A Liberal-NDP Merger? This dog won't hunt

As Premier and, later, as Leader of the newly formed NDP, Tommy Douglas was often presented with various schemes that had superficial appeal but would not bear up under scrutiny. His simple phrase in these situations was straightforward “This dog won’t hunt.”

As someone who fought his hardest political battles against Liberals, Douglas would have the same reply to those who think that electoral cooperation (or merger) between the federal Liberals and the NDP is desirable or possible. Frankly, anyone calling out to “unite the left” knows little about either the Liberal Party or the NDP. Differences in philosophy, tradition and party structure makes merger, or even electoral co-operation, nearly impossible.

First of all, the Liberal Party is not a party of the left - it is a capitalist, centrist party. That Liberal Governments are responsible for the social safety net and strongly promotes human rights may lead many people to think that it is a “leftist” party, but this is also the party that embraced balanced budgets and debt repayment. In the words of Pierre Eliot Trudeau, Liberals are the party of the “Radical Centre.”

The New Democrats, founded by members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and the Canadian Labour Congress, is a socialist party (or social democratic party, if you find this a less pejorative term). If there is to be a merger, or even electoral cooperation, how can these two parties reconcile this fundamental difference on this essential economic question?

There is also a deep chasm between the New Democrats and the Liberals on the question of national unity as it pertains to Québec. The Liberals still adhere to a “one size fits all” approach to our federation, where all provinces are treated uniformly in the Constitution, and claim that there is no “right” for any province to withdraw. The New Democrats, at least in their upper echelons, are friendly to the idea of “asymmetrical federalism” and have endorsed Québec’s “right to self-determination.” 

In the NDP, unions play a structural role in the decision-making processes of the party. In addition to contributing significant amounts to the NDP war chest, unions and union locals affiliated with the NDP send their own delegates to party conventions, including leadership races. By being able to vote in the delegate selection process for riding associations and affiliated unions, the views of these members are over-represented in the councils of the NDP. This practice of “double voting” would be as unlikely for Liberals to accept as it would be for the NDP to surrender. (In the UK, Tony Blair brought an end to a similar practice in the Labour Party to make it a more acceptable option for British voters.)

While a merger may not be in the cards, what about “electoral cooperation?” This would see one party in a riding “stand down” in favour of the other, presumably to increase the chances of victory.

One significant barrier to this concept is the perception of Canadian voters. It is a political convention in Canada that, to be seen as a serious national party, a political party has to have a candidate in every riding in the country – 308 in all. It is not a formal rule but the consequences for a party that does not run a full slate of candidates is quite clear.

Further, given that the public financing of political parties is based on the number of votes that a party receives ($1.75 per vote per year), a decision to “stand down” in a riding in favour of another party affects the Party’s bottom line as much as their reputation as a serious national party.

Having lost its rural base, the NDP is now competing for voters in the same urban areas as the Liberal Party. The fact that Liberals and NDP candidates are each others’ strongest competition in many ridings, in Toronto and across the country, means that there is little to gain from electoral cooperation.

Even cooperation in ridings where the difference between an NDP or Liberal victory over a Conservative candidate is within the margin of voters for the other party, the possibility of this actually occurring is slim. This presumes that NDP voters in a riding would move en bloc to a Liberal candidate carrying the banner of electoral cooperation and vice versa. Partisan attachments may not be as strong now as in the past but we shouldn’t underestimate this factor among core supporters of either party. A core Liberal or New Democrat would be more likely to stay at home than to vote for another party – even if their party leadership encouraged them to do so.

The idea of a merger or some form of electoral cooperation between the Liberals and the NDP is based more on novelty, opportunism and distaste for the current minority government than sound political reasoning. In the hunt for a progressive government, just remember what Tommy said about this type of dog.

- 30 -

Originally published in the Toronto Star, republished in the Telegraph Journal