WI: Lester B. Pearson and the Liberal Party win a majority in 1963?

[CanadianTory]

@RogueBeaver, @True Grit, @Callan, @Kermode, @Oppo

Back in 1963 the Diefenbaker government was in complete disarray. Down in the polls, in some cases as much as twenty-points, the government has enacted some pretty unpopular policies, including the cancellation of the Avro Arrow. It had gotten so bad that an attempt to force Prime Minister Diefenbaker out and get former Finance Minister Donald Fleming to take over was undertaken by several members of cabinet. It failed, but only further damaged the government’s standing with the public and bitterly divided the party between Pro and Anti-Diefenbaker wings, a divide that wouldn’t get resolved for decades.

Anyway, the Liberals and Lester Pearson, with the backing of the Kennedy Administration, were set to win a massive majority against the Tories. But, thanks to the perception that the Americans were meddling in our election (which was true), the ensuing anti-Americanism and Pearson’s ill health, which prevented him from actively campaigning, the Tories were able to rebound and kept the Liberals to a minority. Diefenbaker’s comeback was enough an ego boost for him and his supporters that he stayed on for another election defeat before getting forced out in a very messy leadership battle in 1967.

Let’s say that the Liberals, despite a nearly ten-point advantage over the Tories, manage to win an outright majority in 1963. That means the next election is in either 1967/1968, depending if Pearson wants to stay.

So what happens going forward? Does Pearson stay on the whole time and fight the next election? Does he get the Pearson Pennant as the Canadian Flag? Do the Tories dump Diefenbaker for a new fresh face? What about the NDP? Without a minority to bolster their influence, what happens to them?

Discuss!

 

[True Grit]

It's funny, Pearson seems so synonymous with minority parliaments that you rarely see these types of PODs. Seems like there's a lot of potential, though.

My gut feeling is that Diefenbaker's tossed out, probably replaced by George Hees (if only because it seems too early for folks like Robert Stanfield and Duff Roblin). Pearson probably stays on and fights the next election (which I assume is held in the aftermath of Expo '67), though I imagine he's reduced to a minority (though IOTL the PCs had a decent lead over the Liberals around this point, I suspect part of that was the result of Stanfield's honeymoon). Solid chance that the Pearson Pennant ends up getting adopted, though I can see a scenario where the Liberals are worried about the optics of choosing a design without the support of another party, the Pennant dies in committee, and we end up with the same flag as OTL.

Regardless of when he steps down - whether it's before a 1967/1968 election or afterwards - it'd be interesting to see who replaces Pearson. Trudeau's unlikely, not having entered parliament ITTL until 1967/1968 (if at all). Robert Winters, the runner-up IOTL, also probably isn't an option here (IOTL he only returned to the House in the 1965 election). Pearson wanted a Francophone to replace him, and early in his term had favoured both Guy Favreau and Jean Lesage - though both saw their political careers end before he retired (Favreau because of a 1965 prison escape and Lesage because of his 1966 defeat), it's easy to imagine these circumstances being butterflied and one of them emerging as Pearson's preferred choice. That's not to say that they'd win - even with his charisma and Pearson's behind-the-scenes support, it took Trudeau four ballots IOTL - but they'd certainly be contenders. If not them, the frontrunner here would probably be Mitchell Sharp - the only reason he withdrew from the race IOTL was because it looked like Pearson's minority might suddenly fall and he was needed back in Ottawa to make sure the budget passed. Again, insanely easy to butterfly. No matter who wins though you're definitely looking at a pretty different 1970s.

 

[CanadianTory]

It's funny, Pearson seems so synonymous with minority parliaments that you rarely see these types of PODs. Seems like there's a lot of potential, though.

My gut feeling is that Diefenbaker's tossed out, probably replaced by George Hees (if only because it seems too early for folks like Robert Stanfield and Duff Roblin). Pearson probably stays on and fights the next election (which I assume is held in the aftermath of Expo '67), though I imagine he's reduced to a minority (though IOTL the PCs had a decent lead over the Liberals around this point, I suspect part of that was the result of Stanfield's honeymoon). Solid chance that the Pearson Pennant ends up getting adopted, though I can see a scenario where the Liberals are worried about the optics of choosing a design without the support of another party, the Pennant dies in committee, and we end up with the same flag as OTL.

Regardless of when he steps down - whether it's before a 1967/1968 election or afterwards - it'd be interesting to see who replaces Pearson. Trudeau's unlikely, not having entered parliament ITTL until 1967/1968 (if at all). Robert Winters, the runner-up IOTL, also probably isn't an option here (IOTL he only returned to the House in the 1965 election). Pearson wanted a Francophone to replace him, and early in his term had favoured both Guy Favreau and Jean Lesage - though both saw their political careers end before he retired (Favreau because of a 1965 prison escape and Lesage because of his 1966 defeat), it's easy to imagine these circumstances being butterflied and one of them emerging as Pearson's preferred choice. That's not to say that they'd win - even with his charisma and Pearson's behind-the-scenes support, it took Trudeau four ballots IOTL - but they'd certainly be contenders. If not them, the frontrunner here would probably be Mitchell Sharp - the only reason he withdrew from the race IOTL was because it looked like Pearson's minority might suddenly fall and he was needed back in Ottawa to make sure the budget passed. Again, insanely easy to butterfly. No matter who wins though you're definitely looking at a pretty different 1970s.

What about Paul Hellyer or John Turner? I seem to recall reading that Trudeau’s entrance seriously undermined their campaigns, but both were perceived to have solid shots.

 

[True Grit]

What about Paul Hellyer or John Turner? I seem to recall reading that Trudeau’s entrance seriously undermined their campaigns, but both were perceived to have solid shots.

Hellyer’s possible, though just based on his personality there’s a solid chance he screws himself while in government or walks out to try and form a party of his own. Lots of ways his career could implode. Turner seems too young I think - IOTL there was an assumption that he was running mostly to set himself up for a future leadership election. Sharp probably overshadows both of them if he’s in the race, but if he’s not you’d probably see Hellyer emerge as the main anglophone candidate.

 

[CanadianTory]

Hellyer’s possible, though just based on his personality there’s a solid chance he screws himself while in government or walks out to try and form a party of his own. Lots of ways his career could implode. Turner seems too young I think - IOTL there was an assumption that he was running mostly to set himself up for a future leadership election. Sharp probably overshadows both of them if he’s in the race, but if he’s not you’d probably see Hellyer emerge as the main anglophone candidate.

A Paul Hellyer Vs George Hees battle would be a dream…for Tommy Douglas and the NDP.

 

[Time Enough]

What about the NDP? Without a minority to bolster their influence, what happens to them?

I do think they probably stay around the twenty seat margin, I could maybe see Douglas stepping down earlier as a result. Which could help David Lewis, despite his many problems he was a good campaigner and his Anti-Corporate messaging in the early 70s did certainly do alright.

maybe with Douglas stepping down earlier, the problems over The Waffle is pushed along till later in the decade, Ala Labour and it’s handling of Militant (not to compare the New Left, Left Wing Nationalist Waffle to a group of Trotskyists who wanted to turn Labour into Vangaurd Party too much).

A Paul Hellyer Vs George Hees battle would be a dream…for Tommy Douglas and the NDP.

People of Canada, Vote for the Socialist instead of the Assholes.
-NDP Campaign Slogan.

 

[Deleted member 140587]

Is it guaranteed Lester Pearson would step down in '68 if he got a majority in '63? From my understanding a large part of why he stepped down in '68 was because he tired out from being in the minority.

 

[Time Enough]

Is it guaranteed Lester Pearson would step down in '68 if he got a majority in '63? From my understanding a large part of why he stepped down in '68 was because he tired out from being in the minority.

He was Seventy by the time, there was an element of a need for generational changed when he stepped down and even leading a majority government is known to be taxing on people, I could definitely see him standing down due to ill health in 67/68.

 

[CanadianTory]

He was Seventy by the time, there was an element of a need for generational changed when he stepped down and even leading a majority government is known to be taxing on people, I could definitely see him standing down due to ill health in 67/68.

The Tories would be in superb shape if they selected someone like Davie Fulton as their leader. A Fulton vs Hellyer/Sharpe contest would be another contest of the ages.

 

[RogueBeaver]

Unsure whether Dief would be removed. Depends how the 1964 AGM goes, because caucus never had the guts to openly revolt like with Chrétien or Turner. If he is removed then Pearson can relax somewhat because none of Dief's replacements have his killer instinct. Pearson runs again in 1967, he was told to wait for redistribution which would help. No "3 doves" because Pearson doesn't feel he needs them with a majority and the window closes after the 1966 Quebec election IMO. Favreau lacks the skill or stamina even without Rivard destroying his career, Maurice Lamontagne or Maurice Sauvé are awful choices. Lesage won't work because he couldn't sell himself in English Canada, as shown during OTL's Western tour, plus the drinking. His government was almost as chaotic as Pearson's. My guess is Hellyer on a "smack of firm government" appeal that helped PET. Martin was a has been without an organization and Winters is too right wing (Newman quotes him as saying "there is no such thing as poverty in Canada").

 

[Time Enough]

The Tories would be in superb shape if they selected someone like Davie Fulton as their leader. A Fulton vs Hellyer/Sharpe contest would be another contest of the ages.

I could see that, helps that Fulton looks like he comes from Central Casting and I think fairly moderate? I’m not sure.

it does seem like a believable battle for Canada.

It would be interesting what happens in a scenario where Hellyer wins, I know he was certainly to the Right of the Liberal Party and there’s a perception he would be weird, but possibly with a diverse cabinet of opinions and additionally a party that would be lukewarm on him, Hellyer reigns it in a bit or

 

[CanadianTory]

Unsure whether Dief would be removed. Depends how the 1964 AGM goes, because caucus never had the guts to openly revolt like with Chrétien or Turner. If he is removed then Pearson can relax somewhat because none of Dief's replacements have his killer instinct. Pearson runs again in 1967, he was told to wait for redistribution which would help. No "3 doves" because Pearson doesn't feel he needs them with a majority and the window closes after the 1966 Quebec election IMO. Favreau lacks the skill or stamina even without Rivard destroying his career, Maurice Lamontagne or Maurice Sauvé are awful choices. Lesage won't work because he couldn't sell himself in English Canada, as shown during OTL's Western tour, plus the drinking. His government was almost as chaotic as Pearson's. My guess is Hellyer on a "smack of firm government" appeal that helped PET. Martin was a has been without an organization and Winters is too right wing (Newman quotes him as saying "there is no such thing as poverty in Canada").

If Diefenbaker is removed, any idea who the Tories would ultimately rally behind?

 

[Kermode]

If Diefenbaker is out (and I agree with RogueBeaver that it's possible he stays on), I think the next leadership race would come down to Donald Fleming or Davie Fulton. Fleming would be the frontrunner, I think: he had made two bids already (and would go on to make a third IOTL, in '67) and was and one of Dief's most powerful ministers, so he has the ambition and resume for it. Fulton also clearly had the ambition, and his efforts in attempting to patriate the constitution could give him some gravitas — or at least a lot of delegates from Quebec — so he'd be a contender too. Hees looks good on paper — relatively young, handsome, charismatic — but he ran an extremely poor leadership campaign when he did run IOTL, seemingly putting in little effort to win over delegates and thinking they'd just be wowed by the spectacle and come over naturally (of course, it's possible his campaign isn't that disaster ITTL, but he didn't show himself to have good political instincts in general IOTL); I think he'd flame out.

On the Liberal side, Pearson's leadership probably ends around the same time; he was getting old and is still going to have similar health concerns, so I can't see him staying much longer. I think he probably takes the party through the next election (in '67), but steps down before the midpoint of the new parliament. For his successor, he's definitely going to want a francophone to follow him, though I'm skeptical one would; part of the reason Pearson had to recruit the three doves was because the party was lacking talent from Quebec to begin with! Guy Favreau probably gets the nod as "the francophone candidate" in the race, but I don't know if he prevails. I don't think Lesage has an opening here; premiers often have a hard time putting their province-first rhetoric behind them on the federal stage, and it's not hard to imagine Lesage's "masters of our own house" and other nationalist-ish rhetoric not going over well in English Canada. It'd certainly be something the Tories use to bludgeon a Lesage-led party with, anyway. I think Sharp has the best shot.

The NDP is going to be really unhappy here. The whole point of re-establishing the party was to give it a new lease on life — modernize the party, make the coalition bigger, all that — and getting Douglas to be their leader was their big play. And then, only a couple years later, their growth has stalled, and they don't even get to wield influence in a minority parliament? I wouldn't be surprised to see Douglas step down ahead of schedule. And If Pearson is still governing from the left and introducing welfare programs (which seems likely; the NDP may have pushed him further, but he was on the left-wing regardless)… who knows, there could be a full-on existential crisis about if the party even has any national relevance.

 

[RogueBeaver]

Dalton Camp thought Fulton and Hees were weak and politically cowardly candidates who would lose to Dief again. Fleming lost his seat and his tenure is seen as disastrous by voters, despite his solid QC credentials. I think Hellyer or Sharp are decent choices for Grit leader depending on who Tories pick. IDK if the NDP is devastated by Pearson having 150 seats instead of 130, they're still mostly pushing on an open door.

 

[True Grit]

Fulton's problem, depending on when the leadership race is held, is that he had left federal politics in 1963 to become BC PC leader. Obviously that didn't last too long IOTL, and he returned to federal politics in 1965, but he's going to be in a tricky spot if Dief's pushed out quickly and/or if he's only just won a seat in the provincial Legislative Assembly.

 

[Kermode]

IDK if the NDP is devastated by Pearson having 150 seats instead of 130, they're still mostly pushing on an open door.

I was probably overselling it a bit there. What I'm thinking is that, if the NDP's big splash turns out to be no splash at all, and the Liberals keep trucking away with majority governments while implementing a cente-left agenda, then I suspect the NDP is going to have a difficult time making a case for itself beyond being principled and "the conscience of parliament" — a lot of the left-leaning-but-pragmatic/ambitious people may well join the Liberals instead. Granted, that's the same struggle the party has had IOTL its whole existence, but with the CCF struggling after '58, and the NDP's recovery being very modest… I could see it being a bigger problem.

Fulton's problem, depending on when the leadership race is held, is that he had left federal politics in 1963 to become BC PC leader. Obviously that didn't last too long IOTL, and he returned to federal politics in 1965, but he's going to be in a tricky spot if Dief's pushed out quickly and/or if he's only just won a seat in the provincial Legislative Assembly.

My thought here is that, if Diefenbaker's leadership looks shaky, maybe Fulton doesn't make the move to BC politics, figuring his ambitious could very well be satiated at the federal level. Then again, just the fact he jumped ship to helm a failed provincial party doesn't speak very well to his political acumen, so who knows!