Certainly I was sorry for Carole whom I believe is a fine person who probably, as I said long ago, is not of the right temperament for politics, BC style. She’s a conciliator not a fighter but ironically because she couldn’t conciliate her own party she had to leave. But, she couldn’t conciliate her own party, because conciliators don’t work out in BC politics. Follow me so far …?

The first problem the NDP has is how to name a replacement. There is a clause for leadership review for next November  but the review has just happened so when and how is Ms James to be replaced? While I don’t know a damned thing about the NDP Constitution it must allow for an extraordinary leadership convention when they don’t have one, as was the case when Glen Clark resigned in 1999 and in February 2000 was replaced by Ujjal Dosanjh.

The timing of a leadership convention is a delicate question. Ms James spoke of an interim leader in the New Year so the question is whether a convention is called before November or not. My suggestion – made so as to ensure it will never happen – would be to wait until next November with an interim leader, someone who agrees not to stand for leader as Dan Miller did in 1999. There are deep wounds within the party and to have an early leadership convention would simply have them deepen not heal.

These wounds reflect not so much upon Ms James but on the divisions she went in with, mainly over the power of Labour within the party. These divisions are easily exacerbated in the NDP, especially when leaders are selected. One obvious division is personified by Moe Sihota whose salary is being paid by the Union movement. There are three factors there: (1) many just don’t like Moe very much (2) there was resentment that the decision to pay him was secret (3) the payment coming from Labour sent a message that Labour was fighting to recover lost territory.

To hold an early leadership convention would see much more blood spilt in public. It will be spilled anyway, but by November such cooler heads as there are in the party will have had a chance to look for ways to smooth over the ruffled feathers with a view to “fixing” the convention to the degree it can be fixed.

The obvious danger is that postponing the convention will give the new Liberal Premier a chance to build up his party’s fortunes; the extent to which they can do that depends, of course, on who that premier is. The long shot whose odds have shortened by Jame’s going is Carole Taylor.

Who are the favourites for the NDP crown?

It’s rather like looking over a crop of yearlings and picking out which one will win the Kentucky Derby – there are many imponderables, the first of which is can he/she come from the 13 dissidents who brought James down?

Conventional wisdom says that Brutus never wins the crown though the dirtiest, craftiest Brutus of them all, the now finally disgraced Brian Mulroney, is the obvious exception. The Bruta (assuming the feminine of Brutus), Jenny Kwan has a lot of IOUs in the party not just for her obvious abilities but for her service in the two person caucus after the 2001 debacle.

Assuming that you find any NDP MLA attractive, there are several attractive choices amongst the dissenters, Norm Macdonald from Columbia River-Revelstoke being one. Apart from being a dissenter he also comes from a small political base meaning he would have to earn delegates elsewhere.

Katrine Conroy and Robin Austin also suffer that problem. Claire Trevena certainly fits the right NDP image of being female and able to win a tough constituency.

From the “loyalist” list we have several contenders including Dawn Black, Kathy Corrigan, Adrian Dix, Mike Farnworth, John Horgan, Michael Sather, and Leonard Krog.

I will, in a bit, give you my hopes rather than predictions but first there are three “outsiders” one cannot rule out no matter what they say.

Corky Evans may have been away but not so far that he couldn’t circulate a lengthy letter enumerating the sins of Carole James just when she least needed it.

Gregor Robertson denies any interest but I’ll be more persuaded of that stand after some time has passed, especially if there doesn’t seem to be a favourite emerging.

Joy MacPhail has been seen about these days and I mention her because she has a following and a not bad record as a cabinet minister in tough portfolios.

Now permit me to put my environmentalist’s hat on. Call me “one issue Rafe” if you will but to me the “environment” is the overriding issue and here’s why – we can lose money and we can fail many people and groups but those things can be fixed; while all harms and wrongs cannot be fully repaired, changes in government can usually make things better.

When we destroy our environment, it’s gone forever. Moreover, the people I mention, I believe would clearly work to save the environment and also keep our commitment to good fiscal policy and social issues.

Norm Macdonald, mentioned above, would suit my criteria admirably. I’ve seen him up close and must say it’s a pity he will be dissed as a conspirator but I think as time passes that will too.

I’m also impressed by Katrine Conroy who has deep roots in the party which will probably erase her “sins” if disloyalty to Carole James is that, and has a good record on the “environment”.

I have not mentioned Michelle Mungall from Nelson Creston because she is a rookie and young – but young and free of old time baggage might be the way the campaign goes and stranger things have happened.

I also think that Mike Farnworth is an experienced legislator and sound on environmental matters. The experience he’s had over the years has clearly strengthened him.

My main choice, in a tossup with Farnworth, would be John Horgan, the energy critic. He understands the terrible Campbell Energy Plan and the inevitable consequences of it. He also has been the most forthright on what must be done including the making public of all the IPP contracts and judging them as to whether or not they are unconscionable. The issue with John is health as he is a cancer survivor.

Am I, then committed to the NDP? Is the Common Sense Canadian so committed?

The answer is a resounding NO! In fact we would welcome the presence of another party pledged to the values we, and thousands of British Columbians, are working to restore in this province we love. I would like to say that we haven’t given up hope on the Liberals but on their record, that’s surely too much to hope. Since the departure of Gordon Wilson in 1993 the Liberal party has become greedy and doctrinaire rightwing, moving, lamentably, over the last decade, steadily to the “right” to where they seem now to be just the political arm of the Fraser Institute.

The Common Sense Canadian is looking to saving our province from the fate of Brazil, Indonesia, Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico states and others which have had their heritage ravaged by greed accompanied, indeed encouraged  by government policy or indifference.

We at the Common Sense Canadian are busting our asses to bring decency, common sense, and sensitive leadership to BC to replace the destruction of our heritage and that which makes us unique.

Far from being anti business, all we ask is that companies behave themselves; all we ask government is to set out solid rules of environmental conduct and enforce them.

We don’t think that’s too much to ask and as we read it, neither does the majority of British Columbians.

I was surprised at the action taken by Jenny Kwan asking for a leadership convention. What a pickle this puts Carole James in!.

I want to say this about my own position.

PLEASE DON’T TAKE ANY OF MY POLITICAL RAMBLINGS TO CONNOTE ANY ASSESSMENTS TO BE PERSONAL. I KNOW, TO SOME DEGREE AT ANY RATE, ALL OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED AND BELIEVE THEM TO  BE, HOWEVER MISGUIDED, MERE MORTALS, AS WE ALL ARE.  WHOSE SINS ARE JUST A BIT BETTER KNOWN THAN OURS.

It’s hard to evaluate Ms Kwan’s move.

Is it an attempt to push herself as leader? Is it a scheme to advance the cause of another? Is it a genuine attempt to deal with a situation she truly believes is in the best interests of her party, given the desperate situation the Liberals find themselves. I believe that latter is the course and for what seems to Ms Kwan, to be a genuine reason.

Jenny Kwan spent 4 years along with Joy MacPhail as the entire opposition and knows how the Legislature works. She realizes that to be effective the legislature must be like trench warfare. She understands that with the voting system we have, the opposition has no chance at all of materially opposing government which leaves bitter warfare the only option.

I’ve been in this subject for a long time now but permit me to say this: as long as we persist in a system where a majority can do whatever it damned well pleases, the Opposition is limited to either raising hell or simply waiting out until the next election. The trouble with the latter is that while you make the legislature safe from tender children in the gallery, the public, not seeing a fighting opposition, won’t vote for you.

This is Carole James’ big problem. It simply isn’t her style to truly raise hell. She would do very well indeed in a system where minority governments were the rule and debates were truly that, not simply a vigorous exchange of views.

Ms. James also picked a time to be leader when the media supported the Liberals and disparaged the NDP. Nothing less than a strip tease during Question Period would have got her any coverage (pun intended).

With 2 ½ years to go until the next election, it would be foolish to make any predictions. All we do know is what the present state is and the trick is to extrapolate from this what possibilities there are. Having said that, the record indicates that only a tough leader with the support of caucus can win.

The NDP have a much bigger problem than the breach which besets them at this moment for this is only question #1 of a two part question namely, do we dump Ms James and if we do, who can unite the party?

There are, no doubt, some splendid members of caucus but a re-juggling of leadership, from within, will simply change the bitchers. How could any present member of caucus heal the deep wounds?

There is one name outside the caucus who could do this and it’s not Gregor Robertson. It’s – are you ready for this – Joy MacPhail. Although out of the limelight for a bit, and now, I’m told, working with a successful company and a good marriage, she has a good record in government and one can only marvel at what she and Ms Kwan did as the lonely opposition 2001-2005.

Moreover, Ms. MacPhail has lately been seen a bit around the party and party goings on.

What Gordon Campbell’s pending departure has done is to create a “new pitcher, new strikes” situation where with almost anyone the Liberals choose as the new premier, they will be competitive in 2013.

In fact, it the NDP doesn’t get its act together, they, not the Liberals, will be the underdog.

Looking at the candidates and assuming that Christy Clark will be in, I see nothing to choose amongst them with the exception that Kevin Falcon is the worst of a bad lot. What is so terrifying about this political situation in our province is that the Liberals may win again in default of another option.

On November 30, Carole James laid down her policies and one can only read them with a mixture of anger and sorrow if you care for our natural resources. The environment was well down the list of priorities and what she did say was the usual political bullshit. Generalities – nothing specific. I have the feeling that one of two things prevail in the NDP’s plans- either the rivers, our salmon, our Agricultural Land Reserve, our coastline mean nothing but issues for loud mouths like Donna Passmore, Alexandra Morton Rex Weyler, Joe Foy – and yes I will immodestly include Rafe Mair, OR she and the NDP haven’t got the guts to raise them as they are, preferring mindless political blather.

I voice this anger because if the NDP doesn’t raise these issues, Liberal leadership wanabes won’t either.

This question for Carole James and her party – are the serious breaches of the ALR, the slaughter of salmon by sea lice from salmon farms and the bankrupting of BC Hydro while destroying our environment, threatening our environment with pipelines, just second or third tier issues? Is it that the thousands who march, write and support the fights I’ve mentioned are just noisy kids who can be silenced by an ice cream cone with a warning that no further criticism of their “betters” will be tolerated?

Ms. James talks of “tough work and tough conversation”. Does tough conversation not include abusing farm land for highways? Fish farms? Pillage of our rivers and theft of our great power company, BC Hydro? Our pristine coast?

Each one of those headings calls either for very tough questions and decisions or indifference. There is no middle ground to be suffocated by banal bullshit. Either you state unequivocally that the ALR is a sacred issue or you don’t care because you can’t have a “protection when convenient” policy. Either you force fish farms out of our waters or you don’t. Either we prevent large corporations trashing our rivers while destroying BC Hydro, or you don’t. Either we permit plpelines bringing Tar Sands sludge across the province and down our coastline or you don’t. In short, meaning nothing personal of course, you can’t be a little bit pregnant.

Either you take them on in clear unmistakable, unadorned English, Ms. James, or you will quite properly be called a coward.

We all know that there is dissension in the NDP ranks. If that means that we’ll only have the “tough conversation” when you can keep your troops from deserting, it will be too late.

From the point of view of the environmentalist, the only thing worse than losing an election on these issues would be losing without a fight.

H.L. Mencken once said “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats”.

Those of us trying to preserve what we have for future generations, hearing the bilge we do, indeed, figuratively speaking, of course,  feel ready to start wielding cutlasses.

The NDP is in deep trouble, which is good news for the Liberals and for any fledgling party of the “centre.” Whether or not the NDP is in terminal trouble, in the sense of being probable losers in the next election, depends upon what they do now. Read full article at The Tyee: James Risks All By ‘Riding It Out’

Leaders of a political party are very difficult to depose especially if the party brass supports them as is the case, we must assume, with the NDP and the Liberals. We of a certain age saw how difficult it was for the Social Credit Party to get rid of Bill Vander Zalm in the late 80s. In his case it took a former Supreme Court judge, Ted Hughes to find him guilty of big time conflicts of interest before he would budge. By that time Mr Vander Zalm had sown the seeds of destruction within the party and, as some in the media (me) predicted, his refusal to budge from the premier’s office in good time brought the factions out and the party self destructed.

In fact, both the Liberals and NDP ought to look at the Vander Zalm case.

The fact patterns are different all around but there is this in common – their leaders became unpopular and, for different reasons, unelectable. It also appears, at this moment at any rate, that the parties themselves lack the will to depose their leaders and each of the leaders seems bent on staying on without any concern for the party. And it’s in the public interest that there be two parties, one on each side of the political spectrum. If one party crumbles because the leader is detested or seen as incapable of governing, the voter’s choice is to vote for a party that doesn’t suit their views, vote for a political corpse, fingers on the nose, or stay away from the polls. None of these options is in the public interest.

What about third parties?

The BC Heritage party holds right wing Christian notions and can never have anything remotely close to enough public support to win. The Greens – and at the core that’s where I am on environmental but not other issues – cannot get enough support to even elect an MLA much less become the government.

The BC First Party is mainly Chris Delaney and is positioned in the centre where the vacuum is. Delaney has a very good grasp of where British Columbians stand both on current issues and those which lie deep in their tummy. The problem is that Delaney seems unelectable although he has never been in a party that was electable. He is not, to put it kindly, charismatic. But neither was Pinocchio at his most popular and neither was Bill Bennett, but they each had the main asset needed for election – a substantial party and a core elector base.

Can Chris Delaney turn the BC First Party whose press releases are deleted even before they are opened?

It’s a long shot. All new parties attract tarnished wanabes from elections past where their public acceptance hovered near 0%. This makes it difficult for a new party to be taken seriously. For all their peccadilloes, voters want a party leader to look and sound like he/she can actually govern.

For the Liberals to win again they must have a new leader, new policies, and a commitment to environmental issues.

For the NDP they have two choices – stay with Ms James and hope that the Liberals don’t recover and that a new party doesn’t eat away at their Centre-Left position or it can change leaders.

There’s one rule of politics that never changes – once the leader has a revolt, however big or small, that leader is almost certainly wounded past his/her ability to recover.

For their parties to be in decent shape to fight the next election, their leaders must go, in the very near future, so the new leader has a chance grasp the nettle and run with it.

And if this column does nothing else you must admit it closed with one hell of a good mixed metaphor.

The latest polls put Gordon (Pinocchio) Campbell in deep doo-doo at 23 points behind the NDP.

First, let’s talk about what this means for the NDP. As Carole James looks at the numbers she will note that while the Liberals are way down, neither she nor her party have much benefited in the new numbers. In fact, the Green Party and the moribund Conservatives get more than one fifth of the action and though neither of them shows any ability to win seats, they can split the vote.

It also shows a remarkable opportunity for a new party of the centre. In spite of the idiotic blatherings of former Tory MP Randy White, the Conservatives are not going to get heaps of support because those angry voters won’t vote NDP thus rocketing some as yet unnamed Conservative into the Premier’s office.

Because Mr. White evidently doesn’t understand B.C. politics, here are some reasons why the local branch of Mr. Harper’s party is not even in the picture.

1. As Gordon Wilson understood and acted upon when he became leader of the BC Liberals, he immediately shed all connections to the federal party. British Columbians don’t like federal parties in their provincial elections. This doesn’t apply to the NDP because they have no chance of forming a federal government.

2. As emphasis to number one, a provincial Conservative party will forever be blamed for what Stephen Harper is doing and has done.

3. The political vacuum is at the centre, not the far right. British Columbia is not a right-wing province. Though we have elected lots of Conservatives and before them Reform Party MPs, that’s because we wanted reform and, given the stark choices, the Tories seemed a better bet than either of the other parties. Rafe’s Axiom II applied — “You don’t have to be a 10 in politics, you can be a 3 if everyone else is a 2.”

Campbell will not be the opponent

Back to James. What does she do?

Her present policy, evidently, is to avoid the arena but to tiptoe around the spectators, telling chambers of commerce that she and her party are safe to vote for. I believe that’s a naïve approach.

She must judge the next election with the realistic strategy that since the Liberals will have a new leader, probably Carole Taylor, Diane Watts or Mike DeJong, she must govern herself accordingly. As long as James evades the issues of this day (more on issues in a moment), she’s really no better off than a Carole Taylor or Diane Watts who will be able to say “I wasn’t part of the past; let us deal with the future of this great province, blah, blah, blah” In essence their position will be “new pitcher, new strikes.”

Since most Liberal candidates will not have been in the present caucus, the Campbell baggage will be reduced, leaving James to face a newly branded Liberal party. She should prepare with that in mind.

Here’s the important part for the NDP. Either they take a stand against the James strategy or they get rid of her. They must make this decision before the end of this year. The NDP have a glorious history of eating their whelp in the manner of a frightened mother mink, a habit they must break now by either support for James’ policy or get it over with and install Adrian Dix or Mike Farnworth.

NDP’s great opportunity

Assuming the NDP does get its act together, why will a Liberal comeback be difficult if not impossible?

The answer is contained in what will hereafter be called “Rafe’s Axiom III,” namely, “never create an unpopular issue that will still be around at election time.”

To do so, is tantamount to suicide.

When I was in government an eon ago, we had an example of Rafe’s Axiom III. We had just been elected and had to clean up an NDP mess. The finance minister, the late Evan Wolfe, brought his proposed budget to cabinet, which called for raises in the price of rye, scotch, vodka, gin and beer.

Premier Bill Bennett gave one of his famous black scowls and said “don’t tax the workingman’s beer — do you want every voter in his watering hole reminded, every day from now until voting day, of our unpopular 1976 budget, which they otherwise would have forgotten?”

Lousy logic but great politics.

Let’s look at Premier Campbell’s violations of Axiom III:

1. Thanks to the Basi-Virk trial, the offloading of BC Rail to CN will still be an issue in 2013 — so will the fact that he had sworn in two elections that he wouldn’t do it.

2. Because of his spectacular election falsehoods about the huge deficit B.C. had, relying on ancient but much more digestible numbers, the Liberals will not be able to rely upon the myth that they know best how to manage our financial affairs.

3. The Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) will be a constant reminder, as beer would have been in Bill Bennett’s day, of this hated tax, an issue spliced with election untruths about it. In this latter regard, let me tell you that no deal like this with Ottawa can happen suddenly. In my experience, to put this whole deal together would required at least three months, perhaps longer.

4. One can only guess at what consequences will flow from Bill Vander Zalm and Chris Delaney’s successful campaign against the HST but, sure as God made little green apples, they won’t help the government!

5. As I predicted back in 2002, the destruction of wild salmon by lice emanating from fish farms will be very much in play in 2013 and, rightly, the Liberals will wear it. It’s now clear that Pinocchio and his minions knew about the sea lice problem before they removed the moratorium on increasing the number or capacity of fish cages and that they then hid the scientific evidence about that problem from the public while maintaining that all the science was on their side.

6. Pinocchio’s unbelievable rivers policy, where large international companies are destroying our rivers to create power at a time when BC Hydro doesn’t need it, forcing Hydro to export it for half or less than what they paid for it, will be front and centre — especially if, as I suspect, it results in civil disobedience.

7. More and more the Campbell decision to destroy wild habitat and farmland with his idiotic Gateway decision will be seen not only as environmentally destructive but lousy economics as it becomes obvious to all that Deltaport will not need to expand now that the Northwest Passage is open and the huge Panama Canal upgrades are finished.

8. A very antsy bunch of voters will, every day it pays a large toll on the new Highway 1, be reminded of why it hates the Campbell government.

9. Above all, Campbell and his government will be seen as serial tellers of blatant falsehoods.

Pussycat politics won’t win

Does all of this bode so evil for the Liberals that they will be facing a 2002-like wipeout?

On the merits it should, but merit doesn’t always count in politics. However they face this dilemma — if Campbell goes, the leadership contest will serve, as did the NDP convention that elected Ujjal Dosanjh, a public display of very soiled linen indeed.

On the other hand, if they do not replace Campbell, the next election could be a wipeout, especially if a new version of the old Social Credit Party with a credible leader (John Cummins and Vicki Huntington come to mind) appears on the scene.

Finally (no saying thank God!) all of this makes the issue of NDP leadership and policy the deciding factor.

Can pussycat politics prevail in this province? Or does winning require a snarling tiger? It’s one or the other, folks.

The New Democratic Party must answer that question soon.

Very soon.

There’s no need to dwell on Campbell – he is a horrible premier and the people are on to him and indeed were in the last election which he won because 50% of the voters stayed home and the NDP ran a pathetic campaign.

What about the leadership or lack of it shown by Carole James?

I’ve been very hard on her because she won’t do battle with the Liberals. I’ll tell you frankly how I could be wrong.

If the Liberals stay with Campbell in 2013 – and they may have no other choice – and if they continue to be lower than a snake’s belly in the polls, Ms. James tactic of staying cool and doing spade work constituency by constituency may pay off. The prospect of a premier that’s not always in your face may be appealing. Her gamble is that she will be listened to more and more the longer Campbell is Premier – that she will be seen as a statesman (sorry Carole, I just can’t spit stateswoman, statesperson out!) at a time when that will be the very thing people want.

There are two very important considerations Ms James must deal with. Whatever her strategy, she is owed the support of the party or the pink slip. And here is where the Liberals have their best thing going for them.

The NDP traditionally assassinate their leader. At the best of times they are at each others’ throats and these are not the best of times. Many blame Ms James for losing the last election and that, I can tell you from personal and close up observation, is unfair. After one fiasco that I was present at – the famous media flight over private power sites which was a shambles – I told her personally and in writing that whoever was running her campaign had a death wish for her which was clearly true. The NDP, if they want to win the next election – and it’s not always clear that they do want to win – they must either tell Ms James now that it’s time to go or rally behind her and her strategy.

What the NDP must do is make their decision now and base it on the assumption that there will be a new Liberal leader and if it’s Carole Taylor, Diane Watts or Mike DeJong it’s sort of like “new pitcher, new strikes” – a new game where past performance won’t much count…

What these numbers also tell me is that there is a golden opportunity here for a middle of the road party. This won’t likely happen as long as some who hate Campbell but loathe the NDP think that the public will vote for a party connected to Stephen Harper and run by Harperite Randy White. There’s a reason why Gordon Wilson, upon becoming leader of the BC Liberals, quickly seceded from the main party. He understood that British Columbians will not vote for a Liberal party or Conservative Party that’s a suburb of the national party. He knew that if he kept the federal association that the worst thing that could happen in a campaign was his federal leader endorsing him or, God forbid, campaigning for him. This rule doesn’t apply to the NDP because no one thinks the NDP will ever be the federal government.

These polls show two things for sure – the Liberals better get rid of Campbell before 2011 has passed and the NDP must either support Ms James or find someone they can all support and soon.

Cartoon by Ingrid Rice

Carole James is no autocrat — and her party, for better or worse, lacks discipline.

Much note has been taken in the press of the conflicting speeches of Jim Sinclair and Carole James at the recent NDP conference, with Sinclair representing the BC Federation of Labour and James speaking for herself and those who support her. I was surprised that columnists don’t understand that this sort of thing is endemic to this party.

First, one should know about the NDP’s “mother,” the CCF (Cooperative Commonwealth Federation). The Canadian Encyclopedia says this: “the CCF was founded in 1932 in Calgary as a political coalition of progressive, socialist and labour forces anxious to establish a political vehicle capable of bringing about economic reforms to improve the circumstances of those suffering the effects of the Great Depression. The main impetus for the formation of the new party came from farmers’ organizations (including the United Farmers of Alberta, which governed that province), and a handful of academics… allied with both farmer and trade-union organizations.”

The Columbia Encyclopedia version of the founding convention of the NDP puts it like this: “The New Democratic Party (NDP), a Canadian political party, was founded in 1961 when the CCF reorganized itself and entered into close ties with Canadian labor unions, especially the Canadian Labor Congress (CLC). The CCF, formed in 1932, began as a largely Western Canadian federation of farm, labor and socialist groups with a democratic socialist program of increased welfare measures, moderate nationalization, and government economic planning.”

Clearly, then, the distinction between “labour forces” and “trade unions” is key to understanding the foundation of the New Democratic Party.

Coalitions, and covering up

In days of yore when I sat in the legislature, I was always amused by NDP members calling us Socreds “a coalition” — as if they weren’t a better example of that than we were!

I think the distinction between the NDP and the Social Credit Party, aka the Liberal party of B.C., is that the former wants to gain power without ironclad party discipline, while the latter wants to keep it and knows that ironclad discipline is critical to that goal. The NDP coalition in power usually displays the traits of a shaky partnership — one of differing influences and issues trying to find a method of governance that keeps everyone in that coalition relatively at peace with the government. The Socreds/Liberals, on the other hand, display the discipline of people who put “staying in government” ahead of any wishes of partners in their coalition — or of those they represent.

In saying this, I’m not supporting or condemning either party — instead I’m demonstrating the different considerations each party’s leaders have.

Look at it this way. The very last keynote speaker the Liberals want is a union-bashing capitalist opposed to minimum wage, in favour of “right-to-work” legislation while insisting on cutting corporate taxes. Yet the very opposite of that was the person selected by the NDP for its keynote speech. It has no choice but to give its “left” the big speech, whereas the Liberals hide their “right” in the nearest closet.

That the Socred/Liberal approach is more successful, as is revealed by a quick look at election results in B.C. since the advent of W.A.C. Bennett. The NDP record is worse than that — only once, in 1996, have they won an election in a head-to-head combat with a strong opponent. In 1972, Dave Barrett simply filled a vacuum created by the collapse of an old, tired government. In 1991, after five years of Vander Zalm and his unfortunate successor, a fencepost with hair could have won for the NDP — in fact, they did it with a fencepost without hair.

Transparency versus autocracy

When Jim Sinclair spoke last week, he did so as a politician with his own constituency. He must speak for them because that’s his duty, and it’s the way he gets re-elected. He was there to make sure that the interests of the labour movement were shared with the convention in no uncertain terms. Moreover, it’s the labour movement that has lost its special voting bloc arrangement in the party, thanks to Carole James.

This is an awkward political situation. But is it to be condemned because it pays more than lip service to democracy and washes most of its laundry openly?

Put another way, is government by autocracy better because it is unyielding and pays no attention to those who disagree with it? Is government by autocracy better than a government that might, from time to time, dither because it is trying to deal with different issues within the party? I don’t know that answer. I just say that this is the way it is.

There is no doubt that the pundits are right in saying that James has a tough row to hoe. The NDP constantly creates circles that are impossible to square, and the leader must somehow deal with that. It’s not that Jim Sinclair doesn’t want the NDP to win. He just wants different things pledged towards that victory. He’s scarcely the only cross James must bear.

Left, more left, and further left

This isn’t a new or unique problem for the “left.” The British Labour Party has dealt with it, starting with the first time they were in power under Ramsay Macdonald. Interestingly, the Labour Party was founded as a working alliance between the trade unions and socialist societies such as the International Labour Party and the Fabian Society, a sort of parlour gathering of intellectuals like the Webbs and George Bernard Shaw.

Macdonald was a minority government prime minister in 1931 when the depression came, and he entered into a national coalition with the Conservatives under Stanley Baldwin. On the urgings of King George V, he then called (and won) an election as the leader of a “national government,” which split the Labour party, killed the Liberals and left Macdonald as prime minister. The breakdown in MPs was 554 seats — comprising 470 Conservatives, 13 National Labour, 68 Liberals (Liberal National and Liberal) and various others. In the meantime, a Labour party led by Arthur Henderson won only 52 seats while the Lloyd George Liberals won four. Macdonald governed for four years with only 13 seats!

That split in the Labour party is still there — although the “right wing” of the party has dominated the “left” since the end of World War II.

The proportional representation piece

Can the NDP survive and prosper under Carole James, or under anyone else for that matter?

It will be tough, but there is a solution which is now probably out of reach. That would be some sort of proportional representation that takes power away from the “party” and gives it to MLAs.

NDP Leader Carole James knows this and supports it, while powerful members of the party like David Schreck and Bill Tieleman oppose it.

And that’s the NDP’s abiding problem in a nutshell.