Liberals, NDP can't win as long as they split the progressive vote.
by Geoffrey Stevens
The federal Liberals are prisoners of past glories. Only now, as their leadership “race” ambles into its final weeks, are they turning some of their thoughts to their central dilemma — an issue that should have been front and centre since the 2011 election, if not earlier.
Their dilemma: as long as the Harper Conservatives control the right and centre-right — which they will as long as the economy remains the dominant issue among Canadians — there will not be enough room for both the Liberals and New Democrats in the rest of the electoral spectrum, the left and centre-left. Not enough room for two competing alternatives to the Conservatives. Not enough room for the opposition parties to differentiate themselves. Not enough electoral support, when split between two progressive parties, to bring down the powerful Tories, who are richer and better organized — not to mention meaner and tougher.
Something needs to happen – if not a marriage of the parties of the left, perhaps some sort of common-law union. An informal coalition, perhaps. Or a voting-day “arrangement.” Or an “understanding.” You would think living in sin would be more attractive to opposition politicians than living indefinitely in Harperland.
The only Liberal leadership candidate to advocate relations with the New Democrats is Joyce Murray, and she is not talking about marriage or even a common-law relationship. She proposes a quick one-night stand, just for this election.
The NDP believes it doesn’t need any help. It thinks it can make Thomas Mulcair prime minister without the aid of the Liberal party or its core supporters. It would love nothing better than to rub the noses of both the Grits and Tories in an NDP victory.
Most Liberals are thinking along similar lines. The only one in the shrinking field of leadership candidates who advocates relations with the New Democrats is Joyce Murray, the candidate from British Columbia. And she is not talking about marriage or even a common-law relationship. She proposes a quick one-night stand; the two parties would combine efforts on election day in 2015, defeat Harper, then go their separate ways.
The other candidates weren’t buying Murray’s message when they met in Montreal on Saturday for their final debate. “It’s dangerous for the Liberal party,” said candidate Martha Hall Findlay. Justin Trudeau, who will be crowned leader on April 14, agreed. Liberal cooperation with the NDP would simply elect Mulcair, he said, adding, incomprehensively, “I’m very worried that if we assemble a hodgepodge coalition or coming together or co-operation that actually removes choices from Canadians by forcing them to make an either-or choice, they will not believe we’re ready to govern.”
Oh!
He did not explain how offering voters a choice between two clear alternatives (left or right) would be tantamount to limiting or removing choices.
The hard fact is too many Liberals cannot forget their glory years. They were Canada’s “natural governing party” for decades. Their Big Red Machine ruled the hustings. Now the glory may be gone but reality has not yet registered.
They are in third place in Parliament and in most of the polls. They can’t get from third to first, where the Harper Conservatives rule, without going through the second-place NDP. There are only two ways to get past the New Democrats. One way is to campaign against the NDP in the 2015 election, win most of the left/centre-left vote, and prepare to take on the Tories in 2019. The other way is to work with the NDP now, take down the Conservatives in 2015, and sort it out after the ballots have been counted — a coalition government of the left, perhaps?
Meanwhile, Stephen Harper watches while his rivals are unable to get their acts together. He should be the happiest fellow in Canada.
About Geoffrey Stevens
Cambridge resident Geoffrey Stevens, an author and former Ottawa columnist and managing editor of the Globe and Mail, teaches political science at Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Guelph. He welcomes comments at the address below. This article appeared in the Waterloo Region Record and the Guelph Mercury.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.