No real choice, no real voters

And too many old faces leave NDP unable to credibly critique the Liberals

by Andrea Reimer

Election 2005 did not live up to it’s advance billing as the Battle Royale, but it still provided an interesting enough finish that columnists should have rich fodder for months to come. Like the federal election last June, voters managed to severely punish a sitting BC Liberal government without having to punish themselves too badly by replacing the government entirely with an apparently still unacceptable alternative in the form of the NDP. It’s a rare feat in our electoral system to engineer such an outcome, but on talk shows and in letters to the editor it seems to have been a result most voters are happy with.

The stress there is on “voters” because once again it was the people that didn’t vote that had the most impact on the election. This was supposed to be the turn-around election for our ailing voter turnout but once again fully 45% of eligible voters failed to show up to the polls. Ironically, even more didn’t bother to participate in the electoral reform referendum. I’m not that surprised, but personally I am appalled by it all the same. This level of voter turnout puts us on par with the Sudan and Bangladesh and far behind any other established democracy.

However, given the cadence of the election, heroic efforts by Elections BC and various youth and union voter registration drives were destined to fail. Studies show that without something to vote for, all the raves, rallies and registrations in the world won’t increase turn out at the ballot box. With the two major parties in this election campaign “battling” it out over whether to reallocate a scant 1% of the total provincial budget—the NDP’s proposal in case you missed it—there weren’t a whole lot of issues on the table to capture anyone’s attention who hadn’t already decided how they were voting.

And polls show that most voters had decided who they would cast their ballot for as early as December last year, an interesting symptom of fixed election dates and why the United States finds itself in perpetual election mode. With May 17, 2005 firmly emblazoned on the minds of chronic voters for the past four years, there’s been a lot of opportunity to compile an ongoing list of the naughty and the nice. Add to that the long line-up of third parties that now know exactly when the rumble is going to be and can marshal their resources to mount advertising campaigns accordingly, and you can see how minds harden up a ways in advance. It’s hard to say if it balanced out pretty evenly this time around—BC Business Council vs. BC Fed—but for the future one would hope the government brings in campaign finance reforms that, at the least, extend financial reporting beyond the increasingly irrelevant 28 day election campaign period.

Of course, it will balance out even better now that voters will get a good chance to hear the NDP’s opinions on this and the other 99% of the budget during their next four years as a vastly increased opposition. What ability they will have to change the direction of BC Liberal policy-making remains to be seen. Unlike the federal government, there’s a big enough difference in votes on the two sides of the house that it will take a lot more than one ambivalent legislator crossing the floor and a gum-chewing guy in blue jeans to truly affect any change.

Instead, any difference the NDP opposition can make will come as a result of a vastly increased legislative budget. The theory is that with more eyes on the hen house, the people will be better served.

The trouble is that many of the more experienced legislators in James’ caucus got that experience from being well known foxes when they had the keys to the hen house. Whether they can credibly cry foul now is an open question. Imagine Adrian Dix criticizing the Basi affair, Harry Lali on privatizing highways or Corky Evans explaining why giving away public forest lands to corporations was a good idea when he was in government but not when he’s in opposition. Maybe Tim Stevenson will even get his seat and then hold forth on the perils of expanding gambling. It wouldn’t be his first policy flop, hell it wouldn’t even be his first policy flop on that one issue.

Hopefully the rising stars in the party won’t lose faith before they get a chance to shine. Gregor Robertson, Claire Trevana, Raj Chouhan, Rob Fleming and other newcomers have valuable contributions to make on social and environmental policies. If the NDP shows as much interest in their ideas as they did in marketing the “brand” these candidates represented, it may be an interesting four years indeed. I wouldn’t bet on it just yet given the NDP’s disappointing election platform, but in BC politics, anything’s possible.

****