Now that Christy Clark has resigned and her party no longer governs, the B.C. Liberals have some hard thinking to do. Their governing philosophy was dictated, in large part, by the situation that existed when they came to power 16 years ago.
In 2001, voters were exhausted by the recurring crises that had wracked NDP premier Glen Clark’s administration. They wanted a more disciplined approach, particularly to financial matters.
There was a sense also that government had come to occupy too large a place in people’s lives. Part of this was due to Clark’s love of the limelight and his publicity-seeking style of politics.
When the Liberals took office, incoming premier Gordon Campbell, chose a different path. He intended to impose financial management, and succeeded. The budget was balanced early on.
He also wanted to take government off the front page of the newspapers, and here, too, for a time, he succeeded. Decisions that would have haunted an NDP administration, such as refusing to raise welfare rates for a decade, or permitting private surgery clinics to proliferate, caused barely a ripple.
After Christy Clark took over in 2011, she saw no need to change. Then came May’s election. Finally, it appeared, voters had had enough.
Care is needed with this judgment. The Liberals still won more seats than the NDP, and it took an NDP/Green Party alliance to unseat them. How stable that arrangement is remains to be seen.
However, it’s never a good idea in politics to pin hopes of a comeback on your opponents falling short. It does appear the pendulum has swung leftward in major population centres such as Greater Victoria and the Lower Mainland, at least for the present.
The question for the Liberals is how they should respond. Swing too far left, and they might lose their base.
We saw that in Christy Clark’s last throne speech, delivered after the election, which adopted several NDP themes. It was a clumsy effort, and many of the party faithful were enraged.
An overly aggressive tack to the left also risks reinvigorating the provincial Conservative party.
Moreover, the Liberals’ economic message still has appeal — thrift in government, low taxes and an emphasis on job creation. It is the social-policy side of the ledger that needs attention.
And here an awkward reality emerges. Most voters can say where the NDP and Greens stand on raising the minimum wage, increasing income assistance, subsidizing child care or strengthening public education. These are all key planks of a centre-left platform.
But for a centre-right party, the fit is more difficult. Here, too, the throne speech was telling. Clark and her colleagues could find no words of their own to embrace a social agenda.
The challenge lies in shifting some longstanding mindsets. The Liberals must find ways to make a more activist program acceptable to their base.
It should not, in principle, be hard to support strengthening the social safety net. The case for investing in education and skill training is likewise easy to make. And who disagrees with the need for more affordable housing, or the urgency of combating homelessness and drug abuse?
The difficulty lies in reconciling these projects with a party philosophy grounded in personal responsibility and small government. No simple matter.
Former U.S. president Bill Clinton was famous for solving such puzzles, or “triangulating,” as it was called. He could present ideas that were seemingly incompatible, and weld them together.
That is essentially what the Liberals’ next leader must do. Whether voluntarily or kicking and screaming, the party will have to confront a new reality.
Generating wealth is important, but distributing it fairly is also a duty of government.
