ADAMS: For Progressives to Win, the NDP Must Rethink Its Strategy

"If you can’t seriously say you’re going to form a government that can take on Trump, then get out of the way and let the only real contenders have at it."—Thomas Mulcair

Jagmeet Singh, emotional, stands at podium beside his wife, announcing resignation after losing Burnaby Central on election night. Image credit: The Canadian Press/CTV News

After the most disappointing electoral result in the NDP’s history and a devastating third-place finish in his own riding, it came as little surprise that Jagmeet Singh chose to step down as leader. Though the timing, coming immediately after the election, was abrupt, the decision itself felt inevitable. With Parliament having resumed before the summer recess, veteran MP Don Davies is serving as interim leader as the party prepares for a full leadership contest and the next chapter in its history.

Unfortunately for the Davies-led NDP, their appeal for official party status has been denied. After losing 18 of the 25 seats won in 2021—and falling five short of the 12-seat threshold—the government House Leader confirmed there will be no special treatment. That means no daily questions in question period, no guaranteed seats on committees, and no access to the financial resources granted to recognized parties. In the eyes of Parliament, the NDP is now just a collection of independents with matching logos.

Davies was crowned NDP leader on May 7th, kicking things off with a statement where he admitted—shockingly—a few things may not have gone perfectly. He promised to ‘course correct’ and win back Canadians’ trust, in his words:

“We need to take a hard look at how we got to where we are, and we need a clear view of where we’re going,” Davies said. "We need to reconnect with working people and show them that the NDP is their party, the one that fights and delivers for them.”

Before concluding his statement, Davies outlined key priorities that the NDP will focus on under his watch. These include the housing crisis, pushing to strengthen public healthcare, and fighting for better wages.

“The strength of the NDP has always come from our members, activists, labour and supporters. I look forward to working with our caucus, our party, progressive allies and everyone ready to build a stronger, better, fairer Canada for everyone.”

The NDP is trying to project hope—and I don’t doubt the sincerity behind it. But we have to be honest with ourselves: the party is in a tough place right now, and it has been for a long time. The question a lot of New Democrats are starting to ask—and one we need to answer—is this: where did things start to go wrong, what’s stalled the parties momentum, and what’s it going to take to truly rebuild?

The Post-Layton Crossroads

Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair warmly clasp hands at an NDP event, surrounded by smiling supporters and campaign signs. Image credit: The Canadian Press/CBC News

It’s no secret the NDP hasn’t been the same since Jack Layton passed. Under his leadership, the party surged from socialist protest vote to Official Opposition status during a Harper majority. That was a big deal. Layton had vision, compassion, and political instincts the party hasn’t really seen since. His death left a hole the party’s been trying to fill ever since—and if we’re being honest, it still hasn’t.

After Layton, Thomas Mulcair stepped up. And say what you want, but Mulcair—at least in Parliament—was a beast. He knew his files, took no crap, and held Harper to account like no one else. “Angry Tom” wasn’t just a nickname—it was earned. And honestly? He brought up more of the issues I care about than Jagmeet Singh ever did. Electoral reform. Senate abolition. Media and government accountability. Things that actually mattered to people watching our democracy begin eroding under Harper.

Tom Mulcair calls out Andrew Scheer’s bias as house speaker. Video credit: Maclean’s

Also—and I say this respectfully—Mulcair had strong DILF energy. Just had to put that out there.

But Mulcair’s real failure came during the 2015 campaign, when he tried to out-centrist Trudeau. Not centrist in the practical, “I’ll work with anyone to get things done” way—more like fence-sitting on the stuff that mattered. He wouldn’t take a clear position on legalizing marijuana or running a deficit for social programs, even as Trudeau leaned into both. Remember: Trudeau was literally outflanking the NDP from the left. The Liberals. That’s how the NDP went from 103 seats to 44 seats in one cycle. Let’s not forget either—marijuana legalization wasn’t a fringe issue. There was an entire registered party dedicated to it. They never won a seat, but they had enough of a base to move the needle when paired with Liberal support.

The Marijuana Party of Canada joins Vancouver Pride 2010, waving cannabis-themed Canadian flags and promoting legalization with bold banners. Image credit: The Guardian

And in the Harper years, when programs were being gutted in the name of “balanced budgets,” the NDP had a real opportunity to speak up for working people and offer something bold. Instead, Mulcair played it safe. Worse, he made it seem like he was more ideologically aligned with Harper than with the progressives looking for an actual alternative. If he’d focused his fire on Harper instead of Trudeau? Who knows. We might’ve had our first NDP government.

Post-Mulcair

Thomas Mulcair speaks at the 2016 NDP convention in Edmonton, where party members later voted to remove him as leader. Image credit: Canada’s National Observer

After the 2015 loss, Mulcair’s leadership was immediately called into question. In 2016, at the Edmonton convention, delegates voted to oust him as leader. To this day, he’s the only federal NDP leader to ever get the boot by the party. Say what you will about Mulcair’s campaign decisions, but that moment said more about the NDP’s internal identity crisis than it did about him. The base was angry, confused, and desperate to change course—but the direction they picked? That’s still up for debate.

The leadership race that followed in 2017 brought us Jagmeet Singh.

Charismatic, sharply dressed, a great public speaker—he looked like the future. Singh had served as an MPP at Queen’s Park, where he made a name for himself on issues like police reform and drug decriminalization. Important stuff, no question. But here’s the thing: unlike Layton, who built real policy wins on city council, or Mulcair, who served as a cabinet minister in Quebec, Singh didn’t come into federal leadership with any serious legislative accomplishments. Not a single bill passed under his name while he was at Queen’s Park. That’s not necessarily a dealbreaker—but it mattered. Especially when you're up against leaders with track records of actually changing things. Singh was historic in his own right—the first visible minority and first practicing Sikh to lead a major federal party in Canada. As the son of Indian immigrants, his presence at the top of a national ticket was powerful and overdue. Representation does matter. But representation without results? That’s where people start asking tough questions. And over time, those questions would only get louder.

Singh as NDP Leader

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh arrives for campaign event at the Peel Basin in Montreal. Image Credit: Pierre Obendrauf/Montreal Gazette

Under Singh’s leadership, the NDP correctly recognized there was a problem with Mulcair’s tenure, but they completely misdiagnosed what that problem actually was. Instead of learning from 2015 and doubling down on core progressive principles like electoral reform, Singh’s NDP quietly shelved them. He mentioned electoral reform once in 2017—and then radio silence until 2025, when he finally brought it up again… only after it was clear he was about to lose third place in his own riding. By that point, it wasn’t policy—it was panic. But it wasn’t just electoral reform advocates who were left behind. Disability rights advocates turned on Singh’s NDP over their support for the expansion of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). And then there was the Canada Disability Benefit—touted as a “historic step” by the Liberals and NDP, but widely panned by disabled Canadians as woefully inadequate. In many eyes, it didn’t lift people out of poverty—it locked them into it, just with a different name on the cheque.

There’s been serious debate among New Democrats about whether Singh’s legacy is a net positive or a net negative. Personally? He’s the reason I left the party—but he’s also the reason I joined in the first place. That’s the duality of Jagmeet Singh. He inspired a new generation of Canadians—racialized youth, progressives, people who hadn’t felt seen before in federal politics. And yet, for many of us, that inspiration eventually gave way to disappointment. Singh’s most defining political move would likely be the 2022 Supply and Confidence Agreement (SCA) with the Trudeau Liberals. Signed in the aftermath of the Ottawa occupation, the SCA offered stability to a government reeling from crisis, in exchange for delivering on long-standing NDP policy goals. And to be fair, the agreement did produce results.

Former NDP leader Jagmeet Singh meets with former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Image Credit: CBC

The Canadian Dental Care Plan gave coverage to thousands of children, seniors, and people with disabilities. Workers in federally regulated sectors finally gained access to 10 paid sick days. There were new investments in housing, clean energy, and reconciliation. On paper, the crown jewel of the agreement was the Universal Pharmacare pilot program, which now covers diabetes medication and contraceptives—and, in British Columbia, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for those going through menopause. Transgender Canadians were excluded from that HRT coverage, even in a province where the NDP holds a majority government. It was a devastating oversight. And for many LGBTQ Canadians, it confirmed that even in 2025, our fight is still an afterthought, even to the NDP.

By the time the 2025 election rolled around, Singh ran an even worse campaign than Mulcair. And that’s saying something. Mulcair may have tried to rebrand himself as a centrist in 2015, but at least he wasn’t actively misleading voters about the government’s record. Singh, on the other hand, spent most of his campaign deflecting criticism of the Liberals, trying to sell voters on what the NDP almost did through the SCA, rather than what he planned to do as prime minister.

It didn’t work. And honestly? The loss was deserved. Singh’s time as leader will be remembered for bold optics, weak follow-through, and a party that forgot how to fight for the very people who built it.

So, what’s the problem???

People romanticize 2011 as if it were some kind of turning point, and in a way, it was. But it wasn’t because the NDP suddenly became this unstoppable force. It was the result of a political vacuum—Harper was faltering, and the Liberals were running back-to-back flops as leaders. Layton stepped into the void. He had charisma, a track record, and good timing. Did he have skeletons? Absolutely. Living in subsidized housing well above his income bracket, “rub and tug” stories—take your pick. But he made people believe the NDP could be more than a pressure tactic.

Then he died—and that belief turned into legend.

And that’s where the first big problem begins: New Democrats have turned Jack Layton into a myth. Some folks genuinely think winning 100 seats under a Harper majority somehow meant more than founding public healthcare. It’s wild. It’s not even revisionist—it’s delusional. The bigger issue, though, has been building for decades. Since the ’80s, the NDP has slowly drifted rightward. It came to a head under Mulcair, when they literally deleted the word socialism from the party constitution. And for what? To chase moderate Conservatives. To try and be “respectable.” Spoiler: it didn’t work then, and it didn’t work now—just like it didn’t work for the U.S. Democrats in 2024 when they tried the exact same thing.

By 2025, the NDP had truly stopped fighting for the working class and started speaking like consultants. They treated major issues—such as Gaza—not with moral clarity, but like they were campaign talking points. No wonder people tuned out. And then the strategic voting crowd appears again, guilting people into voting Liberal in ridings where the Liberals never had a shot. The end result? NDP seats lost to people like Aaron Gunn. That’s not strategy. That’s how you lose movements.

The NDP Was Never Meant to Win—And That’s Not a Bad Thing

Say what you want about Jagmeet Singh—and believe me, there’s plenty to say—but even with all the baggage, and even after the disaster that was the 2025 election, I honestly think the NDP is better off now than it was before.

Here’s the part a lot of people—especially New Democrats—tend to forget: the NDP wasn’t built to win power. When it was the CCF, it was founded as a protest party. It was supposed to push the Liberals to make policy concessions. That’s it. That’s the whole blueprint. Tommy Douglas, the so-called "father of universal healthcare," didn’t create the party to lead the government—he created it to make the government lead better. And by that measure? Singh actually did pretty well.

Protest parties don’t have to win to make a difference. They just have to hold the line. When they stop doing that—when they start chasing power for power’s sake—that’s when they lose everything. Look to the Marijuana Party if you want to see what winning actually looks like. No seats, no money, no clout, but they held the damn line. Built a movement. Changed the country. That’s victory.

The truth is, the NDP was always strongest when it stood for something, even if it meant losing. If the NDP wants a future, it has to stop being afraid of its past. Go back to its roots. Be bold. Stand for something. Because if you don’t, no one else will.