Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

‘The best politician of my generation’

by Aaron Wherry on Sunday, August 14, 2011 7:30pm - 18 Comments

Former foreign affairs minister Lawrence Cannon commends Quebec Premier Jean Charest.

Defeated in the May 2 federal election in the West Quebec riding of Pontiac, Cannon strode into a meeting of the Liberal’s youth wing Saturday to take part in a panel discussion. Cannon was invited to the event by the Liberals but few people knew he was attending until he walked in. But his arrival got tongues wagging about a possible return to politics for Cannon or even a run, one day, for the leader’s job should Premier Jean Charest leave.

The veteran politician immediately moved to quash the speculation. “There’s no race in the Liberal Party of Quebec,” Cannon said. “Jean Charest is an exceptional man, probably the best politician of my generation at least. I am convinced Mr. Charest will be there to direct the troops in a future electoral victory.”

It’s perhaps mildly curious that Mr. Cannon didn’t mention Stephen Harper here and it’s unclear what he means by “my generation,” but it’s not unreasonable to say Jean Charest might be the “best” politician of what might be called the Post-Chretien Era.

For the sake of argument, we’ll generally limit this to Canadian politics since 2003 and those who’ve had their greatest successes in the last eight years. And we’ll also separate the politician (whose primary job is to win votes) from the premier or prime minister (whose primary job, at least in theory, is to effectively govern the province or country). If a politician’s primary task is to get elected and a party leader’s primary task is to lead his party to victory and if we generally accept that party leaders dominate our politics, there are probably a half dozen politicians in this conversation—Mr. Charest, Mr. Harper, Dalton McGuinty, Danny Williams, Gary Doer and Gordon Campbell*.

Mr. Charest was leader of the federal Progressive Conservative party from 1993 to 1997. In the one election in which he was leader, the PCs won 20 seats, an improvement of 18 seats, but not enough to lift the party out of fifth place. In 1998, he led the Quebec Liberals into an election and won the popular vote, but finished well back of the Parti Quebecois in seats. In 2003, the Liberals won 76 of 125 seats. In 2007, they were reelected with 48 of 125 seats. In 2008, they won 66 of 125 seats.

Mr. McGuinty’s Liberals lost the Ontario election in 1999. In 2003, they won with 72 of 103 seats. In 2008, they were reelected with 71 of 107 seats.

Mr. Williams became leader of Newfoundland’s PC party in 2001. Two years later, the PCs won 34 of 48 seats. In 2007, they were reelected with 44 of 48 seats.

Mr. Doer became leader of the Manitoba NDP in 1988. The New Democrats failed to top the PCs in 1988, 1990 and 1995, but won 32 of 57 seats in 1999. Four years later, the NDP won 35 of 57 seats. And four years after that they won 36 of 57 seats.

Mr. Campbell, after seven years as mayor of Vancouver, became leader of the B.C. Liberal party in 1993. In 1996, the Liberals won the popular vote, but the NDP won six more seats. In 2001, the Liberals won 77 of 79 seats. In 2005, they were reelected with 46 of 79 seats. In 2009, they won 49 of 85 seats.

Mr. Harper became leader of the Canadian Alliance in 2002 and then leader of the reconstituted Conservative party in 2004. The Conservatives couldn’t defeat the Liberals in that year’s election, but won 124 of 308 seats in 2006 to take power. In 2008, the Conservatives won 143 of 308 seats. This year they won 166 of 308 seats.

By wins and losses then, here’s how they compare.

Charest 3-2 record as a party leader. Two majorities, one minority.
McGuinty 2-1 record as a party leader. Two majorities.
Williams 2-0 record as a party leader. Two majorities.
Doer 3-3 record as a party leader. Three majorities.
Campbell 3-1 record as party leader. Three majorities.
Harper 3-1 record as a party leader. One majority, two minorities.

Past that, the discussion obviously comes down to the importance, meaning, circumstance and impressiveness of those victories, not to mention what might be said about each’s relative abilities to sway public sentiment. You could, for instance, consider how well any of them brought the public around to support specific policies.

Personally I think the choice, given the extent and significance of their accomplishments, probably comes down to Mr. Charest or Mr. Harper. And it’s probably a toss-up between those two.

*The one wild card here would be Jack Layton, who has never led his party to victory in a general election, but who has managed historic success all the same. In four federal elections, he’s taken the NDP from 13 seats to 19 seats to 29 seats to 37 seats to 103 seats, decimating the Bloc and passing the Liberals in the process.

Bookmark and Share
  • Anonymous

    Charest has been quite successful, but based on strategic work, I’d probably lean towards Harper.  He united the right, re-built a new coalition and broke through in a part of the country where no one ever thought he would.

    • Anonymous

      Harper has simply been lucky.  He came along when the Liberals had a ‘perfect storm’. It isn’t because he’s convinced anyone of anything….for most of the time he’s been campaigning against an empty seat.

      • Anonymous

        Do get original, Emily. Move on!

      • Anonymous

        I’m no fan of him, but this doesn’t give the PM enough credit.  He (along with Kenny) formulated policies at targeted groups, including the middle class and new Canadians.  To suggest he was just lucky is what the Liberals told themselves back in 2006. They were wrong twice more since then and finally seem to realize that PMSH isn’t going anywhere for awhile.

      • San Diego Dave

        Funny, I used to hear the same thing said of Jean Chretien.

        • Anonymous

          Yup, and it was true. Nobody was keen on him either, but the Cons fell apart and there wasn’t much choice.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPL6GXO3QR7CKS35I6COSU273Y rg

    I think the better metric is how much a leader improved the position of their party, relative to before their tenure as leader. That kind of metric could capture Layton’s 2011 gains. Harper is less impressive on that metric – in 2000 37.7% of Canadians voted for one of the constituent parties of the CPC. Harper fell below that mark in 2004 and 2006, but edged it slightly in 2008 and 2011. Of course Harper looks better if you take the poll position of the Alliance and PC’s at the point when he became leader.

    Lets contrast that to Charest. The swing to Charest in 1997 was a modest 2.8% from historic lows. In 1998 he actually won a lower share of the vote than Daniel Johnson, and even in his 2003 victory he edged Johnson’s 1994 result by less than 2%. Both his 2007 and 2008 victories were well below that bar. Part of the reason for this is the success of the ADQ through those years, but it is less clear to me that Charest is necessarily a great politician. 

    I think there is a better case for Danny Williams. The man led a party that was not traditionally Newfoundland’s party of government. As of 2003, Tories had been premier only 17 of the 54 years since confederation. Williams won in 2003 with a 17 point swing, and then gained another 11 points in the next election. Look at Dunderdale’s standing in the polls, despite a prosperous Newfoundland economy, as a strong indicator of the personal political abilities of Williams. 

    • Anonymous

      ITS, “ MATRIX”, STUPID!

      • Anonymous

        Uh, no.  In this case it’s metric, as in “a measure of.”

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPL6GXO3QR7CKS35I6COSU273Y rg

          He brings up a good point, though. If we live in the matrix, as Michael Ignatieff believes we do, can we really credit a particular politician for his/her success?

  • Anonymous

    HEY JEAN, THERE IS NO QUEBEC NATION ONLY A PROVINCE LIKE THE REST OF US,. IF YOU WANT A SEPARATE NATION COMMENCE NEGOCIATION WITH THE REST OF CANADA. I FOR ONE OUT WEST HERE IN BC WILL GLADLY HELP YOU OUT THE DOOR. OF COURSE YOU REALIZE ALL THE LANDS YOU WERE AWARDED FOR JOINING CANADA WILL HAVE TO BE RETURNED, ALL NATIONAL SERVICES WILL CEASE AND YOU WILL NO LONGER BE ENTITLE TO EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS YOU NEVER DESERVED IN THE FIRST PLACE. ITS EASY TO BE A HAVE NOT PROVINCE WHEN YOUR TUITIONS ARE ARTIFICIALLY LOW, FREE DAY CARE, AND A NO PREMIUM HEALTHCARE PLAN. WESTERN CANADA PAYS FOR ALL THAT FREE LOADING FOR YOU  AND THE SOONER YOU’RE OUT THE DOOR THE BETTER OFF WE’LL ALL BE. AS A 3RD GENERATION FRANCOPHONE LIVING OUT WEST IT CAN’T COME QUICK ENOUGH.

    • Anonymous

      Harper made Quebec a nation…officially….so cease the silly shouting and go complain to him

    • Anonymous

      You’re cap locks are stuck on. 

  • TonyAdams

    I think two most substantial pols are Chretien and Harris. Chretien good pol but over rated – Libs not do so well if Cons not split into two parties. Harris best because he told Ontario what he wanted to do before elected and then did it – somewhat – with two majority governments. Harris = leadership. 

    I was going to argue that Chretien was best for populist, good image, three majority governments but Campbell might be better. I was not aware Campbell was also mayor and then premier. That’s impressive indeed. Normally, electorate get tired of leaders and we get rid of them but Campbell was able to charm Vancouver apparently. 

    Too early to tell with other pols. Williams legacy depends on how his projects turn out economically over the next few decades. 

    I think McGuinty has pretty much bankrupted Ontario and not achieved anything substantial while doing so. 

    Harper = In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Not at all impressed with Harper so far, so what he will do with majority government.

    • Anonymous

      Harris is an interesting choice.  He did “deliver” on some of his promises, many of which I wasn’t a fan of, but from an analytical point of view, he completely shifted his party to a new spot on the political spectrum, and for a time, was very much successful, so much so that when Tory eventually replaced Eves, a large chunk of bedrock PC support had no interest in going to back to the type of Progressive Conservatism that Tory espoused.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPL6GXO3QR7CKS35I6COSU273Y rg

        I don’t think Harris is as far from the tradition of his party as people believe. Rather, he was faced with a different context than that faced by other PC leaders, and responded more or less as they would have.

        1. The federal government cut transfer payments, starting in 1995. So some cuts would have been necessary under any scenario.2. Government spending really had grown substantially in Ontario over the previous 10 years. Per capita spending grew from about $2,900 to $5,250 (http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/1997/images/bud-pa_e20.gif). That is an average increase of over 6%/year, during a period when Ontario’s growth was sluggish and inflation was low. This is not to mention a deficit of 11.3 billion dollars.
        3. Particular government programs really were strong candidates for being cut. Rae raised welfare payments in Ontario to well above the national average. The unsurprising result was increased dependency overall, and relative to the rest of the country (http://www.ccsd.ca/pr/ontpg6.gif). Even after the Harris cuts, Ontario’s welfare payments were above the national average, and today remain the highest in the country.
        4. While Harris’ cuts were deep, it is worth noting that even Rae barely increased spending from 1992 onward. If the most left wing government in Ontario’s history was reticent to increase spending, what should we expect from the party of the right?
        5. Tax cuts were absolutely appropriate given the nature of Ontario’s slowdown in the early 1990s. Private investment fell in Ontario between 1990 and 1995, suggesting that indeed, measures to encourage investment were the right mechanism through which to spur growth.
        6. Harris did cut education, but only for a couple of years. The effect on Ontario’s relative performance was actually positive if you look at international test results of Ontario students (while scores fell as McGuinty increased education spending). Just look at the % of Ontarians in grade 8 exceeding the science and math benchmarks, according to the TIMSS (http://www.eqao.com/pdf_e/08/TIMSS_Ontario_Report_2007.pdf)

        Math (page 14)
        1995: 65%
        1999: 72%
        2003: 75%
        2007: 74%

        Science (page 23)
        1995: 61%
        1999: 72%
        2003: 81%
        2007: 77%

        Harris was definitely closer to a Drew or a Miller than he was to a Davis, but his decisions represented an understandable response to the policies of the previous administration. It wasn’t a “Common Sense Revolution”, but rather a Common Sense Counter-Revolution.

  • Allison Shaw

    Jean Charest’s Plan Nord will undermine Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. Mr. Charest told Fortune magazine that the melting polar ice caps are creating a parallel Panama Canal. “We’re building a parallel canal to the Panama Canal for Chinese ships so they can accelerate the transport of goods.”

  • Anonymous

    Political leaders mentioned have contributed nothing of value to Canadians. They have however become masters of attack ads, led in this by Stephen Harper’s “western alienation” Conservatives that killed the truly national Conservative party in Canada. They have also managed to convince a large percentage of a Canadians to boycott elections.

From Macleans