Gordon Campbell Resigns

[Michael Hardner]

Globe and Mail

Embattled B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell is stepping down, saying after “considerable soul-searching” he has concluded his personal unpopularity has overshadowed the needs of the province to foster the economy.

At a news conference in Vancouver on Wednesday morning, he said he has asked the B.C. Liberal party to call a leadership convention as quickly as possible “to return public attention to what is important in British Columbia.”

This sounds remarkably honest. I'm used to politicians citing 'personal reasons' in such circumstances.

[Topaz]

Globe and Mail

This sounds remarkably honest. I'm used to politicians citing 'personal reasons' in such circumstances.

One down, two to go, McGuinty and Harper.

[ToadBrother]

This sounds remarkably honest. I'm used to politicians citing 'personal reasons' in such circumstances.

It's not that honest. He went into a caucus meeting with the lowest approval ratings of any provincial Premier in living memory (as some were joking, he had Nixon-level approval ratings), he had had one minister walk out the door in June, another publicly blasting his cabinet shuffle last week, and the strong likelihood that he would not get anything approaching defensible levels of support in the party leadership review later this month. Obviously the failure of his little fireside chat last Wednesday where he announced a 15% tax cut and some out-of-nowhere education initiatives was his Hail Mary pass, and the door was already being held open.

Here's a lesson to all political leaders to recognize when they're about to overstay their welcome. Campbell should have resigned after the Olympics, when he could still make some pretense of actually having some part in the decision making process. I don't think there's any doubt that he didn't jump out of the window, he was pushed by a caucus that's looking at devastation in 2013, and at least some potential that at least a few of the recalls may begin next January. In fact, that may have also helped them, seeing as even in his own riding, Campbell would have had an uphill battle to win.

The question now becomes who succeeds him? The most obvious successors won't do; Colin Hansen is as tarred by the HST as Campbell, and likely won't be in cabinet much longer himself (it wouldn't surprise me in the least if his own resignation follows in short order). Rich Coleman, who many feel has fostered his own leadership ambitions, is too much in the Campbell camp, a close ally. They may not even be able to look outside of caucus for someone like Dianne Watts, Mayor of Surrey, who many feel is a very good choice, because they may not want to risk the humiliation of having one of the list of retiring MLAs leaving early so the new leader can run, only to have them shut out by an angry electorate looking to cast the ballot as soon as possible.

Maybe they can get Blair Lekstrom to come back, though he has few friends in caucus after his own departure. This is the real danger for the BC Liberals beyond any looming recall votes or 2013, that they simply don't have that big a talent pool sitting in caucus.

[ToadBrother]

Slight correction. The caucus meeting was for Thursday. It's pretty obvious that Campbell must have known what has been rumored for the last few days, that he was walking into a revolt. Even if he had survived that, he would not have survived the leadership review later this month.

[Sir Bandelot]

This sounds remarkably honest. I'm used to politicians citing 'personal reasons' in such circumstances.

Really? I'm used to politicians having to apologize to their wives for something, in such circumstances.

[Michael Hardner]

Really? I'm used to politicians having to apologize to their wives for something, in such circumstances.

That would be cool... a politician resigning, then apologizing to his wife for being highly unpopular.

[bill_barilko]

I wonder if he'll go back on the bottle.

[Sir Bandelot]

I wonder if he'll go back on the bottle.

Link

BC's finest

[Jack Weber]

Sounds like he pulled a "Mulroney"....

[Wilber]

Campbell had a vision for this province and right or wrong, he pursued it. He did some good things and some less than good and what may have been his strength also turned out to be his downfall. As one commentator put it, "he always knew how to put the I in team." He believed in the "rightness" of his policies and in carrying them out he forgot one important thing. People hate being lied to or taken for granted. But for that, he might be looking forward to a fourth mandate.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Wilber

[ToadBrother]

Campbell had a vision for this province and right or wrong, he pursued it. He did some good things and some less than good and what may have been his strength also turned out to be his downfall. As one commentator put it, "he always knew how to put the I in team." He believed in the "rightness" of his policies and in carrying them out he forgot one important thing.

I don't think his management style was all that different than most political leaders in this country. He's certainly not the first to use a top-down approach. But he did have some sensible policies, and certainly did, during his first term, reign in a lot of out of control spending. He owed a lot of that to his first finance minister, Gary Collins, and it was after Collins departure that we began to see the purse strings loosen, in part due to the quicker-than-expected recovery of the NDP, and in part because the economy did recover due to recovering commodity markets. He was guaranteed the 2005 victory, and certainly was in charge during a time of incredible growth, some of it because he made BC more business-friendly.

But in politics success can sometimes breed failure, and I think three back-to-back elections bred a certain overconfidence, a certain self-righteousness and an incredible amount of arrogance.

People hate being lied to or taken for granted. But for that, he might be looking forward to a fourth mandate.

I'm not so sure. People talk about the 2009 victory, but a lot of them fail to mention that the NDP came within four points or so of the Liberals in the popular vote. I think the shine had come off the rose; the seemingly never-ending saga of the BC Rail fiasco (which, despite the BC Liberals best hopes, still is rearing its ugly head), the massive cost overruns of the BC Convention Centre and the still unknown full cost of the Olympics, plus, I think, some fatigue among British Columbians over Campbell's leadership style, should have suggested that the third term would be more turbulent. Certainly it should have suggested it to Campbell, but he's hardly the first politician to ignore the ground shifting below their feet.

The HST, I think, was the touchstone of anger. If it wasn't the HST, it would have been something else; the BC Rail verdict, an accurate reporting of cost overruns, heck maybe even the fact that the pre-election revenue projections were outrageously out of whack. Sooner or later, one way or the other, Campbell was going to become a liability.

He should have resigned after the Olympics, when a case could have been made for him leaving on a high note (and under his own steam), and given a new leader time to try to make up for the growing discontent over the HST. But instead he seems to have replicated Glen Clark's folly, sticking around too long until his very presence in the Premier's office was poisoning his party's electoral prospects. Worse, the 15% tax cut he announced will steal the thunder the next leader could have used. There's no more money in the pot now, which will hobble the next guy even moreso than he already would be.

But the worst problem has yet to be revealed. For the better part of two decades, the BC Liberals has been the Gordon Campbell Party. He's run it as a one-man show, forging the alliance between the free enterprisers and the old Socred social conservative camp. Without him, there's a real threat to that coalition, and if they pick a leader who can't keep the show together, there's worse than electoral defeat in store for the party.

[Wilber]

I don't disagree much with that but the reason he won the last election was because people believed the Liberals were the best party to look after the economy during the turmoil it was going through at the time. When they realized they had been lied to on the budget projections and the HST, that belief pretty much went up in smoke.

[ToadBrother]

I don't disagree much with that but the reason he won the last election was because people believed the Liberals were the best party to look after the economy during the turmoil it was going through at the time. When they realized they had been lied to on the budget projections and the HST, that belief pretty much went up in smoke.

Still, the fact is that the NDP came within a few points of the popular vote, which should have told Campbell that he was no longer in the same situation he had been in 2001 and 2005. One way or the other this term was going to be a different ballgame.

[Wilber]

Still, the fact is that the NDP came within a few points of the popular vote, which should have told Campbell that he was no longer in the same situation he had been in 2001 and 2005. One way or the other this term was going to be a different ballgame.

After 2001 there was no where for the Liberals to go but down but as Glen Clark showed, you don't even need a majority of the popular vote to get a majority in this province. Campbell would have probably in tough alright but far from dead unless the NDP could come up with a more charismatic leader than James.

[The_Squid]

Does anyone else find it odd that just one week ago he was on tv promising to lower income taxes and now he is gone? I don't believe that he thought he was going anywhere just one short week ago! What changed? Internal revolt among MP's? The party financiers told him to leave? Interesting stuff... And good riddance.

Edited November 4, 2010 by The_Squid

[Bonam]

Does anyone else find it odd that just one week ago he was on tv promising to lower income taxes and now he is gone? I don't believe that he thought he was going anywhere just one short week ago! What changed? Internal revolt among MP's? The party financiers told him to leave? Interesting stuff... And good riddance.

Perhaps he wanted to make one last gesture to be remembered by, a big cut to the income tax?

[sharkman]

Add my vote for the HST being the straw that broke the camel's back, although over the years the Liberals had been getting more arrogant and out of touch with what got them there. Personally I think it benefited the party to have Campbell resign after the HST was tied around his neck, therefore it was at least partly planned.

There was no way they would have won another election with him and the HST intact.

[eyeball]

Perhaps he wanted to make one last gesture to be remembered by, a big cut to the income tax?

I wonder how long that'll last? I imagine scrapping the HST now will really bite.

Maybe he wanted to spite us.

Edited November 4, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Does anyone else find it odd that just one week ago he was on tv promising to lower income taxes and now he is gone? I don't believe that he thought he was going anywhere just one short week ago! What changed? Internal revolt among MP's? The party financiers told him to leave? Interesting stuff... And good riddance.

The word on the street was that the minute the first polling came out after the big tax cut announcement and showed that his approval had not bumped upward at all, and worse that in general, most of those polled viewed the tax cut itself with, at best, ambivalence, and at worst negatively, the game was up. Apparently some members of caucus drafted a letter stating he needed to resign ASAP or else, and there was an emergency caucus meeting scheduled for today, that could have represented an open revolt. Plus there's the rumor that the leadership review mail-in ballot definitely didn't give Campbell anything like rousing approval levels.

Maybe he could have weathered any one of these things alone, though his existence would have become pretty miserable, but this was basically a perfect storm of voter anger and a severe loss of confidence in his leadership by the party. He had no choice. It was better to avoid a messy caucus revolt and the humiliation of a crappy leadership review.

[ToadBrother]

Perhaps he wanted to make one last gesture to be remembered by, a big cut to the income tax?

Except he didn't sound at all like that during the announcement. It was a whole lot of "we this" and "we that". He did not at all sound like a man who was getting ready to step down, and as a number of political commentators have pointed out, his tax cut announcement has really hamstrung whoever succeeds him. They could have used the money in the tax cut to, say, negotiate a 1 point drop in the HST, or perhaps found something else. As it is, he leaves a cabinet in turmoil after the dirt ministry reorganization (another signal that a couple of weeks ago Campbell clearly had every intention of sticking around), the government committed to a 15% tax cut and to a binding 50%+1 referendum next September (the actual legislation does not require this). In short, Campbell may be gone, but he's cast a dangerously long shadow over his successor, who will either have to follow through, or make the very risky decision to axe Campbell's most recent decisions.

There's some talk at least that the HST referendum may be bumped up to the spring. Could be dangerous, but might be wise to get it out of the way and deal with whatever the fallout is sooner, leaving the new leader two years to chart a new course.

[ToadBrother]

Add my vote for the HST being the straw that broke the camel's back, although over the years the Liberals had been getting more arrogant and out of touch with what got them there. Personally I think it benefited the party to have Campbell resign after the HST was tied around his neck, therefore it was at least partly planned.

There was no way they would have won another election with him and the HST intact.

It's still pretty dubious that they'll pull it off even without Campbell. And that's the real problem. The really star candidates like Dianne Watts, the mayor of Surrey, may not want to become the next Ujjal Dosanjh, and become Premier of a doomed government. I expect the pressure will be on her, now that Carol Taylor has made it very clear she has no intentions of seeking the leadership. The Liberals will want an outsider, someone with no attachment to the HST, and picking someone from Cabinet is simply to pick someone who will have a year-long record of defending Campbell and the HST.

[ToadBrother]

I wonder how long that'll last? I imagine scrapping the HST now will really bite.

Maybe he wanted to spite us.

I doubt that. I think he truly believed that if he made a grand enough gesture, everyone; voter and BC Liberal party member alike, would just go "Ah, Gordon, you great guy. We love you after all!"

It was a desperate maneuver in the same vein as Ujjal Dosanjh's ICBC and BC Hydro rebates. What I'd like to know is whether any government in the position the BC Liberals are in has actually improved their fortunes by throwing money around. It strikes me as so futile, but maybe sometimes it works. All I remember from Dosanjh's rebate cheques was everyone around me going "I'm gonna take this cash and go by a Liberal party membership."

I think there's a credibility line one crosses, and once you've passed it, it's a point of no return. No amount of rationality or largess can ever convince the voter to come back. There's a famous story from the 2001 election where an NDP MLA was told by a constituent "I hate your policies, I hate you, and I wish you were in hell", and I think Campbell entered that particularly country some time ago.

Edited November 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[FengGao]

People not only fed us with increasing their tax, but also they do not have any control after paying tax. We shall change the tax law by my petition.

Bill of Choices - empower you and me!

"The Bill of Choices will make our government more transparent and effective. Our government will let taxpayers choose where their money will go, by setting up accounts for different government departments.

For example, there will be social security account for elderly and economically challenged people; health account for hospital services, and education account for school and training, a transportation account for roads and bridges, as well as a defense account for military. Every quarter the government departments will have the mandate to publish a report telling taxpayers how much money they used and how it was allocated. Additionally, the report will estimate how much money the government will need for the following quarter and for which departments, however the taxpayers will deposit their money wherever they consider more important. There can be a pending account for overflowing funds from other accounts or for someone who has no choices. The pending account maybe used for the underfunded but valuable departments."

If one account's meet it's target, you will choose his/her second favorite account's. If you think all government departments are equally important, then you can put your money in each of them. Taxpayers control spending tax dollar by choices. Politicians only control the pending account. I need your helps to pass the Bill. The bill just starts for a concept design to reform the 800 years old political system.

Edited November 4, 2010 by FengGao

[ToadBrother]

If one account's meet it's target, you will choose his/her second favorite account's. If you think all government departments are equally important, then you can put your money in each of them. Taxpayers control spending tax dollar by choices. Politicians only control the pending account. I need your helps to pass the Bill. The bill just starts for a concept design to reform the 800 years old political system.

Wow, a system even worse than California's.

[FengGao]

Wow, a system even worse than California's.

Why?