Canadian progressives are slowly coming to terms with the idea, or perhaps even the inevitability, of a Pierre Poilievre Conservative government. As they do, it’s time for them to entertain an even more uncomfortable notion: a formal merger between the federal Liberals and New Democrats.
This is hardly a new idea, even if it hasn’t been seriously discussed for more than a decade. But the last time the Conservatives were in command of a majority government, it was an option some progressives seemed to seriously consider. Even former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien suggested it was a realistic possibility. "It will be done one day,” he told Evan Solomon back in 2011. “Look at the way that [Stephen] Harper did that — Harper had [Peter] MacKay there. [He] made a solemn promise in writing that never he will talk [about] merging with the Reform [Party]. He's now the minister of defence. Things happen and they happen, sometimes, at moments unexpected."
Those moments never came to fruition between 2011 and 2015, thanks in large part to the belief on both sides that they could win the next election on their own. The NDP had Jack Layton’s massive breakthrough in Quebec and a new Quebec-born leader in Thomas Mulcair on their side, while the Liberals had a prodigal son waiting in the wings. But if Poilievre wins the sort of majority the current polls are predicting, neither the NDP nor the Liberals will have much reason for that sort of hope.
Yes, Liberal and New Democrat partisans might dislike each other almost as much as they both dislike Conservatives. But their parties have worked constructively with each other for more than two years now, and there are obvious pieces of common political ground they could use to stand up a more formal alliance. From new social spending priorities like daycare and dental care to climate policy and housing, there is much the two progressive parties can and should unite around.
The benefits of a de-facto merger of progressives are already apparent at the provincial level. The decline of provincial Liberal parties on the Prairies has allowed the progressive vote to coalesce around NDP leaders like David Eby, Wab Kinew and Rachel Notley. The electoral math in the upcoming British Columbia election shows just how powerful this can be. According to 338Canada’s current predictions, the BC NDP is expected to win 42 per cent of the vote yet take 73 per cent of the seats, in large part because the conservative vote will be split between BC United and the BC Conservative Party. At the federal level, where the split works the other way, Liberals and New Democrats are only projected to win a small handful of the province’s 42 federal seats.
This is, of course, an artifact of the first-past-the-post system, one the federal Liberals and New Democrats declined to change during their negotiations on electoral reform. That may prove to be one of the biggest strategic miscalculations of the last decade. But now that they’re lying in this bed together, they might as well contemplate the idea of sharing it permanently.
None of this will, or should, happen before the next election. As Bruce Anderson said during a recent edition of Good Talk, “I can think of nothing that would be more harmful to the near-term electoral prospects for the Liberal Party than to spend more time talking about how much they have in common with the NDP.”
If the next election unfolds the way the polls are suggesting right now, both parties will need to go about the business of picking new leaders first. “I don’t believe this can happen, this kind of rejoining of progressive forces in this country, unless you have two leaders who are ascending rather than in decline,” Chantal Hébert said on the same podcast. “And at this point, what we have are leaders in decline.”
Both parties would also have to do an internal gut-check on who they think they are — and who they want to be. Back in 2012, former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion dismissed the idea of a merger on the basis of the ideological and intellectual gulf between the two parties. “Liberals do not have a moderate wing,” he said at the time. “We are moderates.”
But the last decade under Justin Trudeau has clearly narrowed that distance between the two parties, and it’s not at all clear whether the Liberal Party is still defined by its commitment to moderation. New Democrats would also have to ask themselves whether they were willing to formally align with a party whose culture revolves more around winning elections than winning debates.
Maybe a formal merger is too far. Maybe some sort of progressive primary, one where Liberals agree not to run candidates in strong NDP ridings and vice versa, is a more palatable idea — that could, in time, lead to a more complete union. But both Liberals and New Democrats would do well to reflect back on the string of majority governments the Chrétien Liberals won and the role that a split on the political right played in those outcomes. Eventually, after any number of fits and starts, the country’s conservative factions found a way to put aside their differences and unite against the government they disdained. The big question here is whether it will take progressives a decade to do the same.
Comments
A majority of Canadians do not support the right wing, divisive policies of the Conservative Party. It is soon time for a merger between the Liberals, NDP and Green parties.
Yup
it's getting harder and harder to see the difference between the parties. The Liberal, NDP and Green party ideologies are so aligned that it would make sense to all come under one umbrella. The only issue then becomes who would lead that new party. I understand our system of government opens the door to so many different parties but in my opinion, it's getting a little out of hand. It's getting to a point where each province has its own party and it's diluting the ability for a federal government to really be effective for all Canadians.
Just because the NDP have managed to drag the Liberals kicking and screaming into doing a couple of moderately good things, does not mean the Liberals are all about doing that kind of thing. And a merged party would never do those kinds of things because they would argue policy internally, the ex-NDP left wing of the party would lose, and party discipline would force the losing wing to vote for the crappy centrist policies.
Admittedly, situations where the Liberals form a minority government that the NDP can influence only happen sometimes. But even outside of such situations, a merged Liberal-NDP party would probably operate TO THE RIGHT of the existing Liberal party, because the Liberal party regularly moves left to shore itself up against incursions from the NDP. They break most of the promises they make when they're using that tactic, but it does have some ongoing impact on Liberal identity and policy. A merged party would be able to ignore the left part of it the way the Democrats nearly always do.
So the decision to merge would be a decision to reduce the chance of totally regressive policy by blocking the Conservatives, at the cost of eliminating any possibility of actual progressive policy. It would be just agreeing to be ruled by the non-bigoted elements of the big banks and big branch-plant subsidiaries of foreign corporations.
Well said, Rufus Polson. Even at it's height, with Jack Layton's Orange Wave, I've never felt comfortable with the idea of the NDP being the government. But as a party with a social conscience prodding the Liberal government into areas of increased healthcare coverage for instance? I love it. I love the fact that this is an agreement and not a coalition between the two. A coalition would tend to subsume the NDP and weaken it's position as being able to effect real change for the average Canadian worker.
I see more of an alignment between today's Liberals and Conservatives. Thank goodness the NDP have been keeping the Liberals from completely abandoning us for the neo-liberal pastures of Corporate Lobbyists. What we need is electoral reform leading to some form of Proportional Representation. The power-hungry Liberals hate the idea almost as much as the Conservatives. For the next election, we should only vote for MPs who promise ER/PR. Once that is accomplished the entire political landscape will change for the better...
Need more Right of Center parties at all levels across Canada. Electoral reform PR should have been implemented already, The current trend to polarized politics is not good governance.
Fawcett: "Eventually, after any number of fits and starts, the country’s conservative factions found a way to put aside their differences and unite against the government they disdained."
In that case, the hard-right Reform party based in Western Canada swallowed up and virtually eliminated the Progressive Conservatives. Stifling more moderate voices. Today's Conservatives are nothing like your father's PCs.
In a Liberal-NDP merger, the Liberals would swallow up and virtually eliminate the NDP. Silencing more progressive voices. As Fawcett notes, the Liberals stand for nothing except power.
Canada needs a progressive voice on the centre-left. The NDP is our only option.
Fawcett: "The benefits of a de-facto merger of progressives are already apparent at the provincial level. The decline of provincial Liberal parties on the Prairies has allowed the progressive vote to coalesce around NDP leaders like David Eby, Wab Kinew and Rachel Notley."
As Notley's NDP chased the UPC to the right, it left progressive voters behind. As Notley's NDP pandered to the petroleum industry, Notley threw environmentalists and climate activists and Albertans who care about their grandchildren under the bus. She heaped scorn on federal NDP leader Singh. In a vain attempt to retain and then regain power, the AB NDP morphed into PC-lite.
Under prospective leader Nenshi, former mayor of Calgary, the NDP is poised to move even further to the centre and sever formal ties with the federal party altogether.
In effect, the now vanquished centrist parties (Alberta Party, Alberta Liberals, PCs) would take over and rebrand the NDP, leaving us right back where we started in 2014 pre-Notley. Except now we no longer have a NDP party to represent progressive Albertans on the left.
How does that help?
The prime beneficiaries of a federal Liberal-NDP merger would be the amorphous no-principles, stand-for-nothing, super-cynical Liberal party. The NDP would lose any leverage they still have, which is considerable.
Poilievre will not last forever. Canadians will soon tire of the snide apple-muncher, congenital Conservative corruption, and the right's anti-intellectualism and regressive policies.
Thumbs down.
"The Liberals stand for nothing except power." That kind of sweeping, context-free vilification is wholly conservative-adjacent.
So you'd rather be the righteous NDP progressive "wing" that demonstrably can NOT win a federal election alone (AND when we're right out of time) but is still willing to sacrifice more actual governing power by collaborating with the people who HAVE done so repeatedly? EVEN when they have moved even more in your direction now, despite always being philosophically aligned, and probably initiated the current agreement? Sounds like pure martyrdom to me, and inflexible, like the doctrine followed by the many religious sects we're surrounded by in Alberta.
That's simply too tribal, WAY too tribal, too cultish, too clubby, and too SMALL. Singh has shown real leadership by recognizing all that and transcending it by collaborating with the Liberals, the natural governing party in order to actually GOVERN.
It's an apt quote by Dion, that Liberals ARE the moderates who win because it's what the majority of Canadians ARE, and when we're facing what we are now, how is defeating the conservatives NOT the primary concern of any and all progressives? Especially when conservatives are bent on dividing and conquering by splintering off the provinces, as the Republicans have done with the states.
And btw, remember how "green" Stephane Dion was?
Pulling rank and going over the heads of problematic-like-never-before conservative premiers (and the one Liberal if necessary) to the mayors of the cities where the most progressives are (AND where most people actually LIVE) goes to the heart of the matter, what politics is ultimately all about. And it illustrates what kind of governance most Canadians actually WANT their taxes to be used for. It's brilliant, and similar to Obama's winning message of HOPE, and focusing on young people.
It's why the Liberals are our natural governing party, because they're smart enough to understand the political reality and how to navigate it, and they actually care. Get off the conservative-propelled F*k Trudeau bandwagon and look at the people he's collected.
Nenshi is turning the tables on the mean-spirited con crap with this hokey song that nonetheless expresses how many of us feel:
https://streamyard.com/watch/3g5tXs62Aj7v
Sorry, that link won't work I guess.
Nothing remotely "conservative-adjacent" about wishing to retain the NDP as a strong progressive voice in Parliament. I don't know why you keep repeating that falsehood. You are a broken record, Ms. Pargeter.
The NDP does not need to form government in order to influence policy. In support of Liberal minority governments, historically the NDP has secured signficant benefits for Canadians. As witnessed under the current confidence-and-supply agreement:
"The Liberals have shown some interest in pharmacare specifically, and reducing drug costs more generally, since 2015. In 2018, the federal government drafted a former Ontario cabinet minister to advise it on a path forward. But it's never been clear how high pharmacare ranked on the Liberal government's list of priorities.
"The same can be said of dental care — an issue that was entirely absent from the last three Liberal election platforms. … But dental care and pharmacare are real things the NDP could point to for years to come — rare achievements for a smaller party in the House of Commons." (CBC, 2024)
Fawcett himself alludes to the Liberal Party's prioritization of power over policy: "New Democrats would also have to ask themselves whether they were willing to formally align with a party whose culture revolves more around winning elections than winning debates."
A merger would effectively neuter the NDP forever. Not a sacrifice worth making merely to sway the outcome of a single election. Of course, nothing would make the Liberals happier than to see the NDP disappear.
The NDP remains relevant only as long as it exists as a separate party. Under first past the post, the best governance Canada can hope for is the NDP in support of a Liberal minority. When the Liberal leader overstays his welcome, and the Liberals' cynicism/corruption alienates centrist and progressive voters, the other team takes office for a spell. Canada's see-saw history.
The neoliberal, corporatist, hopelessly cynical Liberal Party — the front office for Bay St — appears "progressive" only in relation to the Conservative Party — and only in a minority situation with the NDP in support.
Long live the NDP. Under its own banner.
Uhhh, not sure you of all people should call anyone a "broken record" there Geoffrey....
By "conservative-adjacent" I will reiterate--- I'm referring to your/their uncompromising tribalism which is beyond petty and irrelevant in the all-encompassing context of climate change, that casual and complete disregard for context ALSO being trademark conservative.
And since the environment is the ultimate context for life as we all know it, and one side of the political spectrum now REFUSES to recognize that reality (like any religious cult), politics as usual, i.e. a game between competing teams/tribes, has changed drastically. In other words, context is all.
Even your hallowed NDP, once faced with actual governance has had to compromise repeatedly, and only an idealist or a purist condemns them for that, like any adherents to religious doctrine or ANY "doctrine." I'm talking about the rigidity of a closed mind being the hallmark of the right wing. It's the same phenomenon I've seen with men who are die-hard "fans" of a certain sports team ("die-hard" being the key word) even though the team in question is always dynamic with different players AND coaches. Kind of like reality. And any political party.
I can talk because I'm not hamstrung by tribalism of any kind.
And on the holier-than-thou NDP getting all the credit for what the Liberals have been doing in their naked, evil quest for political power that is the inarguable prerequisite for doing ANYTHING for anybody, again, IN OUR POLITICAL REALITY, eschew that though you do by making proportional representation the holy grail, grass is always greener alternative to hit everyone over the head with even though no one could agree on which FORM of that even, which is probably why no one has pursued it, including the big, bad Liberals....how about some credit where credit's due? That the Liberals are ALSO signatories to that agreement, and have always been interested in more public pharmacare and dental care so are just availing themselves of the PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY to DO it, just like the NDP are availing themselves of that comfortable majority position to "demand" it! Like Max points out, they truly are more like-minded than opposed. And the Liberals brought in child care as their initiative after many years thanks to that same progressive majority.
TP: "your uncompromising tribalism"
Tribalism as a motivation for belief is irrational. Tribal thinking is based on identity — without regard to the evidence.
I do not identify as a member of the NDP tribe or any other. My criticism of the Liberal Party is based on the historical record: facts and evidence — not tribalism. To dismiss my arguments as irrational or mere "vilification" is to ignore the facts and evidence presented. Which of us ignores the evidence? Which of us is guilty of irrational behavior?
Which of us is being tribal? I argue on facts and evidence. You are not open to any criticism of your beloved Liberal Party. You reflexively attack anyone who voices a complaint.
"'conservative-adjacent' I'm referring to your/their uncompromising tribalism"
More nonsense. How does tribalism imply "conservative-adjacent"? My tribe could be the Liberals, the NDP, Greens, Communists, or anything else.
Nothing I have written implies sympathy support for Conservative views. My views clearly align with the NDP and Greens. But instead of calling me NDP- or Green-adjacent, you call me conservative-adjacent. Week after week. Month after month.
"petty and irrelevant"
The differences between Liberals and NDP/Greens are real and significant. Not petty or trivial. Their policy platforms are not identical and often not compatible. To support that observation, I have presented facts and evidence.
You can't argue on the facts and evidence, so you reflexively dismiss any and all such criticism as "petty and irrelevant".
Come up with a real argument.
"casual and complete disregard for context"
What context? What am I disregarding?
Pure babble.
TP: "one side of the political spectrum now REFUSES to recognize that reality"
Both Liberals and Conservatives plan to fail on climate.
Both Liberals and Conservatives base their climate plans on fossil-fuel expansion.
Both Liberals and Conservatives serve Corporate Canada, including the O&G industry and the Big Banks that back them.
Observations supported by reams of evidence.
Wake up!
The petro-progressive provincial NDP and federal Liberals are not in a tug-of-war with Conservatives over climate. They are dance partners. The NDP and Liberals promote fossil-fuel expansion and take science-based options off the table. This allows the "conservatives" to shift even further right, doubling down on denial and fossil fuel intransigence. But it's Notley and Trudeau who shift the Overton window. It's Notley and Trudeau who shut down the space for effective science-based climate policy.
TP: "Even your hallowed NDP, once faced with actual governance has had to compromise repeatedly, and only an idealist or a purist condemns them for that, like any adherents to religious doctrine or ANY 'doctrine.'"
The NDP are not hallowed. I regularly include provincial NDP parties in my criticism.
The AB NDP chose to compromise repeatedly. No one and nothing forced Notley to chase the Conservatives to the right, pander to the petroleum industry, throw environmentalists under the bus, etc.
TP: "only an idealist or a purist condemns them for that"
More nonsense. Rational people criticize the AB NDP on the evidence — the NDP's historical record.
Rational voters are not afraid to criticize the parties they support.
Responsible voters hold political parties, leaders, and governments to account. No blank cheques for anyone.
What prevents someone like you from holding the political parties, leaders, and governments they support to account? Tribalism.
Despite your "all-encompassing context of climate change", the AB NDP turned their back on science-based climate policy, choosing instead to chase the UCP to the right and pander to the petroleum industry. Where did that get them? Out of government.
The AB NDP chose to ignore the best available science. Chose not to respond to the climate crisis with the urgency required. Chose to fail. Chose to sell out future generations.
Why should your federal Liberals and provincial NDP be immune from criticism? If our political leaders and representatives fail to address the existential issue of our times, why are they in government? What good are they?
TP: "I'm talking about the rigidity of a closed mind being the hallmark of the right wing."
Closed minds exist across the political spectrum. Yours, for instance.
You reflexively reject all criticism of the federal Liberals and AB NDP. I am open to the evidence.
TP: "I can talk because I'm not hamstrung by tribalism of any kind."
When have you ever criticized the federal Liberals or AB NDP?
Above you wrote: "only an idealist or a purist condemns them for that". So you believe the federal Liberals and AB NDP are above criticism. You have written the federal Liberals and AB NDP a blank cheque. You express unwavering, uncritical support of these parties regardless of what compromises they make. Essentially, they can do no wrong.
If that is not tribalism, what is?
TP: "on the holier-than-thou NDP getting all the credit for what the Liberals have been doing"
As the CBC article I quoted points out, dental care was "an issue that was entirely absent from the last three Liberal election platforms."
Elsewhere on this page, Alex Botta points out the essential role of the NDP in securing public health insurance and the CPP for Canadians. "Hard to imagine our country without them, and now, without pharmacare and national childcare."
Look at the evidence. It was the NDP who pushed the Liberals to move on their agenda.
I'm not the flag-waver here. You are.
GP: "Long live the NDP. Under their own banner."
Sounds like flag-waving to me.
My statement acknowledges the useful role the federal NDP continues to play as an independent entity in Parliament. It does not imply a tribal attachment to the NDP. I am not an NDP member. Nor does it imply that the NDP are beyond criticism. As you know, I criticize provincial NDP parties all the time.
As I wrote in August 2022: "Singh's silence on climate and environment is disappointing. He is not connecting with Canadians."
While the NDP have spurred the Liberals to act on healthcare, they need to push them much harder on climate as well.
I have also expressed disappointment in the NDP leader's lack of fire. Singh is a nice guy, but we need more than nice.
Sep 2019: "NDP leaders needs to have fire in their belly. Sharp elbows. An unstoppable energy. Fearlessness in the fray. A command of the issues. A genuine authority. Emboldened by a clear vision. Someone who inspires. Sadly, none of the party leaders meets that job description. IMHO, Elizabeth May is the best of the lot."
"In a Liberal-NDP merger, the Liberals would swallow up and virtually eliminate the NDP."
Highly doubtful. If the Libs -- or more accurately, some bullying individuals in Lib Party management -- pulled that during negotiations on a coalition or after an agreement was signed, the NDP would simply leave and probably sue them for breach of contract. The Libs would be left dangling in the breeze for unfairly shifting the goalposts.
Jack Layton tried a similar tactic by pulling the rug out from underneath the minority government he formed with Paul Martin's Libs. There were several reasons stated for doing so, but the big tell was a temporary spike in the polls for Layton's NDP. Whatever the nebulous technical reasons cited, it was also an unseemly grab for the brass ring. They lost hundreds of paid-up members after that stunt, including me.
The most disappointing thing is that even a loose Martin-Layton minority government could have gone on and done great things if a cooperative, consensus-building attitude prevailed. They were already discussing housing and cities and had the beginnings of a climate action plan. Instead, a single ego read a poll and suddenly killed the project and greased the skids for the advent of a Dark Decade under the Conservatives, who were organize and wating in the wings.
The fact is, ALL political parties are flawed and have more bullies and assholes than angels, either elected or in management. I believe that most Canadians in the centre and on the left want to see more cooperation, negotiation and discussion over policy amongst the Libs, NDP, Greens and Bloc, and if given a single Liberal Democratic Green amalgamated party to vote for with a well-rounded set of policies in their platform, government is theirs and the Conservatives would be consigned to opposition status -- as long as the coalition holds.
When the Reform Alliance proposed a merger with the PCs, no doubt some PCs warned then-leader Peter MacKay against the idea. No doubt he tried to allay their concerns. Well, we all know how that turned out.
A NDP-Liberal merger rubs the sharp edges off the NDP. The Liberals have no sharp edges to rub. Such a deal demands far more compromises from the NDP. An extremely uneven power dynamic.
The rebranded Liberals (does anybody seriously think the Liberals are going to rebrand?) would carry on business as usual — with nothing to stop them. If the former NDP do not agree, they can take their marbles and go home. With no party to go home to.
The new party formed from NDP-Liberal roots will look far more centrist than the NDP — and not much more progressive than the current Liberals. No way will the Liberals give up their corporate Bay St base — their company car — and no true NDPer will sit comfortably in that vehicle.
The further the NDP elements of the new party move towards the centre, the further they moves away from the left.
This manuever simply eliminates the NDP as a progressive voice in the House and the public square. What we get is a homogenized mushy middle party — still following the dictates of Bay St — now untrammelled by a progressive party on the left.
In politics as in ecology — diversity is a good thing.
The only likely enticement for the NDP is a few junior ministries. The leader will be a Liberal, not a NDP.
AB wrote: "Jack Layton tried a similar tactic by pulling the rug out from underneath the minority government he formed with Paul Martin's Libs. There were several reasons stated for doing so, but the big tell was a temporary spike in the polls for Layton's NDP. Whatever the nebulous technical reasons cited, it was also an unseemly grab for the brass ring. They lost hundreds of paid-up members after that stunt, including me."
Your example describes the opposite of a party merger, not a parallel. According to your version of events, Layton abandoned his co-operation pact with the Liberals in hopes of a big gain for the NDP by going it alone.
"An unseemly grab for the brass ring"? Just what a merger with the Liberals would imply. A grasp for power, which will end in disillusionment. Including for longtime NDP voters who inevitably, if incrementally, lose their progressive voice in Parliament.
"if given a single Liberal Democratic Green amalgamated party to vote for with a well-rounded set of policies in their platform"
A lot of wishful thinking based on a misapprehension of the real and irreconcilable differences between the two parties.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes (Virgil's Aeneid) — "I fear the Greeks even when bearing gifts". I fear the Liberals even when they offer the NDP a chance at government.
Nothing doing.
An unseemly grab for the brass ring . . . well, I don't see why only leftist parties are supposed to play to lose.
But I remember that time too. And what I remember was, Paul Martin had drawn a line in the sand--he wasn't going to do some of the most important stuff he'd agreed to do in return for NDP support. So in a deal of "You do this, and I'll support you", Martin had then turned around and said "Well I'm not going to do this, so what are you gonna do about it?" So the Liberals broke the deal and thought they could get the NDP to do their end for nothing. Technical, my ass. When that happens, you have two choices: Bring him down, or let him call your bluff and never be taken seriously again. If Layton had caved, he'd never have gotten another policy out of Martin, who was after all a pretty blue Liberal with no interest in progressive policies. The media spun it furiously so we've ended up with this enduring meme of how terrible Layton's action then was, but IMO it's bullshit. I'd have been pissed off with the NDP if they'd caved.
And of course hindsight is 20/20 but at the time nobody thought the Liberals would run such a terrible campaign as to lose to a robot. Although come to that, during Harper's minority the NDP got more out of him than . . . they probably would have gotten out of Martin if Layton had caved to him and avoided the election.
The real backstab in that era was by Michael Ignatieff, who could have had a minority government if he'd stuck to the deal with the NDP when Harper was proroguing parliament to avoid a confidence vote. But he thought he could get a majority and instead handed one to Harper, ushering in the time when Harper could do real damage. And you know, I don't blame him that much--that's politics and he wanted to win. Pity he was an arrogant prick with an unrealistic sense of his own and his party's abilities. If he'd been more realistic, a lot of bad stuff might never have happened.
There are more reasonable alternatives to a full merger, which I wouldn't support anyway.
As much as I would love to see the NDP strong enough to win government (BTW, no NDP leader ever thought being in perpetual conscientious opposition was a good idea, not even Ed Broadbent), they are strong enough to keep their identity and never be subsumed by the Liberals. That doesn't mean they can't govern together under an agreement where they pull certain candidates to avoid riding competition, and work on a minimum set of agreed upon principles, and set up an expiry date.
I remember the Layton-Martin era well, mainly because Martin was coming off his deficit slashing stint that went much too far, and he wanted to make it up with social spending. Cities were high on both agendas. But Layton pulled the plug prematurely. They didn't get far enough at all to even make a value judgement on the viability of their agreement.
The situation would have evolved nowhere near what you described if the minority was strengthened, Liberals meting out insultingly minor cabinet positions and subsuming poor little Jack with a melange of corporate agenda policies. It was a minority government with both parties intact, not a coalition/merger.
There is a middle ground stronger than a minority and not as all-encompassing as a merger. The middle ground is where the majority of the electorate lives, no matter how much we may not like that.
But perhaps the NDP should, as you imply, stay unattached and isolated from any consideration of building a consensus. Perpetual opposition, inconsequential to governorship. But that is not how Canada got its public health insurance and the CPP. Hard to imagine our country without them, and now, without pharmacare and national childcare.
I want the NDP to have enough power to affect genuine change for the better, more influence than they have now. To do that they need a partnership, and I need to see one ballot choice for both the NDP or Liberals in my competitive three-way riding, and a candidate with integrity.
AB wrote: "But perhaps the NDP should, as you imply, stay unattached and isolated from any consideration of building a consensus. Perpetual opposition, inconsequential to governorship. But that is not how Canada got its public health insurance and the CPP. Hard to imagine our country without them, and now, without pharmacare and national childcare."
I guess this straw man comment is addressed to me. A total misreading of my post.
To repeat, the NDP only has power as a separate entity. Rufus Polson and others make the same argument. A merged party swallows up the NDP.
Which is NOT to say that the NDP should remain "isolated". The NDP's primary power resides in its influence over Liberal minority governments. As we have seen for generations. And as you attest to in your comment:
"But that is not how Canada got its public health insurance and the CPP. Hard to imagine our country without them, and now, without pharmacare and national childcare."
Which agrees with what I wrote above:
"The NDP does not need to form government in order to influence policy. In support of Liberal minority governments, historically the NDP has secured signficant benefits for Canadians. As witnessed under the current confidence-and-supply agreement." I then quoted a CBC article citing the NDP/Liberal achievements on dental care and pharmacare plans.
I have no issue with a co-operation agreement at election time whereby two parties promise not to compete with one another. Somehow I doubt Trudeau would agree to it, but it's fine by me.
Above you seemed to argue in favor of a "single Liberal Democratic Green amalgamated party … with a well-rounded set of policies in their platform". Now you say you would not support a full merger.
Sorry, I don't know the difference between a "single Liberal Democratic Green amalgamated party" and a "full merger". Sounds like the same species.
Let's go for the election co-operation. The merger is a non-starter, I think we both agree. The two parties are incompatible as a unity, and no NDPer in his right mind would join the Liberals on Bay St.
I am not an NDP member, but I would not vote for a Liberal party even if it merged or amalgamated with the Holy Trinity.
Bottom line. Agreed.
"Poilievre will not last forever."
Do not minimize the very real possibility that Poilievre could get two full terms. Four political parties filled to the brim with too many egos really stack the deck against any centrist-progressive comeback, especially if Poilievre has one or two trusted cabinet members who are actually intelligent enough to know where to dampen down the wrecking party on certain files.
"Do not minimize the very real possibility that Poilievre could get two full terms."
Indeed he could. And the fact that the Liberals would sooner grant him that privilege than grant all of us due representation is a pretty good tell as to which of the parties is most Conservative-adjacent.
"Do not minimize the very real possibility that Poilievre could get two full terms. "
Alex, it seems that what you are implying is that governments are elected by a vote amongst parties or other nebulous entities, rather than a vote amongst the nation's electorate. If PP becomes PM following one or more elections, it is because the the electorate, via our twisted FPTP electoral system (and perhaps a wanting education system?), granted his party the needed plurality.
So, go ahead and cast (well-deserved) aspersions at political parties, but the electorate makes its bed and must lie in it.
No. I never meant to imply that. Poilievre's two terms of destruction would naturally follow disarray in the Liberal Party and the NDP if they cannot fully recover after a record electoral loss within Poilievre's first term. Too many times both have had to dwell in the wilderness for seemingly eons until such time they have their leadership battles sorted and after long time MPs retire and byelections are held to replenish the ranks with fresh blood.
I really don't like the thought of any Poilievre government, and shudder at the thought of a second term. These MAGA drones can do untold damage to Canada over eight years, let alone four.
Those commenters who dismiss this concern aren't really admitting that these aren't even Harper Conservatives. They are Trumpeters whose base was willing to overthrow the government during the convoy, praise Putin for being "strong," ditch anything remotely scientific and stomp on women's rights.
To be clear: the electorate emphatically does not get the governments it votes for; it gets the governments our electoral system gives them. We dutifully make our own bed, but then FPTP forces all of us to lie in a different bed.
Rather than fault the electorate, one might instead keep encouraging it to consider that there are better alternatives to FPTP, and that we could all lie in the bed of our own making if enough of us wanted to.
If I'm not mistaken, David, there have been 3 (no, 4, according the the Borg; I hadn't accounted for PEI) provincial referendums (2 in BC, 1 in Ontario) in the country on some form of provincial pro rep, plus a pseudo referendum based on a craftily-worded 2015 federal campaign promise. All were rejected, excepting the pseudo (though I think the 1st one in BC had more than 50% of the vote but not the 60% the sitting gov't decided was needed).
I want pro rep (an enlightened, sensical version of pro rep) but it is consistently blocked by a majority (not merely a plurality) of the electorate. So, yes, they (a majority, that is, when given the choice) made the bed and we are all forced to lie in it. Presumably, fear of change rules the day. As ever. Which observation doesn't bode well for actually accomplishing sufficient action on climate, or any other facet of the polycrisis. Better the crisis you know, I suppose; the prospects for future generations be damned. Alternatively, we might just be bored and apathetic.
Related observation: Overdoing it on Netflix really burns through a cell data plan. :)
Hi Ken,
The kindest way to put this is that you've been played by the political élites, who deploy referendums essentially to get the outcomes they want while simultaneously ducking accountability by transferring it instead from themselves onto us. Thus clear of culpability, they can move on with their agendas while leaving us to blame one another for decisions which, in a representative democracy, are supposed to be made by the representatives we elect to take on the hard work of addressing important matters of public policy on our behalf.
Bear in mind that it's not us, the public, that even ask for referendums. It's almost always the party élites that insist on them, completely aware that only a fraction of the public will have the inclination let alone the time and resources to examine any difficult matter fully enough to arrive at a reliably informed opinion. Should it appear that a significant enough fraction of public is actually up to the task, it's easy enough to increase the difficulty by loading on more details, such as for example requiring the public to determine not only in broad strokes—"FPTP or Pro Rep?"—but between finer and finer distinctions among the many variants of either. And worst case scenario, should it appear that a majority of us is ready to make the leap even so, we can still be thwarted by a gov't's insistence on super-majorities or high levels of participation or so on.
One way or another, the path to any progressive change—such as sufficient action on climate or other facets of the polycrisis—inevitably runs squarely up against the priorities of our political élites and their donors and allies, who can pretty much determine whatever referendum outcomes they please.
Don't let them trick you into blaming ourselves. The public can be forgiven for having priorities of its own to take care of, and none of us should be expected to perform an MP's job for anything less than an MP's salary. So far as that goes, our job is to make sure that they f*cking do theirs.
Hi David,
As you can tell. I'm not one for giving the hoi polloi a pass; not always.
I respect your opinion, but I don't see myself as being played.
Of course, you are correct regarding the influence of politicians and those with power over policy matters but, at some point, we the people need to be held to accept our responsibility when the evidence is impossible to ignore.
The first BC referendum followed a serious undertaking of a citizens' assembly. It was legitimate, well known, well reported, and widely followed for months. Yes, there was self-serving, political influence to retain the status quo (as there was for the second) but the electors had the information they needed. They moaned about not understanding the arithmetic. FPTP's big advantage is that it is very easy to understand, in a mechanical sense, though very much harder to explain in terms of its value in forming a representative gov't. The people apparently don't much care about the latter, but they're happy to whine about lopsided majority gov'ts accorded to parties with around 40% of the vote.
I'm curious how you propose we ensure politicians do their jobs; Doug Ford was re-elected so presumably that means enough people were, incredibly, presumably happy with the job he was doing.
???
I'm not sure I can offer a helpful answer without first getting a clearer understanding of where you're coming from.
Speaking as one constituent of the polloi to another, who exactly do you mean by "we the people"?
Do you mean the indisputably clear majority of us who voted for electoral reform in the first BC referendum, and for parties other than Doug Ford's PCs in the last Ontario election?
Are you saying that because our democratic majority was nevertheless insufficient to dislodge the "duly elected" parties from their positions in either province, it is thus in your estimation we the people who failed in our duty of responsibility?
If so I don't see the polloi ever earning your personal pass, were it even moved to try, as in any case most polloi I know have more positive things to do, such as writing letters to editors and participating in protests and helping out on public awareness campaigns and visiting their elected representatives and that sort of thing.
I apologize if I sound a bit prickly. It's not that I'm unsympathetic or don't myself occasionally just need to blow off steam. But time's a wastin' and I don't see any path to progress through merely blaming ourselves and our neighbours.
Over to you.
There are differences between:
- thinking strategically;
- thinking strategically, given the circumstances;
- thinking strategically, from a position of strength vs weakness (as quoted from Chantal Hebert);
- figuring out the recipe for making tactical lemonade, with a limited “best before” date;
- marriage beds of convenience rather than love (“I had no idea you had so much stinky gas… and your fleas!!”).
Yes, this question could (not necessarily "would") be moot if Trudeau-fils had honoured his campaign linchpin.
Would anyone suggest that today’s CPC, the bastard effluent of the ascendant Reform Party eating the PC rump, serves the interests of a “thinking person’s” Canada of the future? And, where are those Progressive Conservatives, now?
Does one think the Liberal government would be as “progressive”, today, if the NDP weren’t holding the balance of power? (Though, I do believe that Minister Guilbeault is the real deal. Possibly, also Joyce Murray (TBD - get those fish farms out) and her recent predecessors in Fisheries.).
Trudeau could deliver us a gift and change, belatedly, the election rules to provide enlightened proportional representation. That would be strategic but, I fear, a bridge too far for the Liberal Party which is likely now planning a triumphant return to unshared power a few years hence (though, I’ve not yet given up hope for a near-term result other than PP as PM).
There is value in having difference of opinion made available to the electorate, via discreet options in an election, rather than attempting to influence (though the American left has, I think, had some success recently) the dominant pillars of belief within a single-party coalition within a two-party state.
The Greens have no business merging with the Liberal Party; they have very different principles.
I have no idea what Max Fawcett means by "progressive." Few in BC, for example, would consider David Eby "progressive" when it comes to climate. Or, as Geoffrey Pounder points out, Rachel Notley. And Trudeau? Perhaps another column?
Hard to tell if even Max Fawcett knows what Max Fawcett means.
Only two months ago he was exhorting the Liberals to get on with electoral reform and the collaborative politics of proportional representation.
Now he's exhorting everyone to embrace the polarizing hyper-partisanship of two-party politics and single-party rule.
What next? A return to the Divine Right of Kings?
You're NOT helping. Why do so many of you guys always have to get nasty and shoot the messenger by piling on the author? And why do you have so much trouble panning out for the big picture; get out of the weeds; "it's why we can't have nice things!" And it's also why we can't have too many choices when it comes to the big things, the important things, like keeping the evil, dangerous and basically stupid conservatives the hell OUT OF POWER. Not funny, any of this.
So Max is casting about, focused on what we all are because what should absolutely be a slam-dunk under the circumstances IS NOT, as we all know. It's unprecedented, and extremely distressing, but also obvious that uniting progressives, however we do it, is the only rational thing to do once you get your head out of your a** and admit that this ALL comes down to the math.
Even the Reform cons were smart enough to figure that out.
Because it's not the big picture. It's the picture about "winning", as in, if we were to jam all these parties together and all the voters followed, we could "win". But, what exactly would we win? As anyone who isn't a Liberal, what we would NOT win is any of the policies we want enacted. The big picture is about what gets done, not about who "wins". And when it comes to what gets done, I would actually say that all Liberal governments all the time would probably get us worse results on average than some Liberal, some Conservative, and some Minority Liberal forced to do some of what the NDP want to save their sorry corrupt skins.
And you know, Liberals constantly saying that those of us who aren't Liberals should want Liberals to win just isn't convincing. You people do this song and dance constantly, every election and all the spots in between. This is why you wouldn't go for electoral reform, you want other parties to be forced by the crappy electoral system to vote for you tactically some of the time. It is such bullshit. The Liberal party is not progressive, it's not doing shit about climate change, the carbon tax is minimalist too-little-too-late wimpiness, and everything the Liberal party ever does that is any good, it does because it's forced to by the NDP either in terms of direct votes in a minority or the need not to look too much more regressive when the NDP puts forward popular policies. If the NDP let you bastards eat it, the Liberal party would never have to do a good thing again.
I am sick and tired of Liberal disingenuous cynicism in pushing for this, and Liberals' lame pretense at progressivism, a mask they only put on for this purpose.
There you go Rufus. You two guys flying the hell out of your precious flags of protest up there beyond the fray, even though a growing number of your party/team is getting tired of marching on that high road and just wants IN.
What Rufus said.
Only he says it much better than I did.
Bravo!
A mere quibble because it's binary now.
One side GETS climate change; the other side denies it. We call the former side "progressive" but could also call it "survivalist" at this point. Eby qualifies easily.
No.
"Maybe some sort of progressive primary, one where Liberals agree not to run candidates in strong NDP ridings and vice versa, is a more palatable idea". That's called an alliance or in full electoral alliance, Mr. Fawcett, something that the UK Liberals and Social Democrats had as the "SDP-Liberal Alliance" from 1981 to 1988. While that alliance and eventual merger did not lead to great electoral success it would be otherwise here In Canada and as I have suggested on social media in Ontario politics. If the US Republican wannabe Conservatives under Poilievre do indeed look certain of victory in 2025 the Liberals and NDP should definitely consider it. The Tories and their media supporters will no doubt scream and carry on that it's undemocratic, as they did in 2008 when a BQ-supported Liberal-NDP coalition government looked highly possible, but it wouldn't be, and there would be nothing they could do about it otherwise other than hope to defeat it in the election.
"Alliance..." Exactly. It is possible for two parties to form an alliance and strike an agreement without one subsuming the other.
Parliament needs a counterweight to the Conservatives. The Liberals perform that function until they falter. The NDP isn't big enough on its own to form a majority in the House. Minority governments formed after an election work until they falter.
This leaves the range open to alternatives between coalition/merger and minority governments. That could be an agreement on pulling certain candidates in particular ridings, to govern based on predetermined principles and goals, such as action on climate, affordable housing and pharmacare, and to put a predetermined best before date on the agreement at which point it's renegotiated.
The expiry date and the act of negotiation will preserve each party's integrity. A merger will not.
If the NDP were to merge with the Liberals, my bet is that a new left-wing party would immediately form in its place.
The Conservatives did it federally and in Alberta provincially. Personally I don't see much difference. I was born and raised in Winnipeg North Centre with MP Stsnley Knowles for 20 + years. And yes he made a difference to my upbringing and views
Yes. Period