NDP ghost of elections past makes an appearance
Composition of party’s review panel, which will probe what went wrong, requires balancing act worthy of the Wallenda family
VICTORIA
On a day when New Democrats were working to get out the vote for their candidate in the Kelowna byelection, headquarters released an update on the pending review of what went wrong in the party’s last trip to the polls.
“Friend,” began the electronic missive from provincial secretary Jan O’Brien. “Shortly after the surprising May 14 provincial election, Leader Adrian Dix requested that a thorough and comprehensive review of the campaign take place.”
“Surprising?” I’ve heard New Democrats use many colourful terms to describe this year’s election result, some of them found under the thesaurus entries for “bungled” and “ruinous,” others being variations on the f- word. “Surprising” was not among them.
O’Brien is right about Dix requesting the review straightaway. Here it is eight weeks after the election and still the thing is a work in progress. five wise persons will be deciding how to field another exercise in the politics of inclusion:
“The panel is empowered to establish subcommittees to assist with work should it see this as beneficial. The subcommittees should be reflective of B. C. NDP diversity: youth, women, labour, visible minority, LGBTQ.” The latter being shorthand for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and queer.”
The necessary balancing act would put the high- wire artists of the Wallenda family to the test.
Then the panel is supposed to get down to business on a five- point mandate.
One: “To evaluate the 2013 campaign with a view to determining the reasons for the loss, including a review and assessment of the strategies and tactics of the B. C. NDP 2013 campaign.”
Two: “To identify the successes that should be built upon.” Let’s see: Succeeded in blowing a 20- point lead. Succeeded in alienating more bluecollar workers than ever. Succeeded in proving they were damn fools to dump Carole James.
Three: “To recommend steps to make improvements and prepare a winning strategy in 2017.”
“A search for a five- person review panel that has the time and ability to take on this serious assignment is coming to a close,” continues O’Brien on what is presumably intended as an encouraging note.
Then the hint as to why it is taking so long: “The terms of reference require that the panel will include representation from labour, more than one woman and, ideally, someone from outside of B. C. ... The panel members will not have been directly involved in the central 2013 election campaign.”
So the choices entail both inclusion and exclusion. The panel must include the inevitable trade union official, at least two women, someone from outside the province, and a chairperson to break ties. But none of these individuals can have been directly involved in the central campaign with its “surprising” ( O’Brien) “catastrophic” ( everyone else in the party) result.
Given that many New Democrats figure the campaign was centralized around two people, party leader Dix and his hand- picked manager Brian Topp, one can imagine plenty of arguments over whether other key figures in the party were sufficiently outside the Dix- Topp axis to be included.
Once the party executive settles on the lineup, one of the first tasks for the
That covers the basics looking back and looking ahead. But this being the all- things- to- all- people NDP, the governing council insisted on a shopping list.
Four: “To include constituency preparation, technical and logistical preparations, communications, fundraising, central campaign decision making, selection of campaign leadership, advertising and media relations, ethnic outreach, voter contact, candidate selection, relationship between the central and local campaigns, platform and policy development, role of the leader, stakeholder relations including with community leaders, business, social movement, ethnic communities, environmental movement, affiliated unions, and labour movement.”
As a study of the NDP’s near- pathological inability to focus, it would be hard to improve on that paragraph. Meanwhile, one presumes, the Liberals will continue to campaign on balanced budgets and job creation.
Five: “To review and assess the B. C. NDP’s broader relationship with the voters including an examination of the B. C. NDP’s base of support compared to the changing demographics of the population and the impact of vote splitting with other parties.”
There is the most daring of the five points.
It asks whether the party has been relegated to permanent minority status, except for those rare occasions when the centre- right fractures. It also challenges the traditions of a party that, for all of its defeats, remains wedded to a glorious reading of its own past.
The panel is supposed to report back before the next convention, set for November in Vancouver. By then, party members should also know whether Adrian Dix has given up his hope of a second chance or whether they need to force him out.
Either way, the panel, at its boldest, can only suggest a road map for the future. It will be up to the leader to discover if the NDP will allow itself to be led in that direction.
• Wednesday I wrote that the Pharmaceutical Task Force, appointed by the Liberals in 2007, was “stacked” with industry reps. I should have pointed out that it also included independent figures like former auditor general George Morfitt and the then- dean of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of B. C., Robert Sindelar.