Prime Minister Stanfield

Canada would have had a balanced budget for the foreseeable future and a solid sane economic plan, a military worth something, a foreign service still worth something, the same quality civil service as it was apre-Trudeau, sensible air traffic controllers, possibly greater transit & infrastructure investment, a less offended Quebec (over the Charter), no Charter (thank god), no Trudeau (yay!), possibly a Quebec a little more likely to want to leave (but that No Vote was 60%, so there's some margin of error), and so on.


We've done this thread a couple times. The main problem is there's half a dozen or less people on the board that care about Canadian politics in the 1970s so they all die out fast.
 
^ Hey, I know I care!

I'm not too sure about the economic plan. Stanfield was against price and wage controls. And the military started sliding with the forces unification in 1968 more than anything.

What did Trudeau do to the civil service other than require bilingualism? I agree he kissed a lot of Quebec butts, but I don't think Stanfield woulda been all that much different.
 
TheMann I hate to nit pick, but Stanfield was much different than Trudeau. First of all he had experience running an economy, and secondly loved cities and infrastructure. However, we would possibly be more US visioned, as he was pro free trade, when asked.

We would have a more centralized country I'm willing to bet, as the man ruled like a Nova Scotia Duke... I mean premier.
 
TheMann I hate to nit pick, but Stanfield was much different than Trudeau. First of all he had experience running an economy, and secondly loved cities and infrastructure. However, we would possibly be more US visioned, as he was pro free trade, when asked.

We would have a more centralized country I'm willing to bet, as the man ruled like a Nova Scotia Duke... I mean premier.

This is true, but would Stanfield do that much different? In economic terms, probably - Trudeau was a socialist, we all know that. But socially I doubt much would have changed. Infrastructure building might have been held up by the money situation of the time and him wanting to keep the economy on an even keel. Trudeau didn't even try to practice fiscal responsibility.
 
He was never anti-American, he always understood the relation we have. But was very pro-Canada, more so looking outside NA to make money.

He did believe in our political and economic sovereignty, but constantly had the bigger view. He wrote about closer ties to the EEC, and better relations with the USSR.

In a Stanfield Canada, by the time free-trade came around again in the 90's if not mid 80's, the Canadian economy would have been a lot more rooted, and we might not have signed. As well as being greener, he had an itch for the environment.
 
^ Hey, I know I care!

What did Trudeau do to the civil service other than require bilingualism?

Like I said—maybe half a dozen people on the board :).

That's what it did it. You see the civil service was "working knowledge" of French and English. By requiring fluent knowledge of both languages, Trudeau reduced the potential civil service base to a few people in Manitoba and out west, a few people in Ontario west of Ottawa, New Brunswick, parts of Montreal, parts of Quebec, and the area around Ottawa.

Essentially you went from a pool of twenty million people (anyone who could learn enough English or French to get by) to a couple million at best.

Infrastructure building might have been held up by the money situation of the time and him wanting to keep the economy on an even keel. Trudeau didn't even try to practice fiscal responsibility.

The money situation was good. Canada was running a deficit of a few million dollars, and a total debt of (if I recall correctly) under a hundred million. Economic times overall were more mixed, but Canada did better under stagflation than the US.

Simply holding program spending to inflation would have meant a surplus in a year or two, and doing so for say—8-10 years, two terms—would have meant no debt, and a fairly sizeable surplus that could then be used for new program spending.

What it would have required was a sense of economic discipline for a few years.
 
Could Stanfield have maintained a government though? I mean the 1970's were tough for just about everyone. I could definitely see him losing power to a revived Liberal party under Trudeau much like Joe Clark did.
 
^ That would largely depend on two things:

Does Stanfield have a majority? If so, he's good for five years. Less if he calls an election earlier trying to get a renewed mandate. If he has a minority, he's got a problem - the socialist leanings of Trudeau will appeal to the NDP.

Here, the NDP is not able to gain support by helping Trudeau, which could be an issue for Tommy Douglas. Perhaps Broadbent climbs to the NDP head a few years early?
 
Weirdly a Stanfield Government could get the support of the NDP.

Red Tories (like Stanfield, himself, obviously) have rather more in common with the NDP than with the Liberals or with liberals.

Red/Radical/Disraeli Tories are the conservative flip side of socialists. They agree on most issues, but disagree on the extent & speed.

So neither a Radical Tory or an NDPer would have a problem with the government offering welfare—but the NDP would want a broader, bigger, faster welfare. Both are collectivist. Both believe the government is sometimes the solution (but disagree on the extent). Neither trust the free market totally (again, disagree on the extent). Etc….


As compared to the Liberals which merely used the NDP for their own short-term gain, I could see an NDP-Progressive Conservative government that had violent disagreements but united simply to screw the Liberals.

Of course, ITTL, the NDP haven't learned their lesson (the Liberals will always screw the NDP, if the NDP prop up the Liberals) but I think Stanfield could probably give the NDP a couple cabinet positions in return for support on confidence and supply.

Stanfield, or some smart young thing in his office, would probably have to come up with some examples but I think it's possible. Maybe not likely, but heck Stanfield getting elected isn't that likely in the first place—let alone with a majority.
 
Top