Mark Carney's ascent to the Liberal leadership has locked in a change in Canadian politics as compared to the period before Justin Trudeau's resignation announcement. But as the inevitable response to any glimmer of hope for the Libs is to turn it into a "this is bad news for the NDP!"
story, let's take a look at how there's still room for the NDP to find its footing in advance of an election campaign.
First, recognizing that the Trump regime will continue to make it difficult for parties to centre a campaign on anything else, there remains plenty of space for a distinct voice as to the appropriate response.
On that front, the most telling part of Carney's inaugural speech dealing with Trump was
this:
“The Canadian government is rightly retaliating with our own tariffs,” Carney said during his victory speech Sunday. “My government will keep our tariffs on until the Americans show us respect — and make credible, reliable commitments to free and fair trade.”
Now, that message makes plenty of sense from the Libs' perspective. It plays to both a simplistic patriotism and Carney's international profile in making a demand for "respect", while also allowing corporate Libs the hint of an easy return to business as usual based on entirely subjective criteria.
But there are limitations on that position in terms of both principle and credibility.
As a matter of principle, the concept of "respect" looks profoundly tepid compared to what's playing out in real time. As stories and pictures emerge about the real human costs of Trump's authoritarianism, there's a desperate need for somebody in the campaign to highlight the fact there's more at stake than national pride.
And I'd also expect plenty of voters to recognize the folly in crediting Trump as being able to offer credible, reliable commitments on anything. (Insert "if you'd been around for Trump's first term, maybe you'd understand!" as appropriate - and Carney's credulousness in the face of nakedly self-serving actors is a point with broader application as his green banking alliance has crumbled.)
To be clear, I don't think there's likely a path to a 2015-style three-way race at this stage. But there are multiple potential responses to the Trump regime - and one focused on how it threatens human rights and workers' interests on both sides of the border should offer a distinct and important message which will appeal to both longtime supporters and new potential activists.
Which brings us to the question of how popular support levels will translate into seats - and there, it's worth noting some of the limitations in assuming a uniform swing in votes which doesn't reflect local and party factors.
On that front, there's a well-established NDP practice of "beachhead" organizing - with an intensive focus on winning a single seat to provide a local presence, then a plan to leverage incumbency advantages and spillover awareness of one established MP into neighbouring seats.
As Allan Gregg
acknowledged after Ontario's provincial election this year, that model allowed Marit Stiles and the Ontario NDP to hold nearly all of their seats (contrary to what pollsters presumed) and remain the Official Opposition despite losing ground in the popular vote. Trevor Corkum
notes that there's precedent for a localized focus to bring Atlantic seats into the fold even in the face of a Liberal turn elsewhere, with strong challengers in place to challenge for seats the NDP has held in the recent past. And I'd point out the additional example of the Vancouver Island stronghold which has stayed primarily with the NDP since 2015 even as provincial and national numbers have fluctuated.
If I have any general concern about that model, it's that it tends to result in dedicating the resources of a national campaign to a relatively small number of seats - which may limit the NDP's ability to expand the electoral map. But the flip side is that it provides reason to think the NDP can hold hold strong on the ground regardless of where the Lib-Con air war ends up.