Shades of 1957.

[shoop]

Let's look at how similar a situation we are in to 1957.

1957 - Diefenbaker was disliked by many people and not seen as a viable alternative to the Liberals.

2006 - Harper - big negatives. SCARY! Scary! Scary?

1957 - The PCs ran one of the most tightly controlled campaigns in history.

2006 - A promise a day. No redneck expolosions from the CPC. Party (almost) always on message.

1957 - PCs win as Liberals are seen as lazy and wanting for ideas after long period in office.

2006 - CPC win as Liberals are seen as dithering. When you have 56 priorities you don't have any...

1957 - PCs win after five consecutive Liberal victories.

2006 - CPC wins after four consecutive Liberal victories.

1957 - PCs win their most seats in QC in over a decade. Setting the stage for massive breakthrough in 1958.

2006 - CPC wins the most seats of any centre-right party in QC in over a decade. Setting the stage for ...

1957 - Liberal loss leads to a new leader who loses badly, in part, to not being a Quebecker.

2006 - Liberal loss leads to a new leadership race. Does anybody really think Dion will win?

1957 - PC win set the stage for the biggest majority win in Canadian history as Diefenbaker cruises to a majority in 1958....

2006 - CPC win sets the stage for?

[blueblood]

You missed one important point, the way the new CPC gov't is handling the farm income crisis (i thought something was going to be done about it, not a shitty liberal bandaid again) they can kiss their majority goodbye, us rednecks helped put em in it would be a pitty if they knifed us in the back like the liberals. alot of their ridings are in rural areas, and when the word gets out that they screwed over the rural areas, there goes their base.

[Nocrap]

You missed one important point, the way the new CPC gov't is handling the farm income crisis (i thought something was going to be done about it, not a shitty liberal bandaid again) they can kiss their majority goodbye, us rednecks helped put em in it would be a pitty if they knifed us in the back like the liberals. alot of their ridings are in rural areas, and when the word gets out that they screwed over the rural areas, there goes their base.

The only difference is that I don't believe that this new CPC will be around as long as Diefenbaker. Now mind you, many of their ideas are right out of the 1950's, but Canadians are not willing to take that step back.

[scribblet]

Let's look at how similar a situation we are in to 1957.

1957 - Diefenbaker was disliked by many people and not seen as a viable alternative to the Liberals.

2006 - Harper - big negatives. SCARY! Scary! Scary?

1957 - The PCs ran one of the most tightly controlled campaigns in history.

2006 - A promise a day. No redneck expolosions from the CPC. Party (almost) always on message.

1957 - PCs win as Liberals are seen as lazy and wanting for ideas after long period in office.

2006 - CPC win as Liberals are seen as dithering. When you have 56 priorities you don't have any...

1957 - PCs win after five consecutive Liberal victories.

2006 - CPC wins after four consecutive Liberal victories.

1957 - PCs win their most seats in QC in over a decade. Setting the stage for massive breakthrough in 1958.

2006 - CPC wins the most seats of any centre-right party in QC in over a decade. Setting the stage for ...

1957 - Liberal loss leads to a new leader who loses badly, in part, to not being a Quebecker.

2006 - Liberal loss leads to a new leadership race. Does anybody really think Dion will win?

1957 - PC win set the stage for the biggest majority win in Canadian history as Diefenbaker cruises to a majority in 1958....

2006 - CPC win sets the stage for?

IMO the CPC have a good chance to win a majority, maybe not the biggest . It will be refreshing to have some forward looking policies and change for the better.

The CPC ran an excellent campaign and have done a great job promoting their vision of a change for the better. People seem to realize now that they are not the scary party as portrayed by the media.

I like their proposal to give the auditor general more scope, I believe the public wants that badly.

I'm not up on the farm issues to be honest or what should be done, but Harper did tell farmers that in the weeks and months to come they will take action on the agriculture sector. Not sure what that will or should be.

[cybercoma]

this may be a simplistic way of looking at it, but I think the CPC will win a majority because 1) Canadians tend to vote with the party in power and 2) keeping number 1 in mind, they'll be sick and tired of these minority governments not accomplishing anything. The CPC should make minority governments look ineffectual, while simultaneously highlighting how positive their leadership had been in spite of their hands being tied. "If only we could have a majority to really make life better for Canadians....."

I believe they'll get their majority as long as they don't horribly drop the ball.

[tweedledee]

this may be a simplistic way of looking at it, but I think the CPC will win a majority because 1) Canadians tend to vote with the party in power and 2) keeping number 1 in mind, they'll be sick and tired of these minority governments not accomplishing anything. The CPC should make minority governments look ineffectual, while simultaneously highlighting how positive their leadership had been in spite of their hands being tied. "If only we could have a majority to really make life better for Canadians....."

I believe they'll get their majority as long as they don't horribly drop the ball.

Right on its refreshing ain't it to see someone finally take a stand against corruption and all that. Way to go Stephie and Stockie

[shoop]

Good point. So far they have done very well. They have handled the early days in Parliament in a very disciplined and controlled manner. The Liberals are a lot weaker in opposition so far then expected.

I believe they'll get their majority as long as they don't horribly drop the ball.

[August1991]

You missed one important point, the way the new CPC gov't is handling the farm income crisis (i thought something was going to be done about it, not a shitty liberal bandaid again) they can kiss their majority goodbye, us rednecks helped put em in it would be a pitty if they knifed us in the back like the liberals. alot of their ridings are in rural areas, and when the word gets out that they screwed over the rural areas, there goes their base.

Please don't tell me that you're a pork farmer.

----

As to the 1957 comparison, Harper is no Diefenbaker and the Liberal Party did not self-destruct because St-Laurent wanted to become leader.

Charest and Harper get along in a way that Duplessis and Diefenbaker never could because, well, Quebec is utterly different now than it was in 1957. Speaking of which, in 1957, there was no similar rural/suburban/urban split as now.

Also, I think the largest majority in Canadian history was in 1984 with Mulroney.

Nevertheless, the comparison is valid because Canadians appear to be cautiously switching from the Liberals to the Tories.

[shoop]

Don't know if I get your point about St. Laurent.

It is surprising how well Charest and Harper get along. Maybe Harper could bring Charest back onto the national scene *if* he can win the next provincial election.

1958 appears to be the biggest majority in history, although Mulroney won more seats in 1984.

1958 208/265 seats go PC (78% of the total number of seats).

1984 211/282 seats go PC (75% of the total number of seats).

A pretty minor point though. With 308 seat house Harper would have to be in the 231 to 240 seat range to rival those numbers. I don't think anybody sees those sorts of numbers as possible for the CPC in the next election.

As to the 1957 comparison, Harper is no Diefenbaker and the Liberal Party did not self-destruct because St-Laurent wanted to become leader.

Charest and Harper get along in a way that Duplessis and Diefenbaker never could because, well, Quebec is utterly different now than it was in 1957. Speaking of which, in 1957, there was no similar rural/suburban/urban split as now.

Also, I think the largest majority in Canadian history was in 1984 with Mulroney.

Nevertheless, the comparison is valid because Canadians appear to be cautiously switching from the Liberals to the Tories.

[August1991]

Don't know if I get your point about St. Laurent.

St-Laurent was King's Justice Minister and made no moves until King resigned, unlike Martin andChretien

It is surprising how well Charest and Harper get along. Maybe Harper could bring Charest back onto the national scene *if* he can win the next provincial election.

Politics make strange bedfellows but here's a case where they have a commonality of interests. I think Charest is feeling more comfortable in Quebec politics now. The PQ is getting involved in a bizarre pillow fight.

1958 appears to be the biggest majority in history, although Mulroney won more seats in 1984.

1958 208/265 seats go PC (78% of the total number of seats).

1984 211/282 seats go PC (75% of the total number of seats).

Mulroney was the only PM to get over 50% of the popular vote. You're right about the proportion of seats though.

With 308 seat house Harper would have to be in the 231 to 240 seat range to rival those numbers. I don't think anybody sees those sorts of numbers as possible for the CPC in the next election.

Ain't gonna happen.

A contributing factor in Diefenbaker's success was Duplessis's decision to help. The Tories won over 50 seats in Quebec in 1958.

Something similar could happen in the next federal election regardless of the Liberal leader. The Tories might win as many as 30 seats in Quebec.

[shoop]

Dude,

Diefenbaker got over 53% of the vote in 1958. Mulroney barely squeaked over 50% in 1988. Less than 50.1% IIRC.

I do get your point about St. Laurent vis-a-vis Martin knifing Chretien in the back.

One of the big errors St. Laurent made was something about calling for the Liberals to be put back in power, without an election, because of a downturn in the economy. That lead to *huge* cries of Liberal arrogance.

Clearly a rookie mistake which Ignatieff, Dryden, or whoever else wins could make.

Mulroney was the only PM to get over 50% of the popular vote. You're right about the proportion of seats though.

[August1991]

Diefenbaker got over 53% of the vote in 1958. Mulroney barely squeaked over 50% in 1988. Less than 50.1% IIRC.

Didn't know that. You're right.

One of the big errors St. Laurent made was something about calling for the Liberals to be put back in power, without an election, because of a downturn in the economy. That lead to *huge* cries of Liberal arrogance.

I thought it was the use of closure by CD Howe to get the pipeline legislation through.

In 1957, it had been over 20 years since the Tories had been in power and R. Bennett had overseen a situation far worse than Mulroney.

Harper's situation is different from Diefenbaker's.

All things considered, Canada may well be moving into a healthy two-party democracy. I never would have said that even two years ago but the past federal election was a big surprise for me (and others in Quebec). Many are still digesting it.

[Teddy Ballgame]

Dude, One of the big errors St. Laurent made was something about calling for the Liberals to be put back in power, without an election, because of a downturn in the economy. That lead to *huge* cries of Liberal arrogance. Clearly a rookie mistake which Ignatieff, Dryden, or whoever else wins could make.

Shoop ... Well, Dude, you are off base. 76 year old Uncle Louis retired in late 1957 to be replaced by recent Nobel peace prize winner Lester Pearson who appealed to the Liberal leadership delegates because he had a strong international reputation and an academic bent and therefore was thought to be more "marketable" to a gullible public easily impressed by the opinions of foreigners than were the other candidates with more extensive Canadian parliamentary and governmental experience.

When Mr. Pearson got up to make his maiden speech as the new Liberal leader, he called for the Diefenbaker minority government to hand power back to "The Natural Governing Party" without the bother of an election because the country had entered a mild recession (NB: nothing like the deep, lengthy recessions of 1981-85 and 1990-95).

Dief the Chief in full oratorical flight quoted extensively from a confidential government report by one Mitchell Sharp (then Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce and later long time Liberal cabinet minister) that had been released several months earlier to a still Liberal government and that forecast a mild recession for Canada from late 57 through 1958.

"Why did you not tell the Canadian people about this economic report and the recession they would have to face?" thundered The Chief, eyes blazing and index finger pointing accusingly at the dumbfounded Pearson. "Why do you Liberals always lie and cover up and treat the public with such arrogance and contempt?" asked Dief. "Why do you lot believe you have some divine right to govern?" asked the scowling PM.

The next day, PM Diefenbaker visited Governor General Massey, got his dissolution of Parliament, and waged a dynamic, absolutely brilliant 1958 election campaign that gave him the highest percentage of seats in Canadian federal history.

There are many interesting parallels between 1957-58 and today. An obvious one is that most Canadians have tired of what they rightly perceive as a complacent, arrogant, too long in the tooth and too long in power Liberal government. Another is that the Liberal Party is in dreadful shape, needs a complete policy and organizational make over (which is why the A Team of candidates has already bowed out of the leadership race and why insiders are now conducting a major review of the party), and seems intent on selecting yet another academically oriented leader (Ignatieff) whose actual domestic political experience and parliamentary skills are sorely lacking and whose reputation is international rather than national.

Let us hope that 1957 having repeated itself, 1958 will follow! But it won't happen within months this time but, rather, in about two years which is how long it will take the Liberals to be ready to fight another election. Of course, Harper could do a Dief and find a way and an issue to force an early election. But we're still talking probably 18-24 months from now not 6 months as in The Chief's time.

Go, Stephen. Keep your promises. This, alone, is enough to distinguish you from the Lieberals and ensure at least a a majority in 2008.

[shoop]

My bad. I meant Pearson, not St. Laurent. I knew the basics of the rest of the story.

I can't really see any circumstance in which this Parliament lasts till 2008.

If the polls are looking good for the Conservatives Harper will probably want to strike while the iron is hot, i.e. spring of 2007. (Pulling a Chretien and calling the election before the new OLO gets too comfortable in the job.)

If the polls aren't looking good for the Conservatives that's gotta mean they are looking good for somebody in the opposition. Which means an election fall of 2007. Which is a pretty average length of time for a minority government.

Shoop ... Well, Dude, you are off base. 76 year old Uncle Louis retired in late 1957 to be replaced by recent Nobel peace prize winner Lester Pearson who appealed to the Liberal leadership delegates because he had a strong international reputation and an academic bent and therefore was thought to be more "marketable" to a gullible public easily impressed by the opinions of foreigners than were the other candidates with more extensive Canadian parliamentary and governmental experience.

Go, Stephen. Keep your promises. This, alone, is enough to distinguish you from the Lieberals and ensure at least a a majority in 2008.

[August1991]

Thanks Teddy, for that informative post.

The similarity of 1957 and 2006 turns on Liberal arrogance, and Canadian voters' discomfort in leaving the Liberals and switching to the Tories.

I don't think Harper will get a large majority like Mulroney and Diefenbaker got.

Harper is not at all like Diefenbaker (thank God). Unlike Diefenbaker, Harper may well have the talent to be a good Prime Minister.

The Tories were in power from 1984 to 1993 and then the Liberals from 1993 to 2006. With the Conservatives winning seats in Quebec, we have the makings of a viable two party democracy - something Canada hasn't had since the 19th Century.

[Argus]

You missed one important point, the way the new CPC gov't is handling the farm income crisis (i thought something was going to be done about it, not a shitty liberal bandaid again) they can kiss their majority goodbye, us rednecks helped put em in it would be a pitty if they knifed us in the back like the liberals. alot of their ridings are in rural areas, and when the word gets out that they screwed over the rural areas, there goes their base.

You're angry because they didn't immediately open up the vaults and throw gold at you? The government listened respectfully, promised more money, promised action, pointed out that this was a national problem which needed input from the provinces.

You think you'll do better under the Liberals?

Just who do you think is going to instantly promise the world to farmers within a week of their protest, when they've barely been sworn into office and have a shaky minority? No studying, no planning, no assesments, no talking with the provinces - right - sure - that's how government works all right.

[Canuck E Stan]

this may be a simplistic way of looking at it, but I think the CPC will win a majority because 1) Canadians tend to vote with the party in power and 2) keeping number 1 in mind, they'll be sick and tired of these minority governments not accomplishing anything. The CPC should make minority governments look ineffectual, while simultaneously highlighting how positive their leadership had been in spite of their hands being tied. "If only we could have a majority to really make life better for Canadians....."

I believe they'll get their majority as long as they don't horribly drop the ball.

I also believe Canadians don't know or trust the new Liberal "leaders". People like Michael Ignatieff will have to wait their turn for acceptance just like Harper and Manning had to. Canadians didn't know or trust Manning when he headed the Reform party,but years later he was regarded as a good political statesman.So it will be a few years before Liberal "leaders" will get approval from the Canadian public.Meanwhile the Conservatives will govern with Canadian public approval,and that will show with a majority in the next election.

[shoop]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Harper "pull a Chretien" and call an election relatively quickly after the new Liberal leader is elected and before he has a chance to establish himself and a campaign organization.

I also believe Canadians don't know or trust the new Liberal "leaders". People like Michael Ignatieff will have to wait their turn for acceptance just like Harper and Manning had to. Canadians didn't know or trust Manning when he headed the Reform party,but years later he was regarded as a good political statesman.So it will be a few years before Liberal "leaders" will get approval from the Canadian public.Meanwhile the Conservatives will govern with Canadian public approval,and that will show with a majority in the next election.

[blueblood]

You missed one important point, the way the new CPC gov't is handling the farm income crisis (i thought something was going to be done about it, not a shitty liberal bandaid again) they can kiss their majority goodbye, us rednecks helped put em in it would be a pitty if they knifed us in the back like the liberals. alot of their ridings are in rural areas, and when the word gets out that they screwed over the rural areas, there goes their base.

You're angry because they didn't immediately open up the vaults and throw gold at you? The government listened respectfully, promised more money, promised action, pointed out that this was a national problem which needed input from the provinces.

You think you'll do better under the Liberals?

Just who do you think is going to instantly promise the world to farmers within a week of their protest, when they've barely been sworn into office and have a shaky minority? No studying, no planning, no assesments, no talking with the provinces - right - sure - that's how government works all right.

I don't want gold thrown at me at the expense of the taxpayer, I would become what I hate a freeloader. Throwing just a small percentage of money that is needed won't solve the problem, just look at the nfu.ca website for what WILL solve it, this new government is doing the SAME thing as the liberals and I am scared that with their similar ag policies we're gonna go under. We don't want the world, we want a fair price, the government can give us that without cost to taxpayers, Monsanto and recording artists get their royalties, where's ours? 750 million dollars spread out over 240 thousand farms won't even buy fuel for spring. I'm afraid this government won't stand up to the giant food corporations and fat cats who are pillaging us and I feel that I have wasted my vote.