Canada's Best Prime Ministers

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Doug

Charisma is for rock stars and car salesmen.

apparently not. Chad Kroeger lacks charisma. Charisma does not mean charlatan (e.g., Stockwell Day...he may not have sold cars, but he did once sell bibles...).

Perhaps you might brush up a bit on the literature regarding the qualities of effective leadership.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

apparently not. Chad Kroeger lacks charisma. Charisma does not mean charlatan (e.g., Stockwell Day...he may not have sold cars, but he did once sell bibles...).

Perhaps you might brush up a bit on the literature regarding the qualities of effective leadership.

Mackenzie King had ZERO/ZILCH/NADA Charisma and he is rated a pretty good PM.
Charisma can also hide some pretty serious faults that will delude the leader into thinking all people are seduced by their charm and wit. Such as when PET went on his world tour to convince the superpowers to reduce their nuclear arms. Now THAT was an embarrassment.

[CanadianCentaur]

Brian Mulroney on the top 10 list of best PMs?! WTF?!

[BretttheRiderFan]

Here's my personal top 5 (feel free to beat me up over it)

1. John A. Macdonald
2. Mackenzie King
3. Wilfrid Laurier
4. Jean Chretien
5. Pierre Trudeau

On any given day I might have Pearson or Mulroney into my top five.

The more I study King the higher he gets on the list.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I'm no fan of Harper but I can name this as an admirable thing his administration has accomplished:
1) Substantial improvement of intercity rail between Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal. Didn't build no HSR but added a lot more trips and cut down on travel time with track upgrades. First PM in forever to actually improve service somewhere instead of the non-stop cutting that has been happening for the past half century. (Yes I'm aware service cuts continued in other parts of the country).

Given the cuts to VIA's budget in recent years, how much of this is thanks to the Harper govt?

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Doug

FTA alone makes Mulroney one of the greats. He sold out the Canadian establishment. After FTA, the narrow group of family business dynasties finally had to compete based on merit. Hopefully Harper "sells out" the Canadian establishment's last stand, the media conglomerates/telecoms.

Are you kidding me? What he did to get the FTA passed by the US absolutely annihilated the economy and industry in middle Canada. Chretien turning it around to work for Canada is what makes him one of the greats. Last Stand? You certainly have a skewed sense of reality. It's an even smaller group of families but, more influential than ever and Mulroney's FTA is the lasting legacy.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Given the cuts to VIA's budget in recent years, how much of this is thanks to the Harper govt?

Ultimately, it is directly attributable to Harper. It was his government that explicitly authorized the capital grants to VIA, way back around 2008 or so (don't remember the year). Those grants were for building new passing sidings, double and triple tracking certain segments, track upgrades, equip refurbishments, etc.

The cut to the operating budget is unfortunate, but it didn't harm service in the TOR-OTT-MTL corridor. Because VIA cut service outside the core (cutting the Ocean down to 3 trips, cutting Canadian down to 2 trips in the off-peak, cutting SW Ontario service, etc.) that got a lot of heavily money losing routes off the books. Also the increased ridership in TOR-OTT-MTL increased farebox recovery. I believe that triangle now makes a profit (I've heard contradictory statements on that, though). Harper basically used all of those savings to cut Via's operating subsidy. In my opinion, Via's subsidy should have been kept the same and VIA been allowed to reinvest the dollars in its service, but ah well.

Personally, I'd like for all of VIA's remote services and long-haul trains (which currently is all service outside the Corridor) to be separated off into a new crown corp (call it Aurora or something) so VIA can be free to grow and expand its intercity services without being bogged down by those money-losing routes.

[White Pine]

I Always had a soft spot for RB Bennett. Don't really know much about him but he seems to have been personally very generous while in office (with his money).

Harper is OK. This government could be A LOT better, but has never fulfilled any doom and gloom predictions. Canada hasn't fallen into the ditch.

The reality is that there's been a bit of a void in terms of good leadership recently and Harper thus far with all his faults has been the best option.

They did a decent job of handling the whole "economic crisis" thingy. Sure there's a deficit now, but the consensus at the time was that this was the correct approach (budget was passed in a Minority parliament).

There are things that bug me (some VIA cuts, search & rescue privitization ((Opinion: Did this end up happening? If it did, how has it affected service?)), museum of civ repurposing, robocalls, long form census, etc), but the sky hasn't fallen.

Also, the partisan politics is very immature (both sides) but I don't know if that's harper's fault, or politics has always been like this.

My prediction is that the current government won't last more than one more term if they win the next election. Their expiry date is nearing.



Anyways, I'll throw in some important people like Trudeau, Pearson, Laurier, etc.


EDIT: Harper is NOT on my top 10, I'm just spewing some reflections on this government.

[geotag277]

Considering we've only had 22 prime ministers, a top 10 list is quite silly. It will contain a bunch of duds, considering it includes almost half of all prime ministers in our entire history. IMO only the top 3 in the list really made a difference worth talking about.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by White Pine

I Always had a soft spot for RB Bennett. Don't really know much about him but he seems to have been personally very generous while in office (with his money).

Harper is OK. This government could be A LOT better, but has never fulfilled any doom and gloom predictions. Canada hasn't fallen into the ditch.

The reality is that there's been a bit of a void in terms of good leadership recently and Harper thus far with all his faults has been the best option.

They did a decent job of handling the whole "economic crisis" thingy. Sure there's a deficit now, but the consensus at the time was that this was the correct approach (budget was passed in a Minority parliament).

There are things that bug me (some VIA cuts, search & rescue privitization ((Opinion: Did this end up happening? If it did, how has it affected service?)), museum of civ repurposing, robocalls, long form census, etc), but the sky hasn't fallen.

Also, the partisan politics is very immature (both sides) but I don't know if that's harper's fault, or politics has always been like this.

My prediction is that the current government won't last more than one more term if they win the next election. Their expiry date is nearing.



Anyways, I'll throw in some important people like Trudeau, Pearson, Laurier, etc.


EDIT: Harper is NOT on my top 10, I'm just spewing some reflections on this government.

No, SAR is still handled by the RCAF and Canadian Coast Guard. Joint Rescue Coordination Centres are still located at RCN Dockyards or RCAF Bases, manned by CCG and RCAF personnel as well as their ships and aircraft.

[Architype]

According to Wikipedia & MacLean's 2011, Stephen Harper is no. 11, that is, right ahead of all the PMs you've never heard of.

1. Wilfrid Laurier
2. John A. Macdonald
3. William Lyon Mackenzie King
4. Lester Pearson
5. Pierre Trudeau
6. Jean Chrétien
7. Louis St. Laurent
8. Robert Borden
9. Brian Mulroney
10. John Diefenbaker
11. Stephen Harper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...rime_ministers

[lio45]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Considering we've only had 22 prime ministers, a top 10 list is quite silly. It will contain a bunch of duds, considering it includes almost half of all prime ministers in our entire history. IMO only the top 3 in the list really made a difference worth talking about.

Agree with you. The top 10 is essentially the complete, entire list of all the PMs that can be considered "above average" or better, while any PM not on that list basically belongs to the category "subpar PMs this country had".

Interestingly enough, Harper is #11, pretty much exactly midpack. So we have the top 10, then our current PM who happens to rank decent/average, then the bottom 10 (bottom 11, to be exact).

For me, PET's sense of style doesn't begin to even partly make up for the catastrophic debt his reign left us. He sure wouldn't rank anywhere near the top IMO.

I like John A. MacDonald and would really like to be able to vote for that kind of character nowadays. Would be refreshing.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by lubicon

Chretien and Trudeau were in my mind the two most divisive PM's this country has had and belong soundly at the bottom of any list. How they could be considered great is beyond me, the fallout from there terms is still with us today. If they could be placed any lower than the bottom of my list I would do so.

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Trudeau I understand, but how was Chretien any more divisive than any other PM?

I'm curious about the Chretien comment as well.

[Trans Canada]

My vote's gotta go for Pearson


Credit Kate Beaton, Hark a Vagrant webcomic, http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=294

[Trans Canada]

Slightly unrelated, but every time I see this image I'm in awe of the Liberal political machine of yore.


"Pierre Elliott Trudeau, John Turner, Jean Chrétien and Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson following Cabinet changes", 4 April 1967, Ottawa
Duncan Cameron / Library And Archives Canada / Pa-117107
via Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tr...nd_Pearson.jpg

[SignalHillHiker]

Went back to look at our results in Canadian federal elections.

The lowest percentage to ever win the popular vote was 37.9%, which was achieved twice:

Michael Ignatieff - 2011.
Jean Chretien - 1997.

And the highest percentage to ever win the popular vote was 67.3%, which Jean Chretien had earlier achieved in 1993.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Basically a long term PM will be in the top 10 of any academic listing.

There are a bunch who only served a year or two or three.

[Bcasey25raptor]

If Brian Mulroney is on the list, we must have had a pretty bad list of prime ministers over the last 1.5 centuries.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

If Brian Mulroney is on the list, we must have had a pretty bad list of prime ministers over the last 1.5 centuries.

A number of our best prime ministers had some questionable qualities, Trudeau was a womanizer, was occasionally vulgar and was well known to hold many people in contempt. John A MacDonald was a depressive and a drunkard. MacKenzie King held seances for his dead mother and his dogs. He arguably received advice regarding the running of the country and the war effort from his medium.

How about the legendary Winston Churchill. He was bipolar and had alcohol issues as well. He used to give dictation to his secretary while wandering around nude. This didn't preclude him from being the saviour of the free world.

We should be concentrating on policy decisions, not personal foibles.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

. MacKenzie King held seances for his dead mother and his dogs. He arguably received advice regarding the running of the country and the war effort from his medium.

.

Not to mention the anti-semitic tendencies. His government turned back ships filled with Jewish refugees during the Second World War.