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.”

The only thing New Democrats and Liberals dislike more than Conservatives is each other. But if they want to put an end to a future Pierre Poilievre government, they might have to find a way to put it aside and join forces more permanently.

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.

Keep reading

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