One of the tougher challenges in politics is turning things around after a searing election defeat. At last weekend鈥檚 provincial NDP convention, party members stared that reality in the face.
A 20-page report was circulated in advance, purporting to analyze what went wrong. But all it did was grasp at straws. The entire disaster was put down to poor communications.
The platform wasn鈥檛 鈥渟uccinct.鈥� The campaign lacked 鈥渆thnic outreach.鈥� There weren鈥檛 enough attack ads.
In short, all that鈥檚 needed is a better-tuned message and a more aggressive campaign. Yet a closer look at the election results shows that鈥檚 not close to being true.
The debacle wasn鈥檛 due to messaging. It was caused by a momentous strategic blunder.
In the middle of last May鈥檚 campaign, NDP Leader Adrian Dix and his colleagues started to worry that the Green party was becoming a threat. Former NDP premier Dan Miller described this mindset in a critique published by the Vancouver Sun.
The party became 鈥済ripped by fear鈥� that an 鈥渆nvironmental backlash鈥� was brewing. Miller believes that explains why Dix changed horses in mid-race, and opposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby.
It was a fateful decision (Miller calls it 鈥渋nfamous鈥�). Tracking polls showed a collapse in NDP support following the announcement.
But was the party really in danger of being outflanked on the environment? The answer appears to be no.
In only two ridings out of 85 did the Greens come within 14 points of the NDP: Andrew Weaver won Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Adam Olsen lost by one point in Saanich North and the Islands.
Otherwise, it wasn鈥檛 remotely close. Across the province as a whole, NDP candidates beat their Green opponents by an average of 30 points. The Greens didn鈥檛 even contest 24 constituencies.
However, in slaying a green threat that didn鈥檛 exist, Dix did something much worse. He handed the Liberals a win.
Riding-by-riding vote totals show what happened. In regions with strong white-collar representation and high incomes, the NDP performed better than it did in 2009. The party鈥檚 share of the vote in Central Vancouver rose seven per cent, and by 15 per cent in North Shore ridings. The NDP also picked up a seat in Greater Victoria 鈥� Saanich North and the Islands.
It seems reasonable to believe this strong performance was either helped by the greener stance or, at worst, not hurt by it. However, in regions with more blue-collar voters, it was an entirely different story. In the Kootenays, the NDP share of the vote fell six per cent; in northern sa国际传媒, nine per cent; in the Fraser Valley, 11 per cent; in Surrey, 12 per cent; and in the Thompson-Cariboo region, a whopping 25 per cent.
The party also lost ground in central and northwest Vancouver Island, although not enough to threaten its overall grip there.
In terms of electoral math, this breakout proved decisive. There are 30 seats in regions where the green platform resonated most strongly.
But in districts where the platform failed to connect, 55 seats are up for grabs. To put it mildly, that is a formidable disadvantage to overcome.
Moreover, this uphill battle will only get worse as time goes by. Generally speaking, those regions that trended Liberal have faster-growing populations than NDP-held turf.
In short, last May鈥檚 defeat wasn鈥檛 due to poor campaign ads or a failure to communicate. Instead, the riding tallies show a strong correlation between voter preference and the working lives of local residents.
As Miller put it: 鈥淔or some in my party, there is an increasingly growing disconnect from British Columbia鈥檚 working people who have been stalwarts of the party for generations.鈥�
That is the message the convention should have heard.
