'We've Lost Control of the Party'

Even before the Gordon Campbell Liberals got elected in their sweep of the 2001 election, questions were being asked about how long the coalition he had formed could live together in comfort.

The coalition covered, after all, such a broad sweep of the political territory. On one side, were members who were strong federal Liberals, who could perhaps best be described as fiscal conservatives (with a small c), but socially liberals (especially when one looked at such watershed issues as gay and lesbian rights or abortion). On the other, are those whose federal alliances now lie with the new Conservative Party and were formerly with Reform/Canadian Alliance and who embrace a distinctly conservative platform on social issues as well as economic ones.

The answer to the question of how long such strange bedfellows could lie comfortably with each other after an election is becoming increasingly clear. Three years or just a little more. There are ever-more signs that the tension between the two groups is growing exponentially, especially in the months since the federal election. Most of the disgruntled are from the more truly-liberal camp, who are beginning to feel that the social conservatives are taking on much too large a voice in party and government affairs.

Out of the loop

Not that any of the Campbell Liberals is likely to raise the issue publicly. The time is far too close to the next provincial election to allow for any public dissension. And Campbell has done an exceptionally good job in ensuring that his MLAs don't engage in the practice - much-celebrated in B.C. politics -  of eating their young in public.

When anonymity is promised, however, the grumblings from the classic-liberal MLAs are growing in bitterness, in strength, and in volume. They feel that their views are not listened to in caucus any more. They feel they are being left out of the loop and not provided with the key information that they need to make good decisions. Worst of all, they fear that if the Liberals do win the May election, the party will then take a quick shift to the extreme right, enacting policies that they don't support.

"We've lost control of the party, that's what's happened," one small-l liberal MLA said recently. "And I don't think we know how to get it back."

Another went so far as to wonder aloud whether the party would even look at changing its name to the Conservative Party after a victory in the May election.

Far-right Surrey candidate sends signal

Ironically, the discontent comes just at a time when you'd think the social Liberals would be most happy with the Campbell government's actions. With the budget officially well into the black, the premier is beginning to put back into the system some of the funds (and services) that were lost during the first three years of Liberal rule. Recent announcements have promised more funding for hip and knee replacement surgeries, more money for school textbooks, transformations of college campuses into new universities. All of these changes appear designed to draw back into the Liberal fold those centre-of-the-road voters who believe Campbell's cuts went too deep.

Underneath the surface, however, other decisions that have been made have been deeply troubling to the small-l Liberals. For many of them, a flashpoint has been the acclamation of Surrey school trustee Mary Polak to run in the upcoming byelection in Surrey-Panorama Ridge. (Campbell must call the byelection before the end of November.)

It would be difficult to think of a more controversial candidate for the Liberals in the riding. Polak, a three-term Surrey school trustee, was one of the trustees who most passionately supported the school board's court case to try to back up its decision not to allow in school libraries three primary school-aged books about same-sex families - a decision that cost the board about $1 million in lawyer's fees and which it ultimately lost at the Supreme Court of Canada in any event.

If that wasn't enough to mire Polak in controversy, she also supported a policy which effectively banned most sex education from the school district, and another which refused to allow into Surrey schools information about the Nisga'a native treaty.

Premier's political embrace

All of those decisions go against the convictions of many social liberals. Though no other candidate ever put their name forward to run in the byelection, many small-l liberals believe an alternative candidate could have been found - but one wasn't wanted by party heavyweights. They point to the remarkable enthusiasm with which Campbell himself endorsed Polak at the nomination meeting.

A report on the meeting on the B.C. Liberals' website quotes Campbell as saying Polak is "one of the most articulate, the most forthright, and the most passionate spokespeople for kids in this city."

The report goes on to say that Campbell asked the cheering crowd: "Do you want someone who's willing to stand up and speak for her community regardless of what seems convenient or comfortable because she knows what's best for her community? And if you do, do you know what her name is?"

"MARY!" the crowd shouted back.

"Exactly. Mary Polak is going to be a great MLA for Surrey Panorama," Campbell concluded.

Rising social conservatives: Falcon, Coleman

Said one caucus member whose previous experience with Polak does not enamour him of the new candidate's views: "He (Campbell) knows what she's all about. He has to know. And still she's the chosen candidate."

The small-liberal Liberals, some of whom are reaching the point of believing in conspiracy theories, suspect that the power behind Polak's throne is Kevin Falcon, the transportation minister who hails from the neighbouring riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. Falcon, who has had the unenviable job of trying to stickhandle the controversial "foreign ferries fiasco," appears to be someone whose star is on the ascendant in the Campbell cabinet - and he definitely hails from the Alliance/social-conservative side of the party.

One of the disgruntled said this week that Campbell appears suddenly willing to follow the lead of people like Falcon and Solicitor General Rich Coleman, another social conservative. Falcon and Coleman, interestingly, are currently seen as the top two contenders to replace Campbell when he does decide to step down from the party leadership.

But none of the socially-liberal Liberals are saying this publicly. Instead, they are just going away quietly, saying that they've decided not to run in the next election. Gulzar Cheema was probably the first. It was his departure, to run unsuccessfully as a Paul Martin federal Liberal candidate, that paved the way for the Surrey-Panorama Ridge byelection.

Dumped social liberals won't run again

Christy Clark was unquestionably the most high-profile. The abruptness of her departure surprised even the premier. No one doubts her desires to spend more time with her young son - but one does wonder if the balancing act would have looked different to her, had she seen her view of the world prevailing more often in the caucus room or around the cabinet table.

But they are not alone. Greg Halsey-Brandt, the affable former mayor of Richmond, isn't running again. Neither is Lynn Stephens, one of the women who, alongside Clark, provided some gender balance to the Campbell team while it was still in opposition. Both come strongly from the socially-Liberal side of the caucus. Both were dumped by Campbell in last spring's cabinet shuffle. At the time it seemed like coincidence. Now some observers are wondering if it might not have been the first steps in setting B.C. on a more socially-conservative path - to the definite dismay of those social Liberals who remain behind.

Barbara McLintock is Victoria-based contributing editor to The Tyee.