Saturday, September 19, saw rallies all across BC against the HST. Predictably organizers claimed they were a great success, brining together the leaders of the opposition parties and Bill Vander Zalm in common opposition to the Liberal Government’s plan.

However, one has to wonder whether something more than 1,000 people at the largest of the rallies held in Vancouver really represents a passionate and deep rooted feeling of outrage.  While a good turnout, it hardly suggests that people are prepared to go out of their way to invest in this fight.

As I have said before, the opposition parties including the NDP are right in fighting this tax, mainly because the Liberals had a clear obligation to make the plan  known in the recent election.  Their claim to have not seriously considered it until after the election is either disingenious or suggests a degree of incompetence that is hardly believable.

However it is not clear where this fight is going.  In particular is it the intention of the NDP to make it the major focus of its legislative and public efforts to dislodge the Liberals in the next election?  That appears to be the case to many.  If so has it anticipated the implications of that?  And what is the plan to achieve that?

Mixed messages were given at the Vancouver meeting about what the present coalition of opponents intend.  Bill Vander Zalm said the goal is a referendum of voters on the issue.  BC is the only province that has legislation making a referendum possible thanks to legislation passed by the NDP in the mid-1990’s.  This requires signing up 10% of voters in each constituency, after which a campaign and a vote must take place.  Carol James suggested something quite different.  She called upon the public to put pressure on Liberal MLA’s suggesting that up to 7 can be pressured to vote against the HST.  This would mean that they would have to cross the floor to sit under some other label.  Others have suggested using the recall legislation to go after vulnerable Liberal MLA’s who had small margins of victory in the last election.

Each of these strategies has its vulnerabilities.  Both referendum and recall require massive organization in order to be successful.  Vast amounts of money are required, as well as the marshaling of vast platoons of volunteer organizers and foot soldiers.   This would suck away resources from virtually all other political organizing.  Both recall and referendum are all or nothing propositions.  They either work and the government is blocked, or they fail and the government gets its way.  Of course the government may suffer a lot of damage along the way, but it is not clear that these expensive and difficult processes are the best way to inflict that damage.

The biggest risk of this concentration of effort and resources is to the NDP.  It is in the best position to raise money and contribute organizers and foot soldiers.  But it is also the Official Opposition in the Legislature.  It needs to have a four year plan that carries it into the next election as the clear alternative to the Liberals.  Is the HST really the right platform to carry an extended fight?  Or this best treated as an opening salvo in a fight that will move on from increased taxation, not natural ground for the NDP, to a broader critique of the government and a plan for the future.

The NDP is not known for spending huge amounts of money on campaigns mounted outside of the official election campaign.  Indeed in the period running up to the last two elections, the NDP badly under performed, apparently because it wanted to preserve resources for the official campaign.  Is it now planning to commit to extremely expensive recall and referendum campaigns on a single issue?  And expensive they will be. The major business leaders and organizations will commit their almost limitless resources to oppose any recall or referendum.  The apparent business support for the opposition to HST from some sectors affected is already weakening and will virtually disappear in any organized campaigns that require real money and commitment.

And the Liberals themselves are not to be underestimated.  They claim to already have had success in selling the tax as a shift rather than an increase that will be good for jobs, productivity and investment.  They have most of the tax experts speaking out in the media on their side.  And Campbell has in the past showed that he can best his opponents with his “Nixon to China” moves, where he embraces positions, this time a tax increase, most commonly associated with the NDP.

There is of course another possibility.  A high profile fight over the next few months could help a new party of the right gain popularity, taking votes away from the Liberals.  Perhaps that is why Carol James suggests lobbying MLA’s as her preferred strategy.  Perhaps she feels that enough pressure on them could drive some to a new party like the fledgling provincial Conservative.  Perhaps this is a signal that the NDP will not be embracing referendum and recall to fight this battle. It may be happy to have other chase this elusive goal, while conserving its resources and organizers for fights yet to come.