Jean Charest becomes leader of PC in 1993
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:19:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  International What-ifs (Moderator: Dereich)
  Jean Charest becomes leader of PC in 1993
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Jean Charest becomes leader of PC in 1993  (Read 838 times)
Elcaspar
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,136
Denmark


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 28, 2019, 07:02:14 PM »

How well would Jean Charest have done in 1993 election if he had prevailed against Kim Campbell to become leader of the PCs?
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,459
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2019, 09:45:23 PM »
« Edited: July 02, 2021, 11:07:23 PM by brucejoel99 »

With Charest at the helm, the PCs probably form a strong official opposition or a weak minority government. The former is much more likely, presumably with a seat count in the high 80s or low 90s. Keep in mind that while Campbell turned the party hard-right on all aspects of policy, especially immigration & finance, Charest is a pure Red Tory, so forget that hurting them.

Re: the Bloc & Reform, there'd probably be a 3-way split in Quebec, similar to that which was seen from 2004 until 2011, most likely with a PC plurality. In the West, the PCs would still dominate, though Reform would gain seats in Alberta & Saskatchewan. The Liberals would still gain a few Western seats because of vote-splitting. As for the long term, it depends on what happens during those 4 years (1993-97). Remember that there might even be a Liberal minority in this scenario.

Charest himself would stay on as leader of the opposition. Nearly the entire Mulroney cabinet was retiring from active politics, & Charest was by far the best choice of those who stayed on. Perhaps the best example is Harper in 2004: everybody expected Martin would win around 185 seats, if not more, prior to Adscam. As it turned out, but for a couple of tactical errors, Harper could've become PM 2 years earlier than he actually did with a similar seat count to 2006. Reducing potential Armageddon to a respectable official opposition would certainly be cause for applause.

As for what happens in the long term, it's a crapshoot. Perhaps Martin is less overtly ambitious & Chretien retires after 2 terms in Martin's favor, & Martin would win such a leadership convention due to having the organization in place to defeat a potentially crowded field (e.g. John Manley, Sheila Copps, Allan Rock, Frank McKenna, Brian Tobin, Martin Cauchon, Dalton McGuinty, Gerard Kennedy), just like Turner in 1984.
Logged
Brother Jonathan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,011


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2019, 05:28:31 PM »

I can see the PCs holding on better in Quebec and Atlantic Canada under Charest, but they would still hemorrhage votes and seats out west. They would probably be either the fourth or third party, and Reform would probably have formed the official opposition, which I think would have bolstered them as a party and thus hurth the PCs more in the long run as the center-right voters started to move towards the largest center-right party. So maybe he extends the party's life, but I think  the death of the Progressive Conservative party was inevitable when their coalition broke down during the late Mulroney years. Even if Charest could save more of Quebec and Atlantic Canada, he would have been unable to bring the west back in and would just split the vote in Ontario with the Reform party, which is what happened in the end anyway. 
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,066


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2019, 09:22:42 PM »

The problem for the PCs was that they were weighed down by Mulroney's unpopularity and they were also disadvantaged by first past the post, they didn't have a clear regional base while Reform and the BQ did, which makes it more difficult seat-wise. I played with the 1993 results and made some alternate results-in Quebec the PCs gain 17.5% of the vote, with 10% coming from the BQ and 7.5% coming from the Liberals, in Atlantic Canada the PCs gain 15% and the Liberals lose 15%, and elsewhere the PCs gain 10.8%, the NDP gains 0.8%, Reform loses 4.7% and the Liberals lose 6.9%. These are the results;
1993 Canadian election
Jean Chretien-Liberal: 141+60 33.74%(+1.82%)
Preston Manning-Reform: 51+50 15.69%(+13.60%)
Lucien Bouchard-BQ: 45+35 10.52%(+10.52%)
Jean Charest-PC: 41-115 29.04%(-13.98%)
Audrey McLaughlin-NDP: 16-28 7.38%(-13.00%)
295 seats
148 for majority

These results are still pretty bad for the PCs, though at least they hold the Liberals to a minority government. Arguably I was generous to the PCs here. How things go for the PCs from here is unclear, perhaps they can pull off a comeback (a bit similar to the Liberals in 2015) and are in a much better position for future elections but aren't clearly the dominant right-wing party.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 13 queries.