Chantel Hebert on the future for the federal NDP. There is good news and bad news for Layton and the NDP.
That is not to say that Layton’s seven years can be summed up as just a streak of blind luck. Under his leadership, the NDP share of the national vote did go up in real terms – from 8 per cent in the last election the party fought under Alexa McDonough in 2000 to 18 per cent in 2008.
Over that period, the party has picked up 10 points in Ontario and come back from the dead (1.2 per cent) to double-digit support (12 per cent) in Quebec. In the last election, it won seats in Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador.
These days, the party’s position on Afghanistan is in the process of being partly vindicated. Layton subscribed to the necessity of coming to terms with the Taliban long before it emerged as an option on NATO’s agenda. As an aside, Layton’s approach would have had a lot more impact on the development of Canada’s foreign policy in a coalition government with the Liberals than in the wasteland of opposition.
Overall, though, it is not leading-edge policy but a more aggressive approach to the role of the NDP in a minority Parliament that so far most distinguishes Layton’s seven-year reign from that of his predecessor. By co-writing a budget and negotiating a coalition with the Liberals, he has broken more new ground for his party inside the Commons than outside Parliament.
To put the limits of the NDP’s electoral progress under Layton in perspective, the party today is almost – but not quite – back to where Ed Broadbent left it after the 1988 free-trade election. That year, the party elected 43 MPs compared to the current 37.
To this day few voters, even among the ranks of the converted, see the party as a real alternative to the Conservatives. The best that can be said about its support in the polls since the last election is that it is stable.
Over the weekend, the NDP’s national council met to discuss what was billed as a strategy to win the next campaign. But despite those brave words, Layton’s best hope to continue to move his party closer to power is infinitely more likely to lie in a more constructive parliamentary relationship with the Liberals than in the ballot box.
Layton has shown that he can partner with both the Liberals and the Conservatives and influence both of them which while has some short term costs, if done over an extended period of time, can pay off for the NDP and Jack Layton in a minority situation. The perpetual minorities which Preston Manning famously foresaw in Canada’s future may have come true and a party that can bridge the ideological divide and make deals in the best interests of Canadians could become more and more popular. While I don’t think that Layton is ever going to win power, I think doing what Hebert suggests, and entering into a parliamentary relationship with the Liberals is the worst option. The NDP’s best card is clichéd but if they can be the part of making Parliament work and cut deals with both parties, they could find themselves relevant again.
