Canadian PM Bob Stanfield, 1968

Let's say that the non-confidence motion in February is not withdrawn by Stanfield. The Liberals are in the midst of a leadership race, Mike Pearson having announced his retirement in December 1967. How do the Liberals choose their leader in mid-campaign? Whoever wins will lose to Stanfield, though it's much more likely that there will be a PC minority government than a majority. (in '65 the Liberals were only 2 seats short) In particular, will Stanfield deny asylum to draft-dodgers and asylum seekers as Harper is currently doing? You can't expect an ex-draft dodger like PET to be overly sympathetic to the USG's view.
 
Wasn't a certain Picture of Stanfield with a football a bit of a harm to his public image?;)

10picsstanfield.jpg


Mommy!I Dropped It!
:p
 
@theReturner: I love that photo. :D Goes to show you that not everyone is cut enough for football. Now, if he managed to sink a goal in a game of hockey, ;), maybe that could do the trick.

Let's say that the non-confidence motion in February is not withdrawn by Stanfield. The Liberals are in the midst of a leadership race, Mike Pearson having announced his retirement in December 1967. How do the Liberals choose their leader in mid-campaign? Whoever wins will lose to Stanfield, though it's much more likely that there will be a PC minority government than a majority. (in '65 the Liberals were only 2 seats short) In particular, will Stanfield deny asylum to draft-dodgers and asylum seekers as Harper is currently doing? You can't expect an ex-draft dodger like PET to be overly sympathetic to the USG's view.

Well, you never know - maybe Stanfield could pull a surprise and go for a solution where de jure he denies asylum, but de facto allows a blind eye to be turned on the asylum cases. The only way Stanfield would be able to deny asylum in this case is if the US convincingly manages to show some sort of victory in this - which could mean using unconventional informal means, such as opening up backchannels of dialogue with Hồ Chí Minh.
 
Dan: I mean Stanfield pursuing Harper's current asylum policy. Because unless Stanfield defeats them with the NCM in February , Trudeau will be swept into office, and 16 years of socialism await.
 
That photo is from the 74 election campaign so it would not be in play during 68.

That photo is also one of the primary causes that led to the chokehold parties have adopted on campaign appearances and interactions with the media. It was taken during a break in the tour one day when the football started being tossed around. Stanfield who was actually fairly athletic for his age caught several balls and was photographed catching them. He then dropped one awkwardly and the next day it was on the front page of every newspaper in the country.

Stanfield was a firm Red Tory. He would have been better than PET but some version of PET social policies would have been enacted I think.
 
If you wanted the most right-leaning candidate in '68, it would be Bob Winters, but he was shop-worn and too pro-business for the Liberals. I don't mind the social reforms, but Stanfield was in the same mold as Nixon and Heath, the two leading conservative Western leaders at the time. Whatever the case, it wouldn't be socialist economics that multiplied the debt 11 times in 16 years.
 
Dan: I mean Stanfield pursuing Harper's current asylum policy. Because unless Stanfield defeats them with the NCM in February , Trudeau will be swept into office, and 16 years of socialism await.

You're forgetting that Stanfield is a Radical Tory. ;) Like Dief, Stanfield might prove to be a bit contrarian. Hence why I'm making a distinction between de jure and de facto, with the emphasis being on the de facto, which would be like PET. It's basically a classic election strategy - in addition to the platform you were elected on, coöpt the platform of the opposing parties at the same time to steal their thunder to make them seem like also-rans come a general election. Could Stanfield do that? Of course.
 
If you wanted the most right-leaning candidate in '68, it would be Bob Winters, but he was shop-worn and too pro-business for the Liberals. I don't mind the social reforms, but Stanfield was in the same mold as Nixon and Heath, the two leading conservative Western leaders at the time. Whatever the case, it wouldn't be socialist economics that multiplied the debt 11 times in 16 years.

You're right there. I see Stanfield as perhaps half a step or at most one step to the right of Pearson and both of them using binoculars to catch sight of PET off to the left.
 
WC: I will always be convinced Trudeau ran as a Liberal because he couldn't win leading the NDP. Pearson did many good things for the country with two minorities that barely fell short (4, then 2). Stanfield was simply a much better PM than a candidate, which was very unfortunate IMO. :(
 

Ming777

Monthly Donor
Anyone wish for a time machine and the evidence needed to incriminate Trudeau before he became PM?
 
WC: I will always be convinced Trudeau ran as a Liberal because he couldn't win leading the NDP.
Didn't he openly admit that? I could swear that I read he had.

Pearson did many good things for the country with two minorities that barely fell short (4, then 2). Stanfield was simply a much better PM than a candidate, which was very unfortunate IMO. :(
Agreed, agreed. An honourable and competent man who would have likely done many of the good things Trudeau did, while avoiding the excesses.
 
WC: I will always be convinced Trudeau ran as a Liberal because he couldn't win leading the NDP.

Well he's not the only one though he probably set the trend. It seems that there are two kinds of NDP sympathisers. Those that prize ideological purity who join the NDP and those that prize power who join the Liberals (Bob Rae, Ujal Dosanjh).
 
Top