As he described himself, was Mulroney really "the best since sir

[1967100]

Here is what he had to offer Canada yet we still had to vote him out of office. He definately has a credible chance of being the most effective PM in Canadian history.

1. The GST- effectively used by Chretien to end the economic crisis of the 1980's-1990's. Yet we still fail to reckonize that Mulroney was the one who should be credited with solving the problem.

2. The Free Trade Agreement- making more companies willing to do business with Canada. This led to the economic growth and jobs in Canada we see today.

3. The Constitutional talks which were brilliantly handled but had to fail because of mulroney's powerful critics like Trudeau. By destroying the Meech Lake agreement, Trudeau and Chretien broke Canada apart by making Quebec reject the Canada Act.

4. His government was clean of any major Scandals.

[geoffrey]

I think Mulroney is the PM most responsible for our current situation economically today (at least in the economically advantaged regions). Alberta in particular, and Ontario and Quebec too, wouldn't have nearly the industry they have today without NAFTA.

NAFTA is responsible for our high standard of living. So ya, the greatest since? Maybe not, there were a few other good ones along the way. But definitely one of the best.

Having a major hand in ending apartheid, being named as the Greenest PM for his groundbreaking work on the first international air pollution treaty regarding acid rain. Big deals.

Mulroney was the most misunderstood (in an intellectual sense, Chretien was definitely the most misunderstood ), he spoke above the level of most Canadians, and that's why he eventually got the boot (or quit I suppose, realistically he got the boot). He was definitely the brighest PM in recent times, and had the strongest leadership qualities.

Opening the constitution turned out to be a mistake, but the intention was good.

He was also arrogant and dismissive, but I don't really judge those as negatives... possibly in getting elected, but the PM's personally as viewed by the public rarely impacts my life in any sort of way.

[Canuck E Stan]

He was also arrogant and dismissive, but I don't really judge those as negatives... possibly in getting elected, but the PM's personally as viewed by the public rarely impacts my life in any sort of way.

What PM in your life time wasn't arrogant. And you're right it isn't a negative.Damn,it goes with the job.

Dion will never be PM, he hasn't any arrogant skills.

[Topaz]

I voted for Mulroney the first time and then voted him out the second time! The free trade is a mix bag. More jobs have come to Canada and they also leave Canada for Mexico or India. I don't think we've had the "greatest" PM as yet and if the NAU happens, we probably won't!

[Figleaf]

Mulroney was a disaster for Canada. Inept doesn't begin to describe the destructiveness of Mulroney.

He:

-politicized the RCMP and the civil service;

-rejuvenated Quebec separatism;

-alienated the west into creating the Reform party; and

-doubled the deficit, to name but a few of his messes.

And then there were his annoying personal failings, like thinking far far too much of himself.

[gc1765]

Here is what he had to offer Canada yet we still had to vote him out of office. He definately has a credible chance of being the most effective PM in Canadian history.

1. The GST- effectively used by Chretien to end the economic crisis of the 1980's-1990's. Yet we still fail to reckonize that Mulroney was the one who should be credited with solving the problem.

2. The Free Trade Agreement- making more companies willing to do business with Canada. This led to the economic growth and jobs in Canada we see today.

3. The Constitutional talks which were brilliantly handled but had to fail because of mulroney's powerful critics like Trudeau. By destroying the Meech Lake agreement, Trudeau and Chretien broke Canada apart by making Quebec reject the Canada Act.

4. His government was clean of any major Scandals.

Mulroney did some good things, namely free trade and the GST.

But to say he was clean of any major scandals? Heck no.

And how exactly did Trudeau or Chretien destroy Meech Lake?

[mcqueen625]

2. The Free Trade Agreement- making more companies willing to do business with Canada. This led to the economic growth and jobs in Canada we see today.

What are you talking about? The Free Trade agreements have virtually decimated our manufacturing industry and converted us into a service sector economy, where traditionally most of the jobs are minimum wage. Free trade was on the multinational corporattion's wish list so that they can now export the jobs to third world countries and ship finished products back into Canada duty free. The only ones who have benefited by free-trade are the multinational corporations and their shareholders. Nothing in those agreements was meant to benefit ordinary Canadians.

[geoffrey]

-alienated the west into creating the Reform party; and

I'd hardly blame Mulroney on that one. Mulroney elected MP's in Calgary, the Liberals haven't since the 60's.

He also ended Trudeau's rape of our economy and companies.

[Michael Bluth]

Mulroney -alienated the west into creating the Reform party;

That wasn't Mulroney that was Kim Campbell, John Tory, Allan Gregg and the whole PC brain trust that f*cked up the 1993 campaign.

The PCs were basically tied with the Liberals for the first week of the campaign, then Campbell made that comment about neither the deficit nor unemployment being reduced much before the end of the decade.

That started the death spiral that lead to the rise of Reform.

Mulroney can't be blamed for how terrible the PCs 1993 campaign was.

[madmax]

I voted for Mulroney the first time and then voted him out the second time! The free trade is a mix bag. More jobs have come to Canada and they also leave Canada for Mexico or India. I don't think we've had the "greatest" PM as yet and if the NAU happens, we probably won't!

Mulroney never did get voted out. But thanks for trying. Mulroney escaped the horror of a third election. I believe his popularity was around 9%. I recall going out for Halloween many years later, and someone had a Mulroney mask on. I couldn't believe how angry I became just seeing that mask. I was surprised when just a few years back, before the CPC merger, when Joe Clark was trying to speak fondly of Mulroney and people started booing. That's Joe Clark for you.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder. I can wait some more.

[madmax]

Mulroney did some good things, namely free trade and the GST.

Created the largest tax grab since the creation of income tax.

[madmax]

He also ended Trudeau's rape of our economy and companies.

You didn't live through this era did you?

[madmax]

Mulroney -alienated the west into creating the Reform party;

That started the death spiral that lead to the rise of Reform.

Mulroney can't be blamed for how terrible the PCs 1993 campaign was.

Nobody was commenting on the 1993 campaign. Reformers existed before that.

Figleaf is Correct. Mulroney Alienated the west into creating the Reform Party. (WIKI)

The party was the brainchild of a group of discontented Western interest groups who were upset with the PC government and the lack of a voice for Western concerns at the national level. They believed the West needed its own party if it was to be heard. Their main complaints against the Mulroney government were its alleged favoritism towards Quebec, lack of fiscal responsibility, and a failure to support a program of institutional reform (for example, of the Senate). The roots of this discontent lay mainly in their belief that a package of proposed constitutional amendments, called the Meech Lake Accord, failed to meet the needs of Westerners and Canadian unity overall.

The Reform Party was founded as a populist party to promote reform of democratic institutions. However, shortly after the 1987 founding convention, social and fiscal conservatives became dominant within the party, moving it to the right. Their political aims were a reduction in government spending on social programs, and reductions in taxation. In 1992, leader Preston Manning explained the party's policies in detail in his book, The New Canada, defending some of the controversial elements of Reform's policies.

That's pretty clear. Reform were upset with the PC party during the Mulroney era.

Mulroney wouldn't have made any difference in the results, I still think they would have held 2 seats at the end of the election and not ZERO, because that is the only difference Mulroney could have added.

Kim Campbell was a breath of fresh air. She brought the PC party forward, and they rose in the polls. Unfortuneately Campbells candidness regarding the issues your brought forth, Jobs and the economy, put the reality back into Canadians of just what the Progressive Conservatives had done to Canadians and the pain they would have to suffer for this major restructuring of the economy.

Essentially the message was, you have lost your job, your lively hood, and anything you buy now will be taxed by us too and you might have a new job in the service sector in 7 years. Good luck in your future endeavours.

[Figleaf]

-alienated the west into creating the Reform party; and

I'd hardly blame Mulroney on that one. Mulroney elected MP's in Calgary, the Liberals haven't since the 60's.

He also ended Trudeau's rape of our economy and companies.

The history of the founding of the Reform party is well known. While resentments in the west existed under former governments, it's quite clear that the straw that broke the camels back was the Mulroney government. Don't take my word for it -- research.

And it's quite a stretch to suggest Trudeau was raping our companies. If anything his foreign investment review agency was preventing the rape of our companies (though maybe not in the most economically advantageous ways).

[Figleaf]

Mulroney -alienated the west into creating the Reform party;

That wasn't Mulroney that was Kim Campbell, John Tory, Allan Gregg and the whole PC brain trust that f*cked up the 1993 campaign.

Bluthster, even a modicom of research would have helped you avoid looking so uninformed on this subject. The Reform party was created in 1987.

Mulroney can't be blamed for how terrible the PCs 1993 campaign was.

Such a comedian!!!

[Michael Bluth]

That's pretty clear. Reform were upset with the PC party during the Mulroney era.

Mulroney wouldn't have made any difference in the results, I still think they would have held 2 seats at the end of the election and not ZERO, because that is the only difference Mulroney could have added.

Kim Campbell was a breath of fresh air. She brought the PC party forward, and they rose in the polls. Unfortuneately Campbells candidness regarding the issues your brought forth, Jobs and the economy, put the reality back into Canadians of just what the Progressive Conservatives had done to Canadians and the pain they would have to suffer for this major restructuring of the economy.

Had Campbell run a strong campaign Reform would have stayed a fringe party.

What Campbell said has proven to be historically wrong.

Jean Chretien didn't know that at the time, but he sold people on the best case scenario. *Jobs* *jobs* *jobs*.

Then those ads about Chretien's face? OMG. The PCs hold onto party status without those ads airing.

There is no way Mulroney OKs those ads to be aired.

[madmax]

Had Campbell run a strong campaign Reform would have stayed a fringe party.

I don't believe they would have stayed fringe. I don't think Progressive Conservatives could provide the anti-dote to the Reform. Although they used the "Scary" tactics as well.

Jean Chretien didn't know that at the time, but he sold people on the best case scenario. *Jobs* *jobs* *jobs*.

Mulroney campaigned on JOBS JOBS JOBS. Chretian campaigned as if he where the new Ed Broadbent. Against FTA, Against GST.

Then those ads about Chretien's face? OMG. The PCs hold onto party status without those ads airing.

There is no way Mulroney OKs those ads to be aired.

Kim Campbell appeared to have no control over the campaign and admitted as much. The ads became a lesson for everyone.

None of which changes Mulroney in my eyes.

You can be one of his supporters. According to this local poll but you don't have alot of company.

[Michael Bluth]

I don't believe they would have stayed fringe. I don't think Progressive Conservatives could provide the anti-dote to the Reform. Although they used the "Scary" tactics as well.

Mulroney campaigned on JOBS JOBS JOBS. Chretian campaigned as if he where the new Ed Broadbent. Against FTA, Against GST.

Kim Campbell appeared to have no control over the campaign and admitted as much. The ads became a lesson for everyone.

None of which changes Mulroney in my eyes.

You can be one of his supporters. According to this local poll but you don't have alot of company.

We are talking about the 1993 campaign here.

Reform, depends on your definition of fringe. If they remained stuck at the 10% level of support they enjoyed at the start of the campaign they would have won a handful of seats, but not enough for party status. Fringe or not, is that reasonable?

Kim Campbell campaigned on nothing. She wasn't a strong leader. She didn't get it done.

I'm the only person to pick that middle ground third option. Sometimes it's better to be right than to go along with popular opinion.

[geoffrey]

Aww... everyone hates Mulroney.

Anyways, the difference between Reform and Green at 10%, is that the former could actually win a huge chunk of seats at 10% (Alberta is 10% of the population, they could win the entire province and only have 5% national support --- assuming that 50% in each riding is needed, which it's not). The Greens have a little bit everywhere, doesn't work in our system (as it should be).

So Reform was as nearly fringe... I'd say they were as fringe as the Bloc Quebecois is. Well, until '93.

[madmax]

I'm the only person to pick that middle ground third option. Sometimes it's better to be right than to go along with popular opinion.

I have been looking at the poll, over and over again and reading the above. I think I have been outpointed.

Nah,

I didn't like Mulroney at all by 1993 and just can't get past that fact.

Michael, It is demonstratable that you have chosen the middleground on this.

I just can't be that accomodating towards Mulroney.

[madmax]

Aww... everyone hates Mulroney.

Yeah, that's no fun.

Anyways, the difference between Reform and Green at 10%, is that the former could actually win a huge chunk of seats at 10% (Alberta is 10% of the population, they could win the entire province and only have 5% national support --- assuming that 50% in each riding is needed, which it's not). The Greens have a little bit everywhere, doesn't work in our system (as it should be).

Reform had approx 18% of the vote in 1993. How much of that vote was concentrated? 2.5 million people is a significant amount of people.

[Michael Bluth]

I think I have been outpointed.

Nah,

I didn't like Mulroney at all by 1993 and just can't get past that fact.

Michael, It is demonstratable that you have chosen the middleground on this.

I just can't be that accomodating towards Mulroney.

Of course you have been outpointed. You went up against me.

History will be kinder to Mulroney and Chretien as the years go on. Paul Martin not so much.

Harper still a work in progress...

[segnosaur]

Mulroney was a disaster for Canada. Inept doesn't begin to describe the destructiveness of Mulroney.

He:

-politicized the RCMP and the civil service;

Believe it or not, the civil service was already politicized. Of course, since Canada had been run by the Liberals for so long, a change to a Conservative government would probably cause a giant culture shock.

-rejuvenated Quebec separatism;

Quebec 'separatism' never really went anywhere. Keep in mind that when Quebec had its first referendum, Trudeau was in power. (And Trudeau is viewed by many as some sort of 'super-federalist', able to leap tall separatists at a single bound, or some other junk like that.)

Frankly, I think support for 'separatism' is probably more a factor of the strength of personality that the leader of the separatist forces has.

-doubled the deficit, to name but a few of his messes.

True, I think it was a failing that Mulroney never cut the deficit. But lets consider a few facts:

- While the later Chretien government DID manage to cut the deficit, much of their efforts involved deep cuts to things like Health care and the military (much more than Mulroney did). Perhaps those cuts were necessary, although from the way people react, health care cuts are considered 'bad'.

- Chretien also benefited from taxes voted in under the conservatives (which they either did not get to implement, or who's effect had not been fully felt.) Also, Chretien benefitted from a very long period of high global economic growth, and very low global interest rates, both of which helped control and/or reduce the deficit

So, while Mulroney failed to make necessary cuts, I think Chretien's "success" has been more due to luck than actual skill or policies.

[Figleaf]

Believe it or not, the civil service was already politicized.

No, it wasn't.

Frankly, I think support for 'separatism' is probably more a factor of the strength of personality that the leader of the separatist forces has.

It's well known and blindingly clear that the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord fiascos rejuvenated Quebec separatism.

[segnosaur]

Believe it or not, the civil service was already politicized.

No, it wasn't.

You can make that claim all you want, but back in the late 70s/early 80s I remember hearing about regular appointments Trudeau made to various crown corporations and/or departments. (And do you remember that last flury of patronage appointments following Trudeau's retirement, that probaby did more than anything else to sink Turner's chances of winning the election?)

Frankly, I think support for 'separatism' is probably more a factor of the strength of personality that the leader of the separatist forces has.

It's well known and blindingly clear that the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord fiascos rejuvenated Quebec separatism.

If you're going to blame anyone, why don't you give at least part of the blame to Trudeau, who brought in a constitution that Quebec didn't sign (thus causing resentment between Quebec and English Canada in teh first place)?

Frankly, I think Meech Lake and Charlottetown were both big wastes of time, but I also think the constitution was a similar wast of time. But, if it was worth the risk to bring in the original constitution, then it should also be considered worth the risk to try to get Quebec to sign it.