Angry in the Great White North

Funding for parties in Canada is a straightforward thing.  For every vote the party received in the last general election, the party gets a couple of bucks from the government each quarter. 

Former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien created the mechanism so that political parties would no longer be beholden to big corporate and union interests, because at the same time this new revenue stream was created, another one was choked off, that being donations from anyone other than individual Canadians.

Considering popular vote then, for the NDP, over the last few elections.

In the 2004 election, the NDP under Jack Layton got 2,127,403 votes.

In the 2006 election, the NDP under Jack Layton got 2,589,597 votes.

In the 2008 election, the NDP under Jack Layton got 2,515,561 votes.

These solid performances happened while fighting a Liberal Party that had begun to steady decline.  The small dip in 2008 could be attributed to the emergence of the Green Party, but I'd be surprised if the Green Party's influence will grow much beyond what it had achieved in 2008, given that environmental issues are no longer of such importance to voters.  In any case, it could be argued that had the Green Party not been a factor, the NDP was on track to a significant improvement over the 2006 numbers.

In 2000, however, under Alexa McDonough, and against a strong Liberal Party lead by Jean Chretien, the NDP garnered only 1,093,868 votes.

Under the current funding formula (which was not in place in 2000), the NDP would find its operating budget drop by more than 50% if the party turned in such a performance.

That would be a huge blow, and I can't see Jack Layton surviving as party leader if this were to happen.  The NDP itself would fade to obscurity, with little or no money with which to present itself as a serious choice for Canadian voters.

But that is what it likely to happen if the NDP had to fight an election against a strong Liberal Party.

In a majority government situation, the NDP would have little choice.  Whatever party in power would call an election, and the NDP would enter into the battle for votes.

But we have a minority government.  There are 143 Conservatives, 77 Liberals, 49 Bloc Quebecois, 36 NDP, and 2 independents at this moment (with one seat vacant, formerly held by the NDP).  The Conservatives cannot be defeated in a confidence vote unless the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois join with the Liberals. 

The Liberals are on an upswing, and the rumours are that the Liberals would force an election in the fall.  But they can only do that if the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP agree.

Why would the NDP agree if it looked like the Liberals would steal all those votes, and with those votes, all that money?

So it's no surprise that Jack Layton is suddenly hearing that voters don't want another election:

NDP Leader Jack Layton says the House of Commons should spend the next couple of months focusing on employment insurance reforms and other matters - not electioneering.

Layton marked the return of Parliament after a two-week Easter break with a public pep talk to his MPs and party workers, in which he spoke about the toll the recession is taking on Canadians.

Layton later told The Canadian Press that his party - once eager to defeat the Harper Conservatives at the first opportunity - will spend the next 10 weeks working on improving jobless benefits and pensions.

The NDP leader says he didn't hear anyone "hankering after an election" as he canvassed voters during the Commons break.

Every party leader does this.  When the polls are good, then Canadians want to choose their government.  When the polls are not so good, then Canadians are tired of elections and want parliament to work.

It's just one of those lies they all tell, knowing full well no one is fooled.  If the NDP was polling neck-and-neck with the Liberals, then Jack Layton would have heard something quite different from the Canadians he canvassed.

But that he "heard" no desire for an election means that he's seen the polling numbers, and they don't look good.  And with the financial health of the party tied to performance in a general election, Jack Layton and the NDP leadership have to ask themselves just how much all that blather about kitchen tables is really worth.

Would Jack Layton and Olivia Chow and Libby Davies win personal re-election?  Almost certainly.

But a lot of other NDP MPs might not in a tough fight against the Liberal Party.  The survivors would return to a party with many fewer MPs and a lot less cash.

Not so long ago, the NDP would have accept this as the cruel fate of minor third parties.  But in this minority government, as in others, the NDP has the choice to selecting the timing, or at the very least, rejecting the timing set by their rivals if the polls spell NDP disaster.  Why not keep this parliament rolling along then, enjoying the subsidy from the 2008 election results?

The NDP have shown that they can be strategic in deciding when an election would be held.  When it suited them, they propped up the minority Liberals under Paul Martin in the spring of 2005, extracting budget concessions to do it.  When the Liberals continued their downward spiral through the year, the NDP turned on the Liberals and voted with the Conservatives to force an election.

The NDP is under no compulsion to help either the Conservatives or the Liberals win.  But of the two, the Liberal Party is the larger threat to the NDP, since in many ridings, the two parties are battling for the same votes.  And even in ridings in which the Liberals would likely win, the difference between a strong NDP showing and a weak one is thousands of dollars in funding every quarter over the next few years.  Repeat that pattern across the country, and over a million dollars in party funding is at stake each quarter.

So it's no surprise that Jack Layton is moving quickly to tone down the rhetoric.  He knows he has limited time to prepare NDP supporters and potential NDP voters for the fall, if and when the NDP moves to put off an election that might only benefit the Liberals.  The more effort Jack Layton puts into rationalizing keeping the Conservatives in power, the less likely that the NDP will suffer for it.

Of course, if the recent Liberal surge can't be sustained, then the NDP can turn on a dime and demand an election.  Indeed, that's why Jack Layton put in a ten-week time limit to his cooperation.  He expects to re-evaluate his position in time to change to his tune again, if need be, and suddenly support a new election against a weakened Liberal Party.

If Liberal fortunes go south by the fall, the Liberals would not support forcing a new election, but if the Conservatives see the Liberals in trouble, they might allow an election to be triggered.  The NDP would be back in a position to support a new election, thanks to Jack Layton's attempt to stay ahead of the polls.

Remember, it is possible for the timing of an election to simultaneously benefit the Conservatives and the NDP, but it is hard to imagine that the same would ever be true of the Liberals and the NDP.

Update:  And soon after posting this, a rumour is heard that the NDP will support the Conservatives in return for a promise on a referendum on proportional representation.  That's intriguing:

• The NDP would get a referendum, but no guarantee that the measure would pass.  I don't see the NDP demanding that the Conservatives support the measure itself, but give a chance for the people to vote on it.
• There are all the details to work out for the referendum itself.  Is it 50%+1 or some sort of supermajority?  Is there a formula that alters the weighting for better regional representation?  Will it be multiple choice, or just one form of PR or no PR at all?  Ironic, to have a non-proportional referendum on proportional representation.
• What sort of PR would make it on the ballot?
• And what would the time limit be for this support?  The Conservatives get to run the country for, say, two years, with a promise for the referendum in that time?  Would the economy recover by then?  Are the NDP OK with that?
• It seems to be a rumour right now, but it fits right into a picture that is starting to take shape.  That is of the Conservatives and the NDP working to marginalize the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff.  And depending on what sort of PR system is imagined (I'm admittedly not a fan of pure PR because it allows too many trivial one-issue groups like the Green Party to gain a voice not justified by their thin and disparate level of support), the Conservatives and the NDP could hurt the Liberals in a big way, given the concentration of Liberal support in central Canada and then only within urban centres.

Like I said, I don't like PR.  But I'll keep an open mind about it.  A referendum is a chance to debate the subject, and that can't be a bad thing.  And if all the NDP wants to keep the Conservatives in power through these difficult economic times is a chance to talk, well, it's hard to see why anyone would say no.