Vancouver Courier
for August 30, 1998

Last column I analyzed the last 7 years of NDP government, with my usual restraint and lack of bias, and concluded that they were pretty awful. In past columns I've talked about the return of Bill "The Avenger" Vander Zalm leading to a possible split of the right wing vote. Today let's look at the possibility of an NDP meltdown.

Before getting into that, let's examine some meltdowns past.

The classic is the Tory evaporation of 1993. But one must be careful to remember that while Kim Campbell and her party vanished there was another Tory party in place in Ontario and western provinces, the Reform Party, which elected more than 50 seats and spoiled a lot of otherwise safe seats in Ontario. But it was a big meltdown all right.

A better example was 1991 when the Socreds fell from a massive victory in 1986 to the "third party" . This was truly a case of voters saying no matter what, we'll take anyone but you. There was no other right wing option - until after the event when the Liberals were in second place. On election day voters weren't considering the Liberals as a serious alternative, just a place to park a protest vote.

What do those two meltdowns tell us about the possibility of an NDP wipeout in 2000?

One thing they had in common was a complete loss of credibility both of the party and the leader, though mostly the latter.

Bill Vander Zalm was enormously popular in 1986 though God knows why. Thanks to the tough policies of his predecessor, the province had weathered a recession and was in the middle of Expo '86. Everyone felt good. So, how did he lose credibility?

Because people found out who he really was - a charming decent man with enough charisma for a dozen people who couldn't lead a boy scout troop. He lost senior cabinet ministers on questions of principle, he had four MLAs leave caucus and he couldn't say Merry Christmas on December 24th without causing a controversy. By the time he resigned there was nothing any predecessor could do to save the Socreds from the hearse.

Brian Mulroney never had much credibility to start with but the public gave him that rare commodity and hoped for the best because they wanted to see the back of Pierre Trudeau so much. And Mulroney knew politics - his downfall came because he didn't know the country, especially this part of it. The election of 1993 was decided on October 26, 1992 when the public rejected Charlottetown. Brian Mulroney invested every bit of his credibility in that fight and he got thrashed.

There is another common element - both Vander Zalm and Mulroney ministers looked bad unto scandalous. I would argue, though, that if leaders stay credible, other sins the voter will quietly overlook.

What then of the Glen Clark government?

Mr Clark came to power because Mike Harcourt was weak and undecided. Nanaimogate did him in and Clark, in what in retrospect looks an awful lot like a coup d'etat, came on as the strong leader who could lead the party back.

And he did. But in so doing Clark made Mulroney's mistake - he put his credibility on the line. Three examples - the June 1996 budget, the Salmon wars and native land claims.

He was, at best, on probation with the voters in 1996. He was re-elected on his personal assurance that he really didn't know much about the "Hydrogate" scandal and besides, the province was in such good financial shape he had a cornucopia of wonderful things to build for us.

The phony budget of June 1996, coming right after his election squeaker, scattered his credibility to the winds - so much so that two years later it was the main issue in the failed attempt to unseat Paul Ramsey in Prince George.

Then came the Salmon wars which, in 1997 Clark was winning hands down. But he showed no ability to stockpile his chips and sit out a few hands. The enemy was Ottawa in the person of the easily disliked David Anderson and Clark played big stakes in every hand till it was one hand too many. To lose out to David Anderson in a popularity contest is incredible enough but to lose because you had to show your manhood every time the cards were dealt is asking for trouble - big trouble.
Now there's the Nisga'a Treaty. Instead of playing this one with care, Clark has blundered and bludgeoned his way into deep trouble. He misread polls and thought that the people didn't care about the details. He has invested his political career and that of his party on this issue giving, at the same time, a golden opportunity to Gordon Campbell to finally distance himself from the federal Liberals on a key issue.

It may not happen but the right ingredients for a 2000 version of 1991 & 93 are in place.