The road once travelled

Recently, I came across a copy of "Leaders & Lesser Mortals: Backroom Politics in Canada" by John Laschinger and Geoffrey Stevens - effectively an equivalent to Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics based on the tactics of the '80s and early '90s. And while much of the book fit with what had been my understanding of how Canadian politics had progressed during the time period, I'll take a moment to point out a few surprising tidbits - along with how they may affect some of my assumptions about the current state of Canadian politics.

First off, the major parties' campaign spending from the 1984 and 1988 elections (p. 138, via the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada):

	Con	Lib	NDP
1984 expenses	$6,388,941	$6,292,983	$4,730,723
1988 expenses	$7,921,738	$6,839,875	$7,060,563

Second, the parties' yearly fund-raising from 1979-1990 (p. 164-165, again from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada):

	Con	Lib	NDP
1979	$8,375,716	$5,220,520	$4,741,281
1980	$7,564,120	$6,217,795	$4,920,447
1981	$6,949,797	$5,095,158	$3,855,812
1982	$8,193,660	$6,104,367	$6,984,881
1983	$14,108,012	$7,285,115	$8,590,942
1984	$21,145,920	$10,553,316	$10,371,018
1985	$14,565,652	$5,570,822	$6,284,316
1986	$15,117,750	$10,619,007	$7,795,658
1987	$12,761,155	$8,832,377	$6,697,083
1988	$24,542,036	$13,211,364	$18,754,770
1989	$13,801,368	$6,324,012	$13,864,694
1990	$11,046,654	$12,036,486	$15,438,908

And finally, some party identification numbers from 1991-1992 (p. 223, from Goldfarb Consulting):

	1991	1992
Con	19%	14%
Lib	30%	26%
NDP	22%	16%
Bloc	9%	9%
Reform	6%	7%
Other	6%	2%
None of the above	7%	24%

So what makes these numbers worth noting? From my standpoint, they suggest a rather different story from what seems to be the conventional wisdom about when and how the NDP enjoyed its previous best chance to emerge as the Official Opposition, and about what the default expectations should be among the three main federal parties.

My assumption, which seems to be in line with conventional wisdom, was that the greatest opportunity in the NDP's history came in 1988 - when Ed Broadbent was seen as the top choice among the federal leaders, and when the NDP had managed to take the lead in some polls during the 1986-1987 period. And the 1988 party spending numbers indicate that the NDP didn't lack for financial resources, as it managed to outspend the Libs and stay within striking distance of the Mulroney Cons.

Of course, it's worth noting that there were also millions of third-party dollars poured into the 1988 election on both sides of the free trade issue. Which means that the NDP's money likely didn't go as far as it would have in almost any other election cycle - and probably had plenty to with the fact that the NDP's lack of focus on the issue left it largely sidelined.

But contrary to what I'd figured, neither that electoral disappointment nor Broadbent's departure as leader in 1989 did anything to limit the NDP's national momentum. Instead, the NDP managed to build itself into Canada's top federal fund-raising machine in 1989-1990 after Audrey McLaughlin took the helm. And for a substantial period of time after the Ontario and BC elections which supposedly sapped the party's popular support, the NDP ranked above the Cons in second place, with a party identification level more than double its eventual 1993 popular vote. Which would suggest to me that 1993 may in fact have represented the NDP's best-ever opportunity to elevate itself to one of the top two positions - and raise significant questions as to what happened to turn that election into a disaster instead.

Turning to a more general analysis, the decade-long fund-raising numbers also bear mention. But first, take a look at the last four years worth of party fund-raising data by way of comparison.

From my perspective, the earlier numbers would pose a serious challenge to a couple of the default narratives around party fund-raising. For one, the Cons' current levels of fund-raising - rather than representing any new heights in party fund-raising - are really only around the Mulroney Cons' typical inflows even without adjusting for inflation. (Of course, that may require far more work in light of the current donation limits which weren't in effect during Mulroney's time. But the Cons don't seem to be that far beyond the number of donors either - as their 174,000 last year) barely exceeds population growth from their peak of 117,000 in 1983.

Meanwhile, the narrative that the relative parity in fund-raising levels for the NDP and the Libs should be seen as a new and surprising development - which I've bought into at times - doesn't seem to have much basis in the historical numbers. Indeed, it isn't even unprecedented for the NDP to out-raise the Libs while the latter hold office - and at its best, the NDP fund-raising machine has been able to go toe to toe with any in Canadian politics.

Of course, that reality also hints at how far the NDP also has to go in building from its current levels. But the fact that the NDP has managed to lead the pack before should make it clear that the task isn't beyond its reach now. And hopefully the result will be to build the party up to its 1998-1992 levels - and then to better take advantage of the resulting opportunities.

Update: In comments, Pundits' Guide notes a couple of glitches in the numbers above. First, the Cons' number of donors for 2008 is likely based on double-counting individuals who gave money in multiple quarters of the year - which would suggest that the Cons' number of raw donors may in fact be lower than it was in the '80s. Second, the NDP's fund-raising totals from the '80s may reflect provincial as well as federal donations. While that would certainly complicate the picture in assessing the relative fund-raising ability of the federal parties, it would still remain true that the NDP was able to spend to the maximum in 1988 and then increase its donations in some form after that.