Saturday, February 16, 2013

This Year In Snookland (So Far)...The Dean Counts The Disasters.


Vaughn Palmer, in his VSun column today, figures that there have been at least 14 disasters for the BC Liberal Party and the mandateless (not) Premier since the year began.

Here is just one of them:

Feb. 8. The Liberals discover the downside of spending millions of dollars touting the jobs plan: What if the numbers head in the wrong direction? StatsCan reports that B.C. shed almost 16,000 jobs in January, second worst performance in the country.

Unfortunately Mr. Palmer does not note Ms. Clark's response to this turn of events, in terms of the great 'job' that all those millions of our dollars are doing:

...Clark said the (multi-million dollar ad) campaign has successfully promoted the BC Jobs Plan Facebook site. "A million people visiting the (government jobs plan) site, that's confirmation the ads are working," she said. "These ads are connecting people with jobs. Despite the fact we're getting into an election season, I am still determined to govern the province."...

In other words, the multiplicity of disasters, as noted by Mr. Palmer, are one thing...

But it is the pathetic responses to said disasters that provide the real proof that Ms. Clark has no ability (and no actual notion) of how to actually govern the province of British Columbia.




paul said...

Also interesting that almost all the disasters were both self-inflicted and avoidable. It was just dumb to do government press releases claiming the job plan was working in good months, as it created a foreseeable and predictable risk. The Liberals turned the monthly numbers into the success/failure measurement, and are paying the price.
The bad decisions should mostly worry Liberal supporters. They suggest the expensive campaign staff and advisers Clark has assembled simply aren't competent.
Practically, that makes donors and campaign volunteers more likely to sit the election out.

RossK said...

Excellent point about the self-inflicted nature of the disasters Paul.

I would posit that this is what happens when you have pols chasing newscycles running the show in its entirety because it means that governance goes out the window. That's understandable, I suppose, in the run-up to an election, but this approach has been front and center since the day Ms. Clark won her party's leadership.

Regarding your last point - do you have any indication that such a 'sit out' is, indeed occuring?


paul said...

No evidence at all for the observation that volunteers and donors are more likely to sit out an election campaign if they think leadership competence is lacking.
Sound assumption though. People campaign when they believe in the party and the competence of the campaign and think the race can be won. (Or if they expect future rewards.)
The Liberals really need to do better if they hope to convince supporters to sacrifice time and money. (Thinking partly back to 2001, when only the hardcore New Democrats were willing to campaign in a losing cause for a party that hadn't demonstrated competence.)

RossK said...

Thanks Paul--

There is, of course, the difference in the fundraising strategies of the two parties (i.e. many small donations to NDP; many fewer big donations to BCL) that may help buffer the Liberals from this 'problem'.


paul said...

True. But the big donors want to be sure there is a chance a party will win before they give large amounts of (usually shareholders') money. The Liberals have likely stayed close in the polls to get the cheques.
But as Andrew MacLeod reported ( ), the NDP is starting to get business donations as companies hedge their bets and spend money to get on the right side of a prospective government.
Which is interesting. There is much concern about corruption in Honduras (rightly). But what's not corrupt about a system in which interest groups write cheques in anticipation of special consideration if the party forms government? Less blatant, perhaps, but not different.

RossK said...


Another good point.

Re: The spreading around of the bit corp money that is only loosely tethered to future favours (or favouritism?)....Less blatant, sure... but as can be seen in the States these days, no less corrosive in the end, I suspect.

(new Bigger E. tune up at the top of the pile!)


scotty on Denman said...

Self-afflictions gone unheeded:
Caucus support non-existant in Premier contest
Caucus almost waits too long to applaud new Premier
Caucus denies Premier permission to fulfil campaign promises
Caucus becomes even more sullen after Premier's by-election win
Caucus keeps steering wheel, gives Premier hobbyhorse
Caucus loses two MLAs to resignation
Caucus member Randy Haus criticizes Premier in House
Caucus loses one MLA to Conservatives
Caucus loses two MLAs to by-elections
Caucus halved by MLAs not seeking incumbency
Caucus running low on replacement candidates
Caucus lose one MLA to Independence
Caucus grumbling about Throne Speech now audible
Caucus lose two MLA votes to absenteeism just before confidence vote
Caucus whipped
Caucus now recruiting shady replacement candidates.

No other leader, save maybe Adolph Hitler, would have willfully ignored these harbingers of doom.