Why the NDP Matters
August 15, 2009 · By Richard Albert
On this sunny afternoon, I am watching the NDP Federal Convention streaming live from Halifax on CPAC (as usual, television correspondent Martin Stringer is doing a fantastic job).
The NDP is putting on a first-rate show with impressive speakers, featuring Nova Scotia premier Darrel Dexter, Manitoba premier Gary Doer and CLC president Ken Georgetti.
For the NDP, this convention is just as much about celebrating its past as it is about charting its future. The NDP has a distinguished lineage which rests in large part on the shoulders of the late Tommy Douglas, the founder of modern health care in Canada. This weekend, the NDP paid homage to two of its living legends—former party leaders Ed Broadbent and Alexa McDonough, both revered party-builders who continue to cast a long shadow over the NDP’s current leader, Jack Layton.
Although Layton has done well as leader, he will soon face his most daunting challenges yet: navigating the NDP through the potentially troubled waters that lie ahead.
First, there is the matter of what the NDP will be called going forward. Now officially known as the New Democratic Party, the party is weighing whether to rebrand itself as the Democratic Party, dropping the New and thereby aligning itself nominally and optically, though not necessary substantively, with the infinitely better known Democratic Party that currently holds the presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and a clear majority of the governships in the United States.
The NDP name debate is presently unfolding at the convention, pitting the old guard versus the new, the former wishing to keep faith with the roots of the party and latter prefering to re-orient the party toward new horizons. It is a safe bet that the membership will ultimately unite around whatever the convention decides. But until the convention achieves some closure on this name game, the risk of internal party division continues to linger.
Second, there is the more interesting topic of the next election. When it will come, no one can say for certain… well, no one except perhaps Jack Layton. For he holds the balance of power in the tug of war that is sure to take centre stage between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party when Parliament reconvenes in September.
If the Liberal Party does indeed intend to ramp things up against the Conservatives—and this appears to be the case more clearly by the day—the Liberals will be mathematically unable to bring down the governing Conservatives without the votes of both the Bloc Québécois and the NDP.
So what should Jack Layton say when he gets a call from the Liberal leader asking for his support? Tough question.
As I see it, Layton has at least two sensible options, each with its own pitfalls and promise.
First, if the Liberal plan is to revive the December 2008 idea of a Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition government, Layton, I think, would have no choice but to jump in. The coalition would change the political calculus in Canada and open up a number of possibilities that could bare fruit for Layton and the NDP.
But Layton should not join in without first asking for something, a lot actually, in return. Among what should be several NDP preconditions to joining the coalition, Layton should agree to offer the support of the NDP to the Liberal-led coalition only in exchange for assurances that his party would control at least one quarter of all cabinet portfolios—including justice (likely), foreign affairs (maybe), defence (unlikely), finance (least likely)—in the new government.
Second, if the Liberal plan is quite simply to trigger an autumn election by defeating the Conservatives on a vote of confidence, Layton should exercise restraint instead of pushing ahead to force an election. Three reasons convince me this is the right choice for the NDP.
For one, the NDP is unlikely to make substantial gains in a federal election held this fall. With currently 36 seats in the House of Commons, the NDP has very little room to grow, particularly given the very real threat it faces from the Green Party on its left and the Liberals on its right.
Moreover, the Layton should not agree to defeat the government and head to the polls because he will begin to hear deafening calls for his resignation if his party comes out of the election with fewer seats (as is likely to happen). As things stand, Layton is already starting to feel the heat from supporters of Quebec’s lone NDP Member of Parliament, Thomas Mulcair, a master debater in both official languages, an orator of great skill, and one of the rare breed of Canadian politicians who can connect with everyday Canadians.
Finally, Layton should not join the effort to the defeat the Conservative government on a vote of confidence because he stands to gain much more by propping up the Conservatives than he does by knocking them down. How so? Lending the NDP’s votes to the Conservatives, at least for the next session of Parliament, could well serve not only Layton himself but more importantly the NDP as a political institution.
Imagine the goodwill Layton would cultivate with his party if he managed to extract, in exchange for the NDP’s support, a promise from Stephen Harper to appoint Broadbent or McDonough to the Senate when the next vacancy arises in Ontario or Nova Scotia, respectively. (Set aside for the moment that Layton has previously called for the abolition of the Senate. Yikes.)
Both Broadbent and McDonough are highly esteemed Canadian statespersons. They command respect from parliamentarians of all political stripes and they have earned the gratitude of citizens in all provinces. If either Broadbent or Mcdonough were appointed to the Senate, the appointment would give the NDP its first official Senator—a pretty significant event of high moment in the history of the party. As for Layton, it would allow him to solidy his leadership and buy himself more time to build a winning team, the latter of which is all a party leader can ever really ask for.
For Harper, this could be a victory for him too. In addition to averting an election he says he does not want, Harper would score some major political points. Specifically, were Harper to agree to appoint either Broadbent or McDonough, or both, Harper would cast himself as a magnanimous Canadian prime minister who, far from being blinded by partisanship, is readily willing to recognise and show appreciation for the years of devoted public service that Broadbent and McDonough have given to Canada. At a time when we are all thirsting for unity over division, Harper could tap directly into the vast reservoir of goodwill that awaits any leader committed to a new culture of cooperation in Canada.
There you have it. That is what Layton should do. But whether the opportunity presents itself—and whether Layton is getting advice as good as mine (it’s free advice, after all, so you get what you pay for!)—is another question altogether.
The GG would not give the coalition of losers power when this much time has passed, there would be a general election, or so says precedent.
Iffy is in the most vulnerable state he will ever be in.
Not elected by the grassroots, no platform for the Libs to mull over, the next election is high risk for him, to introduce himself and a ‘new and improved Green Shift’ to the party and the country.
Liberals are the ONLY party that shouldn’t want an election this early.
Libs should wait until the recession is over, so as they can spend some big money on their socialist platform.
But they won’t, power calls….they are soooo gonna lose.
Sorry, after reading your headline, I didn’t continue on reading, because there’s only one comment to make: the NDP does NOT matter at all.
Richard, I have to say that you are doing a fine job of restoring credibility to this blog. Your pieces have been balanced, articulate and thoughtful.
The NDP does matter Werner,
Dippers are the Liberals only hope of winning an election (borrowing votes), or seizing government with a coalition (buying with cabinet seats).
Hi Richard,
The NDP certainly matters these days. My hope would be that they try to stake out a principled platform, rather than just playing politics… but I have no real optimism about that. Though, don’t get me wrong, I still wouldn’t support them, I just think it’s healthier for Canada when they’re articulate rather than screeching.
Of course, with the Tories enacting a pretty NDP-like program, pumping a billion dollars into the fading manufacturing industry, it might just be best for the NDP to sit back and let Harper enact their policies.
If the NDP members think they need a new name why don’t they go to the natural ( SPC) The Socialist Party of Canada..
Or, are they too scared to have the general population know who they truly are.
Great thoughts, Richard!
It’s been infuriating over the past years seeing the NDP being ignored by the media and being pigeonholed as the party of the past. A change of name is merely cosmetics, but it has to do something to re-energise passion and support from a new and growing constituency. I’m talking about the new and not-so-young disenfranchised voters, as well as those now supporting the Green Party.
In my mind, I feel the Social Democrat Party (that would have been my vote) should develop and articulate economic policies that will debunk the tax-and-spend myth (using Manitoba’s model), as well as well as highlight environmental sustainability policies that would woo back their lost flock from the Greens.
At the very least, some rapprochement with Elizabeth May (coalition?) could bolster voter support. Roughly calculating from last Federal election, the sum of NDP/Green support would have been close to 30% (please correct, I don’t teach math), which could have put a completely different complexion to our current Parliament.
Some bold and principled moves need to be made soon. In this information age, the party must have the savvy to create, communicate and carry out its vision. If not – it pains me to say this – democratic socialism in Canada is in peril.
the NDP are important. without that party who else would take votes from the libs? ELIZABETH MAY, pleeeeease.
Brad Maynard,
I stand corrected – May is a dud, but the constituency we lost to the Greens must be brought back, as well as progressive Liberals.
Nicely written Richard. As much as I am inclined to agree with Werner insofar as I believe that the NDP are actually irrelevant, let’s (as you say) set that aside for a moment and allow me to speak to a few of your points.
Don’t be so certain that Jack holds the balance of power here. It might appear that way, but at every opportunity, Jack Layton has stood by his record and has basically said that nothing is going to change in that regard. His tactic here is to throw the responsibility of defeating the government in the laps of the Liberals and claim the supposed moral highground by claiming he kept his integrity in maintaining his established position.
I disagree here. Canadians outright rejected a Coalition, and I think Jack Layton is still feeling too badly burned by the Liberals to trust them in that respect. I honestly believe that his pride would get in his way over this, just as his hubris is what got him into that trouble in the first place.
This I agree with completely. However, I haven’t seen this stop them in the past. The NDP, if nothing else, is the endlessly optimistic party here in Canada. They always believe that they will achieve more than they do. Thomas Mulcair I believe was a fluke really, based more on person than party/policy and the gains of the Provincial NDP in Nova Scotia is an illusion that likely will not be repeated federally. But as I said, this has never stopped them before, so why should it now?
On this I am frankly unable to set aside current record. Jack Layton has talked the NDP into a position where this would simply be impossible to pull off. His rhetoric throughout the Session before the last election until now has completely alienated himself from the Conservatives and if he were to try such a tactic, he would essentially be betraying everything he has brought his party and it’s members to stand for lately. He would be severely punished for this by his vote base, the least of whom would be within his own caucus (Mulcair). No, this is something that not even Jack Layton’s optimism could survive.
Personally, what I think the NDP should do is try to make enough noise to draw attention to themselves again at the expense of the Liberals. NDP attacks against the Conservatives have rarely ever earned them any support outside of their core people and are unlikely to ever sway someone considering voting Conservative towards the NDP. That’s a 180-degree turnabout there. Undecided voters require nudging, not dramatic reversals as they’re already predisposed towards a certain direction in the spectrum. Their best chances lie in those who are considering Liberal (and BLOC in Quebec) to sway to their brand as those people are usually predisposed to their kind of philosophies.
The NDP will only ever make incremental gains and are unlikely to ever form Government in Ottawa. If they want to become relevant in Canadian Politics again, they need to dump Jack Layton as leader and bring forward someone who can be the voice of sweet reason in the Government’s ear and encourage reasonable alternatives to the Government of the day. They need to be the party that is easy and desirable to work with instead of the shrieking fringe they appear to have become under Jack Layton’s watch.
Just my opinion.
Sean, thanks so much for taking the time to deconstruct in such detail the peril and promise that awaits the NDP in the next election.
You’ve actually convinced on your first and third points. You are right about the disconnect between perception and reality in the case of the NDP’s influence in the current Parliament. Only a real student of the Canadian political landscape could see that. You are also right–at least I think you are, upon further reflection–that there is no turning back for the NDP on the Senate. None. It would, as you correctly argue, be too dramatic a swing.
I have to think, though, that the coalition would be welcome news for the NDP, particularly for Jack Layton. He has had a few kicks at the can, and nothing yet has led to the groundbreaking reversal of fortunes that his arrival was expected to produce. The coalition would present loads of possibilities for him — deputy PM, maybe — that would ultimately benefit the NDP brand, in my view.
I’m of course not entirely sure about this. The only thing I am indeed certain of, however, is that it would be fun — but not so good from the perspective of market stability — to see it all unfold.
Great comments.
Thanks Richard. The balance of power in Ottawa (and the reasons behind it) is an ongoing interest of mine.
Now, the other thing that I think needs to be considered (and this sort of leans against my thoughts on the matter), is that Jack Layton has in the past proven himself to be a remarkable opportunist. There have been times where he has made a surprising (but not necessarily remarkable) change in direction in order to capitalize on opportunity in the House of Commons. Some refer to these events as “making parliament work” or “being flexible in a spirit of compromise”. Others refer to it as lifting one’s skirts (or dropping their trousers) to the highest bidder. Whatever the reasons for it, and regardless of the gains, such reversals damages the credibility of a party and/or its leader.
So, if Jack Layton were to agree to another Coalition, I would be surprised, but I wouldn’t be shocked. Still there are a few things that Jack Layton and the NDP will have to remember.
1) They need the Liberals and the BLOC more than those parties need the NDP. Jack Layton may be able to press for more “considerations” than he was getting before because of the events surrounding the last Coalition effort, but he still can’t push too far. The Liberals would be the ones in power, and Liberals don’t easily share that. Neither do the Conservatives really, but that’s not really an unexpected dynamic if we really want to be honest about it.
2) Jack Layton will have to eat a little crow and bow over a few Liberal hands because of the attacks he made against the Liberals shortly after the previously mentioned Coalition deal fell apart in the hands of Michael Ignatieff. This could be hard given “feelings” since the fallout.
3) Jack Layton is going to have to convince Michael Ignatieff that he’s not a threat, and provide the reassurances that he can be “controlled” in a Cabinet Situation. Michael Ignatieff is an autocratic leader who must be seen as being in control. He’s not the pushover that Stephane Dion appeared to be. If Jack Layton can’t make Ignatieff believe this, then Ignatieff will take his chances with the electorate.
4) Both the NDP and the Liberals would have to find a way to marginalize the BLOC within the Coalition without alienating them. Granted, the BLOC have little interest in anything outside of Quebec, but they’re not insensitive to the opportunities and leverage that their support can provide Quebec in terms of money, autonomy and other material/temporal gains.
5) Jack Layton and the NDP would have to sell the Coalition to Canadians, and convince them that the NDP didn’t simply “sell themselves out” for the promise of power. This is probably the most important and most difficult part of this whole idea, and I have a hard time believing that they could pull it off.
Mind you, as I said before: Endless optimism in unrealistic goals has never been a problem for the NDP.