If Premier Christy Clark is victorious in next year’s election, her party will be the first in B.C. to win five in a row since W.A.C. Bennett half a century ago. (Bennett went on to claim a sixth and seventh, as well — an astonishing run for a premier with the sobriquet “Wacky.”)
But can Clark do it? The polls certainly give her a chance.
A year before the 2013 election, the New Democrats were up 24 points over the Liberals — indeed, they were still miles ahead when the writ was dropped. And we recall how that turned out.
Today, the NDP has only a seven-point lead — putting the Liberals well within striking range. And this despite years of economic malaise and flat-line budgets.
One plausible explanation is that the NDP has still not recovered from the disastrous 2013 campaign, when it tried to out-green the Greens and scared working-class families away.
I thought for a while this was merely a misstep that time and better judgment would correct. But it appears the injury was lasting.
Indeed, there are echoes here of the damage done during the Glen Clark years. It took three election cycles to bury the memory of fast ferries and the like.
So is Clark a good bet? Well, there’s an old saying that opposition parties don’t win elections, governments lose them. And if the Liberals aren’t trying to lose this election, they’re doing an awfully good job of looking the part.
First, they clawed back bus passes from the disabled. Then they quibbled over the $40-a-day payment for kids who missed school during last year’s strike. Supposedly, some parents claimed the money in error.
Next, there was the inexplicable decision to claw back the child-care benefit owed to a young mother whose husband died in a work accident.
And most recently, the party executive rehired a senior adviser who had stepped down when criminal charges were brought against her. Yet those charges are still working their way through the Ontario courts.
It might be possible to defend some of these actions on purely legal or technical merits. The government relented on the child-care benefit. And perhaps there are grounds to anticipate an acquittal in the Ontario criminal case.
But each one of them raises the same basic question: Why on Earth would you do such a thing? If there are groups who enjoy more public sympathy than the disabled or bereaved single mothers, they don’t come readily to mind.
And who thought it was a good idea to make an enemy of parents, while the government is engaged in permanent combat with the teachers’ union? Can’t anyone do political math?
The medical dictionary cites clumsiness and loss of balance as symptoms of sclerosis. What we’re seeing here is governmental sclerosis — a hardening of the political arteries caused by old age. Stephen Harper succumbed to this ailment.
So despite the close polls, there are reasons for concern on the Liberal bench. The solution, if there is one, is to stop with the circular firing squad and get out on the road.
The problems that have dogged the government in recent months have nothing to do with top-of-mind issues. Creating more jobs and protecting the environment will dominate the next election. Yet these objectives are at stark odds with each other.
The answer, of course, is a compromise. But can the NDP sell moderation to its activist wing? It couldn’t in 2013.
Here is the crux of the matter: Whoever best balances the jobs/environment equation wins. Could it be Clark?
Well, if she quits stomping the powerless and remembers who elected her — working-class families — she might yet get that fifth win.
