Just because an organization is good at conducting public opinion polls doesn't mean that it is capable of interpreting the results. Ipsos-Reid accompanied the release of its March poll on voting intentions with a statement saying that "The NDP might want to avoid patting themselves on the back for their boost in support. Only 44 percent of NDP voters say they are supporting the party because they think the NDP would do a good job governing the province. A majority (55%) are supporting the NDP because they dislike the other options available."

There is an enormous difference between asking which party you support and asking why. Answers to the first question are mutually exclusive but answers to why can involve many reasons which are not mutually exclusive. If I were asked I would say that the NDP would do a better job than the BC Liberals but the primary reason for my vote is an intense dislike for what Campbell is doing; the poll would put me in the 55% category but it would be wrong to interpret my response the way Ipsos-Reid spun its results.

As expected the poll brought out attacks on the NDP and Carole James. On March 20th, the Vancouver Sun ran a human interest article on Carole James' background and a lead editorial saying that she must reveal the party's platform. The news media knows that the release of the full platform 14 months before the election would mean that as May 17, 2005, approaches they would say the NDP is offering nothing new because the platform had been revealed so early. One of the many consequences of a fixed election date is that every detail of the campaign can be planned well in advance, including the time schedule for feeding the media bits and pieces so as to keep news flowing. New Democrats love debating policy and have hundreds of policy resolutions that have been passed at convention and council. How that policy is interpreted in the context of 2005, and what gets emphasis in the platform will be revealed as we get much closer to the election date.

It appears that the Campbell caucus is greatly disturbed by the latest poll. Thanks to Elayne Brenzinger's interview with Province columnist Michael Smyth, we know that government backbenchers carefully rehearse the questions they use to exhaust half of question period. That makes their behaviour on March 22nd particularly strange. Three backbenchers asked questions; between them and the ministers who responded, they mentioned Carole James by name 7 times. That brilliant strategy is similar to the way they responded to Brenzinger's resignation. Instead of being polite and letting the story die, they gave it legs with days of effort to discredit her. By attacking James and distorting her positions, they draw attention to their fear of her popularity. Since many of them are in jeopardy of losing their seats, that fear is understandable but you'd think they would try not to show it.