Debatably relevant historical note of the day - Macleans.ca
 

Debatably relevant historical note of the day


 

Four times in our history has a federal election come within a year of the last one. Two saw a formal change in government, one saw a switch in the standings of the top two parties (the complicated matter and aftermath of the King-Byng affair) and the other saw a dramatic increase in the standing of the ruling party.

1925 Conservatives 115, Liberals 100 (Liberal minority)
1926 Liberals 116, Conservatives 91 (Liberal minority)

1957 Conservatives 111, Liberals 104 (Conservative minority)
1958 Conservatives 208, Liberals 48 (Conservative majority)

1962 Conservatives 116, Liberals 99 (Conservative minority)
1963 Liberals 128, Conservatives 95 (Liberal minority)

1979 Conservatives 136, Liberals 114 (Conservative minority)
1980 Liberals 147, Conservatives 103 (Liberal majority)


 
Filed under:

Debatably relevant historical note of the day

  1. I'm honestly starting to wonder if the appropriate historical precedent isnt from the 1900s, but the period of stalemate and uncertainty that lead to the fathers of confederation looking for a better solution to the whole damn system.

    • That's a great point.

  2. We desperately need a revised electoral system. The folks at fairvote canada have it right.

  3. This isn't enough help in our time of crisis. We need an historical precedent from the future.

    What will the Federation do when it's faced with this cengturies from now? What will the Tok'ra do when the System Lords start acting up? Do the Time Lords have a future system of governance we can learn from?

  4. 1958 raises interesting questions:

    Newly-minted Lib leader Pearson is deemed to have triggered an unwanted election and gets trounced, vaulting the Cons to a majority.

    Despite this, he stays on as leader and goes on to be one of best PMs (I think we can agree on that).

    Question: If Micheal Ignatieff were to go down to such a defeat, is there any chance he could stay on as leader like Pearson did?

    I think it's a definite no.

    So, next questions: why not, and what does it say about the fickle, short-term-gain nature of politics today?

  5. It seems that a new election within a very short time since the last one favours the Liberals.

  6. 1958 raises interesting questions:

    Newly-minted Lib leader Pearson is deemed to have triggered an unwanted election and gets trounced, vaulting the Cons to a majority.

    Despite this, he stays on as leader and goes on to be one of our best PMs (I think we can agree on that).

    Question: If Micheal Ignatieff were to go down to such a defeat, is there any chance he could stay on as leader like Pearson did?

    I think it's a definite no.

    So, next questions: why not, and what does it say about the fickle, short-term-gain nature of politics today?

    (this isn't rhetorical – replies are welcome, nay, encouraged)

    • Bob Rae inherits the Liberal Party.