In a recurring feature, Susan Delacourt, a small-l liberal, and Matt Gurney, a small-c conservative, bring their different perspectives — and shared commitment to civil disagreement — to the political debates of the moment.
Susan Delacourt: The political chattering class is obsessed this spring with how long Justin Trudeau will stay in his job. But if we’re all growing bored with that line of speculation, here’s another one, possibly related: How long will the deal between the Liberals and New Democrats last? I’m betting it will continue for quite a while still. What do you think, Matt?
Matt Gurney: I think I agree that it’ll last. Where we might disagree is whether it should. I understand all the arguments in favour of the CASA/SACA from the perspective of the New Democrats. They don’t have the money for a vote right now. They worry they’d get the blame if the Conservatives won big. They have influence today they might not the day after a vote. And yes, the pensions. I get it — staying in the agreement is the safe bet. But here is the thing. I once asked an old friend, a military veteran, what the most applicable lesson of military life was for civilian life. He mulled it over a bit and said, “The other side has a plan, too.” I think that’s something Jagmeet Singh and the NDP really need to be mindful of. I know all the reasons why the New Democrats would like to delay an election as long as possible. But every day they keep the Liberals in power, is another day the Liberals have to figure out how to arrange the next election on maximally favourable terms. And there’s no way that would end well for the NDP.
SD: These are all very sensible, practical things you’re saying. (We’re really going to have to get better at being contrary with each other.) But at the risk of sounding like a naive idealist, let me set down my main reason I want to see the deal continue. I like it. I like when political rivals work together. This week, we saw it when Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau held another one of their joint news conferences, to announce the big Honda deal. This has become my favourite buddy movie in Canadian politics: two guys who were once sworn enemies, getting their act together to do stuff. I think, judging by the reader data I see, that citizens also like stories of politicians doing things together, rather than just yelling across the aisle.
MG: Yeah, I like civility, too. It’s why we are here. But I also like politicians who are rational and act in their own self-interests. Not because I think their self-interests are always in the national interest, but because I know that self-interest will always prevail in the end and I’m fine cutting out the pretence of it being otherwise so that we can get straight to the point.
The Ford friendship with Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland is adorable and heartwarming, especially in These Polarized Times. But I also know that Ford can and will and has run against Trudeau to save a single seat, and the Liberals won’t hesitate to link Ford to whatever nasty thing they want to tar Pierre Poilievre with by partisan association. There is no time pressure for the Ontario premier and the prime minister to end their entente and resume sniping. I don’t think the federal NDP and the Liberals can say the same of their relationship. Sometime in the next year or two, they’re going to have a lot of zero-sum games to try to win at the other’s expense.
SD: Again, that’s practical speaking. Let me go out further on a limb here, though. I not only think the Liberal-NDP deal is good for now and into 2025, but that it could be the future of politics, and a reply to polarization. A couple of years ago, I binge-watched the TV series “Borgen,” a drama about Danish politics and how coalitions work there. I found myself wishing that Canada could be governed by some kind of coalition featuring cabinet ministers from different parties. Not only is it more exciting (if you like that sort of thing), but it is also an antidote for centralization. You can’t boss around a whole cabinet when some of its members are from rival parties. So yes, I wouldn’t mind seeing some kind of minority and possible coalition after the next election. I’m just not sure who Poilievre’s coalition partner(s) would be, but that’s a wholly different realm of speculation.
MG: I also don’t mind coalitions because at least the responsibility is shared along with the credit. I confess I’ve never really seen the attraction for the NDP in the current agreement. The prime minister takes all the credit. The New Democrats can talk all they want about how they’re delivering results for Canadians — and I’m not even disputing that! — but they are reaping zero political rewards. The only guy who seems set to have a worse election night than Justin Trudeau is Jagmeet Singh (yes, yes, if polls hold). I feel like a jerk arguing against the virtue of your kinder, gentler way, but the reality is that we don’t have a coalition now. We have a deal that lopsidedly benefits the Liberals and an NDP leader who looks sillier every time he goes out and laments something the government is doing as if he had no ability to stop it from doing that. Fundamentally, the only way we’ll get to your “Borgen” ideal is if we have a real agreement between parties, where power and success and blame and failure are truly and openly shared. This isn’t that. This is a truce of mutual necessity, and if it ends badly, we’ll likely move further from your ideal.
SD: You are never a jerk, Matt. And I don’t want to cast this whole conversation as one of principle versus practical (or cynical). So I’ll end with my very practical reason for wanting the deal to continue: I don’t want an election campaign any time soon. It’s promising to be ugly and I’m in no hurry to witness that.
To join the conversation set a first and last name in your user profile.
Sign in or register for free to join the Conversation