Alternate History

[TheNewTeddy]

A note to the admins and mods

This forum is more formal and serious than I am used to, and a thread like this one, does not tend to fit well. If you feel that this thread does not fit with the Federal Politics subforum, feel free to move it elsewhere. If you also feel that this thread does not fit with MLW in general, feel free to delete it; I'd just ask you PM me to let me know so I don't go hunting for a non-existant thread.

For everyone:

I'm quite keen on working on various alternate history stories regarding politics in Canada. For example: What if OUI had won the 1995 Referendum? This can branch into dozens of stories depending on how people react. Would Chretien resign? Would Parizeau go for a UDI? If there was a UDI how would Canada react? Each can branch off to it's own story. There are, however, "smaller" stories with fewer threads that can come up.

What if Paul Martin was Liberal leader in the 2000 election?

What if Joe Clark was not PC leader in 2000, because he did not run in 1998?

What if the "PC Bounce" in the polls prior to the 1997 election held, and the PC Party won dozens of additional seats?

For the latter, I already have some maps ready

Quebec:

http://twitter.com/TheNewTeddy/status/244599019047895041/photo/1/large

I calculate this by using real world results and upping or lowering the popular vote in particular provinces. If the PC Party had taken about a third of the vote in Quebec in 1997, these are the seats they would have won. Approximately of course.

Anyway, the "problem" comes when I run into a scenario thread where I'm not certain what would have happened and I desire some feedback. This is the case in my 1997 PC Bounce. So Charest is invited to go lead the PLQ but...

Would he? I mean, he's the Leader of the Opposition now? And if he does not, who comes PLQ leader, and could they win in 2003?

So maybe he does go. Who becomes PC leader? Clark would probably run, but Harper wanted to run in 1998 for PC leader, but did not, in part, because of Reform. With Reform behind the PC Party would he have run? Could he have won?

If you do have any feedback, please feel free to share. I'm also open to discussing other alternate history scenarios. A full list of the ones I'm working on are here: http://ridingbyriding.wikia.com/wiki/Alternate_History

Note - I've PMed some people, in particular people with views and from places that I think would make for valuable feedback - and welcome anything you have to say about these or any other alternate history scenarios.

Edited September 9, 2012 by TheNewTeddy

[punked]

A note to the admins and mods

This forum is more formal and serious than I am used to, and a thread like this one, does not tend to fit well. If you feel that this thread does not fit with the Federal Politics subforum, feel free to move it elsewhere. If you also feel that this thread does not fit with MLW in general, feel free to delete it; I'd just ask you PM me to let me know so I don't go hunting for a non-existant thread.

For everyone:

I'm quite keen on working on various alternate history stories regarding politics in Canada. For example: What if OUI had won the 1995 Referendum? This can branch into dozens of stories depending on how people react. Would Chretien resign? Would Parizeau go for a UDI? If there was a UDI how would Canada react? Each can branch off to it's own story. There are, however, "smaller" stories with fewer threads that can come up.

What if Paul Martin was Liberal leader in the 2000 election?

What if Joe Clark was not PC leader in 2000, because he did not run in 1998?

What if the "PC Bounce" in the polls prior to the 1997 election held, and the PC Party won dozens of additional seats?

For the latter, I already have some maps ready

Quebec:

http://twitter.com/TheNewTeddy/status/244599019047895041/photo/1/large

I calculate this by using real world results and upping or lowering the popular vote in particular provinces. If the PC Party had taken about a third of the vote in Quebec in 1997, these are the seats they would have won. Approximately of course.

Anyway, the "problem" comes when I run into a scenario thread where I'm not certain what would have happened and I desire some feedback. This is the case in my 1997 PC Bounce. So Charest is invited to go lead the PLQ but...

Would he? I mean, he's the Leader of the Opposition now? And if he does not, who comes PLQ leader, and could they win in 2003?

So maybe he does go. Who becomes PC leader? Clark would probably run, but Harper wanted to run in 1998 for PC leader, but did not, in part, because of Reform. With Reform behind the PC Party would he have run? Could he have won?

If you do have any feedback, please feel free to share. I'm also open to discussing other alternate history scenarios. A full list of the ones I'm working on are here: http://ridingbyriding.wikia.com/wiki/Alternate_History

This is an easy one for me. I thought about this quite a lot so I feel this is the best way it would have played out. I don't know if this is what would have happened but if the Liberals played their cards right at the time I think this is something that might have played out.

We wake up the next morning and the Liberals start their power play. They say now is the time to start publicly hammering out the details to this separation. This is to remind the people of Quebec what they just decided on. Before this 95 thing happened the First Nations people of northern Quebec also held a referendum. They voted to keep their lands in Canada, as a separate and free culture themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#First_Nations

So the first thing we do is seize that land and claim it. Then the lights go out because all the Hydro the flows into Quebec is on their land. Now from this position of power we start the negotiations. Everyday it is a new demand from Canada. I think the Liberals drag this out until the provincial party can win the next election where they and their Federal cousins promise if Quebec drops its separation demands we will drop this whole thing. Which I think they accept. I don't think Quebec ever really wanted out. They wanted to send a message.

[cybercoma]

I agree with what punked says. The Liberals had absolutely no tolerance for Québec secession. Trudeau used the notwithstanding clause and I remember Paul Martin berating a youth on 'Canada's Next Prime Minister'. The finalists had a question about how they would handle the referendum and one of them said something along the lines of letting Québec go because if that's their political will, we must respect that if it's handled democratically. Bear in mind as well that Jean Charest was a Conservative politician, a Mulroney cabinet minister. So how did he end up working for the Liberals in Québec? Jean Chrétien. It was Chrétien that approached Charest and talked him into running the provincial Liberals in Québec because Chrétien believed this was the only way to stop the separatists. I learned this from Elsie Wayne herself, who was the only other PC MP to win a seat in 1993 (alongside Charest).

I'm not much of an alternate "historian," so I don't think I can really be much more help than this.

[cybercoma]

Chrétien was a bastard, but he was the bastard that Canada needed at that time.

[TheNewTeddy]

Hum, thank you, both points are excellent and helpful. I think Charest would probably go even if he were LoO federally. And the partition debate would be a more serious one than I had accounted for originally.

[WWWTT]

I am not one to read long comments or thread titles.

Don't get me wrong,if I feel something is important I will read until I completely understand.However I can only dedicate so much time to a political debate forum since I have a tremendous amount on my plate that requires my attention.

The obvious one hear that "TheNewTeddy" has pointed out would be what if the 1995 vote in Quebec went the other way?

I personally believe that in fact it did go the other way!

But it was fixed.

Some here will think I'm wacked in saying this but I believe that the liberals of the time used cash to buy off the vote counters to spoil ballots that did not have the tick in the "appropriate" column.This would result in the proper result.

Lots of money missing with no trail in addscam and lots of spoiled ballots.

Wouldn't be the first time either!Nor the last!

In fact much of what Teddy suggests in my opinion has had a strong invisible(unnoticed) hand of influence causing slight change in direction.

WWWTT

[punked]

I am not one to read long comments or thread titles.

Don't get me wrong,if I feel something is important I will read until I completely understand.However I can only dedicate so much time to a political debate forum since I have a tremendous amount on my plate that requires my attention.

The obvious one hear that "TheNewTeddy" has pointed out would be what if the 1995 vote in Quebec went the other way?

I personally believe that in fact it did go the other way!

But it was fixed.

Some here will think I'm wacked in saying this but I believe that the liberals of the time used cash to buy off the vote counters to spoil ballots that did not have the tick in the "appropriate" column.This would result in the proper result.

Lots of money missing with no trail in addscam and lots of spoiled ballots.

Wouldn't be the first time either!Nor the last!

In fact much of what Teddy suggests in my opinion has had a strong invisible(unnoticed) hand of influence causing slight change in direction.

WWWTT

Actually most the irregularities in the vote counting happened in the separatist strong holds. They were throwing out a unusually high number of votes for crazy reasons like "The line went just a little outside the box" and only applying those standards to votes that were Federalism. In fact we are lucky Organizers like Muclair were on the ground going into these polling places and telling them what they were doing was illegal or the referendum would have been stolen for sure.

[cybercoma]

Hum, thank you, both points are excellent and helpful. I think Charest would probably go even if he were LoO federally. And the partition debate would be a more serious one than I had accounted for originally.

I think another interesting angle would be that the Conservatives (Reform, Alliance rather) are best served by Québec sovereignty. The Liberals were a powerhouse party through the 20th century because they always had a Québec Lieutenant when they had an anglophone leader. The formula for Liberal success was a working relationship with Québec. Since the roots of Reform/Alliance are in the West, they're best served by Québec secessionists wanting nothing to do with federalism, as that shifts the political power to the Prairies. Since you're writing alternate history, you could really make up whatever you want. However, ultimately a struggle between the Liberals and Conservatives for power, using Québec secession as a pawn to shift the balance of power in Canada from the East to West makes a lot of sense.

[cybercoma]

Some here will think I'm wacked in saying this but I believe that the liberals of the time used cash to buy off the vote counters to spoil ballots that did not have the tick in the "appropriate" column.This would result in the proper result.

I really don't think that's what happened. At the same time, I wouldn't put it past the Liberal establishment to do that. The lifeblood of the Liberals is a working relationship between Québec and Ontario.

[PIK]

Chrétien was a bastard, but he was the bastard that Canada needed at that time.

Chretien totally underestimated the separtists and almost lost the country.

[cybercoma]

Yeah. Almost.

[Signals.Cpl]

I am not one to read long comments or thread titles.

Don't get me wrong,if I feel something is important I will read until I completely understand.However I can only dedicate so much time to a political debate forum since I have a tremendous amount on my plate that requires my attention.

The obvious one hear that "TheNewTeddy" has pointed out would be what if the 1995 vote in Quebec went the other way?

I personally believe that in fact it did go the other way!

But it was fixed.

Some here will think I'm wacked in saying this but I believe that the liberals of the time used cash to buy off the vote counters to spoil ballots that did not have the tick in the "appropriate" column.This would result in the proper result.

Lots of money missing with no trail in addscam and lots of spoiled ballots.

Wouldn't be the first time either!Nor the last!

In fact much of what Teddy suggests in my opinion has had a strong invisible(unnoticed) hand of influence causing slight change in direction.

WWWTT

For the vote itself I don't think it even matters, 50%+1 is not a sustainable majority, for that matter 60% would not be a sustainable majority. What I mean by this is that if the vote had gone the other way, the numbers would have gone down once people start realizing what they would be loosing and thus the swing vote would have gone the other way. From the date of a yes vote I believe there was one year for full independence and that means that would be the negotiation period and once the terms of separation come to light most likely only the Hard Core separatists will support continuing with independence.

[TheNewTeddy]

Lewis MacKenzie could have been elected in 1997 as a Tory, and, could have gone on to become Leader and PM.

What kind of PM do people think he would have made?

[TheNewTeddy]

New Question

Quebec and Scotland are taking somewhat similar approaches to independence. Both places have a single somewhat-left-leaning-but-sometimes-right-wing-on-select-issues-but-also-centrist-big-tent party calling for independence that is in government.

What if they win a referendum? What happens to that party?

The SNP, despite being on the left on many issues, are still called "Tartan Tories" by some. Remember too that the BQ (the cousin of the PQ) was started by PC MPs. Both parties have a strained relationship with the Liberals, with whom they agree on very little, and both parties often produce platforms similar to the NDP/Labour. Provincially in Quebec, the "Tories" could be represented by the CAQ, and the "NDP" by the QS.

So then, what happens after independence? All of a sudden that one goal that united all the party members is done with, and right over there, sitting facing you in Parliament, are members of a party that you agree with on just about everything - now that independence is out of the question. Are you going to keep sitting for this party?

And what of voters. Voters who wanted independence but really wish the government would do X or Y rather than what that pro-independence party wants. Will they continue to support the party?

There are shockingly few examples of this in modern history, as this tends to not happen in developed democracies. Perhaps the most "Recent" would be Ireland at the end of WW1. What happened there was the end of all non-independence parties and the splitting of the pro-independence party in two.

[cybercoma]

What if they win a referendum? What happens to that party?

They're called brokerage parties. They tend to die over time (sometimes a long time like the LPC). What happens is they fail to stand for any particular thing (in your case, any particular thing beyond independence), so the various interests within the party spin off into their own directions.