To all my fellow Canadians...

No problem man.  Enjoy your lifelong search for truth and fairness.

I didn't think you were a conservative.  Most conservatives don't seek answers - they think they've already got them.

Here's some more essential reading:  http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

Bob, you know, I hope, that I generally enjoy your posts and appreciate sharing this little corner of the internet with you.  That said, you referring to anything anybody says as 'partisan drivel' is a bit like Brian May calling people blinkered and opinionated.  You don't know whether to laugh or cry. 

A level head is precisely what one needs to see through the absolute folly of the St. Jack meme. It's truly, truly absurd.   It doesn't take away from his accomplishments to acknowledge that he was as much canny political animal as all of them, and more so than some of them.   That the NDP was as responsible for the muck racking and general decline of political discourse as anybody else.  That there is NOTHING different about their politics other than the fact that they can play the sunny optimists because they've never governed federally and had to deal with having their policies stand up to economic reality.  I live in a largely blue collar lunch bucket town and I see first hand the divisive class baiting rhetoric of the NDP that happens all the time outside of the spot light.  It's barely related to reality.  Bob Rae had to deal with reality, and he's a Liberal now.  Speaks volumes about the fact that while the NDP is an incredibly important force in Canadian politics and an incredibly important force in some of the bests parts of our Canadian identity, they just can't pay the bill for their policies at this point.   Despite the rightward drift of all the national parties in the last two decades, they have not yet substantively moved past their traditional role as hard left (in a relative sense) agitators and social conscience.  It's theatre as often as it's anything else.  The sponsor of C-311 pledged to reintroduce it as often as it took to become law.   Well,  that bill that was supposed to pick up where Kyoto left off (nowhere, you'll notice - how embarassing) in 2012 is not going to become law anytime in the next few years.   Nobody benefits from the spectre of NDP theatre further politicizing an issue that has been politicized to the point of complete obfuscation by just about everybody just about everywhere.  Sadly, the economy boogeymen have won this round.  Stop posturing in Question Period and organize something at the grass roots for individuals.  That's where little changes will make a big difference.  Despite your recent slam of the US over consumption in another thread there is no list on which Canada appears after the US on per capita consumption of oil.  We're worse, consistently worse, have been for years, and are doing little on a grand scale individual basis to change that.

And yes, too, Layton lied to the country about his health.  Baldly, by both omission and commission.  I talked once about talking to Adam Lambert on my TV all by myself in a dark room, telling him to get his hands off Brian May.  I had an oddly similar outburst directed at Jack Layton as I watched him bob and weave and dissemble like a true master politician about his mysterious hip fracture to a reporter on CBC back in the early spring of 2011.    What Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein called 'non-denial denials' in the Watergate era.   I would have bet my house, and still would, that what he had was one of the the most common complications of prostate cancer - a critically weakening metastasis to the bones of the hip.  So, no, he was not honest about it. An almost certain fact.  However that does not imply that I think he was obligated to do anything differently than he did.   I recognize on a human level that there would have been remarkable pressure to carry on.  A remarkable sense of responsibility to the party, to other cancer victims, and a personal desire to seize the moment.  It's easy to understand too how his own hope and faith would have demanded a belief in the future.  People fighting cancer have to be optimistic to have any chance at all.  Still, there was another path open to him that would have demanded a different kind of courage and one that at least to me would have been honourable in a more enduring way.  What he did was ultimately short sighted, and given how gruelling the campaign trail is, could even have cost him months and even years of life.  And for what.  It's a difficult question to answer honestly, with a level head.  But the answer is for not much.   Both the CPC and the NDP have lost popular support. Liberals have benefited.   Rhetoric meets reality.  Happens every time.

GratefulFan wrote: Excellent post overall.  But there are still a few places where I disagree. >>That the NDP was as responsible for the muck racking and general decline of political discourse as anybody else.  That there is NOTHING different about their politics other than the fact that they can play the sunny optimists<< Completely untrue.  One example - when the conservatives and liberals talk about "stimulating the job creators" (i.e. corporate tax cuts, and the private sector sits on the money while it outsources the job to the US or the third world), in the last election campaign the NDP suggested an incentive to reward the company AFTER it creates the job here, not before.  One of countless examples of how they are more than just rhetoric. Turn on CPAC and watch question period.  Conservatives are 99% talking points with no connection to reality, liberals somewhat less so, but NDP members consistently state studies and facts to support their claims and goals.  It has hit a point where I can close my eyes and tell which party a member is from based on their demeanour. >>they've never governed federally and had to deal with having their policies stand up to economic reality.<< And that's the biggest myth about the NDP right there.  Yes, they haven't governed on the federal level, but on the provincial level (particularly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan), the NDP have almost always left a surplus.  Most people in this country do not know that, and the liberals and conservatives will do everything in their power to ensure it remains that way.  The current government spends like drunken sailors, and in five years they have turned a budget surplus into our worst ever deficit.  And they want to drop billions on fighter jets and mega-prisons, despite the fact that crime at its lowest rate since 1973?  No conservative has left a surplus since 1896. Indeed, the NDP have been the social conscience in the house of commons for the last 50 years, but they have paid their dues and proven that they can lead this country towards the successful Nordic model, and finally loosen up the Americanization of our political system.  NDP-style governments rule most of the thriving European countries, and there's no good reason why that style of governance cannot thrive here too.  It will never happen under the liberals.  They are the conservative party with a different sales pitch - they just appear to move left whenever it's convenient. >>Stop posturing in Question Period and organize something at the grass roots for individuals.<< And that's exactly what Layton did.  He is responsible for countless grass roots movements battling for the little guy, many of them successful. >>I would have bet my house, and still would, that what he had was one of the the most common complications of prostate cancer - a critically weakening metastasis to the bones of the hip.  So, no, he was not honest about it.<< Err, he did tell the country very openly that he had prostate cancer.  I watched the press conference.  And every intelligent Canadian knew the bad hip was directly related to the cancer.  I didn't think that was any kind of secret. >>What he did was ultimately short sighted, and given how gruelling the campaign trail is, could even have cost him months and even years of life.  And for what.<< He gave the NDP 67 more seats.  That's what!  But was it worth his life?  Only he knows.  Or knew..

Bob:

Holland had a centre-left government only once in its entire history (the cabinet of PM Den Uyl, 1973-1977). The closest we have come since then was the "purple coalition", which was a centrist government consisting of classical liberals, liberal democrats and democratic socialists, which nevertheless had a 100% free market-agenda.

For most of Dutch history since WWII, Christian parties have had a majority of the seats in parliament. Until the last elections, in 2010, the Christian parties and classical liberals combined have always had a majority in parliament.

Holland never really had particularly progressive governments, conservative governments were just often forced to take very moderate measures because the people just wouldn't accept anything else.

Sadly, since 2001 the climate has dramatically deteriorated. The Social Democratic Party is no longer a serious force, the classical liberal party has endorsed racism as a good election-strategy, the Christian Democrats are bitterly divided between an ultra-conservative and a moderate wing (and, I might add, hopelessly corrupt), and the two parties gaining from this are the two populist factions: the far-right Freedom Party of Geert Wilders (an interesting side-note here is that approximately 30% of their elected officials have a criminal record), and the europhobe Socialist Party.

The Real Wizard wrote: Completely untrue.  One example - when the conservatives and liberals talk about "stimulating the job creators" (i.e. corporate tax cuts, and the private sector sits on the money while it outsources the job to the US or the third world), in the last election campaign the NDP suggested an incentive to reward the company AFTER it creates the job here, not before.  One of countless examples of how they are more than just rhetoric .========================================== A perfect and I can only assume unwittingly provided example of exactly what I'm talking about.  First, the idea of somehow tying rewards to performance is not new.  The Liberals for example campaigned against profligate 'no strings attached corporate tax breaks' themselves as recently as the last election cycle. Regardless, no matter who promotes the idea it's nothing but jejune fluff until you can make it work in the real world.  Job creation is a statistic that is generally considered in the aggregate. Business creates jobs not only by direct hiring but by reinvesting money back into equipment or third party services.  As we saw through statistics highlighted by the media during the last election cycle, business is not doing much of that right now and they're not doing much hiring either.   Those same stats indicated that they're largely sitting on their money in reserves,  just like individuals do in uncertain times.  Adding layers of government bureaucracy trying to sort out who has done enough to create a job three arm's lengths away and expecting corporations to make long term commitments on short term money at the whim of some government committee or something is problematic to say the least. Canadians do have a right to be annoyed at what could be their money endlessly idling on the bank balances of businesses and corporations (or being given away in large unearned bonuses) and there is little doubt that the Conservatives are ideologically married to the idea of trickle down economics more than they are to results.  But it's an extraordinarily complex question tied in part to extraordinarily complex global systems that are largely out of our control, and to find deep significance in any political party's incorporeal and untested idea about withholding incentives (i.e. withholding the ability for a company to have sufficient information to plan) until after they do A, B or C is pie in the sky partisanship at it's most useless.  The NDP's deep and reflexive suspicion of business in general sees them consistently  fail to differentiate, for their own political gain,  the truly predatory capitalism that haunts parts of the system from perfectly healthy profit motives.  A big part of why they still make far more Canadians nervous than not. Turn on CPAC and watch question period.  Conservatives are 99% talking points with no connection to reality, liberals somewhat less so, but NDP members consistently state studies and facts to support their claims and goals.  It has hit a point where I can close my eyes and tell which party a member is from based on their demeanour.  ============================================== I do watch Question Period.  On demeanor: McMaster U did a study  that rated the MPs by their level of civility which included things like rudeness, ad hominem, yelling and the use of anger as a rhetorical device.  Most uncivil MP?  Jack Layton.  Michael Ignatieff was right behind so it's partly a function of what gets rewarded with a nightly news sound bite, but yelling and posturing while holding up graphs and charts (and how easy it is for anybody to tell any story with statistics) is still yelling and posturing.  The NDP are no better in general than anybody else and anybody that thinks so genuinely needs to take off their partisan glasses. Question Period has devolved over the last two or three decades into a truly embarrassing farce. It's terrible. Few deserve kudos for anything.  Except maybe Justin Trudeau sticking up for an NDP member by spontaneously announcing at the top of his lungs that Peter Kent was a piece of shit.  Now that's bipartisanship.  Ha ha.  No, that was bad too.  But funny. And that's the biggest myth about the NDP right there.  Yes, they haven't governed on the federal level, but on the provincial level (particularly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan), the NDP have almost always left a surplus.  Most people in this country do not know that, and the liberals and conservatives will do everything in their power to ensure it remains that way.  The current government spends like drunken sailors, and in five years they have turned a budget surplus into our worst ever deficit.  And they want to drop billions on fighter jets and mega-prisons, despite the fact that crime at its lowest rate since 1973?  No conservative has left a surplus since 1896. Indeed, the NDP have been the social conscience in the house of commons for the last 50 years, but they have paid their dues and proven that they can lead this country towards the successful Nordic model, and finally loosen up the Americanization of our political system.  NDP-style governments rule most of the thriving European countries, and there's no good reason why that style of governance cannot thrive here too.  It will never happen under the liberals.  They are the conservative party with a different sales pitch - they just appear to move left whenever it's convenient.  =========================================== You'll get no argument out of me about this conservative government.  But on your other point there are two things:  First, what the NDP did in Saskatchewan et al might be key if the entire country was a giant  wheat field with strategically placed hockey rinks and beer stores. Ha ha.  I exaggerate.  But in all seriousness the population of either one of those entire provinces is smaller than several individual major urban centres in Canada.  BOTH provinces combined have less people than just the City of Toronto.  Not the GTA - just the City of Toronto.  Governing policies in small and less complex cultural and economic systems won't necessarily scale up. What happened when the NDP earned a surprise victory in Ontario - what was then the clear economic engine of the country - still simmers in the memory here nearly a generation later. But second and probably more important is the degree to which autonomous provincial parties who share the national brand in name shift right and left in response to the facts on the ground. I recall the NDP government in BC going on about "layabouts and welfare bums" or something like that around the same time as the Harris revolution in Ontario was doing the same thing.  Not exactly your standard NDP platform.  In a piece in the Globe and Mail today by Jeffrey Simpson titled "What to like and fear about the NDP" he noted that Brian Topp advocates the "classic social democratic model, largely abandoned in Europe and in provinces where the NDP governs or has governed, but one that apparently remains dear to the hearts of some federal New Democrats."  Point being that once NDP actually have power they've found they had to adjust. The federal NDP has never governed, and never had to adjust.   It's easy to be widely if largely benignly liked and respected when you've never had to break a promise or answer for your dumb ideas like everybody else has.  To hold them up as something special, some great hope, is blinkered and frankly naive.  Their influence in important to the country and our collective character, but that's as far as it goes for most people. Far cry from some of the overwrought and demonstrably inaccurate claims about Layton, his record, his substance and his party that have been made here when the subject has come up.

Err, he did tell the country very openly that he had prostate cancer.  I watched the press conference.  And every intelligent Canadian knew the bad hip was directly related to the cancer.  I didn't think that was any kind of secret. ============================================ That's totally revisionist.  Yes, he told the country he had prostate cancer and every single public statement after that was designed to communicate that he was doing great and the treatments had been successful.  The doctors were no longer worried.  Questions about his hip injury were flat out rebuffed by his organization and his personal responses were avoidant generalities, politician speak and non denial denials.  Every intelligent Canadian DID NOT know it was related to his cancer because they chose to believe Layton when he straight up said there was no known medical explanation for the injury.  There was no detailed press conference about the "second cancer" - and in what would be funny if the subject wasn't cancer, that's how most people eventually consciously or unconsciously reported it - with those you're-essentially-full-of-shit quotation marks. We don't even know what that cancer was because apparently it would discourage others suffering from it and that's why they wouldn't  name it.   But that didn't apply to prostate cancer apparently, even when the outcome was unknown, or something. Yeah, okay. Really, it's not inappropriate to use language as strong as cover up.  If his chosen course of action was the unambiguous right thing to do it seems to me that nobody would need to lie about it. In the interest of political expediency we've lost an opportunity to have a frank and compassionate national conversation about the line between public and private information with the precious input of Jack's private thoughts, feelings and reasoning as he made his choices before his death. Here is a CTV piece by an oncologist who thinks Layton may have known he likely had a terminal illness since 2010.  It's hard to read in it's way because it feels invasive given the subject has lost his life.   That illustrates I think how important a different kind of courage from Layton might have been, because every decent human impulse works against a frank and honest assessment of a delicate but really important public issue. http://healthblog.ctv.ca/post/Did-prostate-cancer-kill-Jack-Layton.aspx He gave the NDP 67 more seats.  That's what!  But was it worth his life?  Only he knows.  Or knew.. ================================================ 10 of which would already have evaporated in Quebec alone if an election were held today based on popular vote shifts since his death.  Not unexpected when people in that province made their voting decisions around what was essentially a cult of personality that grew out of watching one televised debate.  I wonder if that waitress from Ontario that can't speak French ever did find her way to the Quebec riding she was elected in.

GratefulFan, I respect you, and you bring up several good points. I just have one thing to say;

Stop mentioning Michael Ignatieff. Sure, he's extremely smart, but he has no charisma. Put him next to Stephen Harper, and Steve will seem like most charismatic person on earth. He led the greatest party Canada ever had into the dumps.

1) No.

2) Go to your room!

;)

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MadTheSwine73 wrote: [/QUOTENAME] He led the greatest party Canada ever had into the dumps. [/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but Stephane Dion already had a MAJOR headstart to that unfortunate honour. Dion was a blundering idiot on many levels. Remember that Carbon Tax idea of his?
Ignatieff was much more brilliant and also had MORE charisma than Dion, however he was no Layton either!

[QUOTE]

[b]inu-liger wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]

[b]MadTheSwine73 wrote: [/b] He led the greatest party Canada ever had into the dumps. [/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but Stephane Dion already had a MAJOR headstart to that unfortunate honour. Dion was a blundering idiot on many levels. Remember that Carbon Tax idea of his?
Ignatieff was much more brilliant and also had MORE charisma than Dion, however he was no Layton either![/QUOTE]

True, but Dion can't be "officially" blamed, since he only brought them down to 77 seats. But you're completely right about everything else.

Well then. It's taken me a little while, but I finally came up with a new list.

I did some thinking, maturing, and a little bit more reading, and this is what I've got.

I determined that the Prime Ministers of Canada before 1963 (Pearson) are fine. However, I do have some exceptions.

Alexander Mackenzie OR Edward Blake as the second PM.

Reason: As Macdonald resigned due to the Pacific Scandal, Edward Blake was offered the post, but turned it down due to ill health. Should he have accepted the post, he would have most likley done what his Mackenzie did; call a snap election and get a majority, and then lose in 5 years to John A.

Now, as Macdonald died during his last term in office, there were FOUR designated PMs to take his place. I'm removing them all, and pretending that there was a confidence vote in the house instead, and Laurier took over 5 years prior to his first of FOUR consecutive majority governments, therefore giving him 20 years in office.

(more normal stuff)

The 1925 election gave Meighen's Tories a minority. However, King got support from the third-party Progressives, so he stayed in office. However, due to (I think) the King-Byng affair, Meighen became Prime Minister again, and his government lasted three days before King called a confidence vote, and another election was called. I'm switching those two around, so King still got all his time in office, as did Meighen, just in a different order.

Lester B. Pearson/Tommy Douglas (normal-ish)

As Pearson never had a majority, he was (un)officially supported by Tommy Douglas' New Democrats. I'm going to go a bit further, to the degree that Douglas actually had power for a while, however only as acting PM while Pearson was not in Parliament or out of the country. Douglas would have never won an election, being the most influential politician in Canadian history to NOT win an election.

Now, I'll actually add detail.

Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1968-1973)

In the unlikely event that Trudeau would have lost a confidence vote in 1973, and the Governor General decided to go to the second party instead of calling an election, Trudeau would have lost, and Robert Stanfield would have won.

Robert Stanfield (1973-1974)

Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1974-1979)

However, Trudeau would have come back to power with a majority, before losing to Clark.

Joe Clark (1979-1980)

Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1980-1984)

Jean Chrétien (1984-1989)

In the event that Chrétien should have won the leadership race in 1984, according to his book, "Straight Through The Heart," he would have waited until Parliament expires (I'm not sure if that's the right word), and then called an election in 1985. I think he would have won a majority.

Brian Mulroney (1989-1992)

Mulroney would have had to win AT LEAST one election. Just by the popularity he had in the 80's, and only then. He would have had a strong minority, with support from Reform.

Jean Chrétien (1992-2001)

I'm sure Chrétien would not have resigned as leader, so I think he would have won a few more majorities, as he did in the real 1990's.

Paul Martin (2001-2006)

This time, Chrétien would have resigned earlier, as he did have more time prior to the 90's, and Paul Martin would have taken over sooner. I take it that Martin would have waited about a year, (2002-ish) before calling an election, in which he would have won a majority. Then, the Sponsorship Scandal happened, and lost in 2006, just like in real life, to Stephen Harper.

Stephen Harper (2006-2008)

However, Harper's government would have been a minority, and would have been defeated by the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition.

Stéphane Dion (2008-2011)

Dion takes the rest of Harper's term...

Jack Layton (2011)

... And Jack Layton and the NDP win a suprising minority government in the 2011 election. However, Jack died later that year, and so in this scenario, I'm sure a confidence vote would have been called, in which case they would have most probably lost, and so guess who's back?

Stephen Harper (2011-present)

And here we are at our current state. Except in this scenario, they have a minority. However, I'm sure Harper would have called a quick election to win his majority.

So here it is, with the repeated terms.

John A. Macdonald
Alexander Mackenzie OR Edward Blake
John A. Macdonald
Wilfrid Laurier
Robert Borden
Arthur Meighen
William Lyon Mackenzie King
Arthur Meighen
William Lyon Mackenzie King
R. B. Bennett
William Lyon Mackenzie King
Louis St. Laurent
John Diefenbaker
Lester B. Pearson
Tommy Douglas (acting)
Pierre Trudeau
Robert Stanfield
Pierre Trudeau
Joe Clark
Pierre Trudeau
Jean Chrétien
Brian Mulroney
Jean Chrétien
Paul Martin
Stephen Harper
Stéphane Dion
Jack Layton
Stephen Harper

And WITHOUT the repeated terms:

1. John A. Macdonald
2. Alexander Mackenzie OR Edward Blake
3. Wilfrid Laurier
4. Robert Borden
5. Arthur Meighen
6. William Lyon Mackenzie King
7. R. B. Bennett
8.  Louis St. Laurent
9. John Diefenbaker
10. Lester B. Pearson
11. Tommy Douglas (acting)
12. Pierre Trudeau
13. Robert Stanfield
14. Joe Clark
15. Jean Chrétien
16. Brian Mulroney
17. Paul Martin
18. Stephen Harper
19. Stéphane Dion
20. Jack Layton

ONE LAST THING:

The only person I was not able to place in this list was George-Étienne Cartier. If anywhere, he would have been acting PM, as he died before Macdonald did.

Anyway, here's the updated list.

And for those of you wondering, YES, I have a life.

It's great that you're interested in politics. Hope you're enjoying your learning. :) You probably at this point have a greater on hand knowledge of Prime Ministerial history than most of us. Now you're all set in a few years to vote in your first election and be annoying at parties. :P

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
It's great that you're interested in politics. Hope you're enjoying your learning. :) You probably at this point have a greater on hand knowledge of Prime Ministerial history than most of us. Now you're all set in a few years to vote in your first election and be annoying at parties. :P[/QUOTE]

I am enjoying what I'm reading. Who knew Canadian politics is actually interesting? ;)

Can't wait for my first election! It'll either be the 2015 federal election or another election in 2015 (Municipal or Provincial), since I've aged now, as I am currently 15.

Well done. Indeed, it seems you've learned quite a lot ! The history of Canadian politics is coloured and overall very interesting.

This is the only statement I take exception with:

[QUOTE]I determined that the Prime Ministers of Canada before 1963 (Pearson) are fine.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you mean by "fine" ... but look up Diefenbaker and the Avro Arrow, and you will find the beginnings of Canada selling out our sovereignty to the US.

[QUOTE]

[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] Well done. Indeed, it seems you've learned quite a lot ! The history of Canadian politics is coloured and overall very interesting.

This is the only statement I take exception with:

[QUOTE]I determined that the Prime Ministers of Canada before 1963 (Pearson) are fine.[/QUOTE]
I cannot possibly tell you how much I disagree with this.

Look up Diefenbaker and the Avro Arrow, and you will find the beginnings of Canada selling out our sovereignty to the US.[/QUOTE]

Ha! I understand. Trust me, I know what Diefenbaker did. The only reason I didn't change that part in history is because it couldn't have happened. Diefenbaker was popular, so his two minorities and majority would not have been changed. Sure, I would have preferred for Pearson to be designated from St. Laurent, but that would have never happened.

I'm not really a huge Mulroney fan (don't hate him, don't love him), but I still had to put him in there, as people loved him (at the time) and he was young and charismatic.

So in the end, "fine," in this case meant that I don't think any significant changes could have been possible.