Although Paul Martin is already billed as the biggest loser of Monday’s election, I can’t help but thinking that it is the ‘old left’ in general that will be dealt a blow of historically significant proportions. As such, Martin will have to share the losing honors with union leader Buzz Hargrove who made a gross strategic error by severing ties with the resurgent and popular left-wing New Democrats (NDP). Instead he devoted his energies to propping up the faltering and clueless campaign conducted by the Liberals, something to which 'the Buzz' himself vigorously contributed.

The NDP – no longer directly beholden to union interests – has capitalized on the Liberal fall by surging in the polls and by delivering a surprisingly centrist campaign. Any change is of course hard and terribly slow, but by promoting mandatory sentencing and a commitment to not raise taxes there are promising signs of the left's incipient common sense. And their leader, Jack Layton, is not a fool. Layton correctly sensed that there was little to be gained for his party by attacking Harper’s conservatives, but that there was a far bigger chunk of disgruntled Liberals to be had. And judging from the numbers, he’s getting them.

By running a positive and palatable campaign - boosted by Hargrove’s gift that kept on giving – the New Democrats may have started to entertain thoughts of outpolling the Liberals and form the opposition. A hard-left that rejuvenates itself by severing union ties and which focuses on issues that motivate its often urban base (taxes, crime) may be turning itself into a modern and more flexible force, as Tony Blair has proven in Britain.

The “Canada’s Blair” moniker was therefore probably a little too prematurely handed to Michael Ignatieff. The Independent has taken a closer look at his foray into politics, and highlighted the problems the politician- philosopher has run into during his first campaign:

Nonetheless, wherever Ignatieff goes on the trail these days, he is dogged by protesters, some dressed in the orange jump-suits worn by inmates of Guantanamo Bay. There are other allegations against him, that he is too pro-American and most relating to his role as one of the left's lonely supporters of the Bush-Blair decision to invade Iraq, without UN support. For many grassroots Liberals in Canada, this is too much.

What irony to see a representative of Canada’s left-liberal establishment run into potential electoral trouble against a conservative because of the humane instincts that led him to support the liberation of Iraq. But it wasn’t just that particular issue that affected his chances. Since Liberal Party arrogance is one of the major themes of this federal election, the way Ignatieff was parachuted into the Etobicoke-Lakeshore riding was due to come under some form of scrutiny. Therefore it is Ignatieff’s association with the incumbents that may prove to be the millstone that is dragging down his efforts, or as Colby Cosh argued a while ago:

But Ignatieff regards the Liberals the same way all Liberals do, though he is more candid than most. He sees them as "the governing party", period. It's a matter of religious faith. So while he might be capable of quarrelling with the Liberals on fine points of post-Pearsonian foreign policy, he is utterly unprepared to offer a comprehensive critique of the party's history.

And with that Canada’s future is probably best served by a Conservative government, counter balanced by a left-of-center opposition that is no longer encumbered by a heavy institutional history or demands - read organized labor - that no longer have a solid footing in today’s reality. Canada's renewal will have to come from both the right and the left. On Monday we will see if the re-alignment of the left is siginificant enough to contribute to that much needed process.