BC Election: pre-election analysis      Click for: Election Results in Juan de Fuca

Voters have a tough choice.

STV has its problems.

by John Twigg

As published in MapleLine Magazine's print Spring-Summer issue (Vol.1 No.3) -- release date May 6, 2009.
 

At the outset, the contest for the British Columbia election on May 12 was being portrayed as a boring affair with only one issue: the economy, even though many other important issues were at stake too.

The desire to focus only on the economy of course flowed mainly from the BC Liberal Party regime of Premier Gordon Campbell hoping that their rather checkered and chequered record of their first two terms wouldn't interfere with their hopes for a third term. In that sense the over-focus on the economy was and is a deliberate distraction from other issues such as integrity, ethics, efficacy and efficiency in government and whether one side or the other would offer more or less fairness and good governance in office, and what they have in mind for our future.

Likewise the referendum on the Single Transferable Vote (STV) proposal, which narrowly failed to pass in 2005 but was brought back for a second try mainly at the behest of Premier Campbell. Why? Because it's yet another distraction from other more important issues, such as the future of BC's energy policies, the security of its future food supplies, the sustainability of its environment, the supply of jobs for all who want them, the provision of health care for all who need it, funding for classrooms that aren't overcrowded. Etcetera.

Even the Campbell Liberals' desire to focus on the economy is a lot of chutzpah and hocus-pocus when you consider the tens of thousands of jobs lost in the forest industry under their stewardship and many thousands more jobs lost recently in construction, manufacturing and other sectors. Not to mention their giveaway of BC Rail and the fast ferries, the breakup of BC Hydro and the giveaway of rights to rivers, fish farms being allowed to damage wild salmon stocks, and on and on.

While the Campbell Liberals have done some good things, such as building roads and bridges, expanding transit, encouraging new technology, and improving the supply of doctors and nurses, they also have done a lot of detrimental things such as reducing home care and services for seniors, ramming the Richmond Airport Vancouver rapid transit line through Vancouver, refusing to raise welfare and the minimum wage to adequate levels, running up huge cost over-runs on major projects, and more, especially regarding native treaty negotiations and minimizing the role of the Legislature.

A lot can and should be said about the shortcomings of the Campbell Liberals' record in office because it's a record of gross rewards to friends and insiders while ordinary citizens suffer reduced services in many areas and reduced access to the politicians to complain about it. Only in the brief pre-election window did we get a bit of open access to them, and a bit of largesse was spilled into some Opposition-held ridings.

Unfortunately many people will have great difficulty supporting the main alternative, the BC New Democratic Party led by Carole James. There are widespread fears that the NDP is dominated by far-left ideologues who have no understanding of nor sympathies for small business operators, or for mainstream families raising children, nor especially for entrepreneurs and high-income earners.

James herself has a lot more experience than most people realize, with many years working inside government and many years as chairperson of the BC School Trustees Association plus her four years as an MLA for Victoria. She has visited or knows about almost every community in BC, with thousands of contacts who are not necessarily party members. The questions remain that she is still dominated by hard-core NDP cliques, a view reinforced by how she structured the NDP caucus giving prominence to women and minorities, relegating backbench roles to male veterans. Due to this, at the campaign outset it appeared the Campbell Liberals were going to cakewalk to a win.

A lot will depend on voter turnout, however, as we noted in the Winter issue of MapleLine, and the key could be whether one side's voters simply decide to stay home on voting day and not whether enough voters switch from one side to the other or park their vote with the Green Party or a small party.
With the problems of the Campbell regime now more widely evident, such as the giveaways of resources and Crown assets, perhaps enough disaffected Liberals will stay home (giving the NDP a lot of wins in close contests).
That could be another reason why we're faced with a do-over of the STV referendum: it could encourage some well-meaning liberal-minded voters to turn out to vote for that and since they're there they'll be more likely to withhold judgement and give the Campbell Liberals another nod.

As for the STV proposal itself – while its objectives seem well intentioned (ostensibly to improve the chances for representatives of small parties) its real purpose is to prevent the NDP from regaining power with only minority support. Its mechanics could be quite troublesome, namely creating a small number of very large multi-member ridings that actually would make it even more difficult for candidates of small parties to rise up and evict incumbents.  MM

John Twigg is an independent journalist with more than 40 years experience covering BC politics.  www.johntwigg.com