologically mushy voters elsewhere. For the fifth-straight election, the Tories were forced to spend already scarce resources and legislated funding in the West, money that could have otherwise gone to campaigns and candidates east of Manitoba. But before the Tories could form government, they had to finally dispatch Reform, who still commanded twenty-five seats in the House of Commons, a majority of which from Alberta. The first mission of the Tory war room was to finally break Reform. Luckily, polls seemed to favour their endeavour, as westerners of every conservative orientation had grown tired of the now decade-long rule of the Liberal Party of Canada.
As for the Liberals, their campaign was designed around a classic strategy; hope and fear, otherwise known as the carrot and the stick. Pierre Pettigrew would be the face of hope, doling out promises of increased spending on things voters cared about, like healthcare and infrastructure, and making the political process more open and transparent, despite criticisms that he had actually done the opposite in the latter regard while in power. Meanwhile, well-known cabinet ministers and Liberal talking heads would go on national media and play to voter’s fears. Some fear would be more general, such as accusing the Tories of wanting to cut everything and making it harder for little old grandmas to get by. Other uses of fear were far more specific, and almost exclusively directed towards the New Democrats. Everyone knew Lorne Nystrom was on the way out. The only party that NDP voters hated more than the Liberals was the Conservatives, as well as Reform, and playing up the fear of a Conservative government, or even a Conservative-Reform coalition would hopefully scare enough of them to hold their noses and cast heir vote for Pettigrew’s Liberals. For the most part polls showed it to be an effective strategy. Although the Tories were in the process of gaining ground, the Liberals remained ahead.
Quebec meanwhile was an entirely different situation. Federalists within the province were divided, and their main champion within the province, Jean Charest, was damaged goods. Although he had won re-election only last year, it had been with a bare-majority. While Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois was by no means a popular figure within the province, the new leader of the Bloc Quebecois was. Gilles Duceppe, the long-time deputy leader of the party, had infused new energy into the fledging political party. Charest’s unpopularity meant Quebecers were looking for a new face to represent them, and Duceppe fit the bill. Even support for separatism, once thought dead only years earlier, was again on the rise. Although the battle for Quebec would again be a battle between the Liberals and the Bloc, it appeared as though the sovereigntists had captured the momentum and the imagination of the province’s constituents. As for the NDP, Lorne Nystrom’s only goal was to prevent his party from being decimated. He was one of the more trusted politicians in the country, and was a well known face to many Canadians. With a platform tailor made for Canada’s urban centers, Nystrom hoped to leave his successor with a rejuvenated prepared to continue to make gains come the next campaign, likely in the next three or four years.
The typical rule of Canadian politics is that after a decade in power, voters give the government of the day the boot, Brian Mulroney being the most recent example. Now while polls showed voters had grown somewhat tired of the Liberals, their intolerance for their shenanigans growing, the situation was not so cut and dry. After all, Pierre Pettigrew had only become Prime Minister in 1999, and thus, if one were to follow the established rules, had another five years left before becoming stale. Still, his party, and indeed his cabinet did not enjoy this same luxury. But on the flip-side, some of the more unpopular provincial governments in the country, or at least those parties who had been defeated but were still unpopular, were conservative. The unpopularity of Premiers Ecker, Lord, and others actually seemed to provide some benefit throughout the campaign in a situation that would otherwise be neck-and-neck. Despite all of this, Jim Dinning continued on. Polls showed that while he was an unknown, those who knew him actually liked him. Western voters, especially those in Alberta, where most voters remembered his role in saving their province’s financial situation. King Ralph may have been on the way out, but Albertans liked Jim. But for every step the party took towards gaining the lead, something would happen which would hand the Liberals the lead again. One day Dinning gave a well-received speech condemning the Liberal’s lack of transparency while in power, and the next day a Tory candidate would say something outside the mainstream when it came to homosexuality, abortion, or bilingualism. The price for absorbing members of the Reform Party was that their controversial views came with them, playing into the Liberal narrative that the more electable Tories were nothing more than a blue version of Reform.
Going into the debates polls showed the Liberals lead over the Conservatives anywhere between six to nine percent. Although seemingly more competent than his predecessor, some voters were worried that Jim Dinning was prepared to do and say anything if it meant gaining power. During the five person gathering the expected attacks and promises were made. Gilles Duceppe pushed back against Pettigrew’s allegations that the Bloc was against multiculturalism. Pettigrew pledged $2 billion for Canadian cities, to be taken from the federal gas tax, and the introduction of a national child-care program. Dinning pledged to empower the Auditor General further power to monitor government spending should the Tories form power, and criticized Pettigrew for allegedly abusing taxpayers’ money. Reform criticized the two-major parties for their involvement in continuing the political status-quo. The NDP attacked the Liberals for not spending enough money on poverty reduction and the Tories for their pledge to increase military spending. The only significant moment of controversy came when one of the party leaders announced that they were open to the private delivery of healthcare. Ironically this statement did not come from the leader of the Conservatives or Reform, but rather the Prime Minister. Unsurprisingly the statement provided sufficient ammunition from the opposition to attack the Pettigrew, who in turn was forced to walk back his statement both during the debate and the day after during the press conference. Polls tightened.
As was the case at the beginning of the campaign, no one was quite sure what the results would be going into election night. A Liberal victory seemed likely, but anything was possible. Beginning out in the Atlantic, the Tories made only minor gains, with former MPs Bill Casey and Greg Thompson reclaiming their seats in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, respectively. However a massive blow was dealt to the Liberals in Quebec, where despite the fact they captured more votes, came out second to the Bloc in terms of seats. Ontario would provide the government some breathing room, as the Liberals maintained their advantage in the province, dispatching star conservative candidates like John Tory and Tony Clement. As the night wore on there was even more good news for the Liberals. They managed to keep most of their seats out in British Columbia and actually make gains in Manitoba. By the end of the night it was cleat that the Liberals would be returned to power, albeit with a much reduced minority. Although he had failed to win, the night was not a complete failure for Jim Dinning’s leadership. Despite Brian Pallister’s unpopularity lingering over Manitoba, the Conservatives had emerged as the winners of the popular vote. Gains had been made throughout the country, especially out in Alberta. Where once the Reform could brag their impenetrable fortress, Alberta had once again become the base of the Tory heartland. Nationally the Reform Party had dropped to only seven seats, well below the totals needed for official party status. Even Reform leader Grant Hill had lost his seat. With the gains made by each and every opposition party, pundits immediately began debating the lifespan of the new parliament, and whether or not Pettigrew’s more ambitious colleagues, specifically a well spoken Newfoundlander, would mount a potential challenge before parliament inevitably broke down and a new election was called for.
Once again, Canada found itself back into the unpredictability of minority politics.
(Thanks to @LeinadB93 for the wonderful map!)
Prime Ministers of Canada:
Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Liberal) 1968-1979
Joe Clark (Progressive Conservative) 1979-1980
Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Liberal) 1980-1984
John Turner (Liberal) 1984
Brian Mulroney (Progressive Conservative) 1984-1993
Jean Charest (Progressive Conservative) 1993-1994
Paul Martin (Liberal) 1994-1995 †
Herb Gray (Liberal) 1995-1996
Allan Rock (Liberal) 1996-1999
Pierre Pettigrew (Liberal) 1999-
For instance, most of the political parties were headed by new leaders coming into 2004. Although he had led them amiably following the sudden and shocking death of separatist icon Lucien Bouchard, Michel Gauthier had failed to grow the party in any meaningful way. He would be replaced by his deputy leader, the fiery Gilles Duceppe. The Tories had ditched one fiscally conservative provincial politician in favour of another fiscally conservative provincial politician, only this time from Alberta. Jim Dinning was the architect of the Klein Revolution, having turned a growing economic and budgetary crisis into one of the healthiest markets in the entire country. He had swiftly dispatched more than a dozen opponents to narrowly claim the Tory crown, but voters still worried that both the Tories and the new leader of the opposition was too conservative for the average Canadian voter. His handling of the Same-Sex Marriage Bill in parliament had certainly earned him some critics in the media and across the country. Despite all of this, Dinning was still able to capture the seat of Calgary Southwest from the retiring Preston Manning, who had opted to abandon his seat in favour of the new Conservative leader than wait another two years sitting with a party that had, he felt, betrayed him and his allies. Aside from Pettigrew, it appeared the only leader with staying power was Lorne Nystrom. The longest serving party leader in the House of Commons, Nystrom had oversaw only minor gains after taking over from his predecessor, Audrey McLaughlin. But he had kept the increasingly fractured party together for nine years, managing both the moderates and the growing number of left-wingers disenchanted with his leadership. Those with the connections and the political understanding had begun to openly wonder what would occur after the Saskatchewan MP stepped down from the leadership, which he had signaled was soon coming. After the 2004 campaign, the New Democrats would no doubt begin their search for a new leader.
What of the Liberals and their record? Certainly, the government had suffered scandals and resignations, but Pierre Pettigrew still topped the polls and was the preferred choice as Prime Minister by the public. But his sheen had dirtied since his majority victory four years earlier. Relations between the predominantly centre-right provincial governments, like Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec, and the centre-left Prime Minister had grown contentious over the years. Small breakthroughs were made with respect to healthcare, but Pettigrew’s plans for a Pan-Canadian climate deal had been dismissed by his provincial counterparts, who were more concerned with their economies rather than ceding more power to Ottawa. The Prime Minister had garnered the reputation of being a macromanager, the type more interested in visions and the end results than actually getting there. Getting there was the job of his cabinet ministers, who were often left to explain the government’s positions without significant help from the PMO. There was also the matter of his vacations and his frequent use of taxpayer’s money to fuel them. Drivers, pilots, and entire entourages were rumoured to have been paid on the taxpayer’s dime to accompany the Prime Minister on various travels, both official and unofficial. His critics charged that it smacked of a major scandal, of the Prime Minister lining his own pockets, enjoying a luxurious life on other people’s money. Still, the Prime Minister had achieved some accomplishments in his tenure. The aforementioned healthcare deal with the provinces had alluded his predecessors. The passage of Same-Sex Marriage was heralded as a milestone in Canadian history. His relationship with world leaders, specifically Presidents Gore and Juppe, had appeared to strengthen Canadian influence on the world stage at a time of conflict, tension, and paranoia. As was always the case, voters liked the idea of Canada wielding influence on the world stage, of standing tall as a uniquely “progressive” North American nation. Voters disagreed with the government’s handling of the economy, which had remained relatively weak since the 90s recession, but liked Pettigrew personally, dilatant he may have been.
The campaign initially seemed to be a rerun of the 2000 federal campaign. Pettigrew, speaking of his Trudeau-esque vision for the country’s bright future, facing off against a western Conservative leader who called for balanced budgets and renewed economic prosperity. Polls showed that the Liberals were still favoured to win, but the size of their victory was in doubt. Jim Dinning had undergone a cross-country tour since becoming Tory chief, and had made the necessary connections with his party faithful from Saint John’s to Vancouver. The trouble was striking the winning balance between keeping the country’s right-wing voters, who had only recently begun to return to the party, and reach out to the more ideologically mushy voters elsewhere. For the fifth-straight election, the Tories were forced to spend already scarce resources and legislated funding in the West, money that could have otherwise gone to campaigns and candidates east of Manitoba. But before the Tories could form government, they had to finally dispatch Reform, who still commanded twenty-five seats in the House of Commons, a majority of which from Alberta. The first mission of the Tory war room was to finally break Reform. Luckily, polls seemed to favour their endeavour, as westerners of every conservative orientation had grown tired of the now decade-long rule of the Liberal Party of Canada.
As for the Liberals, their campaign was designed around a classic strategy; hope and fear, otherwise known as the carrot and the stick. Pierre Pettigrew would be the face of hope, doling out promises of increased spending on things voters cared about, like healthcare and infrastructure, and making the political process more open and transparent, despite criticisms that he had actually done the opposite in the latter regard while in power. Meanwhile, well-known cabinet ministers and Liberal talking heads would go on national media and play to voter’s fears. Some fear would be more general, such as accusing the Tories of wanting to cut everything and making it harder for little old grandmas to get by. Other uses of fear were far more specific, and almost exclusively directed towards the New Democrats. Everyone knew Lorne Nystrom was on the way out. The only party that NDP voters hated more than the Liberals was the Conservatives, as well as Reform, and playing up the fear of a Conservative government, or even a Conservative-Reform coalition would hopefully scare enough of them to hold their noses and cast heir vote for Pettigrew’s Liberals. For the most part polls showed it to be an effective strategy. Although the Tories were in the process of gaining ground, the Liberals remained ahead.
Quebec meanwhile was an entirely different situation. Federalists within the province were divided, and their main champion within the province, Jean Charest, was damaged goods. Although he had won re-election only last year, it had been with a bare-majority. While Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois was by no means a popular figure within the province, the new leader of the Bloc Quebecois was. Gilles Duceppe, the long-time deputy leader of the party, had infused new energy into the fledging political party. Charest’s unpopularity meant Quebecers were looking for a new face to represent them, and Duceppe fit the bill. Even support for separatism, once thought dead only years earlier, was again on the rise. Although the battle for Quebec would again be a battle between the Liberals and the Bloc, it appeared as though the sovereigntists had captured the momentum and the imagination of the province’s constituents. As for the NDP, Lorne Nystrom’s only goal was to prevent his party from being decimated. He was one of the more trusted politicians in the country, and was a well known face to many Canadians. With a platform tailor made for Canada’s urban centers, Nystrom hoped to leave his successor with a rejuvenated prepared to continue to make gains come the next campaign, likely in the next three or four years.
The typical rule of Canadian politics is that after a decade in power, voters give the government of the day the boot, Brian Mulroney being the most recent example. Now while polls showed voters had grown somewhat tired of the Liberals, their intolerance for their shenanigans growing, the situation was not so cut and dry. After all, Pierre Pettigrew had only become Prime Minister in 1999, and thus, if one were to follow the established rules, had another five years left before becoming stale. Still, his party, and indeed his cabinet did not enjoy this same luxury. But on the flip-side, some of the more unpopular provincial governments in the country, or at least those parties who had been defeated but were still unpopular, were conservative. The unpopularity of Premiers Ecker, Lord, and others actually seemed to provide some benefit throughout the campaign in a situation that would otherwise be neck-and-neck. Despite all of this, Jim Dinning continued on. Polls showed that while he was an unknown, those who knew him actually liked him. Western voters, especially those in Alberta, where most voters remembered his role in saving their province’s financial situation. King Ralph may have been on the way out, but Albertans liked Jim. But for every step the party took towards gaining the lead, something would happen which would hand the Liberals the lead again. One day Dinning gave a well-received speech condemning the Liberal’s lack of transparency while in power, and the next day a Tory candidate would say something outside the mainstream when it came to homosexuality, abortion, or bilingualism. The price for absorbing members of the Reform Party was that their controversial views came with them, playing into the Liberal narrative that the more electable Tories were nothing more than a blue version of Reform.
Going into the debates polls showed the Liberals lead over the Conservatives anywhere between six to nine percent. Although seemingly more competent than his predecessor, some voters were worried that Jim Dinning was prepared to do and say anything if it meant gaining power. During the five person gathering the expected attacks and promises were made. Gilles Duceppe pushed back against Pettigrew’s allegations that the Bloc was against multiculturalism. Pettigrew pledged $2 billion for Canadian cities, to be taken from the federal gas tax, and the introduction of a national child-care program. Dinning pledged to empower the Auditor General further power to monitor government spending should the Tories form power, and criticized Pettigrew for allegedly abusing taxpayers’ money. Reform criticized the two-major parties for their involvement in continuing the political status-quo. The NDP attacked the Liberals for not spending enough money on poverty reduction and the Tories for their pledge to increase military spending. The only significant moment of controversy came when one of the party leaders announced that they were open to the private delivery of healthcare. Ironically this statement did not come from the leader of the Conservatives or Reform, but rather the Prime Minister. Unsurprisingly the statement provided sufficient ammunition from the opposition to attack the Pettigrew, who in turn was forced to walk back his statement both during the debate and the day after during the press conference. Polls tightened.
As was the case at the beginning of the campaign, no one was quite sure what the results would be going into election night. A Liberal victory seemed likely, but anything was possible. Beginning out in the Atlantic, the Tories made only minor gains, with former MPs Bill Casey and Greg Thompson reclaiming their seats in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, respectively. However a massive blow was dealt to the Liberals in Quebec, where despite the fact they captured more votes, came out second to the Bloc in terms of seats. Ontario would provide the government some breathing room, as the Liberals maintained their advantage in the province, dispatching star conservative candidates like John Tory and Tony Clement. As the night wore on there was even more good news for the Liberals. They managed to keep most of their seats out in British Columbia and actually make gains in Manitoba. By the end of the night it was cleat that the Liberals would be returned to power, albeit with a much reduced minority. Although he had failed to win, the night was not a complete failure for Jim Dinning’s leadership. Despite Brian Pallister’s unpopularity lingering over Manitoba, the Conservatives had emerged as the winners of the popular vote. Gains had been made throughout the country, especially out in Alberta. Where once the Reform could brag their impenetrable fortress, Alberta had once again become the base of the Tory heartland. Nationally the Reform Party had dropped to only seven seats, well below the totals needed for official party status. Even Reform leader Grant Hill had lost his seat. With the gains made by each and every opposition party, pundits immediately began debating the lifespan of the new parliament, and whether or not Pettigrew’s more ambitious colleagues, specifically a well spoken Newfoundlander, would mount a potential challenge before parliament inevitably broke down and a new election was called for.
Once again, Canada found itself back into the unpredictability of minority politics.
(Thanks to @LeinadB93 for the wonderful map!)
Prime Ministers of Canada:
Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Liberal) 1968-1979
Joe Clark (Progressive Conservative) 1979-1980
Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Liberal) 1980-1984
John Turner (Liberal) 1984
Brian Mulroney (Progressive Conservative) 1984-1993
Jean Charest (Progressive Conservative) 1993-1994
Paul Martin (Liberal) 1994-1995 †
Herb Gray (Liberal) 1995-1996
Allan Rock (Liberal) 1996-1999
Pierre Pettigrew (Liberal) 1999-
Leaders of the Official Opposition:
Robert Stanfield (Progressive Conservative) 1967-1976
Joe Clark (Progressive Conservative) 1976-1979
Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Liberal) 1979-1980
Joe Clark (Progressive Conservative) 1980-1983
Erik Nielsen (Progressive Conservative) 1983
Brian Mulroney (Progressive Conservative) 1983-1984
John Turner (Liberal) 1984-1990
Herb Gray (Liberal) 1990
Jean Chretien (Liberal) 1990-1993
Lloyd Axworthy (Liberal) 1993-1994
Paul Martin (Liberal) 1994
Jean Charest (Progressive Conservative) 1994-1997
Gary Filmon (Progressive Conservative/Conservative) 1997-2000
Kim Campbell (Conservative) 2000-2002
Jim Dinning (Conservative) 2002-
† Assassinated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION ALL LIBERAL PARTY MEMBERS!
Do you approve of Pierre Pettigrew's continued leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada?
Robert Stanfield (Progressive Conservative) 1967-1976
Joe Clark (Progressive Conservative) 1976-1979
Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Liberal) 1979-1980
Joe Clark (Progressive Conservative) 1980-1983
Erik Nielsen (Progressive Conservative) 1983
Brian Mulroney (Progressive Conservative) 1983-1984
John Turner (Liberal) 1984-1990
Herb Gray (Liberal) 1990
Jean Chretien (Liberal) 1990-1993
Lloyd Axworthy (Liberal) 1993-1994
Paul Martin (Liberal) 1994
Jean Charest (Progressive Conservative) 1994-1997
Gary Filmon (Progressive Conservative/Conservative) 1997-2000
Kim Campbell (Conservative) 2000-2002
Jim Dinning (Conservative) 2002-
† Assassinated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION ALL LIBERAL PARTY MEMBERS!
Do you approve of Pierre Pettigrew's continued leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's right folks, I'm leaving the future of the Liberal Party in your hands! This vote will count and determine how this TL moves forward. You all have one week to vote, and the results as of 12:00a.m. AST will be those I work off of. If you decide to keep Pettigrew, he will be the leader who faces off against Dinning in 2005. If you all decide to force a leadership election, well I will post a second poll with the candidates included, and we will move on from there. I appreciate everyone's involvement and support of this TL. Thanks everyone!
The 1991 General Election was held on April 25, 1991 and was the fourth consecutive election victory for the Conservative Party. The election was called early by Prime Minister John Major, who took advantage of good opinion poll results for his party, in order to secure a mandate in his own name. Neil Kinnock led Labour for a second successive election and was hoping to finally overturn twelve years of Conservative rule.
John Major had won the leadership election in November 1990 following the resignation of Margaret Thatcher. He had steered the government relatively well since coming to power and his calm, collected leadership appealed much better to swing voters than Kinnock's did. Meanwhile, the Liberal–SDP alliance had resulted in the SDP being incorporated into the Liberal Party in 1988. The Liberals were ultimately led into the election by Robert Maclennan who was seen as a safe pair of hands. Maclennan, however, was uninspiring and unpopular and the Liberals lost a significant amount of their support to the now more moderate Labour Party. The exit poll, conducted on behalf of the major news outlets, suggested that the Conservative seat tally would be significantly reduced, but that the Tories would more than likely hold onto their majority. It also suggested that Labour would make gains across the country but that the swing from the Tories to Labour would not be nearly enough to propel them into power. The exit poll proved to be almost certainly right, although it understated Conservative support in some areas.
Following the result, both Maclennan and Kinnock would resign as leaders of their respective parties. Kinnock's eight year reign at the helm of Labour would end a period of stability for the party and the ensuing leadership election, held in September 1991, would see the right and centre of the party clash against the left. Meanwhile, Major would gain the mandate that he had sought upon calling the election and begin to mould the now seemingly stable and calm Conservatives in his vision.
Germany was able to attain victory in Europe. In one part they were able to limit military mistakes such as invading Russia too late as well as a more decisive victory at Dunkirk. Britain sued for peace and while never invaded by Germany they now take a lesser place to Germany in Europe. Moscow was captured by Germany in 1942 but this did not achieve the decisive blow that the Germans had hoped for and sporadic guerrilla fighting would go on for quite some time. But more or less Europe is now Pax Germanica under the control of Nazi's and their allies.
So the Generalplan Ost is going to be activated? How is gone the African scenario? How is nuclear technology?
Yes Generalplan Ost would be activated and remain a closely guarded secret of the Nazi's. For Africa, I haven't given it that much thought though I say that France would be stripped off their African colonies, except Algeria, with a large chunk going to Italy. I could also see Germany's colonies being returned to them and even taking control of the former Belgian Congo. Britain for the most part would retain their colonial empire as that was part of the peace terms with Germany. Nuclear technology could be a two nation race between the United States and Germany. With the Germans controlling most of the Industrialized parts of Russia, it would remain a technological backwater. I have thought about doing a timeline based on this scenario, but I wonder what the interest would be on another World War Two timeline.
The Chronicles of Hennodia
TEUTONIC FEDERAL ELECTION, 1911
Teutonia has always been a land dominated by strongmen [and in a couple of cases, strongwomen]. So it is not unsurprising that the response to a rising in the 1860s was not to implement full democracy, but to implement severely-controlled democracy, what the Kaiser dubbed "managed democracy". In theory, the Reichstag could overrule the Kaiser, but the Reichstag always sided with the Kaiser's decision.
Why was it so subservient? Because of the Imperial Loyalist Association (Kaiserliche Regierungstreue Verband), led by the Emperor's younger brother Freidrich von Dencuit, consistently having a majority, first through the genuine support of the Teutonic people, then over time increasingly by both voter fraud and gerrymandering of the constituencies. Their chief opponent was at first the Liberal-Nationalist Party (Liberale-Nationalistisch Partei) which advocated unification with Westria, arguing that they had more in common with Westria than they did with the Lavonians, and that the ideal shape of Teutonia was as a nation-state, not a hegemonic empire. They also advocate voluntary expulsion of non-Teutonic peoples in "Greater Teutonia". As their name (Liberal-Nationalist) suggests, they're generally opposed to the Imperial Loyalists' protectionist agenda, thinking that a free trade policy would benefit the country better. They're very much the party of the non-KRV middle-class.
But over time, the rising opposition turned out to be the Democratic Socialist Party (Demokratische Sozialistische Partei), a solidly-working-class trade-unionist party advocating workers' control of the economy and a general opposition to the whole business of "monarchy". They were outright banned once, but riots in major cities led the Kaiser to consider a more subtle approach, that of keeping restrictive voter franchises in provinces, drawing constituencies to weaken their potential and in select constituencies, electoral pacts with other "non-socialist" parties. The DSP is very much the party of the urban working-class, with some rural strength here and there.
One peculiar party is the science-obsessed Progressive Party (Fortschrittspartei) led by Viktor Frankenstein, eccentric scientist and member for a southern mountainous province. From a wealthy middle-class family, he once went to Sylvania and came back... disjointed might be the best way to describe it. He has suffered from his family dying [he sometimes claims their deaths were because of a monster he created. What terrible things grief does to people] and in the Reichstag he oddly looks at bolts and nuts mumbling something like "Adam". Still, the people of Goldstadt-Ingolstadt has seen fit to re-elect him over and over.
A somewhat unwelcome arrival to Teutonic politics is the rapid rise of the Brotherhood (Bruderschaft), a far-right and xenophobic party that targets ethnic minorities and argues that Teutonia needs a Fuehrer. Surprisingly enough, they're somewhat disdainful of the monarchy, seeing it as weak and not serving Teutonia properly. They don't have a real leader because it's mostly a confederation of four or five parties all led by strong egos.
The final party on the infobox is the Rahvaerakond (Lavonian for People's Party), a catch-all party advocating for Lavonian minority interests, with a clear minority agitating for independence [which isn't an unpopular stance, to be fair]. They are the most popular party in Lavonia, much to the traditional Teutonic elite in that region's dismay. Talk of restricting the franchise to "loyal subjects" has always been on the table when it comes to Lavonia.
The 1911 election could be summed up as "the final straw almost broke", as the gerrymandering and vote suppression couldn't hold back the tide of people joining the DSP, as they went from a bare popular vote lead in 1907 to a commanding lead in 1911. The old boundaries saw a lot of assumed-safe KRV seats go DSP or LNP. But it wasn't enough for the KRV to be denied first place.
As much as the von Dencuits loathed to do so, they came to an agreement with the Brotherhood. The agreed terms were kept secret, but an interesting note is that after the agreement was made, Teutonia adopted a more belligerent stance, goading Gallia to war. Political scientists agree that the influence of the far-right Brotherhood made war more likely.
TEUTONIC FEDERAL ELECTION, 1911
Teutonia has always been a land dominated by strongmen [and in a couple of cases, strongwomen]. So it is not unsurprising that the response to a rising in the 1860s was not to implement full democracy, but to implement severely-controlled democracy, what the Kaiser dubbed "managed democracy". In theory, the Reichstag could overrule the Kaiser, but the Reichstag always sided with the Kaiser's decision.
Why was it so subservient? Because of the Imperial Loyalist Association (Kaiserliche Regierungstreue Verband), led by the Emperor's younger brother Freidrich von Dencuit, consistently having a majority, first through the genuine support of the Teutonic people, then over time increasingly by both voter fraud and gerrymandering of the constituencies. Their chief opponent was at first the Liberal-Nationalist Party (Liberale-Nationalistisch Partei) which advocated unification with Westria, arguing that they had more in common with Westria than they did with the Lavonians, and that the ideal shape of Teutonia was as a nation-state, not a hegemonic empire. They also advocate voluntary expulsion of non-Teutonic peoples in "Greater Teutonia". As their name (Liberal-Nationalist) suggests, they're generally opposed to the Imperial Loyalists' protectionist agenda, thinking that a free trade policy would benefit the country better. They're very much the party of the non-KRV middle-class.
But over time, the rising opposition turned out to be the Democratic Socialist Party (Demokratische Sozialistische Partei), a solidly-working-class trade-unionist party advocating workers' control of the economy and a general opposition to the whole business of "monarchy". They were outright banned once, but riots in major cities led the Kaiser to consider a more subtle approach, that of keeping restrictive voter franchises in provinces, drawing constituencies to weaken their potential and in select constituencies, electoral pacts with other "non-socialist" parties. The DSP is very much the party of the urban working-class, with some rural strength here and there.
One peculiar party is the science-obsessed Progressive Party (Fortschrittspartei) led by Viktor Frankenstein, eccentric scientist and member for a southern mountainous province. From a wealthy middle-class family, he once went to Sylvania and came back... disjointed might be the best way to describe it. He has suffered from his family dying [he sometimes claims their deaths were because of a monster he created. What terrible things grief does to people] and in the Reichstag he oddly looks at bolts and nuts mumbling something like "Adam". Still, the people of Goldstadt-Ingolstadt has seen fit to re-elect him over and over.
A somewhat unwelcome arrival to Teutonic politics is the rapid rise of the Brotherhood (Bruderschaft), a far-right and xenophobic party that targets ethnic minorities and argues that Teutonia needs a Fuehrer. Surprisingly enough, they're somewhat disdainful of the monarchy, seeing it as weak and not serving Teutonia properly. They don't have a real leader because it's mostly a confederation of four or five parties all led by strong egos.
The final party on the infobox is the Rahvaerakond (Lavonian for People's Party), a catch-all party advocating for Lavonian minority interests, with a clear minority agitating for independence [which isn't an unpopular stance, to be fair]. They are the most popular party in Lavonia, much to the traditional Teutonic elite in that region's dismay. Talk of restricting the franchise to "loyal subjects" has always been on the table when it comes to Lavonia.
The 1911 election could be summed up as "the final straw almost broke", as the gerrymandering and vote suppression couldn't hold back the tide of people joining the DSP, as they went from a bare popular vote lead in 1907 to a commanding lead in 1911. The old boundaries saw a lot of assumed-safe KRV seats go DSP or LNP. But it wasn't enough for the KRV to be denied first place.
As much as the von Dencuits loathed to do so, they came to an agreement with the Brotherhood. The agreed terms were kept secret, but an interesting note is that after the agreement was made, Teutonia adopted a more belligerent stance, goading Gallia to war. Political scientists agree that the influence of the far-right Brotherhood made war more likely.
Last edited:
Personally I find it very interesting. You wrote it very good until now.
Excellent as ever.
I'm struggling to think who I'd support in this instance though...
Thought you would be big on the DSP, after all this is way before the time of the New Left.Excellent as ever.
I'm struggling to think who I'd support in this instance though...
- Status