Various Questions on Ralliement créditiste/Social Credit Party of Canada

So in my long journey of attempting to understand Canadian politics, I learned that the (at least currently) centrist seeming (in the news media I've read that mentioned them) New Democrats were actually social democrats who sat further to the left than any other major party and that there was apparently a right wing alternative to socialism in the early 1900s called Social Credit.

The Social Credit Party had been a big deal in a way similar to how Reform was a big deal, but had begun to drop off over the course of the 60s, ending with the rest of the party being completely wiped out in parliament in 1969 (surviving on in the provinces), although they would live in as the Ralliement créditiste, a Quebec-based splinter party that would survive the main party's destruction in parliament and reunited with the SoCred in '72 (although since there were no more MPs from the SoCred it was basically just taking back the name and reuniting with provincial parties), just in time for its gradual collapse from there.

If I got all that right, I was wondering: What can be done to prevent this decline? I know a variety of leaders that succeed Réal Caouette as party leader either met tragic ends, were incompetent, or were his son.

What if that all changed? I'd prefer whatever PoD to be at least after the 1969 election and possibly beginning with the reuniting of the party with Réal Caouette as leader.

What was the party's stance on Quebecois Independence? If against, maybe they could be a Canadian Unity Party in Quebec and a right-wing equivalent to the New Democrats out West? If so, how would this happen and when would this be ideal? I've read some about Western alienation, perhaps they could run on a platform of Quebecois and Western alienation?

Could the party maybe take the role that Reform did two decades later? If so, how would this change?

And lastly, could the Social Credit Party merge with the Progressive Conservatives like Reform and the PCs? When would that be ideal? How would this party be different?

If you can answer or direct me to sources on any of these questions, that'd be a great help!
 
i have been summoned

(although since there were no more MPs from the SoCred it was basically just taking back the name and reuniting with provincial parties)
You got everything else spot on, although the provincial parties had already dropped their affiliation with the national party once they were united.

I'd prefer whatever PoD to be at least after the 1969 election and possibly beginning with the reuniting of the party with Réal Caouette as leader.
Scenario 1

Trudeau is assassinated by the FLQ. The SoCreds advocated for the FLQ members to be executed by firing squad, and IOTL they were ridiculed for their positions. However, with Trudeau being dead, the SoCreds would appear to be the ones who were right.

Avoid having Camil Samson being expelled from the Parti Creditiste and in the 1973 Quebec provincial election, it’s possible that the provincial Creditistes could be the opposition party. From there, Samson, not Levesque, would be in the position to become premier in the next election.

The next general election (which would depend on the new Liberal leader’s relationship with the NDP and willingness to call an election) would also be a good opportunity for the SoCreds to have a good showing (a possible third place). Given that the new leader would almost certainly be an Anglophone (Turner, MacEachen, Macdonald) given party tradition, there would be a bit of an opening in Quebec. If Caouette avoids having his skiing accident, he’d be able to do a much more active campaign. In the long run, it would also add more years to his life.

From there, give the Tories a more right-wing and anti-Quebec leader (Horner or Hellyer would work), and allow the SoCreds to soak up their votes. Eventually, they'd end up as the opposition, and potentially PM (in TTL’s 1983/1984 election).

Scenario 2

This one would be difficult, but it involves wanking Paul Hellyer’s Action Canada. Hellyer planned on creating a big-tent coalition of the opposition parties, but was unsuccessful, and ended up just joining the Tories. ITTL, he forms an alliance with Caouette (which he was making moves toward), some rebellious Tories/Grits, and maybe the NDP. This alliance would be a fragile combination of two massive egos, but Canadian politics is crazy enough to allow such an alliance to succeed.

Scenario 3
This one has an earlier POD, but by this point, the Quebec wing was much greater than the Western wing (even before the Western SoCreds crosses the floor to the Tories). I do remember True Grit doing a list with this general idea. Instead of Dalton Camp becoming PCPC president, it’s the Diefenbaker loyalist Arthur Mahoney. This means that there’s no leadership review against Diefenbaker, and he stays on as leader. It’s likely that Pearson stays on as leader (he stepped down because of the boost that Stanfield had), but if he still stands down, have another Anglophone take over (Winters, Martin, Hellyer).

The Tories do even worse ITTL’s 1968 than they did IOTL, and the Creditistes eat up the remaining vote. Without Trudeaumania in Quebec, the Liberals have less support too. The NDP was making a lot of progress in Quebec with Robert Cliche, acting as a spoiler to the left-wing vote.

At the end of election 1968, the Liberals end up with a narrower majority. The opposition is split almost three ways between Caouette, Diefenbaker, and Douglas, with Caouette narrowly being crowned LoTo.

Scenario 4

Andre-Gilles Fortin lives and is able to remain leader of the Social Credit Party. As a young and charismatic figure, he would definitely be able to keep the party fortunes up (or at least higher than what they were IOTL)



A combination of any of those three would allow for some fun SoCred adventures in Canada. The most likely outcome would certainly include parts of each one.

For a smaller SoCred influence, a good POD would be Fabien Roy winning his by-election in Frontenac (which had a delayed election due to the SoCred candidate dying). The party wins a few seats in 1984 and 1988. However, in 1993, they become the Quebec protest vote (á la Bloc Québécois), and have another surge in support.

Bonus scenario - The NDP, in their 1980s quest to pick up Quebec support, pick up the SoCreds as their Quebec wing. Everything goes as OTL, until Muclair wins in 2015, and technically becomes the first SoCred Prime Minister.

What was the party's stance on Quebecois Independence?
They were certainly Quebec and Francophone nationalists (Caouette's Creditistes ran candidates out in New Brunswick even before the reunification). They could ride whichever way was more popular. Depending on who was party leader, you could have an agenda that leaned more to one direction.
If against, maybe they could be a Canadian Unity Party in Quebec and a right-wing equivalent to the New Democrats out West? If so, how would this happen and when would this be ideal? I've read some about Western alienation, perhaps they could run on a platform of Quebecois and Western alienation?
They wouldn't be so much as a pro-unity party as a "Francophone interests" party. Out west, they would definitely serve that purpose (but an earlier POD would likely be required to keep both factions together).
Could the party maybe take the role that Reform did two decades later? If so, how would this change?
If you'd want the Western wing of the SoCreds to be on top, the best scenario would likely be to have Diefenbaker never become leader of the Tories, and then have the party become the opposition in 1957 (as many thought they would at the time). From there, they would be situated to win the next election.

Even earlier than that, you could have the "Unity" alliance between the SoCreds, the CCF, and the Communists take off in federal politics as well. It's possible that this Unity alliance, not the Tories, would be able to steal John Bracken to lead them. The NDP at one point held a lead in the polls, so even without Bracken, they could win (maybe have Meighen run again in the 1942 contest). With or without Bracken, if the 1944/1945 election happened before the Japenese surrendered, they could have defeated King. CanadianTory did a series with a Bracken win (as a Tory though) ages ago called Bracken Over Socialism.

And lastly, could the Social Credit Party merge with the Progressive Conservatives like Reform and the PCs? When would that be ideal? How would this party be different?
Ernest Manning actually supported a merger in the late 1960s. IOTL, all that happened was the vast majority of the Western SoCred caucus defected to Stanfield's Tories, but it could have gone further (given how weak the Western wing was). It's definitely possible. The specifics on what the party would end up like would depend on the specific conditions of a merger. If the Tories were the larger party, they would add Ernest Manning as a heavyweight figure (and possibly even Prime Minister). If the SoCreds were larger, they would have other, more experienced politicans to legitimize them, along with a wider base of support.

---

If you've got any other questions, I'd be willing to answer any of them. @CanadianTory, @True Grit, and @Hubert Humphrey 1968 would probably also be able to help out and offer an additional take on your questions.
 
Ernest Manning actually supported a merger in the late 1960s. IOTL, all that happened was the vast majority of the Western SoCred caucus defected to Stanfield's Tories, but it could have gone further (given how weak the Western wing was). It's definitely possible. The specifics on what the party would end up like would depend on the specific conditions of a merger. If the Tories were the larger party, they would add Ernest Manning as a heavyweight figure (and possibly even Prime Minister). If the SoCreds were larger, they would have other, more experienced politicans to legitimize them, along with a wider base of support.
Could a merger with the reform party work in the 90's?
 
Top