Will Vancouver's opposition parties be prepared for the 2014 civic contest?
If Vancouver’s civic opposition parties ever want a realistic chance of forming government again, they’ll have to re-think their current strategies. That’s because if Vision Vancouver had chosen to run a full slate for council, school and park board on November 19th, they could have won every single seat. Such is the power of incumbency.
So what exactly do COPE and the NPA need to do in order to give themselves a fighting chance in the 2014 civic election?
In the case of COPE, they need to implement three key initiatives. They must first stop signing coalition agreements, which only serve to benefit Vision Vancouver. It’s painfully obvious that thousands of COPE supporters lived up to their end of the bargain and voted for the governing party. Unfortunately, that support was not reciprocated.
Secondly, COPE must make a concerted effort to recruit a top-notch mayoral candidate who can raise their profile during the campaign. The notion that COPE can continue “contracting out” the services of a mayoral candidate from Vision Vancouver is clearly misguided.
With the party no longer encumbered by a coalition agreement, COPE should also run a minimum of seven council candidates instead of the three they ran this time. If they do anything less, they’ll be wiped out once again in 2014.
When it comes to the NPA, they too need to shake things up if they want to bridge the 20,000-vote gap that separated Mayor Gregor Robertson and their mayoral candidate Suzanne Anton.
This is the second consecutive election wherein Vision Vancouver has successfully staked out the vote rich “middle ground” in civic politics. They did so by effectively portraying the NPA as a far right-of-centre party and COPE as an outdated group of fringe left-wingers.
Over the last six years Vision Vancouver has cleverly branded itself as a “centrist” coalition party comprised mainly of federal Liberals and New Democrats. The net result is the Liberal/Conservative coalition the NPA previously relied upon to secure victory has been all but dismantled.
The NPA should also seriously consult with its members regarding a possible name change and pledge to run no more than seven council candidates in 2014. It should also stop pretending it isn’t a political party and hire permanent staff that will support the work of their elected officials through better research, policy development and neighbourhood outreach.
It remains to be seen whether COPE and the NPA have what it takes to implement the fundamental changes required to revitalize their organizations. But given their recent political fortunes, I’d say they might be open to a new way of thinking right about now.
- Post by Daniel. You can follow us on on Twitter @CityCaucus or you can "like" us on Facebook at facebook.com/citycaucus. This column first appeared in 24 Hours Vancouver on Thursday, December 1, 2011.
PDF 
“[Vision] could have won every single seat. Such is the power of incumbency.”
Incumbency, a great campaign, and many other factors, but mainly that Vision campaigned on issues that matter to Vancouverites.
“They did so by effectively portraying the NPA as a far right-of-centre party and COPE as an outdated group of fringe left-wingers.”
I think it was more about the NPA looking hapless on their own. Chicken suits and complaints about wheatfields? Poor. And how exactly did Vision portray COPE as fringe left-wingers? By cooperatively campaigning with them? What an odd observation.
Charlie Smith at Georgia Straight suggests that Vision’s goal has always been to wipe COPE off the map.
http://straight.com/article-557146/vancouver/vision-vancouver-loves-cope-death
Quinlan’s “Vancouver Kid” posts revealed his contempt for Louis’ politics. Would Vision want to rid itself of COPE? Go figure.
i know you would love for COPE to run a mayoral candidate and split the vote… but it will never happen
COPE will go down in defeat before they let the NPA govern again
I think Daniel has pretty much spot on.
This NPA/party question is a joke. The look like a party, they act like a party at election time, they vote as a slate… come on… the only thing they don’t do is behave like a party in the off-season.
If you ask 10 random people on the street if NPA was a political party, I bet $100 they would all say yes.
It’s time for whoever wants to take on Vision to stop making deals or acting like it is 1960.
What a stupid comment. So you rather kill your baby than sharing your crib with one or two… COPE needs to grow a pair. And needs to get rid of backstabbing Vision jerks that infiltrated their ranks. Vision, hmm, they better explains their US charities funding. Sooner or later it will come out… with a bang!
Julia,
I couldn’t agree with you more:
“This NPA/party question is a joke. The look like a party, they act like a party at election time, they vote as a slate… come on… the only thing they don’t do is behave like a party in the off-season.”
But that’s exactly what Glissando Remmy wrote in the previous post:
“If all the NPA, Green, Independent, COPE (as COPE and not as Vision-COPE) candidates would have started their campaigns the days after 2008 Election, we would not be in the foul smelling pile we are in right now.”
And this was IMO good advise for City Caucus:
“Vancouver needs a great voice, a strong voice, a “get to” Forum, where civic issues are discussed,dissected and then put back together again, all done with finesse, professionalism and last but not least, with a great political swagger,that, of course,if you want all the great ideas to stick.”
I can live with that! THe question is is CC, NPA going to listen or they would go the ‘Steven Forth’ – peace for now, my Gregor is Mayor, and my boys took all the seats?
Higgins, I think Steven is exactly who we need around here. We are never going to convince diehard COPE members that our version of the world is they way things should be. Let them go to the forum of their choice. Steven and his world view is close and that is exactly what we need. What exactly separates you from Steven – I suggest we find out. It may simply be the choice of vocabulary or your mode of transportation. Quite frankly, I can live with a variety of transportation but I can’t live with a ruined local economy or a alienation of half the city population over our choice of words. So, how are we the same and how are we different. We have 3 years to figure it out and 3 years make the election about more than wheat fields and community gardens.
Vision got a whopping 18% of the vote, so I wouldn’t say the campaign was that great by any stretch of the means.
What Vision campaigns on and what Vision delivers are entirely two different things.
We all witnessed that the last go around.
Recent statements by Robertson and Vision are already setting the scene for the let down on this year’s promise of ‘affordable housing’. After all – 2008′s ‘ending homelessness’ has left the building and is never coming back.
Had the COPE supporters not thrown their support against the Vision slate, the political landscape would have looked different. But Vision set out to take them down and they did.
You want to talk about toxic tweets – I would suggest you look at Vision pit bull Jonathan Ross. But then again you can’t. Seems he disappeared again after spewing venom during the campaign season. Wonder how much Vision paid him this go around?
Or maybe TIDES paid him as a charitable donation….
Higgins:
Did you see the recent article in the Province? December 1 or somewhere around there – Enbridge’s CEO is questioning the $$ coming into Canada for ‘environmental reasons’ and funded by American charities.
As well, Harper made a statement surrounding the same a few days earlier during an live interview with Randene Neill and Squire Barnes.
If you look on Vivian’s site, I believe she has it linked up as her research was mentioned in the Province article.
It is interesting to say the least. (And about time)
I think that the reason the NPA need to retool their organization, and to start to act more like a political party (if they want to win next time) is so that they can attract strong candidates who have a chance of winning. Recognizing the hurdle of incumbency they will have to overcome, future candidates will not be serious contenders unless they already have name recognition.
What may happen is that those potential future NPA candidates look out at the three choices open to them, and make their own call:
1) Spend the next three years rebuilding the NPA
2) Run as an independent, accepting that it is a real long shot to get elected
3) Join Vision, and work to change or shape that party from the inside.
Given the advantages of a party organization and incumbency of the party (if not the candidates) then #3 may be seen as a real option by some, at least the centrist NPA candidates.
I would expect Vision to spread more into the NPA territory than the COPE territory, and that suggests that they will be courting candidates that the NPA might also have been interested in. And I would expect their party organization to be a draw for those candidates. It will be interesting to watch.
“Vision got a whopping 18% of the vote, so I wouldn’t say the campaign was that great by any stretch of the means.”
If your benchmark is 100% voter turn-out, then you’re right. But that would be ridiculous. You can only count ballots that are cast, and Vision did very well with those. And turn-out was up.
“But Vision set out to take [COPE] down and they did.”
I’ve seen this claim a few times. Anyone have any relevant proof or even anecdotes? Vision and COPE cooperated on the campaign. Not sure how that translates to Vision trying to destroy COPE.
“You want to talk about toxic tweets”
I never mentioned toxic tweets, not sure where you got that from.
Brenton:
Vision forgets about the other 82% of the population that did not vote or did not vote for them and only focuses on those that did.
That is a mistake.
And if I hear the words ‘You gave us the mandate when you voted us in’ one more time…..
It seems to be their blanket statement to push through whatever they please.
I watched a program on New York the other night. Exact same verbage being used by their City Manager and guess what, the exact same pissed off reaction from a great many of their citizens.
Politicians not listening causes voter apathy. Why bother voting when it makes zero difference in the long run.
“Such is the power of incumbency”? Perhaps, partially. But I think, rather, “such is the power of a bought election in a first-past-the-post system.” When we find out in about 110 days how much Vision spent, it’s likely to be $3-5 million. NPA similar, but less. In his inauguration speech, Mayor Robertson (yes, with support of only 18% of registered voters) said “And we will continue pushing for real reform of Vancouver’s election process – including donation limits and disclosure.” Our response: You don’t need to “push” for it. Just DO it. Tell developers, unions, and foreign funders you won’t accept any more of their money. And do not offer any more favours as payback this term. Tell them today that the deal is off. Voluntarily disclose your funders now. No need to wait 120 days. And no need to wait for Victoria to impose reforms. Victoria will not. Both main parties there are just as dependent on political contributions from special interests.
If you remember correctly, it took Vision 400+ days to disclose their ‘donors’ list in 2008 – so I wouldn’t hold your breath.
I mean, this is a political party that was running/working with a deficit.
If they can’t balance their own books how are they expected to do right by the taxpayers?
Like Ballem says: “It is just a drop in the bucket.”
The Thought of The Day
“Maybe NPA & COPE need to take some courses in the new Art of Parking…a Party.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=egsdc7tZ_xc
Jeff L.,
Good comment, now we’re talking!
To me it seemed strange how after, a lost election in 2008, none of the former failed candidates stepped up to the plate to keep Vision’s feet to the fire.
Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Not a chirp. Crickets. Violins…
Peter Ladner, the man who would be King but not Mayor, whom I am partial to, woke up from his sorrowful sleep about the beginning of 2011, only to say that he likes bike lanes, bikes, gardening, oh, and he has a book coming out, btw… and dislikes Global Warming and caramelized popcorn, huh!?
Name recognition is important. People may hate your guts, still they might just elect you, ’cause “they are all the same, at least this one… we know!” so there goes Aaron Jasper’s second term. The man took the Stanley Park Petting Zoo, away from ALL the kids, for good, for goodness sake!
But no, there were enough assholes to gave him a second chance to do just the same.
Being in the game is important too. Even if you are a spectator, by simply following the team around, you get to know what’s going on, get to kow the players, get familiar with the tricks of the trade. ‘Cause despite what Christy Clark or Raymond Louie says to you they are the living proof.
To the NPA members I say, a non partisan association doesn’t work anymore in Vancouver, when you have to fight against a sustained American financing, currently implementing a wicked plan that stayed dormant for probably more than a decade.
Let’s call them the “Environmental Sleepers”:
( from my Twitter account:
https://twitter.com/#!/glissandoremmy )
…
“EnviroSleepers” Z Term Applied 2 Organized Mob Like Enviro-Groups Financed By US Charities In Their Attempt 2 Make It Into Legitimate Areas Of Business 1/3
“EnviroSleepers” Z Term Applied 2 Organized Mob Like Enviro-Groups Sending Its Next GenXX Of Members 2 Schools & Other Locales So That They Could Sink Roots 2/3
“EnviroSleepers” Z Term Applied 2 Organized Mob Like Enviro-Groups Starting Businesses Enter Local Politics, Influence Trade, Campaigning On Behalf of Their “Legit” Grant Donors, Against The Best Interests Of Canadians 3/3
…
Re.Jeff L. 1,2,3 List… 1 is good as a long term plan; 2 is a toughie, hello… we are dealing with the same people here!; 3 is very appealing, if I was a grassroots, passionate, and also a… pissed off COPE member, this is the avenue I would take. Change those Vision phonies from inside and steal them back home, the same Modus Operandi.
Till then though…
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
Randy,
Read my previous post please.
Now, looking back, would have been nice to have same City Hall Watch back then in 2008.
For more than three years I’ve been kicking tin cans around this city. Apparently… they were not loud enough for the electorate to wake up from this Vision nightmare.
Everyone else were too enamored with the New Team!
Let me ask you, if it weren’t for “Those F$%^ing NPA hacks”… or for a failed COPE party nomination for Terry M., would there be a NSV Party today?
Doubt that. You would probably be voting… Vision, and Terry… COPE.
I hope this to be lesson learned…
Good luck to all of you with that.
You know, I’ll be watching too!
Glissando, very good points. The undue influence of special interests on political decisions (in any society) is perhaps like a disease that creeps in over time. The various players in society are also part of an immune system to keep disease in check. It just takes time to wake up the T-cells. Keep kicking the cans. More will wake up.
Wow, I seem to have made quite an impression, on you any way.
I am not particularly interested in peace for now, and I would like to see the NPA and COPE come up with some intelligent (and intelligible) policy perspectives. There is room for a party that wants the city to focus only on things within its span of control and to do as little as possible but do it extremely well. That would be a place for the NPA to start. There is also a place for a party that wants us to get back to our tradition of social housing, find real solutions to homelessness, demand developers make social investments, and block dumb mega projects. COPE could lead that.
But if the NPA wants to be the party of the established developers they are going to lose as these developers will tend to gravitate to where the power is.
Steven, I don’t know Higgins but he was right abut you, self centered, arrogant Vision hack, that you really are. And no, you didn’t make an impression on me!
“I would like to see the NPA and COPE come up with some intelligent (and intelligible) policy perspectives”
Intelligent? Intelligible?
You have no shame? I know your boys won, but your comment is exactly why it was stupid for Vancouver citizens to give you another term. How stupid is that? You come here and insult the NPA voterss/ candidates that risked their careers, public humiliation at the hands of a Vision machine paid by taxpayers money I may add, and fear defeat, and ask them to give sound policies (which by the way they did) when for three long f$%^ing years Vision have did nothing at all, other than clawing their way through the public administration of this city?
You know what… you are not worthy…LOL
Steven:
I thought Vision was about ‘affordable housing’ and ‘ending homelessness’ – after all those are 2 campaign promises made by them……
And we ALL know where the established developers have ‘gravitated’ to – and it was NOT the NPA.
Yes, those were my points. The big developers support whichever party they think will win. Normal behavior.
Real, long-term solutions on homelessness and afforable housing may be beyond the span of control of any municipal government. But if you are going to make them campaign issues then you are going to be held accountable for them. Vision will need to deliver a lot more this time if it expects to win a third term.
When we find out in about 110 days how much Vision spent, it’s likely to be $3-5 million. NPA similar, but less.
What are you basing this on? As near as I can tell, you’re just making up numbers. The NPA said they would spend $2.4m, and if anything, the NPA spent more than Vision. They had so many radio, billboard and bus-stop ads, and the big item in campaigns is advertising.
Vision forgets about the other 82% of the population that did not vote or did not vote for them and only focuses on those that did.
What does that mean, exactly? That you know what the people who didn’t vote are thinking? While I appreciate that low voter turn-out is a problem in municipal politics, I’m not sure that translates into you (or me) being an expert in knowing the minds of 65% of the voting population.
The people who probably know more than you or me or anyone else are pollsters. Everything else is just guesswork. We can guess that people really want to see more done on affordable housing, or we can guess that people hate wheat fields. But unless and until those people vote, we have no way of knowing what mandate they do or don’t support.
launching verbal grenades with the hope to make the other person stop talking is pointless.
It gets us no-where and quite frankly, Vancouver and our kids cannot afford 3 more years of this.
Brenton:
In case you haven’t noticed, regardless of whether people speak out against any of the proposed programs (and they have) Vision sets their sights on – it still gets banged through. (STIR, Hornby bike lane, 5 outdoor swimming pools gone and in place skateboard parks that the neighborhood did not want and said they did not want)
Remember: ‘Democracy cubed!’
The Thought of The Morning
“Robertson’s after the win: “Vancouver Voters sent us a “Clear Message”…” is similar to Bush’s “God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq!”… both must be on a different level of perception.”
Brenton you say:
“What does that mean, exactly? That you know what the people who didn’t vote are thinking?” – re. the 82% of Voters that did not favor Vision.
Of course not, we don’t know how people who did not cast a vote think, the problem is… based on Robertson’s own words… Vision does… “clear message” LOL!
Get it?
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
Of course many people did speak out in favour of the Hornby bike lanes and use them daily.
Steven Steven Steven…
Boy you really are acting like a Trojan Horse in here!
Remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IDcmUQa0WM
That’s the positive feedback, and lots and lot6s opf people in … favor of Vision’s pet projects!
As for the Hornby Bike lane, like Higgins before, do you think we are all stupid? Isn’t this the same bike lane that was approved for construction at midnight and it started construction the following day?
Talking about speaking in favour? Public consultation wasn’t even needed, Vision rubber stamped it already!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IDcmUQa0WM
And with this, I think, Steven… you just lost all ther credibility you thought you had ha, ha, ha LOL!
“In case you haven’t noticed, regardless of whether people speak out against any of the proposed programs (and they have) Vision sets their sights on – it still gets banged through. (STIR, Hornby bike lane, 5 outdoor swimming pools gone and in place skateboard parks that the neighborhood did not want and said they did not want)”
A lot of people also supported those initiatives. If many people support the Hornby bike lane, why should Gregor et al only listen to those who opposed it?
There will always be people who oppose every single thing a government does. The criteria needs to be more nuanced or more complex than whether some people speak out against something.
Brenton:
I refer you to Mira’s post addressing the kangaroo court/sham ‘consultation’
that was the ‘Hornby’ bike lane meeting, below.
And I will bet the viaduct public consultation meeting(s) will suffer the same fate.
Pretty sure anyone who reads comments on this blog regularly knows my position on bike lanes and knows that in my experience (I know n=1) there has been a lot more consultation with Vision than there was under the previous NPA administration.
+1. So now n=2.
I followed the entire Hornby cycle track debate and watched all of the city hall meeting. Essentially, a small group who didn’t get their way are claiming that because of that, there wasn’t meaningful consultation. I saw lots of meaningful consultation, combined with the political will to actually get something done. Not a perfect design, but a much better result than continually studying it and wasting money. And since a majority of Vancouver residents say they support the lanes, it appears that the council read the electorate correctly.
“Essentially, a small group who didn’t get their way”
Jeff L, just because I wasn’t there to be seen or vocal, it doesn’t mean I was not part of the “small group” This is very narrow minded for you to say,. We have families to take care of, jobs, we cannot afford to spend our days at City Hall “advocating” for all Vision silly ideas LOL!
We are not Hollyjoke material. So we don’t have the time and money to represent ourselves. BTW all the advocating was done on public money, taxpayers that is.
Did you notice that Robertson said repeatedly during the campaign that there were no new bike lanes planned? They are not safe, they are not green, and Vision backed right away from them during the campaign. And now that Vision has a majority, more of them will be stuffed down our throats.
Nicole:
“…just because I wasn’t there to be seen or vocal, it doesn’t mean I was not part of the “small group” This is very narrow minded for you to say,. We have families to take care of, jobs, we cannot afford to spend our days at City Hall “advocating” for all Vision silly ideas LOL!
We are not Hollyjoke material. So we don’t have the time and money to represent ourselves. BTW all the advocating was done on public money, taxpayers that is.”
Let’s go back to the issue. There were open houses over a period of months. There were published reports with the plans. There were council meetings with minutes posted. There were mail outs. There were multiple surveys. As a result of that process, there were a significant number of design changes to address the issues raised, as best they could. See the expanded budget and addition of all the loading zones for specific examples of that. At the end of all this, there was a council meeting. The charge of ‘lack of meaningful consultation’ seems to centre on that one meeting, but I don’t know why.
You state that you didn’t participate in any of the above, and then claim that there was no consultation. How would you know, if you didn’t participate in any of it?
It is OK to be busy with family. That is why we elect representatives. They did their job. Surveys of residents, as well as the recent election results, suggest that they have support.
Of course it is done on public money. It is a public infrastructure issue. Do we want private roads on public land?
Jeff L.,
Please cut the BS.
I was in the “know” for most part of this “popular campaign” re. the bike lanes. The open houses were a waste of time and public money – they only informed you how they are going to screw you, your choice was only for the lubricant… the council meetings were… boring, but hey,10 Councillors and one Meeyor were getting paid, the ‘masses’ were not. “Hat in hand” approach is not my thing. And that’s the only type of approach, this Vision dominated council would put up with. And anyways, the decisions were taken beforehand behind closed doors, sometimes with the microphones left on, but still…
“we cannot afford to spend our days at City Hall “advocating” for all Vision silly ideas LOL!”
I think Nicole said here, she couldn’t attend the “Council meetings” not that she couldn’t or didn’t attend open houses or read minutes.
You are making things up, Jeff L.!
I think Nicole should speak for herself. She is the one who said she wasn’t part of the process of consultation.
Do you have any actual evidence for your claim that the seperated bike lanes are not safe? This is the opposite of what has been found in other jurisdictions, it is the opposite of my own experience riding on Hornby for the past 20 years and it flies in the face of common sense.
“We found that there is a 28 percent lower injury rate when bicycling on cycle tracks, compared with bicycling in parallel and comparable roads,” noted study lead author Anne Lusk, a research associate in the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2011/02/02/ip.2010.028696.full
I hope we see a lot more seperated bike lanes in Vancouver.
There is a new big dig occurring on Pacific and Howe today – Dec 14th. It can’t possibly be to accommodate additional Bike Lane non-traffic and car turns can it?
There is a handful of cyclists who use that section of the roadway. If the City had just left in place the right hand turn onto Hornby from the Burrard St Bridge so many problems created for the local residents would have been solved. Ah but as Meggs is fond of saying “the Election was the…….” !
What do they care about the impact on citizens?
Bunch of kids at play wasting taxpayers dollars for a few of their elite pals.
Hi Gerry:
He did state no new bike lanes….it as reported by media outlets…
Finding this information took about two minutes on the city website… but wasn’t as much fun as making up a story about evil cyclists and their dreaded bike lanes. I suspect it’s the roadwork to which Victor is referring:
“Utility Construction
BC Hydro will be working on 800 Pacific St. between 9:30am – 3:00pm (M-F). Temporary “No Stopping Anytime” signs will be posted on both sides of 800 Pacific St. from Horny St. to H …
Project # 5841
Status : Under construction
Expected Completion: 2011/12/16 ”
Full details:
http://app.vancouver.ca/roadahead_net/ProjectOverView.aspx?ID=5841
“You are making things up, Jeff L.! ”
OK ‘several wars’ Remmy. Your permit to express outrage over facts vs fiction ran out at 11:30pm on Dec. 11.