We have crossed the half-way point of the election campaign, and both main political parties appear to have landed on what they hope is the ballot box “question” on voting day.
For the ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ NDP, the question is “who would make the best premier?”
For the ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Conservatives, the question is “is it time for a change?”
Both questions play well for each party.
NDP leader David Eby leads ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Conservative leader John Rustad when it comes to polls that ask respondents about approval ratings and personal attributes about the two leaders.
If “who would make the best premier” is the dominant question that decides most votes, Eby and the NDP clearly have the advantage.
But several polls have also shown consistent findings that more than half the electorate doesn’t like the direction the province has been heading, which could explain the ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Conservatives’ rapid rise in public opinion.
Of course, these “change” elections do not happen very often in this province.
The last real “change” outcome was back in 2001, when the ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Liberals almost wiped out a discredited and spent NDP government that had governed the previous decade.
We had a change of government after the 2017 election, but that was not a classic “change” election since the incumbent ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Liberal government actually received more votes and won more seats than any other party.
There have only been four other “change” elections in the past 70 years:
- 1991, when the scandal-plagued Social Credit Party was decimated by the electorate.
- 1975, when the short-lived NDP government was turfed out of office.
- 1972, when the 20-year reign of Social Credit Premier W.A.C. Bennett was ended decisively in favour of the NDP.
- 1952, when the fledgling Social Credit Party formed a minority government to replace a Coalition Party that had fallen apart.
In each of the previous “change” elections, the ruling party fell victim to a “throw the bums” mentality because it had overstayed its welcome or had become quite unpopular.
Given the NDP’s continuing ride at or near the top of the polls, it is unlikely either of those sentiments has taken hold today.
However, the NDP has also been in power for seven years and at some point, the voters grow weary of those in charge. The first Social Credit government lasted 20 years in office, while the second one under that party lasted almost 16 years. The NDP lasted 10 years in power during the 1990s, while the ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Liberals stayed at the helm for 16 years.
Is having a political party in charge for seven years long enough to create that “change” narrative? Rustad and his party are clearly banking on this being the case in enough key ridings to propel them to power.
As much as he unveils planks of his own platform, Rustad continues to paint a picture of a province he says has become more dangerous, chaotic and expensive under the NDP’s watch. He did that in last week’s radio debate on CKNW, when he referenced “people dying” from street violence and drug use and tied it to a “broken” health care system.
Eby is trying to paint Rustad as a far-right wing politician with extreme and wacky views, and in so doing is trying to frame his opponent as a man not up to the top job in the province.
Best premier? Or time for a change?
We’re more than half-way there, and the final question (and answer) remains far from clear.
Keith Baldrey is chief political reporter for Global BC.
