Why is there resistance to change in Canada's progressive parties?

While Conservatives have been leading heavily in the polls for over a year, both the Liberals and NDP refuse to change course. Why? And what could this mean for their respective futures?

Legendary U.S. Democratic strategist James Carville suggested not long ago, “When the people want change, give it to them!”

Though Carville’s commentary was in the context of the push that eventually saw U.S. President Joe Biden stand down from a re-election bid on account of dwindling support, the statement could easily apply to the mounting pressure Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has faced to resign, following the shocking byelection loss in the Liberal stronghold of Toronto-St. Paul’s.

With Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives showing a commanding double-digit lead in public opinion polling over the Trudeau Liberals for many months, the returns from the Toronto-St. Paul's byelection was a tangible affirmation that Trudeau has become toxic to the Liberal brand itself.

Typically when a political party performs this poorly in the polls, it should ignite a natural desire to change course, usually in the form of a major policy shift, a new communications approach, or most dramatically, having the leader step down to usher in a new voice.

But what has been the Liberal response following their catastrophic loss to the Conservatives in the Toronto byelection? More of the same.

Continued talk of “working harder” or “delivering results” has been the persistent drumbeat coming from Trudeau and his cabinet ministers since the loss. In fact, Minister of Labour Steve MacKinnon went as far as to double-down with the party's current approach, indicating change is not even necessary.

Clearly such sentiments run contrary to the message sent by the constituents of Toronto-St. Paul’s, as well as several members of the Liberal caucus, in that the demand for change is intensifying.

So why then would the Liberals seemingly not heed that message?

The reluctance for change within the Liberal Party

For one thing, the Liberal government has previously made some minor attempts at change, having initiated a cabinet shuffle last summer; augmenting communication tactics by speaking of “Generational Fairness” as a means of reconnecting with younger Canadians who have been flocking to Poilievre’s affordability message; alongside a federal budget intended to tackling those very affordability challenges, all of which has had a negligible impact to their political situation.

The crux of the issue has been Trudeau. Plain and simple. Like all prime ministers before him, they reach their expiration date when closing in on a decade in power. And so, after nearly nine years since Trudeau took office, changing the message at this point does very little when people are tired of hearing from the messenger.

However, Trudeau is seemingly unconvinced, determined to stick around to contest Poilievre in the next federal election. Some argue Trudeau still remains his party's best chance against the Tories, as being the only established figure heading into the election. Recent polling from the Angus Reid Institute appears to support this line of thinking, showing that any of the other potential successors to Trudeau would not fair any better in swaying the public support back to the Liberals. Though it can also be argued being well-known with an unshakeable record can be a double-edged sword.

This newsletter had previously outlined that the optimal time for Trudeau to resign would have been late last year, as this would have given the new leader enough time to shape their own governing record distinct from Trudeau, and history has shown that such an approach can at times extend the life of a sitting government.

Even within this late hour, albeit with some level of risk, a leadership swap may not be the worst outcome for the incumbent Liberals, despite the numbers from Angus Reid. Reason being, any new leader of the Liberal Party also becomes the Prime Minister of Canada - invariably, Canadians would become quickly acquainted, removing any concerns with recognizability, and likely resulting in a honeymoon bump from Trudeau’s abysmal polling. Whether they could sustain that boost in popularity would remain an open question.

One has to wonder why the party would not consider the risk of steering the ship with a different captain, rather than consigning itself to an inevitable crash?

Part of an explanation could be that the Liberal Party had long ago submitted itself to being the Trudeau Party, where decisions are oriented around the protection of Trudeau's interests, ahead of party or even country. That is to say, if Trudeau wants to stay at the helm, the party is incapable of having any institutional will to push against it.

This does not mean that many of the Liberal caucus/cabinet members would stay onboard a sinking ship, as many have already announced intentions not to run in the next election - a harbinger if you will - unless we cast a critical eye to Canada's other main progressive party content on sustaining their calamitous course, Jagmeet Singh's New Democratic Party (NDP).

The reluctance for change within the NDP

Following the deal struck between Trudeau and Singh in March of 2022, the NDP have not seen any political windfalls from their Supply and Confidence Agreement (SCA) with the Liberals, despite the policy lite-iterations of “dental care” and “pharmacare.”

At time of publishing, the latest public opinion survey from Leger placed the NDP at 20 per cent, consistent with where they have been hovering (17%-20%) over the last two years. In other words, their parliamentary coalition with the Trudeau Liberals have blunted any prospect of benefiting from the decline in Liberal support, which ought to have been a natural phenomenon between the progressive options.

Despite the lack of political gain, Singh has signaled he is unwilling to break his deal with Trudeau. Again, continuing on a course that is clearly not yielding political capital is a confounding approach. In fact, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent had been critical of the SCA, believing Singh should have pulled away from the deal after one year, not only to get credit for some of the legislative “wins,” but also likely to give the party enough distance from the Liberals to carve out its own identity come election time.

Instead, the two parties have never been more ideologically and strategically aligned, and in doing so, have also netted the lowest popularity levels for party leaders seen in 50 years. Singh continues undeterred. Why?

One possible reason is that with such low polling numbers and not being seen as a credible alternative to Trudeau, the modicum of influence he does hold with the government is as good as it will get for him or his party, given Singh may not even retain his own seat come the next election.

Another possible reason is election readiness, as the NDP continues to trail very badly in fundraising numbers to that of the Conservatives, coupled with the fact Singh's party ran a campaign deficit of $22 million in 2021, it is a hole they need to climb out from prior to the issuing of the writs. Even though the party claims it has paid all its debts and is in readiness mode, it makes Singh's insistence not to change tactics even more astounding, as ending the agreement with Trudeau would not immediately bring down the government anyhow.

Interestingly enough, a byelection will be held next month in the Manitoba riding of Elmwood-Transcona, left vacant after the abrupt departure of NDP MP Daniel Blaikie, and perhaps also a sign of the dire electoral prospects upcoming for the NDP. The riding has long been considered an NDP stronghold due to the years of representation from the Blaikie family, and so a loss to the Conservatives will undoubtedly be the equivalent to the tumult created for the Liberals by Toronto-St. Paul's. But equally so, unlikely to result in any change in posture from Singh or the party.

What does this collective insistence on not embracing change mean moving forward?

While both parties have different variables at play in not changing directions to improve their respective standings, both are also operating against all political logic compelling them to enact change.

There is still a remote possibility that we see Trudeau step down or Singh break off his deal before the next election, but assuming the status quo remains, it leaves an intriguing question: are there grander designs in the works that negate their temptation to change course?

The recent legislative runoff national election in France had provided a strategical roadmap being bandied about in Canada. In a bid to prevent Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party from winning government, French President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist party and other left-wing parties coordinated the dropping out of over 200 candidates in an effort to avoid vote splitting. As a result, Le Pen was denied the necessary seat totals to form government.

The French example serves as an arrangement some believe the Liberals and NDP might be tempted to consider, by agreeing not to run certain candidates in competitive ridings, as a means of coalescing the progressive vote against the Conservatives.

In minor sense, this is not without precedent in Canada. In 1941, Arthur Meighen was prevailed upon to return as leader of the Conservatives, to which he accepted, though he needed to win a byelection to obtain a seat in the House. Out of fear of having to reface his long-time adversary, Liberal Prime Minister Mackenzie King steered resources towards Meighen’s primary competitor, while not running a Liberal candidate in the riding, which resulted in Meighen losing the seat and subsequently resigning the leadership.

Nonetheless, as French political systems vastly differ from Canada, it is an electoral strategy that would prove to be clunkier on a grander scale, and less likely to find itself materialize between these two parties in a federal election.

It is no secret that Trudeau and Singh loathe the possibility of a Conservative majority, and it is in part why they have both avoided any pretext to triggering an election at this point in the polls, hence their mutual stagnation. But in the absence of any considerable and substantive changes to come, Canada's main progressive parties will be drifting towards political oblivion.