T he notion that Stephen Harper should lead his party in the next federal election is a matter of wide consensus among Conservatives, but the same cannot necessarily be said of Jack Layton and the NDP.

A column that concluded it was premature for the prime minister to consider a walk in the snow drew positive responses from many Conservatives last week. Some of the most vocal criticism it inspired came from people who had concluded from the column headline that it was an invitation for Harper to quit and had not taken the time to actually read it.

There are also Conservative supporters who simply cannot countenance the notion that they might lose the next election and who react viscerally to any suggestion that their party is fallible.

The bottom line, though, is that there is no serious Conservative appetite for a change in leadership before the election, including among the Prime Minister's potential successors, who mostly have no inclination – should Conservative fortunes deteriorate further – to risk becoming Harper's Kim Campbell.

A column about a major shift in NDP focus that could see that party ensure the survival of the minority Conservative government over the coming months drew a very different response.

Some New Democrats were so adamant that their party would never lift a finger to prolong the life of the Harper regime that they argued the column was based on a figment of my imagination.

Layton's post-Easter change of heart was not widely reported on but in a published interview last week, Brian Topp, the NDP's national campaign director, laid out some of the rationale behind it.

"The New Democrat caucus tried to do a big thing – tried to replace the government. And it didn't happen. That's the most memorable thing our team has done so far in this Parliament. Undertakings that don't succeed don't build support," he told The Globe and Mail, adding: "As they have done in every minority Parliament since the 1920s, the New Democrats are saying they will look for ways to make progress on the agenda the NDP committed to pursue during the last election. That includes using the NDP's balance of power position in Parliament to try to make progress."

If the reaction to my column is typical of the grassroots reception to the new NDP tack, co-operating with the Conservatives will be a hard sell with many New Democrats.

Some of them are suggesting that the only viable way to justify extending the life of the Harper government would be to use the time to change leaders.

While most New Democrats do not blame Layton for being left at the altar of the coalition, there is a growing feeling that he has taken the party as far as he could. Current polls do suggest that he is facing diminishing returns in the next election.

A leadership campaign would certainly give the NDP the much-needed pre-election exposure it has so desperately come to crave since Michael Ignatieff has become Liberal leader.

Opening up the leadership at a time when the party is in a position of relative strength might also attract more interesting candidates than one that takes place against the backdrop of an election setback.

As things stand today, at least one prominent potential successor to Layton, Outremont's Thomas Mulcair, might not even have a seat in Parliament after the next election.

And he could be just one of many NDP casualties.





Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.