The Mark 2010

A Liberal-NDP partnership might or might not be good for the left and the country, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

The partisan reaction to whispers of a Liberal-NDP coalition, or even a formal merger, has been predictably predictable. Hopes of such an arrangement revived when the British Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties recently entered into a formal coalition, and Liberal MP Bob Rae – himself a former NDP premier of Ontario – further fanned the flames with his reminiscences of the 1985 Liberal-NDP coalition in that province. When the president of the Young Liberals of Canada added his voice to those calling for a proper coalition, pointing to a poll that suggested such a coalition would be at least competitive with the Harper Tories, an air of momentum seemed to develop.

This did not escape the notice of the Tories, who promptly set about comparing any notional coalition with the ill-advised and failed Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition of late 2008. The Conservative message is simple: the Liberals will stop at nothing to regain power, even if it means making a deal with separatists. But as many have pointed out, the 2008 coalition was ill-fated for various reasons, many of them specific to the times. That coalition would have put the Liberals in charge just months after their worst electoral showing in decades; it would have given the keys to 24 Sussex Drive to Stephane Dion, a man who had decidedly failed to inspire the confidence or win the support of the Canadian people; and it would have made the survival of the Canadian government dependent on the votes of Bloc MPs who are ideologically and professionally committed to the destruction of the Canadian nation as it currently exists.

None of that is necessarily true of a future Liberal-NDP pact. Returning the Liberals to power in 2008 at the head of a coalition was especially unpalatable because Dion had specifically dismissed the possibility of a coalition arrangement during the campaign. If the Liberals and the NDP were to leave open that possibility during the next election – or, better yet, if they were to run a single slate of candidates – then Canadians could evaluate the possibility of a Liberal-NDP government and either support or oppose it at the ballot box, which is where it matters.

Moreover, a Liberal-NDP coalition has at least a fair chance of winning an absolute majority of seats in the House of Commons, meaning that it would not be dependent on Bloc support. And while Canadians might be no more enthusiastic about the prospect of a Prime Minister Ignatieff than they were about a Prime Minister Dion, the process of forming a true coalition might provide an opportunity to choose a new leader who better represents the left-wing ideals such a combined party would inevitably stand for, or one who at least has a better chance of winning an election.

I should note that, as a conservative, I don’t look forward to a Liberal-NDP coalition. As a matter of electoral calculus, a left-wing coalition would undoubtedly present a formidable obstacle to a national Conservative majority. And as a matter of ideology, I think that the left-wing policies such a coalition would pursue are precisely the wrong policies for Canada at this critical moment in its history. But as an objective observer of Canadian politics – as I try to be – I can appreciate the benefits that such a coalition would bring to left-wing politics in Canada, and I can hope that the resulting polarization and crystallization of policy alternatives would bring benefits to Canadians of other political stripes as well.

But all of the speculation, all the hopes and concerns, are apparently for naught, because – predictably – Ignatieff and the Liberal brain trust have run away from the very idea of coalition just about as fast as they can. Calling Conservative discussion of a Liberal-NDP coalition a “lie,” an anonymous “senior Ignatieff official” was quoted in the Globe and Mail declaring that the Liberals will campaign in the next election on a Liberal – and only a Liberal – platform.

This pooh-poohing of a coalition arrangement is predictable, disappointing, and surely not a little dishonest. If a partisan and ideological conservative like me can see the advantages of such an arrangement, you can believe that Liberal and NDP activists far more concerned about their parties’ interests than I am are working even now to bring such a coalition about. And there’s no reason to think that even “senior Ignatieff officials” aren’t in on the action; they’d be crazy not to be.

So why the dishonesty? Why the transparent denial of interest in an increasingly popular arrangement? We can only presume that the Ignatieff team, wary of Conservative efforts to tag a new arrangement with the unsavory aura of 2008, and acutely aware of the poll bounce the Tories saw after that failed effort, simply want to avoid giving Harper and his crew any more ammunition. That, or “senior Ignatieff officials” suspect that a new coalition will mean a new leader – and therefore far fewer “senior Ignatieff officials.”

Whatever the cause, it’s a shame. A Liberal-NDP coalition might or might not be good for the Canadian left, and it might or might not be good for Canada. But it’s an idea that deserves to be discussed openly, honestly, and in the full glare of public, partisan, and media interest. Ignatieff and the Liberals should say publicly what everyone now knows: interest in a Liberal-NDP coalition is more than academic. It’s a matter of popular concern.