The NDP's secret strategy

Today we got a secret memo from the New Democratic Party and the news that we'll be allowed to view their campaign-ready election headquarters in the coming days. We journalists are simple folk, but we do know how to interpret this: the NDP is keen to fight an election. We know this because party people are  telling us that. We're clever that way. 

It is always dangerous to veer into what may be the alternative strategy, but I'm going to take a speculative leap. I keep wondering if the NDP wants us to think they're ready to fight an election so that their efforts to avoid an election are not portrayed as election-avoidance. In other words, they want, maybe even need a deal with Conservatives, because they saw the by-election results a couple of months ago and thought: "We're not ready!" So when they do look for a  deal to support the Conservatives around the budget, they won't be accused of desperation. (By-election results here:  NDP, not in the game.) 

Staying in this speculative vein, I also wonder if the Conservatives would be motivated to make a deal with Layton, because they need the NDP to be strong, taking votes away from the Liberals. Divided opposition, and all that -- the same thing that helped Chretien in three elections, and the same thing that has been helping Harper. The by-elections, framed as a big win for the Conservatives in Toronto, were also a glimpse into an election that only featured two parties: the Liberals and Conservatives.  That doesn't end well for the Conservatives if translated into a general election. If all the not-Conservative vote coalesces behind the Liberals, that's the end of Conservative rule. (And you wonder why they don't like coalitions?)  

All this, I stress, is speculation. But it may be a product of being in Ottawa too long -- when someone's anxious to tell you something's true, you have to wonder what's behind the effort. 

Comments

[ck]

I think the Cons will put a poison pill in that budget none of the parties can support; that end to the per vote subsidy. Though, that would make it very easy for all to see whether Harper is really the one revving for an election or not.

[Dan Cummings]

First of all, best defense is a great offense and there's no election hurry for the NDP with their numbers in the dumpster -- but logic doesn't always inform action (as you note).

Second, votes never break the way you describe when parties merge. If there were a NDP-Liberal formal merger a lot of Liberals (the more conservative ones) would bolt to the Conservatives while some (or lots of) NDP would bolt to Green. And while fundraising might eventually pick up and be brisk, in the short term it would suffer. The Alliance-Conservative merger had fewer growing pains because it was mostly two halves of the old Progressive Conservative Party of the early 1980s re-uniting, but even so some PCs refused to stay with the new entity, and joined the Liberals and Greens.

Overall, it would be a good thing, starting a move to an explicit left-right politics. But the math isn't simple, nor does it have anything to do with why Harper can raise a coalition as bogeyman: coalition governments are typically conflict-ridden (unless an over-arching issue such as prosecuting a war gives focus) and hence unstable, when created by a signed agreement they often dissolve after that paper's term (such as agreement-bonded coalition of NDP and Liberals in Ontario between 1985 and 1987 which evaporated into an election immediately after agreement lapsed), they are expensive (see Ontario, 1985-1987) to handle wants of both or multiple sides, and they can be confusing (see England, currently). In a non-crisis, coalitions are worst government form possible. They are also very risky for one or more partners (see Ontario, 1985-1987) and the state.

[Dan Cummings]

Also a quibble.

I'm a former Press Gallery cardholder, did my time in the chamber when typewriters were still the tool used in the Gallery workroom, and can recall the brutal conflicts between the parties in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. John Diefenbaker saw politics as war and Lester Pearson fought hard but never won his majority. The difference is that reporters today are too young to have observed those days, and until the cameras were added in the late 1970s the only record was Hansard. I suggest you read it carefully through the pipeline debate or the flag debate or the quaking times of '67 and '68. Even without the video, you'll see how hot-tempered it was.

BTW my name here is my middle names, not the name I reported under....

[hazel jackson]

Deal, or no deal....I have to say I'm impressed with Olivia Chow's NATIONAL transportation plans....Jack has some very good ideas as well. I think yer average apathetic Canadian voter should dig a little deeper and check them out.

[Chris Baker]

To paraphrase a respected British academic on minority governments and third parties, the NDP has to decide who they fear more - the lion in Oppsition or the lamb in Government.

[jad]

So are the NDP trying to fake you out, Susan, or is it a double-fake? They want you to think they are sabre-rattling because they really want to avoid an election,but in fact they really are ready, willing and able. :)

[Frank Docherty]

There are those who have a strategy to get to the PMO, and those who have a strategy of what to do from the PMO. ( http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/926752--harper-heads-to-geneva-to-help-focus-maternal-health-initiative#article ) If the opposition does not support the strategy of the PMO, they do not support the strategy of Canada's effort to make our world a basically fundamental better place. ( http://www.thestar.com/news/globalvoices/article/776445--menstruation-stigma-costs-girls-dearly )