Heavyweights: The Men of Montreal

Oh look, it's Prentice who made the gaffe, not the complacent incumbent McKenna. What a shock :rolleyes:
Well of course! You didn't expect McKenna to go down after only 1 majority did you? :p
But I do have to ask: why is May in the debates at all? The only explanation is that someone defected to the Greens (which someone - Bruce Hyer - did IOTL before 2008, which is why she participated, and even then it was a very near thing. Because in 2011 she didn't, though she did in 2015 because she was an incumbent MP).
Hmm, good point. I suppose we could retcon an MP or two into crossing the floor.
This is a sop for @CanadianTory, isn't it. Even if it isn't, Lord's name is going to be bandied about for Tory leader for sure, as it was IOTL (as the counterweight to McKenna), which should be interesting.
Sort of. I do actually quite like Bernard Lord, so it's a win-win. However, (spoiler) he's not becoming Tory leader; like OTL he has no interest in the federal scene and Prentice is unlikely to be ousted anyway.
Oooh, neat. Did the Greens win any seats? What about the Conservatives? The NDP always does best with a divided right in BC, so I would assume so. Maybe Cummins runs a halfway-decent campaign this time and actually runs a bigger slate of candidates.
Greens yes, Conservatives no. Seat count is 69-13-1, PV is 49%-27%-12%-11% (numbers taken from an OTL campaign poll).
 
Third general election, yes, but don't forget she ran unsuccessfully in the 2006 London North-Centre by-election. As for her leadership, worth noting that it was under somewhat of a strain in 2010 IOTL (here and here are some good articles from the time about the infighting that was beginning to bloom in the party).
Touche, I forgot all about that and I really shouldn't have, considering that (as I said before) May is a media darling and her by-election run got a lot of attention. Thanks for the links to the articles (though only the first one works for me). It does raise some good points and it highlights her weaknesses (even as the media blithely ignores them). I'm reminded that in many other countries, multiple people often lead (or "represent") Green Parties in their respective legislatures or on the campaign trail, but it's always been the Elizabeth May Show over here. In 2011, after all, she barely ran a national campaign at all, focusing laser-like on her riding and saying to hell with everyone else. Not to mention her staunch anti-Harper rhetoric, including (yes) saying she'd rather him be taken out than electing any Greens to Parliament, which of course does nothing to shed the "watermelon" reputation many Greens are trying to run away from as they seek to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters (especially since her predecessor Jim Harris was an Eco-capitalist). All right, I'm convinced. If she hadn't won a seat in 2011 IOTL she'd probably have been finished, and so I'll allow the same would be true ITTL.

She'd continue to be a media darling afterwards, though, and I imagine she'd want to take advantage somehow.

True Grit said:
As an aside, I think I speak for @Hubert Humphrey Fan 1968 and myself when I say we appreciate your comments, the attention the detail is always impressive.
Thank you very much, I always feel like a wet blanket with my "well actually" replies and I really appreciate that the two of you take them in the constructive spirit with which they're intended :)

Well of course! You didn't expect McKenna to go down after only 1 majority did you? :p
Well it might have been interesting if you'd knocked him down to minority territory, at least. Papa Trudeau never won two consecutive majorities and Pearson never won any at all! :p

Hubert Humphrey Fan 1968 said:
Hmm, good point. I suppose we could retcon an MP or two into crossing the floor.
Actually I'm misremembering - it wasn't Hyer (he defected after 2011 when May was already in Parliament) but Blair Wilson. Hyer's not an MP going into 2013 ITTL because he was part of Layton's 2008 Northern Ontario sweep, and Wilson would have been defeated in his bid for re-election as a Green MP in 2009 ITTL (though as IOTL 2008 it would give her a podium at the debates in that election), so unfortunately you can't use either of those.

Hubert Humphrey Fan 1968 said:
Greens yes, Conservatives no. Seat count is 69-13-1, PV is 49%-27%-12%-11% (numbers taken from an OTL campaign poll).
So let's talk about this one, then.

So here's the interesting thing about the BC NDP; they have a high floor (2001 aside, they've not received less than 39% since 1969) but also a low ceiling (the best they've ever done in BC history is 46%, in 1979). All four times they were able to form government, they always did so with roughly 40% of the vote (it's downright Olympian: 39.59% in 1972; 40.71% in 1991; 39.45% in 1996; 40.29% in 2017). That's right; they've never formed government in BC with even 41% of the vote. They've always done best in terms of raw popular vote in a polarized election (their best-ever result was the aforementioned 46% in 1979, when the top two parties got over 94% of the vote between them). I honestly don't see them getting as high as 49% in a general election. Yes, I did find the poll you referenced but this is peak "polling error" period and even amongst the wildly-inaccurate polls of that election this one stands out as truly exceptional.

Because the BC Liberals have not received less than 40% of the vote since 1991. Ever. They also have a high floor... and a low ceiling (2001 aside they've also never topped 46%). Even if they fall below 40% I really don't think they're doing as badly as 27%. Even in 1991 they still got 33%, and I think that ought to be considered rock bottom unless and until another right-wing party supplants them. The Conservatives will need at least two election cycles to do that.

The NDP certainly aren't getting 49% with the Greens doing as well as 12% - in fact I can see the Greens going down slightly, certainly maintaining the general 8-9% of their OTL 2005-13 runs. The Greens only managed to run candidates in 61 of 85 ridings in 2013; they were on the decline (they ran a full slate in 2009). The Conservatives, meanwhile, also wanted to run a full slate but only managed 56 of 85 IOTL. I doubt they'll get a candidate in every riding; they really don't have a base in Greater Vancouver or Greater Victoria so why waste resources fielding candidates there? But having them run more candidates than the Greens? That'll sting a lot. So say Cummins manages to run a 3/4 slate (64/85 or so) including in Boundary--Similkameen (their best riding in 2009, where they got over 20% of the vote; but where they apparently had trouble with their 2013 candidate, who in the end ran as an independent - easily butterflied). Considering that IOTL Reform BC won two seats on just 9% of the vote, then assuming the Conservatives are able to more than double their vote share to double digits on just a few more additional candidates, that's where the vote splits that deliver large swathes of the province to the NDP comes in - but it also gives the Conservatives one (1) seat of their own: Peace River South. Their best seat IOTL (27%, also their only second place), and a traditional right-wing stronghold (Reform BC won here in 1996). The candidate even got some national press, https://www.pressreader.com/canada/national-post-latest-edition/20130601/281578058205162, and provincial news sources also covered him extensively. This Kurt Peats has the making of a likely leader once Cummins inevitably steps down upon losing - which means continued right-wing vote-splitting come 2017 (especially since voters are likely to be tired of the Liberals given their lengthy federal tenure - one reason I suspect the BC Conservatives didn't catch on IOTL).

So my suggested revised voteshare: NDP 41, Lib 40, Con 10, Grn 8. Seat count 69-13-1-1 (plus 1 Ind) respectively (the Greens pull an Elizabeth May and become more efficient at winning seats despite winning fewer votes). The NDP, naturally, decides to change their tune on that whole "proportional representation" thing, not unlike a certain J. Trudeau IOTL.

---

I was also going to speculate on TTL Ontario 2007 and Hampton's road to the federal NDP leadership, but I'll save that for another time. This is plenty long already. Thanks again for tolerating my stuff and nonsense :happyblush
 
BC: Mike Farnworth (recently elected in a 69 seat landslide over the Kevin Falcon-led Liberals)
Man, not even in an alternate timeline can the BC NDP put the 90s scandals behind them, huh? (Yes I know Farnworth was not personally implicated in Casinogate, but he was still the minister in charge during it, and you can bet that's enough for a line of attack.)

Greens yes, Conservatives no. Seat count is 69-13-1, PV is 49%-27%-12%-11% (numbers taken from an OTL campaign poll).
So Brainbin already went over why the NDP and Liberal vote shares don't make sense, but to me the bigger problem here is the Conservatives. Sure, they had these numbers (or better!) in polls, but it didn't hold throughout the actual campaign period— their numbers gradually dropped as voters returned to the Liberals, either out of loyalty or out of fear at the prospect of an NDP government. Moreover, with Kevin Falcon as Liberal leader, it's tough to imagine the party even being in the crisis they were IOTL— the party's right flank isn't going to mutiny when one of their own is leading the party, and even if they did he would be in a position to woo them back. If TTL's BC Liberal Party is fracturing under stress, it would be the left of the party moving to the Greens (as that was a big part of their rise IOTL). And that's not even getting into the Conservatives' own problems…

Granted: I know this is kind of a throwaway detail and it isn't hugely important, since the Conservatives don't even have a seat and we're probably not going to see any more of them, but…
 
Last edited:
Yes, I did find the poll you referenced but this is peak "polling error" period and even amongst the wildly-inaccurate polls of that election this one stands out as truly exceptional.
Well, yes. That was rather the point. :p
Man, not even in an alternate timeline can the BC NDP put the 90s scandals behind them, huh? (Yes I know Farnworth was not personally implicated in Casinogate, but he was still the minister in charge during it, and you can bet that's enough for a line of attack.)
Look on the bright side, least they won :p.
So my suggested revised voteshare: NDP 41, Lib 40, Con 10, Grn 8. Seat count 69-13-1-1 (plus 1 Ind) respectively (the Greens pull an Elizabeth May and become more efficient at winning seats despite winning fewer votes). The NDP, naturally, decides to change their tune on that whole "proportional representation" thing, not unlike a certain J. Trudeau IOTL.
I'm sorry, but a 1% lead is much too low IMO. On top of that, I understand that vote splitting is going to cost the Liberals quite a few seats, but I simply don't see the NDP winning 69 seats with a 1 point lead (and frankly with how the scenario is supposed to work, I feel like they'd win by more than 1%). Plus, the NDP might not have historically achieved higher than 40%, but I honestly feel like they'd be able to achieve around 43-45%. How about something like 68-13-1-1-2 and 44%-35%-10%-9%? Or maybe alternatively, taking into account @Kermode's point about the internal ideological structure of the BC Liberals, something like 44%-35%-14%-5% (just guessing I'd say due to the lack of vote splitting that comes to something like 61-20-2-2)?
 
Last edited:
Before I return to BC, a sketch for Ontario 2007 ITTL. Polls before the writ was dropped generally showed the Liberals around 40% and the Tories in the mid-to-high-30s, which is probably where they would wind up after the election, similar to OTL 2011 (which was 37.65-35.45). My rough sketch has the Liberals holding their majority (though not by much), but symbolically falling below the 40% threshold (in an election where the voters resoundingly reject PR no less!), and the Tories improve on their 2003 result rather than fall back from it. The NDP, meanwhile, improve considerably on their 2003 vote (as IOTL), enough to more than double their caucus, and put Hampton on the map. The Greens break through, as IOTL, though not quite to the same extent. Approximately 39% Lib, 35% PC, 18% NDP, 7% Grn. In terms of seats, both the PCs and the NDP gain seven on their OTL tallies, for a total of Lib 57, PC 33, NDP 17. (The changed seats are Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Algoma--Manitoulin, Timiskaming--Cochrane, Ottawa Centre, Hamilton Mountain, York South--Weston, and Davenport in favour of the NDP; and Nipissing, Stormont--Dundas--South Glengarry, Barrie, Kitchener--Conestoga, Lambton--Kent--Middlesex, Don Valley West, and Eglinton--Lawrence in favour of the Tories.) By 2011, the Liberals have lost two by-elections (Ottawa West--Nepean goes PC after Jim Watson vacates to run for Mayor of Ottawa, and St. Paul's - which is adjacent to the two Toronto PC ridings - surprisingly goes PC as well with their star candidate, since Hoskins remains a federal MP and can't replace Bryant), and with other vacancies prior to dissolution they are effectively running a minority government. (Dissolution is Lib 53, PC 35, NDP 17.)

Come 2011, Tory is able to break through in a major way in the 905, and to a lesser extent the 416; by contrast the Liberals probably hold on much better in the Southwest since Hudak isn't the Tory Leader, bringing us back to the "rural bulwark" paradigm of the 1970s and 80s. The NDP continues to see growth, mostly (again) in urban ridings that would never vote PC, and probably completing their sweep of the North (except for Thunder Bay--Superior North of course). I see no reason why the NDP leadership convention would go differently ITTL so Horwath probably still wins it, this time it's just she inherits a party doing much better than IOTL. I don't have 2011 numbers yet just because I thought I'd lay out the 2007 scenario first before detailed speculation on 2011.

So Brainbin already went over why the NDP and Liberal vote shares don't make sense, but to me the bigger problem here is the Conservatives. Sure, they had these numbers (or better!) in polls, but it didn't hold throughout the actual campaign period— their numbers gradually dropped as voters returned to the Liberals, either out of loyalty or out of fear at the prospect of an NDP government. Moreover, with Kevin Falcon as Liberal leader, it's tough to imagine the party even being in the crisis they were IOTL— the party's right flank isn't going to mutiny when one of their own is leading the party, and even if they did he would be in a position to woo them back. If TTL's BC Liberal Party is fracturing under stress, it would be the left of the party moving to the Greens (as that was a big part of their rise IOTL). And that's not even getting into the Conservatives' own problems…
Well we don't know what kind of campaigner Falcon is, he could well be a terrible one. In fact I see a lot of potential Paul Martin parallels here: he's a party insider with intimate involvement in all the party scandals (Christy Clark had been out of government for two terms and could paint herself as an "outsider"), and Falcon being on the party's right-wing could very well mean he has to awkwardly pivot to the left (as Martin did) so as to staunch the bleeding of votes there, figuring (as Martin did) that the right-wing supporters of his party wouldn't vote for the "scary" Conservatives anyway, with decidedly mixed results... I will say I agree with your logic on the Greens.

like they'd win by more than 1%). Plus, the NDP might not have historically achieved higher than 40%, but I honestly feel like they'd be able to achieve around 43-45%. How about something like 68-13-1-1-2 and 44%-35%-10%-9%? Or maybe alternatively, taking into account @Kermode's point about the internal ideological structure of the BC Liberals, something like 44%-35%-14%-5% (just guessing I'd say due to the lack of vote splitting that comes to something like 61-20-2-2)?
Fair point, I honestly should have followed through to seat count yesterday instead of just leaving it at voteshare, and for that I apologize. Because I don't think the NDP would do that well in terms of seat count. Again, the best they've ever done proportionally is 38/55, or 69% of the seats. Translated to 2013 that is 59 seats, not 68/69. In 1991 and 1996, they won 51 and then 39 out of 75 seats respectively. So I would say somewhere in the 50s in terms of seats based on a rough estimate. As for the Liberals, we can assume Falcon is a lousy campaigner, Greens to the left of him and Tories to the right both leech votes and thus split them, allowing Dippers to come up the middle, except in a few ridings where the minor parties actually pull through. So the two indies (Huntington and Simpson), Weaver, and Peats in Peace River South. IOTL 2013, the Liberals got over 50% of the vote in 27 ridings; assume they hold all of those (and lose all others), and we have NDP 54, Lib 27, Ind 2, Con 1, Grn 1. As far as proportion of the popular vote, remember that in 1996 the NDP got 39 seats to 33 for the Liberals with the NDP two points behind in the popular vote. So say 41% NDP, 39% Lib, 12% Grn, 7% Con. The Greens match their 2001 tally and the Tories don't match 1996 Reform levels but still an improvement over the 5% of OTL... enough to split the vote everywhere that matters and win the one seat.

Those are my thoughts, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Approximately 39% Lib, 35% PC, 18% NDP, 7% Grn. In terms of seats, both the PCs and the NDP gain seven on their OTL tallies, for a total of Lib 57, PC 33, NDP 17. (The changed seats are Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Algoma--Manitoulin, Timiskaming--Cochrane, Ottawa Centre, Hamilton Mountain, York South--Weston, and Davenport in favour of the NDP; and Nipissing, Stormont--Dundas--South Glengarry, Barrie, Kitchener--Conestoga, Lambton--Kent--Middlesex, Don Valley West, and Eglinton--Lawrence in favour of the Tories.) By 2011, the Liberals have lost two by-elections (Ottawa West--Nepean goes PC after Jim Watson vacates to run for Mayor of Ottawa, and St. Paul's - which is adjacent to the two Toronto PC ridings - surprisingly goes PC as well with their star candidate, since Hoskins remains a federal MP and can't replace Bryant), and with other vacancies prior to dissolution they are effectively running a minority government. (Dissolution is Lib 53, PC 35, NDP 17.)

Come 2011, Tory is able to break through in a major way in the 905, and to a lesser extent the 416; by contrast the Liberals probably hold on much better in the Southwest since Hudak isn't the Tory Leader, bringing us back to the "rural bulwark" paradigm of the 1970s and 80s. The NDP continues to see growth, mostly (again) in urban ridings that would never vote PC, and probably completing their sweep of the North (except for Thunder Bay--Superior North of course). I see no reason why the NDP leadership convention would go differently ITTL so Horwath probably still wins it, this time it's just she inherits a party doing much better than IOTL. I don't have 2011 numbers yet just because I thought I'd lay out the 2007 scenario first before detailed speculation on 2011.
Makes sense.
we have NDP 54, Lib 27, Ind 2, Con 1, Grn 1. As far as proportion of the popular vote, remember that in 1996 the NDP got 39 seats to 33 for the Liberals with the NDP two points behind in the popular vote. So say 41% NDP, 39% Lib, 12% Grn, 7% Con. The Greens match their 2001 tally and the Tories don't match 1996 Reform levels but still an improvement over the 5% of OTL... enough to split the vote everywhere that matters and win the one seat.
I'd probably change the PV to 42%-38%-12%-7% but aside from that this works.
 
Last edited:
Also, after speaking with True Grit, we decided that May's appearance at the debate is explained by Conservative MP Inky Mark not resigning, and then joining the Greens ahead of schedule.
 
Frank McKenna had accomplished a lot in his time as Canada's Prime Minister. He had steered Canada through the great recession with minimal damage (although how much credit he should receive for that was a topic of much debate), implemented the Kelowna Accord greatly improving quality of life for many Indigenous Canadians, and had overseen a period of greater national unity than at any point in several decades. And on the political front, McKenna had been a godsend for the Liberal Party, reducing what was supposed to be a long stint in opposition to a mere 18 months based largely off his personal popularity and campaigning skill (though the various missteps of the Harper government had certainly helped) while simultaneously moving the party past the bitter infighting of the past.

Still, McKenna had been in power 7 years, and like any other politician who serves long enough, people were slowly getting tired of him. Sure, people appreciated all he had done for the country, and the man himself was still fairly popular, but he had been in power a long time (the Liberals even more so, having been in power 20 of the last 21 years) and like any government in power that long, incumbency fatigue was building up. The general thought among the public was that though McKenna had done a lot of good, it was simply time for a change. To this end, they began to support the Tories, with the Conservatives moving narrowly ahead in opinion polling in the late months of 2013 (although the Conservatives were hardly giddy, what with how their last spat of promising polling had turned out).

With the Conservatives now leading in polling, and McKenna not getting any more popular (not to mention McKenna's own discontent with the hectic federal political scene and wish to spend more time with his family), the press, always eager for a story, began to speculate if McKenna would resign the leadership and therefore the premiership. The Liberals had no shortage of potential candidates to replace him (some of whom had been organizing for a leadership bid for years), and perhaps with a fresh face in 24 Sussex their fortunes would improve (after all, the last time the Liberals had elected a new leader they were back in government 6 months later). As 2014 dragged on, McKenna did little to dispell this speculation, refusing to answer questions on the matter. Of course, this lack of direct denial only led to more speculation, and soon the question journalists were asking was not if McKenna would resign, but when. Therefore, it was no surprise when McKenna announced at a Press Conference on July 19 that he would be resigning the leadership as soon as the Liberals elected a successor. The race to elect Canada's next Prime Minister was on.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly after McKenna's resignation, the field began to take shape. The Liberals would end up picking from a slate of candidates consisting of Navdeep Bains, Martha Hall Findlay, Marc Garneau, Siobhan Coady, Gerard Kennedy, Bob Rae, Dominic LeBlanc, Michael Ignatieff, Martin Cauchon, and David McGuinty, with everyone in the field being a member of the cabinet. From the beginning, the contest was an open one, being something of a 4-way race between Kennedy, Rae, Ignatieff, and LeBlanc, with each of the four considered to have an excellent shot at becoming leader, though Rae and Ignatieff were thought to have somewhat better chances than Kennedy and LeBlanc. The irony of Rae and Ignatieff, friends since adolescence, not just competing against each other for the leadership but representing opposite wings of the party (Rae the left, Ignatieff the right) was not lost on either candidate. Indeed, over the course of the campaign, Rae and Ignatieff's friendship slowly began to come apart, and by the date of the convention, personal relations between the two were professional at best.

As the campaign wore on, none of the four leaders were able to pull away, with the race remaining a close contest. Each candidate had somewhat different support bases sure; Kennedy appealing to Western Liberals (being from the West), those who wanted to reform the party's internal structure and anti-poverty activists, LeBlanc to some on the left of the party and the Atlantic Wing of the Party, Ignatieff to the fiscal conservatives and "Blue Liberals" who had supported McKenna and Martin, and Rae to the left of the party and those few who still considered themselves Chrétienities, but all four of the candidates had served in the same cabinet, making it difficult for any one candidate to differentiate themselves above the others. Therefore, much of the attacks levied between the candidates came from before their time in federal politics; Rae and Ignatieff being hit particularly hard, Rae for having been a New Democrat and for his infamous tenure as Premier of Ontario, and Ignatieff for having supported the Iraq War, respectively.

The debates came and went, and while Rae was generally seen as the best performer, they failed to move the needle much, if at all. And so, when the Liberals gathered in Ottawa in April of 2015, the outcome was no more clear than it had been when the race began. It was still an open race, and the nation watched with bated breath as the Liberals began to elect the next Prime Minister.

On the opening ballot, Ignatieff placed first, doing slightly better than expected with 24% support. Rae was close behind him with 21% support, Kennedy was even closer behind Rae, with 19% support, and LeBlanc was the worst places of the Big Four, at only 17% support. No other candidate even reached 6%. On this first ballot, Bains was eliminated and threw his support to LeBlanc, while Martha Hall Findlay and Cauchon, not seeing the point in continuing a doomed effort, withdrew and both threw their support to Rae. On the second ballot, the support of Findlay and Cauchon delegates was enough to put Rae over Ignatieff, and every candidate except McGuinty saw an increase in support from the previous ballot (in Garneau's case, the support of former Cauchon delegates to the only other Quebecer in the race was enough for him to overtake McGuinty), with LeBlanc and Rae enjoying the biggest increases (indeed, LeBlanc's increase in support gave him a significant amount of momentum going into the third ballot). Coady, as the last-placed candidate, was eliminated and endorsed Ignatieff, while McGuinty withdrew and threw his support behind Ignatieff.

The third ballot was the most dramatic of all the ballots. Ignatieff once again placed first thanks in large part to McGuinty's support, and Marc Garneau was eliminated, but that wasn't the part everyone was talking about. No, what everyone was discussing was Kennedy shockingly dropping in support, with some of his delegates moving over to LeBlanc, which, combined with LeBlanc picking up a good amount of support, pushed Kennedy narrowly into fourth. And then, Kennedy did something even more shocking. Despite most analysists insisting that Kennedy had a path to the leadership, he withdrew (but did not endorse any of the remaining candidates). With the Kennedy and Garneau delegates now free (Garneau too having refused to endorse any of the candidates), there was a massive swath of delegates moving around, and few people knew what would happen in the next ballot. As it turned out, the fourth ballot was almost as dramatic as the third, as Ignatieff, Rae, and LeBlanc were in a virtual 3-way tie, with less than 2% separating 1st placed Ignatieff and 3rd placed LeBlanc, and LeBlanc only 0.6% behind Rae (and thus only 0.6% off making the 5th ballot). With LeBlanc not endorsing either candidate and Rae and Ignatieff very close to each other, almost no one knew who would win the leadership in the next round. As it happened, Rae would triumph over his old college roommate, 53%-47%, therefore becoming Canada's next Prime Minister.

It had been a dramatic convention, up there with the PC leadership conventions of 1983 and 1976, one for the history books. But now it was over, the Liberals had their new leader, and now that leader turned to the difficult task of governing (and the possibly even more difficult task of winning the next election).

15LPCLeadership.png
 
Last edited:
You did it, you actually did it. You madmen, you! Prime Minister Bob Rae! I mean, surely the Liberals are going to lose this time, right? I mean, this is the kind of result that comes from either desperation or complacency, and they're not desperate, so...

I am glad you addressed Ignatieff because I've been wondering about him. I have a feeling he helped "encourage" McKenna to retire when he did, because seven years is a really short tenure for a Liberal PM who keeps winning (look at how long Laurier, King, and Trudeau all lasted... even Chretien held on for a decade with Martin breathing down his neck). Ignatieff losing to Rae must sting. Now will he "stand down" come the next election cycle or will he seriously say "I bet Bob'll lose next time and then I'll be leader"? Or will he just lose his seat? So many options! I mean, the man's got to get back to academia somehow.
 
You did it, you actually did it. You madmen, you! Prime Minister Bob Rae! I mean, surely the Liberals are going to lose this time, right? I mean, this is the kind of result that comes from either desperation or complacency, and they're not desperate, so...
Well, the Liberals did poll pretty well in Ontario during his interim leadership, and he is an excellent campaigner, and Prentice is Prentice... let's just say anything is possible. :p
I am glad you addressed Ignatieff because I've been wondering about him. I have a feeling he helped "encourage" McKenna to retire when he did, because seven years is a really short tenure for a Liberal PM who keeps winning (look at how long Laurier, King, and Trudeau all lasted... even Chretien held on for a decade with Martin breathing down his neck).
The way I see it, I don't think McKenna would require much convincing. That said, while I don't think Ignatieff would have directly pushed McKenna to resign, I doubt he would push back against the idea when McKenna would have floated it to him.
Ignatieff losing to Rae must sting. Now will he "stand down" come the next election cycle or will he seriously say "I bet Bob'll lose next time and then I'll be leader"? Or will he just lose his seat? So many options! I mean, the man's got to get back to academia somehow.
While I cannot speak to your other question, I can confirm that Ignatieff will not be declining re-election at the next election.
 
Last edited:
It seemed Frank McKenna had chosen the perfect time to resign. Shortly after his resignation, the price of oil tanked, causing economic growth to slow down, with especially great economic woe in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and pushing the value of the Canadian Dollar down significantly. In response, newly minted Prime Minister Bob Rae announced that Canada would indulge in a Keynesian spending binge in order to boost economic growth and reduce unemployment. It was a sound plan, but it played right into the image of the spendthrift that Rae had acquired during his tenure as Premier of Ontario and fought so hard to shed, so while it may have been a solid plan policy-wise, politically it was a disaster. Immediately, the Conservatives came out swinging, accusing Rae of cruelly piling debt onto future generations. In other circumstances, it might not have worked, but because of Rae's already pre-existing reputation, it was highly effective, and the Conservatives went from leading narrowly to leading by double-digits in some polls.

Still, the spending did have its merits. Economic growth did pick up, and unemployment did go down. With people feeling the promised effects, by the beginning of 2017 anger towards Rae had subsided and the polls tightened up some. However, Rae's personal ratings recovered only slightly, with Jim Prentice regularly outpolling him on the question of who Canadians preferred as Prime Minister, and the Conservatives still had a healthy lead over the Liberals. Therefore, when the writs were dropped for an election on September 22, 2017, Conservatives across the country were confident of winning a majority. Not only did they have a healthy lead in the opinion polling, but Jim Prentice more popular than Bob Rae, and the party was hopeful for a breakthrough in Quebec, where the Bloc was expected to do even worse than in 2013, possibly even falling into third behind the Conservatives.

However, once the campaign started, the Liberals began to eat into the Tory lead. The Conservatives didn't do anything wrong (far from it, still scarred by the 2013 result they ran a very safe campaign), but Jim Prentice was simply a man lacking in charisma and excitement. In contrast, even Rae's opponents (and he had many) admitted that he was an excellent campaigner who could very effectively communicate his ideas. Rae went all across the country, from coast to coast, attacking Prentice and the NDP while selling the record of the long-serving government as best as he could (which turned out to be quite well). And thus, from what had at the beginning of the campaign looked like a healthy Tory majority, slowly turned into a thin Tory Majority, then a Tory Minority, to by the midpoint a slim Liberal Minority. It seemed that Bob Rae might be able to do what had seemed impossible only a few short months prior and win the election.

And then came the debate.

Held on September 15 between the leaders of every party except the Greens (who lacked a seat), the leaders discussed a variety of issues facing Canadians, from job creation to healthcare to transit to the environment. The key moment came near the end. Jim Prentice and Pierre Paquette had been midling, not bad, but not good either (which was still a huge improvement for Prentice from his 2013 debacle), while Bob Rae, and Howard Hampton were seen to have done pretty well. And then, Hampton went on the offensive. He brought up an incident from when he had been Ontario Minister of Justice under Rae where Rae had waited until Hampton was out of the province to announce a policy Hampton opposed. He continued, giving a list of things misdeeds Rae had committed while Premier, ending by addressing the audience and asking if they really felt a man who had done all those things was worthy of being their Prime Minister.

Instantly, almost all of Rae's hard work was undone. While the NDP were obviously the prime beneficiaries of the debate, the Conservatives too picked up support from the Liberals, and while a few days prior a Liberal minority seemed the most likely outcome, now, once again, the Tories seemed headed for a healthy majority. While Rae did manage to close the gap some before election day, most people still expected a Tory majority, with the New Democrats looking at up to 40 seats.

Ultimately, the election wasn't quite as decisive as had been expected. The Conservatives finished 3% ahead of the Liberals and won 161 seats, 9 short of the number needed for a majority, while the Liberals won 131 seats, above where most people had expected them to finish, and the New Democrats won 31 seats. The Greens had a breakthrough, electing new leader Frank de Jong as the first Green MP in the riding of Guelph, while the Bloc's slow slide continued, losing another 6 seats to finish on only 14 seats, and slipping to third in Quebec behind the Tories. Despite their underperformance, most Conservatives were happy with the result. They had ended 10 years of Liberal rule and had come less than 10 seats short of winning a majority from an election where it seemed they might bottle it and lose once again, and they had done very well in Quebec, winning 16 seats and overtaking the Bloc. The New Democrats too were mostly content. While they hadn't done as well as hoped, their 31 seats won still represented the best result for the party since 1988. The Liberals meanwhile, though obviously disappointed with losing government, were still proud of all their achievements in government and of very nearly having won again, despite having been in power for 23 of the last 24 years. Due to the strong campaign waged by Rae, those hoping for another Liberal leadership race (including, among others, one Michael Ignatieff) would end up disappointed as the party was more than willing to allow Rae to stay on even if they hadn't quite achieved up to their pre-debate dreams.

The Conservatives had won government. Now they would implement their vision of Canada.

17Election.png
 
Another scintillating update! And of course we're nearly caught up with the present now...

However, once the campaign started, the Liberals began to eat into the Tory lead. The Conservatives didn't do anything wrong (far from it, still scarred by the 2013 result they ran a very safe campaign), but Jim Prentice was simply a man lacking in charisma and excitement. In contrast, even Rae's opponents (and he had many) admitted that he was an excellent campaigner who could very effectively communicate his ideas. Rae went all across the country, from coast to coast, attacking Prentice and the NDP while selling the record of the long-serving government as best as he could (which turned out to be quite well). And thus, from what had at the beginning of the campaign looked like a healthy Tory majority, slowly turned into a thin Tory Majority, then a Tory Minority, to by the midpoint a slim Liberal Minority. It seemed that Bob Rae might be able to do what had seemed impossible only a few short months prior and win the election.
I think you're overstating Rae's campaigning skills here. By this logic he should have been able to turn 1995 around as well - of course instead he lost badly, coming in a poor third, albeit with a dead cat bounce from the rock bottom his party had hit earlier on. Not to mention for all the hype he got in the 1980s he wasn't exactly setting the electorate on fire. He still came in third in 1985 and nearly lost his seat and saw his party barely do better than the Tories in 1987. Even in his golden year of 1990 he still got less than 40% of the vote. And the attack ads write themselves. "Look at all the terrible things that happened in Ontario when Bob Rae was Premier! Look at all the scandals that happened while Bob Rae was in government! Look at how poorly the Liberals have been able to anticipate the oil shock despite being in power for the last 20 years! Do you really trust this man to turn things around considering how bad a job he did when he was Premier of Ontario?" Prentice himself doesn't have to personally go on the offensive but the Tory attack ads absolutely should. And those still count for something.

Hubert Humphrey Fan 1968 said:
And then, Hampton went on the offensive. He brought up an incident from when he had been Ontario Minister of Justice under Rae where Rae had waited until Hampton was out of the province to announce a policy Hampton opposed. He continued, giving a list of things misdeeds Rae had committed while Premier, ending by addressing the audience and asking if they really felt a man who had done all those things was worthy of being their Prime Minister.
Again, this is Attack Ad 101 material. Did everyone honestly just decide to hold back on that until Hampton unleashed it at the debate? The Tories in particular should benefit hugely - because Rae was an NDP Premier who is now a Liberal PM - he can't defend his provincial record too strongly because he belongs to a different party now, but he can't not defend it either it's a clear example of what happens under his stewardship.

Not to mention the specter of Rae's legacy is so strong that it more than anything else probably kept the provincial NDP from winning in Ontario IOTL 2018. It's not just going to hang over his former party, it's going to hang over the man himself. I know he polled well when he was interim leader, but polls don't always translate to votes. Rae is going to be attacked so heavily from all corners in this election, especially since the Tories have a "non-scary" leader in Prentice, whom (as you acknowledge) is already seen as a PM-in-waiting by many Canadians.

Also I have my doubts that the economic stimuli would take effect so quickly. Usually you have to wait for them to kick in - famously it takes about one Presidential administration's worth of time, which is small beer for the previous President who was defeated on his bad economic record.

Hubert Humphrey Fan 1968 said:
Ultimately, the election wasn't quite as decisive as had been expected. The Conservatives finished 3% ahead of the Liberals and won 161 seats, 9 short of the number needed for a majority, while the Liberals won 131 seats, above where most people had expected them to finish, and the New Democrats won 31 seats. The Greens had a breakthrough, electing new leader Frank de Jong as the first Green MP in the riding of Guelph, while the Bloc's slow slide continued, losing another 6 seats to finish on only 14 seats, and slipping to third in Quebec behind the Tories.
That said having Rae lose (albeit not by much) was the right call, and you made it. I had a feeling you wouldn't quite be able to bring yourselves to give the Tories a majority, though, and I was right :p

Hubert Humphrey Fan 1968 said:
Due to the strong campaign waged by Rae, those hoping for another Liberal leadership race (including, among others, one Michael Ignatieff) would end up disappointed as the party was more than willing to allow Rae to stay on even if they hadn't quite achieved up to their pre-debate dreams.
You're honestly making me feel kind of sorry for Ignatieff, and I didn't think that was possible! He must be kicking himself, imagine how high up in the Harvard ecosystem he would be if he hadn't left. And for what? An "Hon." before his name and a "P.C." afterward?

I'm surprised Rae is staying on actually, for one thing he's old (I know, not usually a problem for the Liberals) and for another he did, in the end, blow a very winnable election just by being himself (unlike, say, Turner, who could at least make the excuse he lost because of the Trudeau hangover).

Hubert Humphrey Fan 1968 said:
The Conservatives had won government. Now they would implement their vision of Canada.
Until they're brought down in a vote of no confidence in less than two years. They are governing with a minority.

Maps for the 2017 Election

NL: Tories back in Avalon, whether it's because of coming up the middle with the incumbent MP (Scott Andrews) making an indie run as IOTL 2015 is one question, or maybe Fabian Manning attempting a comeback, or both. But it gives them their first seat on The Rock since 2008.

PE: Another Liberal clean sweep, that just seems the way it goes.

NS: Tories fail to pickup West Nova, suggesting that Prentice isn't terribly popular there even with McKenna gone. No Kings--Hants either even though Brison is probably out.

NB: Not really setting New Brunswick on fire either, and the Tories failing to pick up McKenna's former seat of Fredericton - and the Liberals holding it - will have a big effect on both parties' morale.

QC: The Liberals showing surprising resiliency in what are otherwise clear Tory targets - the Eastern Townships (seats won by Charest in '97), and to a lesser extent Central Quebec - holding on in Chretien's old seat of Saint-Maurice as well as Trois-Rivieres. Another Tory disappointment: failing to pick up Mount Royal, now arguably the strongest Tory target on the Island.

Of course the biggest disappointment for the NDP is their consistent failure to crack the nut that is Quebec.

ON: Toronto is really interesting - Tories got their breakthrough but mainly in the Ford Nation north-of-401 seats as opposed to more traditional Etobicoke or Don Valley ridings (as well as Eglinton--Lawrence). Hard to know what to make of Peel, usually Sweep Country one way or another but here rather divided.

It looks like you have Peterborough going Liberal, which is curious as it's now Canada's primary bellwether.

AB: Prentice finally has his Alberta sweep.
 
I think you're overstating Rae's campaigning skills here. By this logic he should have been able to turn 1995 around as well - of course instead he lost badly, coming in a poor third, albeit with a dead cat bounce from the rock bottom his party had hit earlier on. Not to mention for all the hype he got in the 1980s he wasn't exactly setting the electorate on fire. He still came in third in 1985 and nearly lost his seat and saw his party barely do better than the Tories in 1987. Even in his golden year of 1990 he still got less than 40% of the vote.
I dunno, Rae was a very good campaigner. True, he didn't turn things around in 1995, but in 1995 he was at the head of a very unpopular government during hard economic times, which isn't the case here (plus I feel like the fact that he's only been PM for 2 years will help him albeit only somewhat), and in 1995 the PCs ran a very effective campaign, whereas here (and I tried to imply this view the text, apologies if it didn't come across) there is a slight element of "by default" to their win, as their campaign was rather uninspired.
Again, this is Attack Ad 101 material. Did everyone honestly just decide to hold back on that until Hampton unleashed it at the debate? The Tories in particular should benefit hugely - because Rae was an NDP Premier who is now a Liberal PM - he can't defend his provincial record too strongly because he belongs to a different party now, but he can't not defend it either it's a clear example of what happens under his stewardship.
While his record as Ontario Premier was obviously brought up, I am of the opinion that it honestly wouldn't move things much (as you said, IOTL he polled well as interim leader, and what with having served in McKenna's cabinet and being a sitting PM I think he'd be able to put that episode behind him even more than he did IOTL). The reason why this attack worked and the others didn't is that it hit Rae not from an economic or political front, but a character and moral based one (also, the fact that it's coming from Hampton, who served in Rae's cabinet will make it even more effective in my view)
Not to mention the specter of Rae's legacy is so strong that it more than anything else probably kept the provincial NDP from winning in Ontario IOTL 2018. It's not just going to hang over his former party, it's going to hang over the man himself. I know he polled well when he was interim leader, but polls don't always translate to votes. Rae is going to be attacked so heavily from all corners in this election, especially since the Tories have a "non-scary" leader in Prentice, whom (as you acknowledge) is already seen as a PM-in-waiting by many Canadians.
Again, I really feel that having served in McKenna's cabinet for close to a decade and being the sitting PM will allow him to put his premiership behind him even more than he did IOTL (the sitting PM aspect especially; can't really go on about how Rae will make the sky fall down if he's already in power). And also, I know this isn't really relevant, but I very strongly disagree that Rae was the primary reason the ON NDP lots 2018.
Also I have my doubts that the economic stimuli would take effect so quickly. Usually you have to wait for them to kick in - famously it takes about one Presidential administration's worth of time, which is small beer for the previous President who was defeated on his bad economic record.
Eh, agree to disagree on this one.
You're honestly making me feel kind of sorry for Ignatieff, and I didn't think that was possible! He must be kicking himself, imagine how high up in the Harvard ecosystem he would be if he hadn't left. And for what? An "Hon." before his name and a "P.C." afterward?
You can thank @True Grit for this one, I had initially wanted Ignatieff to take the leadership easily but then he raised the possibility of Bob Rae (who I had somehow forgotten about), and with me and him both being fans of Rae, there was only one possibility after that.
I'm surprised Rae is staying on actually, for one thing he's old (I know, not usually a problem for the Liberals) and for another he did, in the end, blow a very winnable election just by being himself (unlike, say, Turner, who could at least make the excuse he lost because of the Trudeau hangover).
I suppose that's true, but he did still do much better than expected, ran a very good campaign, and I think a lot of Liberals would simply write off the defeat as 23 years of government catching up with them.
Until they're brought down in a vote of no confidence in less than two years. They are governing with a minority.
Any predictions for the next election? I promise it won't involve Bob Rae winning 200 seats :p.
 
I dunno, Rae was a very good campaigner. True, he didn't turn things around in 1995, but in 1995 he was at the head of a very unpopular government during hard economic times, which isn't the case here (plus I feel like the fact that he's only been PM for 2 years will help him albeit only somewhat), and in 1995 the PCs ran a very effective campaign, whereas here (and I tried to imply this view the text, apologies if it didn't come across) there is a slight element of "by default" to their win, as their campaign was rather uninspired.
Indeed, the 1995 performance was still better than anyone had predicted.
Again, I really feel that having served in McKenna's cabinet for close to a decade and being the sitting PM will allow him to put his premiership behind him even more than he did IOTL (the sitting PM aspect especially; can't really go on about how Rae will make the sky fall down if he's already in power). And also, I know this isn't really relevant, but I very strongly disagree that Rae was the primary reason the ON NDP lots 2018.
Yeah, though the attacks will always be there by 2017 it will have been 22 years since he governed a third of the country. People who were born after he left office can vote. Even by 2012 IOTL he had mostly shaken his record from OTL, so here, with a near decade in government and 2 years as Prime Minister it’s only going to be less of an issue.
Any predictions for the next election? I promise it won't involve Bob Rae winning 200 seats :p.
Shh don’t give them any hints we’re giving him 300 seats
 
I think that just being in office would do a lot to mitigate attacks on Rae's time as premier; it's hard to say "this guy is going to be a disaster!" when he can just point to his current government and say "uh, but I'm not" (the recession and fiscal stimulus bring it back to relevance, but Rae still has a new record he can boost, and isn't stuck playing defence the whole time). So a good performance seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially in combination with his skill as a campaigner (and up against people who aren't, for that matter).

It's good to see Rae here, by the way. IOTL he's one of those "always the bridesmaid, never the bride" figures for the Liberal Party in this timeframe, so him actually succeeding ITTL fits with the general themes at play.

Also, at this point IOTL, Frank de Jong was living in Yukon. Obviously that's easy enough to butterfly away, but I'm a little disappointed you did!
 
Top