Have a Canadian Prime Minister serve longer than 22.5 years, consecutively or otherwise. No butterflying Mulroney to extend Trudeau. No "Sir John A. lives."
Not unless Meech or Charlottetown pass.
The PQ actually helped get Mulroney elected in 1984 and re-elected in 1988. If they had felt that he'd kept his end of the (unspoken) bargain and made that worth their while, they'd have quietly dumped sovereignty and become a "Quebec-first" political party. And there would have been no Bloc Quebecois. Instead the Tories would have swept Quebec yet again. Keeping the west is harder, but With senate reform is doable.Those were the catalysts for the Bloc. No effect on Parizeau winning the 1994 provincial election. Parizeau on bread-and-butter wasn't much worse than Johnson Jr anyhow.
Even if you butterfly Bou-Bou's leukemia, very tough to get a third consecutive term. No one broke the "ghost 22nd" from 07/09/59 until last December.
What about Clyde Wells?
Well this might not be valid considering that it takes place BEFORE King but...
WI Laurier wins the Election of 1911? Say he arranges a better campaign, the US senator doesn't make those annexationist remarks, a successful naval compromise is worked out etc...
Anyways he say he wins a majority placing the next election in 1916. 1914, the war breaks out Laurier remains firm on the issue of Conscription (anti). Throughout the war he attempts to forge a compromise between the English Canadians and the French Canadians. Unfortunately the Laurier machine has run out of steam and he is unable to. So instead he postphones the election until after the war.
The election itself is held in 1919 giving Laurier in TTL a 23 year unbroken tenure as PM.
Jean Chretien decides not to try and get away with the sponsorship scandal, thereby making it a non-issue since it never would have happened. In that case, he continues to govern in Canada.
Jean Chretien decides not to try and get away with the sponsorship scandal, thereby making it a non-issue since it never would have happened. In that case, he continues to govern in Canada.
Jean Chretien decides not to try and get away with the sponsorship scandal, thereby making it a non-issue since it never would have happened. In that case, he continues to govern in Canada.
Chretien got elected in 1993. 16 years ago this November. To get him past Mackenzie King you have to keep Johnny-boy around until April of 2016...![]()
How about having Mulroney survive the scandals of the late 80's early 90's, survive the 1992ish recession and get re-elected in 1992/3. And then have him keep going until at least 2006-7, possibly even to the present? Just think, no Reform Party, no Bloc Quebecois, no PM Jean Chretien, no PM Paul Martin, Jr. and the old Progressive Conservative is still going. Plausible or ASB?
I doubt it. Like, really really doubt it. It's hard to butterfly away a 209-seat collapse, and even if Mulroney wins in '93 he's had three terms, parties just don't tend to last much longer than that. King hung on because a) he was a ridiculously straight arrow, which can't be said of Mulroney*; b) the grits kept sticking him on the ticket time after time after time, something which doesn't happen too much these days, where it's one strike and you're out for the major parties; and c) between the Depression and the war, King had three practically freebie elections back to back, something you can't particularly plausibly give Brian.
*Not that he was particularly more corrupt than, say, his successor; just that King was noticeably less, and for mere mortals, after a decade in power, scandals tend to accumulate.
I doubt it. Like, really really doubt it. It's hard to butterfly away a 209-seat collapse, and even if Mulroney wins in '93 he's had three terms, parties just don't tend to last much longer than that. King hung on because a) he was a ridiculously straight arrow, which can't be said of Mulroney*; b) the grits kept sticking him on the ticket time after time after time, something which doesn't happen too much these days, where it's one strike and you're out for the major parties; and c) between the Depression and the war, King had three practically freebie elections back to back, something you can't particularly plausibly give Brian.
*Not that he was particularly more corrupt than, say, his successor; just that King was noticeably less, and for mere mortals, after a decade in power, scandals tend to accumulate.
If Clark, Mulroney or Turner were the kind of leaders who could pull a Mackenzie King... Well... Clark, Mulroney, or Turner would still be in power today! The new record would be either 25 years (Mulroney or Turner) or 30 years (Clark) which would be more like something you see in a third world tin pot dictatorship...