A Tory's View of the NDP

E. Derek Butler worked for the former Progressive Conservative goverment in Canada, in both the House of Commons and the Senate, prior to plying his knowledge of Canada's parliamentary system in Madagascar, Yemen, and Morocco. His academic interests lie in democratic legislative reform in new democracies.

(Editors note: In keeping with the Progressive Policy Canada's stated intention of providing a forum for all Canadians committed to the positive role of political parties in politics and governance, and in the spirit of multi-partisanship, we are happy to feature the following article by Derek Butler, a Newfoundlander and former Progressive Conservative Parliamentary staff member who also cares about what happens to the NDP. Like many people, Butler believes that the NDP occupies an important niche in Canadian political life and he hopes the party rises again to challenge for power)

The following math is incontrovertible to most of us: one plus one equals two, right? But Canada's federal New Democratic Party, currently undergoing a process of either morbid self-examination or hopeful renewal depending on one's perspective, fails to grasp it. Suffering tepid electoral results in recent federal campaigns, combined with marginalization from general political life in the country, the party faces the proverbial choice of two roads in a yellow wood. For the Svend Robinson wing of the party, the choice is the old road so oft retread. For the new, ambitious and politically in-tune segment of the party, it appears to be something else, both more progressive in the modern sense, and more democratic. New Democratic in both senses then.

The math above is what tempts even an old Tory to say the new faction is right, and Svend faction are - no surprise - wrong. Putting aside for the moment the era of Tommy Douglas et al, when the NDP first took flight and flew well by most accounts, or even laying aside for later consideration the Broadbent era of 25+ seats, the ‘scientific' math approach seems to dictate that the NDP of Canada needs a revision, a new road (and who knows, maybe even new leadership).

The math is this. Let the first 1 be successful NDP provincial governments in Canada, and where they have been. Let the second 1 be where the NDP has not worked, and where even the election of federal NDPers is nothing but the temporal result of the strange times we all live in, Tories and Alliance included (and for which Liberals give thanks).
The first one. The NDP don't have much choice if they want to examine a track record. It's limited in scope and geography to Canada's west, particularly Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. Ontario, as I mention later, doesn't count.

The provincial NDP has successfully (except BC) grown with the times, and seen the writing on the wall. In Saskatchewan, for example, that meant successful management of the economy and public services, and the courage to make difficult choices. In meant that - fiscal propriety - in its heyday under Douglas himself, and it aspired to be a party like the others, albeit with its own particular bent. In BC, one of the rich provinces, the party has also done fairly well, measuring things electorally for a second. In Manitoba too, where they are back for another good - i.e. lengthy - stint in office.

What is the one here not recognized by the anti-reform faction of the party? That politics is, as former US House Speaker Tip O'Neil said, local. The NDP have succeeded provincially where they have dropped the dogma and preached and practiced pragmatic politics that gave voters just the choices they wanted: the choice slightly left of centre, centre or slightly right of centre. In a Canada of moderation and tolerance (though the phrase does wear on one a bit), it's generally something close to the centre that does best.

There are exceptions, but even then the centre can arguably be said to have shifted itself. To hear the talk of the anti-reform faction of today's federal NDP, you'd think we were still in the bell-bottom 60s. The political spectrum/culture has shifted again, but the anti-reformers stayed in the rut on the far left. Canada isn't there anymore, and neither are very many voters. Maybe someday they will be again, but till the time comes, politicians who want to represent us need to shift gears and perspectives a bit. That means a progressive and modern NDP that is closer to the centre, more competitive against Liberals AND the rest, and yet guarding a tint of the strong values and convictions that undergird them. What's the electoral math at the centre look like? Hey, not good: the field is already crowded, but the math is no better, and conceivably worse on the left wing margin too. The party has room to edge right, and still not risk alienating the left so much. It's not as if the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada is much competition, though if Svend had his way...

The second one in our original math equation has to be the failure of the NDP in the rest of Canada. While the theory of New Democratic politics should show promise in poorer eastern Canada - more specifically, the Atlantic provinces but even pro-labour Quebec - this hasn't happened. When it has, it's been an aberration that we all marvel over.
Fonse Faour in Newfoundland in the late 70s (only to lose, regrettably, to a young Brian Tobin) was the region's first federal NDP MP. Jack Harris did it again later in St. John's West, for a spell. Provincially, they suffer the ignominy of a handful of members, with arguably more success in Nova Scotia, but as the book says, ‘this too shall pass.' In Newfoundland, the only election question facing the provincial party leader is whether he will constitute 100% of the caucus, or on a better day, 50%: the party alternates between 1 and 2 or 3 members each election.

Even when the NDP has done well - in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in 1997 and less so in 2000 - they are competing for seats on a political spectrum that has shifted, and Tories are the competition. Look, if the elector wants the choice, then Tories are even willing to give it!

Granted, there are other reasons - including the deep roots of the old guard parties, and in Quebec, the PQ's displacement of the NDP as the party of the left - that explain the lack of NDP success in eastern Canada. The country's west is new in many ways - what they call an historic building is still the stuff of real estate markets in downtown St. John's - and that includes in the politics they experience, and make room and allowance for things like New Democrats. Ontario did it once too, but that was just a result of the math on a bad day. No one intended it, least of all Bob Rae, as the results showed.

As a young Tory new in Ottawa in the Mulroney era, I would smile on the NDP as the conscience of the political nation. If I could have picked a dinner guest, it would have been Ed Broadbent; check out Judy Steele's biography of him. He was a man of conscience and character. And that was the party's place in the system, and I doubted it would ever change.

Unless, "I, I took the one less traveled by, and it has made all the difference." The only risk the party faces in undertaking this fundamental reform and modernization is the path taken by the Social Credit, for different reasons. Who are the Social Credit you ask? Precisely.
But without change - or with change towards a more radical left - the NDP is irrelevant in national political life. It is not the party of a Douglas or a Broadbent, and not just because its current leader carries no weight. The party needs vision, strategy, and a basic lesson in math.

Back to top