“B.C. doesn’t need
two Liberal parties.” With those words,
B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix made
the announcement last September 23 that he was going to hold the reins of the
party leadership until a leadership vote could be taken “by mid-2014 at the
latest.” This was in stark contrast to the calls by Ian Waddell, Bill Tieleman,
Michael Byers and others for a much longer and more wide–open contest that
would stimulate party renewal and give
every competent candidate a fair shot. Dix’s
initial insistence on a shorter time frame, with himself in control in the
meantime, along with a thinly veiled swipe at the more centrist and business
friendly candidates (Gregor Robertson?) invited some observers –myself
included—to speculate that Dix was
perhaps allowing his own biases to influence the process too much. It was
difficult to resist such speculation as long as his longtime friend and
colleague John Horgan was the frontrunner to replace him.
I am happy to report that the situation has changed somewhat. Last
month the date for the leadership vote was set for September, which will mean that nearly a full year will have been allowed for the leadership race to unfold. Mr.
Horgan decided not to run, saying more fresh blood was needed (evidently not an
endorsement of Mike Farnworth). Mr. Dix still points to members of his caucus
as the best people to replace him, but to be fair, several are strong candidates
and they do represent a fairly wide range of backgrounds and viewpoints. The new schedule is still awkward for the federal MPs (who must
choose whether to fight the 2015 election) and the mayors of Vancouver and
Victoria( who need to complete their terms of office) but is more reasonable
than it first appeared. It also gives us
more time to reflect on Dix’s comment that “B.C. doesn’t need two Liberal
parties.”
The statement assumes, first of all, that the B.C. Liberal
Party is a liberal party. Is it a
liberal party in the same sense that Gordon Gibson and David Anderson used to
imply that it was—a distinctly centrist alternative to either the NDP on the
left or the Socreds/Conservatives on the right? Remember that until the early
1990s Gordon Campbell was clearly grooming himself to be a future Social Credit
premier. With the sudden collapse of
Social Credit in the 1991 election, Campbell turned his attention to a
takeover of the Liberal Party, openly saying that labels didn’t matter very
much, openly speaking of Bill Bennett as one of his role models. He succeeded
in taking over the party in 1993, bringing many former Socred supporters on
board with him. Swingeing 20% across-the-board tax cuts, and attempts to shift
revenue from progressive taxation onto carbon and sales taxes, were hallmarks
of his time in office, even if he did change direction on environmental and
First Nations policies when he needed to. The current premier ran the last
provincial election with none other than Brad Bennett at her side as a special advisor, running a classic
Socred-style campaign that preyed on the economic fears of marginal voters.
When she lost her seat in Point Grey, she was welcomed with open arms by the Bennetts in their traditional Social
Credit Kelowna stronghold. She hopes
Liquid Natural Gas will help her to avoid difficult decisions, and help to
obscure her bad ones, while trying to frighten voters away from " the socialists". Is that what a Liberal is?
In two –party systems everywhere, both parties compete for
the centre vote; those that do so from the left typically have a distinctly
different set of priorities and base of support from those that do so from the
right. For the NDP to concede the centre to the
Liberals is to consign itself to Opposition most of the time, and to rely only
on split votes and occasional government collapse in order to win by
default. And with the decline of the
blue collar constituency as a proportion of the electorate, New Democrats cannot assume that history is on their side, as
they often did in the mid-twentieth century. In this century, at least, it is
in the interest of both the NDP and the public as a whole that it strive to
represent a true majority of the electorate.
That means bridging urban and rural, business and labour, green as well
“development” oriented voters —better than the Liberals have. If that means "moving to the centre," then so be it--especially if B.C. 's so-called Liberal Party continues to leave the NDP so much room to manoeuvre in the middle of the political spectrum.
2 comments:
The collapse will be that of the NDP and whatever it is they're still supposed to stand for.
Layton/Mulcair transformed the federal NDP into Latter Day Liberals, abandoning the Left in Canada and leaving the country a far worse place for it.
There was nothing at all wrong with a Left NDP in the last election beyond an incompetent leader who refused to accept that politics is a blood sport.
Maybe, but there's evidence that the polls got the election wrong because they assumed that younger voters, most of whom planned to vote NDP, would actually vote. They didn't, and the NDP, trying to appear non-frightening, mostly came off as rather boring, which doesn't help with a younger generation who think that politicians are just crooks and no party offers them anything much. A left party, more than any other party, needs to have a vision and concrete, integrated policies, both on revenue and spending. Ironically, the NDP may be shooting itself in the foot by trying to appease groups who would never vote for them while offering little more than homilies to the "show me" folks, including almost everyone under the age of 35.
Post a Comment