Watching the coverage of the challenge to Carole James’s leadership of the NDP and her resignation, the tone of the reporting gave one the impression that the dissenters within the NDP caucus were a tiny minority and that an overwhelming majority of the caucus supported James.
Until one does the math and finds that the 13 dissenting MLAs are 40% of the caucus. Thinking in terms of 40% of the caucus opposed to James’s leadership puts a quite different spin on her decision to resign rather than force the confrontation she had announced.
The irony is that James’s resignation ensures that James’s time as NDP leader will be remembered in a positive light, which is very different from what her legacy would be if she led the NDP into the next election and lost.
Several recent polls have suggested that the NDP winning the election in 2013 and forming the government was not the mere formality statements by NDP insiders and strategists declared it to be.
The fact that the best approval rating Carole James could achieve against an extremely unpopular Gordon Campbell (9% approval) was 26% suggests the electorate has serious questions about James’s ability and leadership, and that with Carole James as leader the 2013 election was a long way from a sure thing. Especially in light of the poll that put the Liberals under ‘anyone but Campbell’ in a virtual dead heat the Carole James led NDP.
In resigning now, James’s legacy is as the leader who took the party from its low point of 2 MLAs to a party poised to be crowned as BC’s governing party in 2013; a far different legacy than she would have if (when?) she led the NDP to failure and defeat in 2013.
I do not mean to belittle the job Carole James has done but I would assert that only a complete incompetent would have failed to win more than 2 seats in the election following the Liberal landslide in 2001 as the need to punish the NDP and the shiny newness of the Liberals under Campbell wore off.
The pundits within the NDP party speak of the 2013 election as James’s to lose – because of the anger with the liberals. I would like to remind the pundits that a realistic evaluation of the 2009 provincial election is that it was James’s to lose – because of all the negatives the Liberals carried into that election – and that James’s proceeded to lose that election.
Given that: a realistic evaluation of the outcome of the 2013 election, in light of a leadership change for the Liberal party with its opportunity for new direction, policies and to blame Campbell (who was ‘punished’ for his ‘crimes’ by losing the leadership and retiring from politics), is that with the doubts voters have about Carole James’s abilities and leadership James may well have lost another election (2013) that was considered ‘the NDP’s (or James’s) to lose’.
In resigning now James will be viewed as a leader who took the NDP from the wilderness of 2 seats to their current 34 seats and a party that is (was) a shoo-in to win in 2013. This legacy becomes even more golden should the Liberals rebound strongly and the NDP lose in 2013 (even though a loss in 2013 is not an improbable outcome should Carole James have remained leader).
As noted earlier there is a great deal of irony that in choosing to resign ‘for the good of the party’ Carole James will be remembered for her solid (excellent?) leadership of the NDP, with the question of the voting public’s doubts about James’s abilities and leadership being forgotten.
All because James was stabbed in the back she could shoot herself in the foot.