A quick search tells me that there have been threads about Clark's government continuing (either via a majority in '79, winning in '80, or just having better political instincts), and even about him returning to the leadership after Mulroney, but I didn't see anything about his leadership problems going differently.
After his loss in 1980, Clark decided to stay on as leader, but his leadership was dogged by criticism and dissent; the party's 1981 convention saw a 33.5% delegates voting in favour of holding a leadership race. Clark worked to bring dissidents to his side, but the issue resurfaced at the 1983 convention, with 33.1% voting for a race with 66.9% against. In an effort to silence his critics and consequently strengthen his leadership, Clark took the bold step of resigning and then running to succeed himself. However, he ultimately lost the leadership convention to Brian Mulroney.
Clark's decision to resign despite having two-thirds support puzzled many; famously, during their first meeting at a state dinner, Prince Charles asked him outright "why wasn't two-thirds enough?"
So, what if Clark decides two-thirds is enough— and leads the party in the 1984 election?
The immediate and obvious consequence is that his leadership surely continues to face notable intra-party opposition. Similarly, he's a weaker candidate than Mulroney, not having his charisma (and certainly not delivering his "you had an option" zinger) nor his deep connections to Quebec. The PC party will be in a relatively lesser position heading into the election.
But the PCs were still soaring in the polls, and Turner is still a weak, gaffe-prone campaigner who took the helm of a tired party recently beset by scandal. Clark, at least by comparison, was young and energetic; and while he's obviously no Quebecer, he was still making inroads into the province by courting soft nationalists and becoming impressively bilingual. As I see it, Clark surely wins his majority, but not with the overwhelming landslide that Mulroney accomplished.
How would the Clark government differ from the Mulroney government? A few things I'm wondering:
• Clark was a moderate figure in a party where much of it, especially the grassroots, were shifting rightwards and embracing monetarist reforms. Does Clark hold firm or follow suit?
• What would a Clark government's foreign relations be like? I imagine the actual policies would be similar to OTL, since Clark was effectively given free reign in that department— but might they come across differently? Clark's tenure as external affairs minister is notable for how it broke with the US/UK on many issues, such as Apartheid; yet never caused any major rifts in relations, because Mulroney had strong relationships with Reagan and Thatcher. Would Clark's relationship be less rosy, and therefore his policies more contentious?
• Would Clark pursue constitutional affairs as vigorously as Mulroney? As in, would he continue to pursue it even in the face of failure and mounting political fallout? If ATL Meech fails, is ATL Charlottetown put on the backburner— and how does that affect things?
• What does Mulroney do? At the time of his election to the leadership, he had no electoral experience; does he even run for a seat in 1984? If so, where does he land in cabinet?
• In general, how is Clark looking for re-election in '88… and, perhaps, beyond?
• Changing tack: how are the Liberals faring? If Turner avoids a blowout, does the party avoid the nastier parts of the Turner–Chrétien infighting?
• How does a Clark premiership affect the Reform Party? I'm thinking western alienation is still potent enough for them to break through, especially with Clark's moderation, but given Clark is a westerner himself I doubt they can seize the entirety of the Tories' western base. Are we looking at, essentially, a reverse-NDP: wins a handful of seats, establishes itself in its own niche, and never poses a serious threat but exerts an outsized influence?
After his loss in 1980, Clark decided to stay on as leader, but his leadership was dogged by criticism and dissent; the party's 1981 convention saw a 33.5% delegates voting in favour of holding a leadership race. Clark worked to bring dissidents to his side, but the issue resurfaced at the 1983 convention, with 33.1% voting for a race with 66.9% against. In an effort to silence his critics and consequently strengthen his leadership, Clark took the bold step of resigning and then running to succeed himself. However, he ultimately lost the leadership convention to Brian Mulroney.
Clark's decision to resign despite having two-thirds support puzzled many; famously, during their first meeting at a state dinner, Prince Charles asked him outright "why wasn't two-thirds enough?"
So, what if Clark decides two-thirds is enough— and leads the party in the 1984 election?
The immediate and obvious consequence is that his leadership surely continues to face notable intra-party opposition. Similarly, he's a weaker candidate than Mulroney, not having his charisma (and certainly not delivering his "you had an option" zinger) nor his deep connections to Quebec. The PC party will be in a relatively lesser position heading into the election.
But the PCs were still soaring in the polls, and Turner is still a weak, gaffe-prone campaigner who took the helm of a tired party recently beset by scandal. Clark, at least by comparison, was young and energetic; and while he's obviously no Quebecer, he was still making inroads into the province by courting soft nationalists and becoming impressively bilingual. As I see it, Clark surely wins his majority, but not with the overwhelming landslide that Mulroney accomplished.
How would the Clark government differ from the Mulroney government? A few things I'm wondering:
• Clark was a moderate figure in a party where much of it, especially the grassroots, were shifting rightwards and embracing monetarist reforms. Does Clark hold firm or follow suit?
• What would a Clark government's foreign relations be like? I imagine the actual policies would be similar to OTL, since Clark was effectively given free reign in that department— but might they come across differently? Clark's tenure as external affairs minister is notable for how it broke with the US/UK on many issues, such as Apartheid; yet never caused any major rifts in relations, because Mulroney had strong relationships with Reagan and Thatcher. Would Clark's relationship be less rosy, and therefore his policies more contentious?
• Would Clark pursue constitutional affairs as vigorously as Mulroney? As in, would he continue to pursue it even in the face of failure and mounting political fallout? If ATL Meech fails, is ATL Charlottetown put on the backburner— and how does that affect things?
• What does Mulroney do? At the time of his election to the leadership, he had no electoral experience; does he even run for a seat in 1984? If so, where does he land in cabinet?
• In general, how is Clark looking for re-election in '88… and, perhaps, beyond?
• Changing tack: how are the Liberals faring? If Turner avoids a blowout, does the party avoid the nastier parts of the Turner–Chrétien infighting?
• How does a Clark premiership affect the Reform Party? I'm thinking western alienation is still potent enough for them to break through, especially with Clark's moderation, but given Clark is a westerner himself I doubt they can seize the entirety of the Tories' western base. Are we looking at, essentially, a reverse-NDP: wins a handful of seats, establishes itself in its own niche, and never poses a serious threat but exerts an outsized influence?
