Skip to Content

Over 13,000 sign petition for cooperation between NDP, Liberals and Greens

NDP MPs and grassroots organizations like Leadnow are advocating for strategic cooperation between left-of-centre parties in Canada including the Greens. But could it really work?

Read More:
« prevnext »
Green Party leader Elizabeth May - who supports strategic cooperation - speaks at a 2011 rally for electoral reform. Photo by ahblair

The movement for cooperation between Canada's left-leaning parties is gaining momentum as the best chance to defeat the Conservatives -- themselves a product of a "Unite the Right" campaign.

A new petition from independent organization Leadnow has garnered over 13,000 signatures in support of cooperation between the NDP, Liberal and Green parties. The group’s aggressive new campaign, Cooperate for Canada, joins political voices like NDP leadership hopeful Nathan Cullen as part of a renewed push for strategic cooperation on the left. But according to Liberals like Vancouver Centre MP Hedy Fry, it’s not going to be an easy sell.

What proponents like Cullen and Leadnow are advocating for is not a merger, but a cooperative strategy that could involve joint nominations to run candidates in a way that prevents another Conservative majority. While some NDP MPs are apparently willing to consider the idea, most Liberals say it’s not even on the table.

“There is absolutely no discussion about that,” said Fry.

“It was done once with the Liberals, and that was when Stephane Dion was the leader and we stepped aside to allow for the Green Party’s Elizabeth May to run in [her] riding. And we all thought it was a mistake later on, in hindsight.”

Fry says the main reason for the party’s regret came from disappointed Liberal supporters, who complained about being robbed of the chance to vote Liberal in the election. But for the increasing number of Canadians who support cooperation, setting aside party differences may be the only way to defeat the current Conservative government.

Leadnow co-founder Jamie Biggar says it all comes down to how our current electoral system operates.

“In the last election, we saw that over 60 per cent of Canadians voted for change. They voted for the NDP, Liberals and Greens or Bloc,” said Biggar, noting common frustrations with the resulting Conservative majority.

“There’s just this huge disconnect between what people voted for in the last election and the government that we ended up getting. And the reason for that is this first-past-the-post electoral system that we have.”

Democratic reform: a common goal?

Under the country’s current electoral system, the candidate with the most votes wins regardless of whether or not they’ve secured an absolute majority. Splitting the votes across opposing parties meant success for the present Conservative government, even though more Canadians voted against Prime Minister Stephen Harper than for him.

“From our perspective the question is, what do we do to make our democracy work better going forward? And we think that there’s no kind of easy solution to that, but we think that a practical pro-democracy strategy would be to have the NDP, Liberals and Greens agree to cooperate,” said Biggar.

So far, Skeena-Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen is the only NDP leadership candidate who has raised the idea of strategic cooperation with other parties. In an interview with the Observer, he echoed Biggar’s opinions about the need for electoral reform.

“We need a one-time offer to get into government and change the voting system to some form of mixed-member proportional representation – something that says, 'When you vote, your vote will be reflected in the parliament',” he said.

(7) Comments

DanielJPierce February 16th 2012 | 11:11 AM

Since when is working together and forming alliances even remotely akin to fixing the vote or rigging the system? It's perhaps the most democratic thing I can think of. Wake up, Hedy Fry!

Avril February 16th 2012 | 11:11 AM

It would be very helpful if the media would stop conflating the idea of trans-partisan cooperation with a political "merger". The two are not at all the same thing. A merger means two parties melding into one, like the Alliance and the old Progressive Conservative party. This is not what Nathan Cullen, LeadNow, or other proponents of cooperation are proposing.

They (we) are talking about a one-time pre-election agreement to look beyond party lines and join hands in certain ridings to open up the possibility of defeating a Conservative candidate that won in the last election with less than a majority of votes. And then, once in government (another "if", of course), setting in motion a democratic process to replace our unrepresentative, antiquated FPTP system with some form of proportional representation in which every citizen's vote actually counts! And of course, this would only be done in consultation with the citizenry, not imposed from above.

Please, Vancouver Observer, don't continue to propagate the notion that cooperation = merger. It only confuses the issue!

Thank you.

Avril February 16th 2012 | 11:11 AM

And by the way, as Nathan Cullen points out, Canada has a long history of political parties cooperating after elections, to usher in programs like universal medicare and so on. So why not cooperate beforehand as well?

Sorry if you felt this was confusing the issue...in one of the early paragraphs it does say that what they're proposing is NOT a merger, but we'll make the text bold just in case people missed it:

"What proponents like Cullen and Leadnow are advocating for is not a merger, but a cooperative strategy that could involve joint nominations to run candidates in a way that prevents another Conservative majority."

You're right about the notion of a "merger" being commonly discussed alongside cooperation, and when talking to most experts/politicians it's difficult to talk about one without at least bringing up the other. We've tried to make it as clear as possible that what's being discussed here is strategic cooperation, and the ways it would potentially work are also described in the article.

Avril February 16th 2012 | 2:14 PM

Thank you! Keep up the good work!

Alex S February 16th 2012 | 2:14 PM

Great articlke

The NDP, Liberals, and Greens should put the interests of the people first and cooperate to defeat Harper and the Conservatives.  The majority of Canadian did not vote for Harper but he got the most seats.  Does Hedy Fry consider this democratic?  Cooperation is the best result of any democracy instead of partisan politics.  The politicians should put the interst of their political parties on the backbench and learn to cooperate.

 

Brian Fletcher February 16th 2012 | 6:18 PM
I agree that co-operative manoevres [not merger] between left-center parties need to happen now. The Grits will try to deceive Canadians as they did in the last election when they shamefully claimed a separatist plot was afoot. That ploy should be pre-empted by explaining to the electorate now to what extent the co-operation will be employed so that it neutralizes anything the Cs say The problem with the Liberals being involved with any sort of 'co-operation' is that they cannot [to date] think past their own selfish party concerns. Hedy Fry and the rest of the Libs need to wake up to the fact that we are witnessing the dismantling of our CANADA with unprecidented speed. This is NOT about parties, its about whats best for CANADA. It is absolutely critical that we change the current FPTP system which is destroying our ability to bring young people into our democratic process. REP by POP!!!