As always, what follows are strictly my personal views and in no way reflect those of any of my co-religionists in the New Democratic Party, the union I work for, or anyone on our block.
I’ve written here regularly about the tactic of coalition government as a means to bring Canada a better federal government. Three years ago I was skeptical this could work. Then I kind of came around, when Jack Layton came within four weeks of succeeding.
Mr. Layton's idea continues to make progress.
The principal players who destroyed that initiative, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and his blue-Liberal advisers and supporters, now tell us they consider such an arrangement to be "perfectly legitimate."
For their part, Canadians are now much more familiar and comfortable with coalition government. The constitutional nonsense asserted by the Prime Minister’s Office is widely derided and discounted. A useful model now exists in Britain. Supporters of Canada’s centre and left parties can see their obvious interests, if circumstances were to justify it.
But that’s not what was discussed this past week.
What was being discussed this past week was a formal merger between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada in advance of the next election.
We know what Canada’s English-language political monoculture thinks of this idea. Those who mostly get to speak sensed a threat to their government, and so the anger machine cranked up to pour vitriol upon it, complete with an insta-poll. But even here, inadvertently, progress was made. Many of the voices pouring contempt on the very idea of coalition government in Canada 18 months ago now concede that such arrangements are perfectly legitimate.
But THIS, they told us, THIS merger idea would be just so, so wrong.
In principle, anything in politics that Mr. Harper's people dislike must be good. As Tommy Douglas knew during his many wonderfully productive years as premier of Saskatchewan, when the blindly and rabidly partisan Leader-Post of his day had really worked itself into a first-class lather on both its front page and in its editorials, selected letters and op-ed set-pieces, he knew he had done something especially good for the people of the province that week.
But is that true in this case?
Here are five points in favour of the idea, five points against it, and what I make of it so far.
First point in favour: Canada does have a progressive majority.
And as Mr. Harper and his friends clearly understand, if that majority were united within a new party, Mr. Harper would be soundly defeated in the next election. From union could come strength.
Second point in favour: A merger might be better strategy than the alternatives, if the goal is to defeat Mr. Harper.
On the balance of probabilities, the New Democrats are well positioned today to re-elect their present caucus and to add to it, possibly significantly so. The question is whether another excellent incremental gain will by itself decisively defeat conservatism in Canada; destroy the Harper agenda and government; repeal all of its works; and replace it with a prudent, determined progressive agenda in tune with the values and priorities of the majority of Canadians.
As I will argue below, it could.
People who might favour a merger with our Liberal friends fear it would not, and that there is a significant risk that Mr. Harper might then be able to consolidate his rule and to do a great deal of additional damage.
Third point in favour: A merged party could win Quebec — electing a progressive majority government, building an important new bridge between English- and French-speaking Canadians, and handing separatists a useful defeat.
Nothing is permanent or certain in politics, but it is fair to say that there is no sign that francophone Quebeckers are warming up to the Liberal Party of Canada or will do so anytime soon. The weight of that party’s recent history seems a permanent drag on its prospects in that province, much as the “Progressive Conservative” brand has been permanently impaired (and retired) in several provincial jurisdictions in Western Canada (B.C., Yukon and Saskatchewan, with Alberta possibly up next).
