But decline in overall youth employment, not good for the young people.
I worry about the disenfranchisement of youth from society. It seems that teenagers have become more and more depressed, stressed, and restricted starting in the 90s. I wonder if the decline of youth employment has been a factor.
 
I worry about the disenfranchisement of youth from society.
I worry about it, too.

And unless a person has the learning styles, the ability to sit in a chair for long periods, and all that, such that school largely comes naturally . .

Well, even then, only kids from pretty well-off families can afford to take the unpaid internships needed for "good" jobs.

So, in some ways, the world is becoming a less open place.

In other ways, more, and that's the direction we need to be about.
 
I worry about it, too.

And unless a person has the learning styles, the ability to sit in a chair for long periods, and all that, such that school largely comes naturally . .

Well, even then, only kids from pretty well-off families can afford to take the unpaid internships needed for "good" jobs.

So, in some ways, the world is becoming a less open place.

In other ways, more, and that's the direction we need to be about.
I wonder if in the future it will be illegal to leave your house before your 21st birthday. I wouldn't be surprised if they say "it's the only way to prevent teenagers from drinking."
 
the psychological tests companies give over the Internet, even for retail positions like The Gap and Walmart. I remember reading that a manager at either Office Depot or Office Max couldn't re-hire someone home from school who the manager knew to be a good employee, because this person was no longer "passing" the test.

We have a de-centralized economic system. Except these human resource people think it's "unprofessional" to do it anyway other than the current trend and current practice.
 
I worry about it, too.

And unless a person has the learning styles, the ability to sit in a chair for long periods, and all that, such that school largely comes naturally . .

Well, even then, only kids from pretty well-off families can afford to take the unpaid internships needed for "good" jobs.

So, in some ways, the world is becoming a less open place.

In other ways, more, and that's the direction we need to be about.
No jobs available + post-Columbine world + the usual stresses of high school make for a depressing combination. Obama's suggestion to raise the school leaving age would only make it worse. More people in school makes a diploma less valuble.
 
-In Canada would Brian Mulroney not suffer the erosion of support he had in in the OTL and if so, would a stronger economy and more electoral support for the PC's be enough to keep the Reform Party at bay?.

There would still be the endless scandal and inexperience. Mulroney was still an incompetent bufoon. However, the PCs won't totally collapse. Reform will still rise, but not to the same extent, as will the Bloc. In the 1993 election, the Liberals would likely have a smaller majority and the PCs may narrowly hold on to Quebec.
 
There would still be the endless scandal and inexperience. Mulroney was still an incompetent bufoon. However, the PCs won't totally collapse. Reform will still rise, but not to the same extent, as will the Bloc. In the 1993 election, the Liberals would likely have a smaller majority and the PCs may narrowly hold on to Quebec.

I don't think that's really an accurate assessment of Brian Mulroney. He was arguably one of the best Canadian Prime Ministers in the past 40 years and his policies in turn allowed Canada to recover from the damage left behind by Trudeau's administration and lead to a continuous period of growth and prosperity from 1995 to just after the 08 recession. All of his economic policies were continued and expanded by the Chretien and Martin governments with great success. In any case he was far more competent Prime Minister than Pierre Trudeau was. I do find Mulroney is usually pretty undersold by alot of people though. It doesn't help that his achievements are continuously beaten down by ideological sentiment which diminishes the positive aspects of his legacy. People tend to forget that Mulroney ran operational surpluses every year from 1987-1993. He increased revenues and reduced government spending. The only reason debt was skyrocketing during that period was because the government had the borrow to finance the gigantic debt left behind by the Trudeau government. The Chretien Liberals had to deal with the same problem until the 1995 cuts. In terms of economic policy, Mulroney and Chretien were arguable the two most competent Prime Ministers historically in that area along with Louis St. Laurent.

Also, Before the 90s recession hit, Mulroney still had a significant lead in the polls, so I'm not sure if that would constitute a guaranteed Liberal victory in 1993. Even with the 90s recession, if Mulroney stayed on for 1993, the election would most likely be closer than it was in the OTL. since Campbell wouldn't have been elected as the party leader this time (Campbell's campaign was so badly mismanaged that it probably sabotaged the PC's chances of winning. more than anything else). I think that If Mulroney decided to stay on, the campaign would have been much more competent. Plus the debates between him and Chretien would have been the stuff of legend (particularly the French language debate).
 
Last edited:
He was arguably one of the best Canadian Prime Ministers in the past 40 years

Say whaaa...? If you are to ignore Trudeau's numerous achievements, that title belongs to Jean Chretien, who brought much-needed financial expertise and stability to Canada, and brought Canada to recover from the damage from the Mulroney years.

and reduced government spending.

And the Mulroney premiership shows that reducing government spending is not always a good thing.

The only reason debt was skyrocketing during that period was because the government had the borrow to finance the gigantic debt left behind by the Trudeau government.

The Trudeau premiership did not result in gigantic debt. At the end of his premiership, the deficit was at the same level of other western democracies. Trudeau may be to blame for some of Mulroney's issues, but it's insane to blame him all of them.

Even with the 90s recession, if Mulroney stayed on for 1993, the election would most likely be closer than it was in the OTL. since Campbell wasn't elected party leader at the time (Campbell's campaign was so badly mismanaged that it probably sabotaged the PC's chances of winning. more than anything else).

But the Conservatives would have still collapsed. The Mulroney coalition had fallen apart. The Maritimes would have still voted Liberal, Quebec would have still voted Bloc, and the Prairies would have still voted Reform. The PCs would have had more seats, but still not many. Mulroney would have also have suffered from the humiliation of losing his own riding.

Also, Before the 90s recession hit, Mulroney still had a significant lead in the polls, so I'm not sure if that would constitute a guaranteed Liberal victory in 1993.

I do feel it would have. The Progressive Conservatives didn't collapse because of recession alone. The Mulroney administration suffered from scandal and patronage, and the breaking off of Reform constituted the death of one of the legs of the Mulroney coalition. The failure of Meech would have resulted in the loss of Quebec, and suddenly the PCs are forced to defend Ontario and the Maritimes.

Furthermore, the Mulroney administration suffered from a lack of vision. It had no clear direction on where it wished to leave Canada. And even if it had, the lack of experience of many people in government (though that's not the fault of Mulroney) as well as the weekly scandals would have diminished Mulroney's popularity.

Again, perhaps the PCs would have been able to hold Quebec. But sheer tiredness from all that scandal and incompetence would have given the election to the Liberals.
 
Say whaaa...? If you are to ignore Trudeau's numerous achievements, that title belongs to Jean Chretien, who brought much-needed financial expertise and stability to Canada, and brought Canada to recover from the damage from the Mulroney years.



And the Mulroney premiership shows that reducing government spending is not always a good thing.



The Trudeau premiership did not result in gigantic debt. At the end of his premiership, the deficit was at the same level of other western democracies. Trudeau may be to blame for some of Mulroney's issues, but it's insane to blame him all of them.



But the Conservatives would have still collapsed. The Mulroney coalition had fallen apart. The Maritimes would have still voted Liberal, Quebec would have still voted Bloc, and the Prairies would have still voted Reform. The PCs would have had more seats, but still not many. Mulroney would have also have suffered from the humiliation of losing his own riding.



I do feel it would have. The Progressive Conservatives didn't collapse because of recession alone. The Mulroney administration suffered from scandal and patronage, and the breaking off of Reform constituted the death of one of the legs of the Mulroney coalition. The failure of Meech would have resulted in the loss of Quebec, and suddenly the PCs are forced to defend Ontario and the Maritimes.

Furthermore, the Mulroney administration suffered from a lack of vision. It had no clear direction on where it wished to leave Canada. And even if it had, the lack of experience of many people in government (though that's not the fault of Mulroney) as well as the weekly scandals would have diminished Mulroney's popularity.

Again, perhaps the PCs would have been able to hold Quebec. But sheer tiredness from all that scandal and incompetence would have given the election to the Liberals.

I think you're selling his economic legacy a bit short while undermining Trudeau's failings. Policy Options did a suburb analysis of the economic legacies of various PM's and came to the assessment that Trudeau's legacy was an extreme detriment while Mulroney's was pivotal in laying the groundwork for the future success of the economy during the 90s and 2000's.

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magaz...trudeau-leaves-a-legacy-of-deficits-and-debt/


Trudeau ballooned Canada's debt by over 738% by the time he left office. In 1968 Canada was one of the most fiscally responsible countries on the planet, by 1984 it was one of the least. Bob Plamondon's "The Truth About Trudueau" does a great job of shattering many of the myths surrounding the legacy of Pierre Trudeau and revealing How damaging his policies were to Canada. It really is worth the read, its a very informative book.

I also think that it's also a bit odd to discredit Mulroney while praising Chretien for bringing in financial expertise and stability when his success was indebted to Mulroney. Chretien may have campaigned as being strongly opposed to the economic policies of the Mulroney government, but in practice all his government did economically was continue on the path already set by Mulroney. The only deviation was that Chretien's government went father in terms of cuts because it could.


In terms of vision, I also think you're underselling him. In terms of economic policy, Mulroney saw the big picture and his economic policies were all largely vindicated in the decades after he left office. He also was the first Prime Minister since Diefenbaker to take a stand against the Apartheid Regime in South Africa. Compare that to Trudeau who had good relations with the Apartheid regime and refused to stand against it. His government also apologized to the Japanese Canadians who were interned during the second World War. Though regardless of vision, I'd rather take a competent, pragmatic leader in the form of Mulroney or Chretien rather than an extremely partisan egotist with vision who left disaster in his wake like Trudeau.

I don't buy that the scandals alone would be enough to unravel Mulroney's support. The Chretien/Martin governments had just as many scandals and they still had 11 years of majority Liberal administration.
 
Last edited:
think you're selling his economic legacy a bit short while undermining Trudeau's failings. Policy Options did a suburb analysis of the economic legacies of various PM's and came to the assessment that Trudeau's legacy was an extreme detriment while Mulroney's was pivotal in laying the groundwork for the future success of the economy during the 90s and 2000's.

That depends where you look. Don't forget Trudeau's role in creating the modern Canadian identity and his important social reforms. Trudeau transformed Canada in a way Mulroney did not.

Also, there's one more reason I see Mulroney as a failure: His party totally collapsed after him.

Chretien may have campaigned as being strongly opposed to the economic policies of the Mulroney government, but in practice all his government did economically was continue on the path already set by Mulroney.

Well, no. What Mulroney did was cut taxes. Chretien, on the other hand, increased government revenue.

Though regardless of vision, I'd rather take a competent, pragmatic leader in the form of Mulroney or Chretien rather than an extremely partisan egotist with vision who left disaster in his wake like Trudeau.

Again, that would be ignoring Trudeau's social reforms and his role in creating the modern Canadian identity. Without him, multiculturalism in Canada simply may not exist, while the decriminalization of homosexuality would be tremendously delayed.

And say what you will about Trudeau, but his party did not totally and utterly collapse due to his actions. Mulroney's party, on the other hand, did.

I don't buy that the scandals alone would be enough to unravel Mulroney's support. The Chretien/Martin governments had just as many scandals and they still had 11 years of majority Liberal administration.

In the case of the Chretien/Martin premiership, those scandals came at the Martin premiership, and they did unravel Martin's support. Under normal circumstances, Martin should have won a majority government in 2004, especially with Stephen Harper, who opposed marriage equality, as the leader of the PCs. Yet, he won a minority because of scandals. And that was with the great success of the Chretien administration behind him. Meanwhile, Mulroney had more scandal than Martin ever had, Chretien was never out of the mainstream like Harper was, and the Prairies and Quebec are in open revolt in the case of Mulroney.

I think that would likely doom Mulroney in 1993.
 
That depends where you look. Don't forget Trudeau's role in creating the modern Canadian identity and his important social reforms. Trudeau transformed Canada in a way Mulroney did not.

Also, there's one more reason I see Mulroney as a failure: His party totally collapsed after him.



Well, no. What Mulroney did was cut taxes. Chretien, on the other hand, increased government revenue.



Again, that would be ignoring Trudeau's social reforms and his role in creating the modern Canadian identity. Without him, multiculturalism in Canada simply may not exist, while the decriminalization of homosexuality would be tremendously delayed.

And say what you will about Trudeau, but his party did not totally and utterly collapse due to his actions. Mulroney's party, on the other hand, did.



In the case of the Chretien/Martin premiership, those scandals came at the Martin premiership, and they did unravel Martin's support. Under normal circumstances, Martin should have won a majority government in 2004, especially with Stephen Harper, who opposed marriage equality, as the leader of the PCs. Yet, he won a minority because of scandals. And that was with the great success of the Chretien administration behind him. Meanwhile, Mulroney had more scandal than Martin ever had, Chretien was never out of the mainstream like Harper was, and the Prairies and Quebec are in open revolt in the case of Mulroney.

I think that would likely doom Mulroney in 1993.

I think that those reforms your talking about would have happend anyway under Robert Stanfeild. In fact, Stanfeild would have probably been a much more competent Prime Minister who left Canada in a better position going into the 80s than it was in the original timeline.

You also say that Mulroney only cut taxes where as Chretien increased revenue. That's not necessarily true. Revenue did increase during the Mulroney years as early as his first budget. Chretien even continued Mulroney's policies in terms of tax cuts. The 2000 federal budget included some of the largest tax cuts in Canadian history. Revenues were instead increased by reduced spending and the increased productivity of the economy due to lower taxes.

Martin was also only prime minister for 2 years compared to Chretien who was Prime Minister for a decade. So it's not really a surprise that he alone had less scandals than Mulroney or his predecessor.

Western Canada probably wouldn't revolt if the economy was continuing to grow and taxes remained low. Also, the PC's support in Quebec was still stable up until the 90s recession. If you erase the recession those polls numbers are less likely to erode like in the OTL. If anything increased economic productivity and unemployment shrinking below 7% in the early 90s, (which would be the first time unemployment was that low since the earl 70s) might produce to opposite result and increase his standing in the polls in both territories.

If Unemployment had fallen from 11.3% when Mulroney entered office to something around 6-6.9% or lower in 1992-1993, that would have been a reduction of 4-5% Throughout Mulroney's time in office. In the OTL when the 90s recession hit, unemployment shot up from 7.5% in 1989 to 11.4% in 1993. That was a huge contribution to the decline of the PC's Poll numbers since many people incorrectly blamed the recession on Mulroney's policies at the time instead of a global economic slowdown. If You erase the recession and the unemployment it caused, you in tern erase the PC's rapidly falling poll numbers significantly.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with Alexander.

Without the serious economic issues of the early '90s, the Tories don't lose their support as quickly as they did. Since they're still considered trustworthy, their second attempt at constitutional reform, aka "fixing the biggest mess Trudeau left us", likely succeeds. Quebec signs on to the revised constitution, the softer half of the nationalist movement gets proof that they're better off in a united Canada, and there is no second referendum as support for separation remains lower than the results of the 1980 vote.

The passage of one of Mulroney's core policies gives the Tories a shot in the arm, and their coalition holds together mcuh, much better than it did in OTL. They most likely win another majority. Chretien and the Liberals don't gain any traction as they can't run on the economy and they can't take advantage of the divided conservative vote to win a majority. At best they can get a minority and most likely they remain the Official Opposition. The Reform party, in spite of sensible policies, can't attract OTL's decent field of candidates and can't devour half of the conservative vote outside of Quebec. So they stay on the fringes. The BQ can't gobble up the conservative and nationalist vote in Quebec, so they wind up as also-rans. Without the recession to make their mismanagement of Ontario blatantly obvious, support for the NDP doesn't implode. The federal NDP maintains a creditable caucus, and Bob Rae might actually have a snowball's chance at a second term.

A reelected Tory government in 1993 (presumably the election is held much sooner than OTL, so while it is still in 1993, it is in the spring rather than October) torpedoes Jean Chretien's career. The Liberal leadership was bitterly contested in 1990 and Paul Martin was rather sour about losing to Chretien. Chretien failing in '93 gives Martin an opening he can exploit. Martin takes over in '94 or '95. The Liberals will have a much better chance in ATL '97 as the electorate will be tiring of the Tories, and just as importantly, there has to be a recession sometime in the '90s, almost certainly before 1997. The question then become: What will a '90s Martin government look like? His 2003 government was a shambles that nearly saw him punted in 2004, and his subsequent minority was little better and eventually ended with him being tossed out. And the scandals he inherited from Chretien have dogged the Liberal Party ever since. So, what would a turn of the century Liberal government look like if they'd never had the chance to conduct the fraud that became AdScam let alone get caught with their hands in the till?

And what would a mid '90s Mulroney government do or look like? The economy is eventually going to sour. Their budgetary policies are eventually going to begin to bear fruit, and the public mood is eventually going to give them more room to make overdue cuts to programs and focus on repaying Canada's crippling debt.
 
I think in terms of Bob Rae though, his governments ballooned spending and the tax increases he levied on the people of Ontario might still be enough do him in regardless. In fact without the 90s recession The Ontario Liberals might be more likely to win in 1990 since the economy is stronger. David Peterson's government still had decently strong polls going into early 1990. The Patti Starr affair did do alot to hurt his governments credibility, but the 90s recession was also a pretty big blow to his governments popularity. Plus the conception at the time that right-leaning policies had fail Canada gave the NDP a boost in the election. In 1990 The Liberals only lost by 4% of the vote. A stronger economy could very easily give the Liberals a small minority government during that election. Whether Peterson would have been able to beat Harris in 1994-1995 is another question.
 
Last edited:
And what would a mid '90s Mulroney government do or look like? The economy is eventually going to sour. Their budgetary policies are eventually going to begin to bear fruit, and the public mood is eventually going to give them more room to make overdue cuts to programs and focus on repaying Canada's crippling debt.

The cuts will still probably have to be more gradual than they were in OTL with the 1995 cuts. Those cuts were extremely unpopular and the Liberals only won in 1997 because of the fractured opposition that left the Liberals in a virtually unbeatable position come 1997. They won a majority with only 37% of the vote. I still think that If Mulroney did the same cuts in 1995 even with a strong majority in 1992-93, it would still create alot of backlash against his government and they would have to be on guard going into 1996-1997 as a result since the PC's would not have the advantage of vote spliting or a shattered opposition like the Liberals did. A smart policy might be to space the cuts out between two or three election cycles. Or do the cuts right after the 1992-1993 election cycle in the case of Mulroney winning a strong majority and then not having the next election until 5 years later. That way the government has alot of time to rebound from the outcry that the cuts will cause and can probably depend on the strong economic growth and debt reduction being enough to keep their polls numbers in a relativity good position by the next election.
 
Top