Georgia Straight
for December 1994, Article 5

This time of year, fearless, but invariably inaccurate prognosticators like me get a chance to help pay for the season's frivolities by doing odd TV spots and extra little bits of writing. Notwithstanding past inaccuracies, nigh unto the absurd in some cases, feeding hands that one has bitten regularly, like the CBC, all seem to want some sort of "yearender" with fresh new dubious propositions with which to see out the old year and usher in the new. It is encouraging to me and my banker that the political analyst's main axiom, namely predict all possible results in the hopes that the occasional accurate forecast will be remembered, still works so well.

1995 will be, we are told, an election year in B.C. This is a pretty safe bet, but by no means a sure thing. What the NDP needs is a good poll or two and, of late, they've been hard to come by. This, I think, is because the large swing group in the center, which really decides elections, is unhappy with the leadership of Mike Harcourt. Under our flawed system, the leader gets to hand out all the goodies and because MLAs on the winning team want to get into Cabinet and, once in, stay there, they don't make unnecessary waves. The public knows this so that despite appearances to the contrary, elections tend to be leader against leader rather than on straight party lines.

With the exception of 1975 when Winnie-the Pooh could have led the Socreds to victory over the NDP, every election for 50 years or more has had two features - it has been leader against leader and the winner has taken fewer than 50% of the votes cast.

This hasn't necessarily meant that the most "popular" leader has won - Dave Barrett was always better liked than Bill Bennett but Bennett polled higher when pollsters asked who would make a better premier.

So for openers, I suggest that the NDP have a problem which historically has been a serious one - a leader who is not seen as an effective leader by the "non aligned" middle voter who determines the winner.

But if the NDP go into 1995 with problems, so do other parties.

I start by discounting Gordon Wilson and his tiny family compact party because, frankly, they are simply not a factor, which is a pity since both of them are good MLAs and Mr Wilson has an especially clear political vision.

I also discount the Socreds because they are stone cold dead.

The Reform Party will have declared their leader in a couple of weeks and if it is anyone other than Jack Weisgerber, he will be an utter unknown without a seat in the Legislature. If Mr Weisgerber wins he will inherit a badly divided party having trouble identifying where it stands to the public.

The Liberals have made great strides under Gordon Campell's leadership and I must say that I am mildly surprised. I thought Mr Campbell had very limited capacity to grow and I may have been quite wrong.

He has his problems though. The NDP, always masters at turning up dirt (if only because they had so much practice in opposition) are turning up the burners to get some on Mr Campbell. There is more than a little hypocrisy in this, given the Colin Gabelmann false affidavit matter and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holdings fiasco, but there is no doubt that Mr Campbell's predisposition, when Mayor of Vancouver, towards his developer pal Jim Moodie, will be pushed as evidence of his unsuitability to be Premier.

The main thing the NDP have going for them is history and it is useful to examine the record of the last quarter century to see how voting patterns have helped the NDP when there is more than one serious contender on the right hand of the political spectrum.

In 1972, with active Liberal and Conservative parties in the race along with the Socreds, the NDP won a landslide with less than 40% of the vote.

In 1975, the NDP increased their popular vote yet lost a landslide to a Socred coalition which had absorbed the Grits and Tories.

In 1979 and '83 the Socreds won in what were essentially straight fights with the NDP but it is most enlightening to compare 1986 with 1991.

In 1986 the Vander Zalm led Socreds, again in a straight fight with the NDP, won a landslide.

In 1991, with a lower popular vote than they lost a landslide by in 1986, the NDP won a landslide victory. The difference, of course, was that in 1991 there was a split in the non NDP vote between the dying Socreds and the resurgent Liberals.

1995 may prove different than past years. The NDP have, for some months, lagged in third place in the polls. If this trend continues, it may be a minority government but it won't include the NDP.

If I were betting a bob or two on the outcome, however, I would go with history. If an election is called in 1995 you can be sure that the polling numbers will have improved for the NDP. This will be because Elizabeth Cull will have brought in a good-looking, though probably highly suspect budget, and Glen Clark will have BC 21 slapping down pavement and building things to a fare-the-well, especially in marginal seats.

It won't take much for the NDP to get back in the hunt provided the stronger members of cabinet bury their own leadership ambitions and prop up their irresolute and usually ill informed leader.

If that happens, count the number of parties which are real players in the election. If you get past your second pinkie, put your dough on history - and the NDP.