There鈥檚 a saying that elections have consequences, and it appears the leaders of sa国际传媒鈥檚 New Democratic Party are about to experience this first-hand. In the wake of the party鈥檚 defeat at the polls in May, a new grassroots movement has sprung up to clean house.
Calling themselves Forward sa国际传媒 NDP, members of the group have two objectives. They want a much broader examination of policy than the top brass appears comfortable with.
And they mean to bring in new leadership by electing reform-minded delegates to the party鈥檚 convention in November.
It is difficult to disagree with the group鈥檚 basic analysis. Many of the party鈥檚 decision-makers are in denial about what went wrong. They鈥檙e blaming defeat on a lack of attack ads and a colourless leader, Adrian Dix.
Yet this was the party鈥檚 fourth loss in a row, under three different leaders. And it came at the hands of a sa国际传媒 Liberal machine exhausted by scandals and having been too long in office.
The real problem is that the NDP鈥檚 stance on the issues 鈥� its basic message 鈥� has not kept up with the times. Across large tracts of the province, and in particular among blue-collar workers, it failed to resonate.
This is more than a crisis for people who want a progressive agenda. It is a threat to our political system, which relies on the sharing of power. Why bother to vote if the same side always wins?
Viewed in this context, the post-election debate takes on wider meaning. It is essential that senior decision-makers find the will to remake their party as a competitive force.
The NDP began as a worker鈥檚 party, speaking for families who lacked money or power. The province鈥檚 income statistics show there are still enough families with modest incomes to provide a formidable power base.
There is, however, a challenge. Numerically, blue-collar workers still form the majority of wage earners. But politically speaking, it is white-collar employees who carry the clout in NDP circles. A look at the party鈥檚 finances show why.
In the run-up to the election, the three largest contributors to the NDP鈥檚 war chest, by far, were public-sector unions. The sa国际传媒 Government and Service Employees Union gave $428,684, the Canadian Union of Public Employees $309,812 and the Hospital Employees Union $286,485.
No other union (and no other donor of any kind) came close to matching those sums. The reason is simple. Blue-collar union memberships are declining, while white-collar numbers are on the rise.
In the early 1980s, nearly 30 per cent of private-sector employees in sa国际传媒 belonged to a trade union. Today, only 18 per cent do. In contrast, 75 per cent of public-sector workers are unionized.
This growing imbalance creates policy traps for a labour-based party. For example, financial management is perceived to be one of the NDP鈥檚 weak points. Yet promises of austerity are a tough sell if you鈥檙e counting on public-sector support.
Or again, green policies are strongly supported by civil-service unions, but less so by blue-collar groups. So which way do you lean?
For one side, environmental protection is not just a priority, it鈥檚 a matter of principle. From the other point of view, preservation of jobs is what counts.
These tensions go to the very root of the party鈥檚 dilemma. It鈥檚 bad enough choosing between difficult policy options. It is a different matter entirely to risk internal strife by triggering a family dispute.
Yet that is the reality of the situation. Unless the party鈥檚 platform is rebalanced, even at the price of hard feelings, there is no viable way ahead.
That is clearly what the Forward group believes. The question is how much blood will be shed in making the case for change.
