CKNW Editorial
for September 24, 1999

So, the next election is a slam dunk for the Liberals and Gordon Campbell, right?

Not necessarily and I’ll tell you why, though at the risk of a deluge of mail calling me a fear-monger and worse. This is a great time for emotion – the NDP are terrible and we’ll go for anything that isn’t NDP.

Well, that mood should prevail. The NDP have no right to elect more than a handful of seats, half a dozen at the most. But if those who want the NDP out are content to rest on those laurels, there could be trouble ahead.

Let’s look at the dynamics of politics in recent history. In December of 1995 Mike Harcourt, caught up in a web not of his own making, the Nanaimo Bingo scandal, took one for the team and quit. Within weeks of that happening Glen Clark took over just as the Hydrogate scandal was exposed by the Liberals. Mr Clark went on to win with less than 40% of the vote, in May.

Why did Mr Clark win? Mainly because he wasn’t Mike Harcourt. For all his claims to decisiveness, Mike Harcourt was anything but and, worse, looked anything but. People saw him as a weak leader, unable to cope with the problems beginning to close in on British Columbia and went for a man who looked strong. And whom did Glen Clark look strong against?

None other than Gordon Campbell. Here is the first political lesson, then. Governments are elected by people assessing the alternatives. Clark looked very good against Harcourt so people assumed that the NDP would greatly improve. Clark looked good against Campbell, ergo, the NDP is re-elected.

Are people mad at the NDP right now? The answer is, of course, yes. But the polls indicate that they’re not nearly as angry as they were before Clark resigned.

Now let’s follow the events through. Whether it is Ujjal Dosanjh, Joy McPhail or Gordon Wilson the statement made will be obvious – whatever I am I’m sure as hell not Glen Clark. That in itself is probably worth 10 points in the polls.

Now let’s make another assumption. Let’s assume that the new Premier can come to grips with the economic catastrophe we have on our hands and can put forward a cogent plan for putting our finances back on a sound footing. No matter what he or she says it will not alter the fact of the mess we’re in nor the responsibility for that mess but it will put the issue squarely to Mr Campbell and the debate will be on. We’ll then see whether or not Mr Campbell can match the arguments.

What I’m saying is this. The NDP have been a terrible government but the personification of the worst part of that, Glen Clark will be gone. That in itself will bring a lot of the traditional NDP support back to the fold.

Now we still have the age old problem. Gordon Campbell has tried to make the Liberal Party all inclusive but to a lot of people they’re still the bluddy Liberals. Campbell had the chance to change the name of his party and, in effect, revive the old Socred coalition but he didn’t. I don’t care how many old Socreds and Reformers the Liberal Party can trot out, they had a very low premium to pay to be all but certain of victory – they could have junked the Liberal name but they didn’t.

This means once again we must assess the Third Party strength. If Bill Vander Zalm can get anything more than 20-25% of the vote in the South Delta by-election he will have won a victory. He will have, in a straight fight, have scored well enough to brag in the places where he can do the most harm – in the interior and north of this province. If Campbell had junked the Liberal name, there would be no Bill Vander Zalm to worry about.

How would I be betting?

I think there will be a May 2000 election and the Liberals will win a landslide. But the difference between a landslide and a loss is perhaps 5% of the voters – as little as that. Slip from 45% to 40% in the wrong places with some strength in Reform and the NDP could slip back in.

Despite the appalling record of this government, any one of the three main contenders for the premiership makes an attractive candidate. A candidate with lots of warts, but attractive for all that against the opposition he or she faces. It’s true, if unfair that Gordon Campbell, while a fine, decent man somehow has trouble clicking with voters, especially female voters.

Which leads directly to Mair’s Axiom II which says, you don’t have to be a 10 in politics, you can be a 3 if everyone else is a 2.