Green deal

"A merger, coalition is not in the cards. Fundamentally the Green Party and the NDP are very different parties. We have some similar platforms, and in those areas it would be great to work together and I look forward to working with the new leader of the NDP on issues of mutual concern. But the fundamental differences will keep us as separate parties."

Adrianne Carr, BC Green Party Leader, CKNW, June 3, 2003 (2 PM)

Less than a week after I wrote about the frustration I feel when people talk about making some sort of arrangement between the Greens and the NDP, I have learned that a NDP constituency association is discussing a paper that argues for some sort of accord between the parties. They should have listened to Carr on CKNW recently.

An endnote in the paper recognizes the practical difficulties in any imagined "accord". It claims that "One NDP activist has suggested that it might be possible for the Green Party and the NDP to agree in advance that both will be free to nominate a candidate in each constituency, but have a firm advance agreement that on a stated date, perhaps two or three weeks before the election, an independent pollster will measure the electoral possibilities of each candidate in the constituency, and that the one with the lower rating will withdraw, leaving the field to the other." Such a scheme could violate the BC Elections Act, but apart from the legalities, it presumes that voters would behave like the backroom fixers dictated. It is just as likely that they would stay home, or vote for a completely different party.

The paper prepared for the constituency discussion begins with a faulty premise. It boldly states that "The primary goal is to defeat the (so-called) Liberals in the provincial election in 2005." If the NDP is going to regain trust and credibility, its primary goal must be better than defeating the other guys. Voters want a party that they can trust, and that will represent their values. How could anyone trust a party that would enter into a deal to subvert choices in an election?

A well intentioned "mathematical analysis" which accompanies the paper calculates what would happen under various assumptions about vote swapping and shifting. Thankfully it is prefaced with a note that it is not a prediction or projection. It then concludes that "If the NDP and Green Parties continue to split the progressive vote in 2005, for the NDP to gain a majority of the 79 seats would require that in at least 40 constituencies 40% of the 2001 Liberal votes would have to change either to the NDP or to the Green Party." Of course, from that position it then argues that an "accord" between the parties is an alternative. In a real election, any type of accord could produce a backlash that would destroy what has been accomplished in rebuilding the NDP's popular support to 28% or more, but the "mathematical analysis" isn't about how people behave in real elections.

Every election is unique. While political scientists try to determine patterns and learn lessons so as to generalize from one campaign to the next, surprises never cease. It was no surprise that the NDP was all but wiped out in 2001. Whatever the reason for voters' anger, public opinion polls showed for months prior to the election that half or more of the party's 1996 support had been lost. It didn't take much analysis to realize that the loss of half of its votes in every seat meant that no seat was winnable. It is to Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan's credit that they survived and went on to be a capable opposition.

In 2005 people will know that Campbell was not the competent, middle of the road leader that he pretended to be before 2001. They will also know that voting Green in ridings like Victoria Beacon Hill or Victoria Hillside will help make it possible for even more Campbell Liberals to be elected. They should also know that in 2001 no Green candidate came anywhere close to winning. Their best performance gave them 27% for Adriane Carr in Powell River Sunshine Coast. It should be noted that put Carr in third position, finishing second was the NDP candidate.

The NDP should focus on winning the confidence and respect it once enjoyed. That will probably mean 20 to 30 seats after the 2005 election and a second term for Gordon Campbell, but no amount of soul destroying backroom dealing can change that. A new leader with new fresh candidates can begin a process that will make the NDP competitive in 2009. If that leader and those candidates are particularly credible, they might be able to do what Dave Barrett did in 1972. That is when the NDP campaigned on the basis of asking voters to elect a stronger opposition, but ended up forming government.