Sorry for posting this so late … a very busy day today for many reasons, which also caused me to miss council so I’m hoping people will post on what they think came out of the various council meetings. But anyway, here is my story with a round-up of people’s thoughts on what is happening at Vision and whether they think there is any sign of fracturing over Gregor Robertson’s Yay Gordon Campbell Yay Carbon Tax remarks.
The follow-up story to ex-board member resignation from Vision
June 2nd, 2009 · 18 Comments
Categories: Uncategorized
18 responses so far ↓
1 FedLib // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Francis, from all that has been written on this, it seems like the carbon tax component of it is minimal.
These are debates about direction and the leadership, or lackthereof, coming from the mayor’s office.
The carbon tax isn’t what made the NDPers angry enough to storm off, it was the fact that Robertson was happy to send all kind of luvin’ vibes to Campbell.
As a federal Liberal member and a sometimes provincial NDP voter, I am inclined to agree with them. A lot of Federal Liberals also recoil at the mention of Gordon Campbell, and it is appalling to see the Robertson endorsing him
2 LP // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:35 am
Leading any coalition is next to impossible at the best of times. That’s why STV was doomed to failure and groups like Vision should be sent to the gallows at first opportunity.
Until this city sheds the slate nature of our civic politics and returns to a system where true independents can run, compete and win, all of this bullshit will continue at City Hall.
What is particularly appalling to me is the constant hopping from side to side the civic Liberals partake in with their quest for power.
When they were in office federally and had their clutches on the NPA, we had a somewhat stable city hall. Of course we all know the federal story regarding their inability to convince enough Canadians to trust them again.
Now for the past 3 elections in our civic politics, they’ve crossed the street back and forth like a prostitute looking for his/her next trick.
Frankly I have more respect for street walkers because at least they’re honest about what they do and what their intentions are.
Back to Gregor. He is proving himself to be the most inept mayor, since…well….the last one, and this coalition called Vision will see it’s light fade over the coming 2.5 years.
6 months in, the silent majority have already had enough. It doesn’t matter how pragmatic the juice king tries to be, him and his merry band of councillors are on their way out the door.
3 rf // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:01 am
Tieleman is such a master spinner. I despise him……but you gotta love him.
“(NDP moved too far to the centre)” and that’s why they lost. Funny stuff!
Cynical translation: NDP pretended to be more centre but not enough people near the centre believed them.
Here’s a tip, NDP. If you want to pretend to be more centre, don’t put forth a slate stuffed with union leaders, union backers, union rank’n'file, and vocal socialists.
Duh.
4 spartikus // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:43 am
NDP pretended to be more centre but not enough people near the centre believed them.
Conversely, too many people were fooled by Campbell’s falsehoods. Of course, this can also be laid at the feet of the NDP campaign staff - the ammunition was there, and it was plentiful.
union backers, union rank’n’file
Yes, how dare the NDP fill its ranks with ordinary people. Shocking!
5 rf // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:31 am
C’mon, Sparty. Wouldn’t it be nice to have “greater than ordinary” (I hate the word extraordinary…it’s seems like an oxymoron) people running our governement, rather than just ordinary people?
It’s part of my problem with Carole James. She’s so ordinary. It’s our top governement job and the best candidate the NDP put forward is a high school graduate with limited work or entrepreneurial experience and 6/10 charisma at best? Both sides are littered with false and broken/soon-to-be promises. There’s always going to be things that one side finds disgusting or dishonest.
I know this is borderline debating the weather, but saying “ordinary people” is not much different than left-wing references to “working families”. Successful people (when it comes to personal finances, education, entrepreneurship, happiness) are “ordinary” and “working” too. The left does not have a monopoly on working and being ordinary. Just like the right doesn’t have a monopoly on being selfish miopic wingnuts.
6 spartikus // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:02 am
The left does not have a monopoly on working and being ordinary.
And the right doesn’t have a monopoly on being “successful”. I’m a union member, and I’m a decent, hard-working, dedicated member of society and so are my co-workers. Which is why I resent this sort of language.
But whatever. Nice weather we’re having…
7 Chris Keam // Jun 3, 2009 at 10:39 am
Success can be measured many ways. Choosing leaders who offer personal popularity or the ability to create private profit as reasons to vote for them may just put into power individuals with exactly the wrong skill set to understand good governance is often a case of making unpopular decisions and spending sensible and adequate amounts on social programs and other non-revenue generating institutions.
8 gmgw // Jun 3, 2009 at 11:03 am
RF is right up with the trends; I guess he must subscribe to the newsletter. This faux-populist stance Righties have lately begun taking, i.e. that of claiming to be humble “workers” and just plain “ordinary” folks is merely their latest tactic in their ongoing struggle to undermine the integrity of the Left in general and the validity of the labour movement in particular.
Reminds me of the way the great comic-strip artist Harold Gray used to portray Little Orphan Annie’s Daddy Warbucks as being an upstanding fellow who’d worked his way up from the shop floor to being a zillionaire uber-plutocrat. He may have been the wealthiest man and most powerful non-politician in the world, but at heart he was still just a humble working stiff with rock-solid old-fashioned American values. Gray, as his zealous, lifelong promotion of a world governed by a purportedly benign laissez-faire hyper-capitalism demonstrated, actually believed his own fictional BS, and ultimately turned himself into a figure of mockery.
Unfortunately, there’s nothing comical in watching his philosophical heirs spouting this latest Rightie propaganda line, however transparent it may be. Mock them if you will, but consider the implications of their not-so-hidden agenda as you do.
gmgw
9 spartikus // Jun 3, 2009 at 11:58 am
Slightly off-topic, but timely and it made me giggle:
On this morning’s edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, the NYT’s Andrew Ross Sorkin posed the question “Name a successful unionized company. Think. You’re going to go to [commercial] break before you come up with one. And that’s the problem.”
Said apparently without irony, oblivious to the fact that the crew and most of the cast of the very show he was on, as well as most of the workers of the parent company that produces the show, are unionized. As well as those of the company he works for. And so on.
Partial and growing list of successful unionized companies here. (Success defined as profitable in 2008)
10 LP // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Gee Sparty, in checking that list of successful union companies, I don’t see too many who are active and vocal supporters of one side or other of the political fence. Could that mean something?
On another note, Carole James may only have a high-school education, but I believe our province’s richest man has even less. I’ll take his grade 9 education and his life-time of success and experience over a Michael Ignatieff any day.
The education anyone has is irrelevant for a leader. I believe most will tell you that leadership is something precious few are born with, while the rest spend their lifetimes taking courses to try and be something they weren’t meant to be in the first place.
I’m not a fan of James but her failure as NDP leader to form a government has little to do with her educational background and more to do with a whole lot of other factors.
And yes, there are those on the right, non-unionized, successful folk who are quite tired of the left claiming the whole “working people” mantra. The idea that these “working class” sheep need to be led to the promised land by any political party is a concept that’s past it’s expiry date.
Go ahead though and keep running that campaign. We’ll see where it gets you.
11 A. G. Tsakumis // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:54 pm
If David Chudnovsky seeks and wins the COPE mayoral nomination, Gregor is finished.
But, of course, this would require guts on the part of Chudnovsky.
Vision is fracturing badly. Wait for it. There’s MUCH more…
12 ptak604 // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Actually, Tieleman may have a point. A quick look at the elections results indicates that there were seven ridings where the Liberals, in winning, had their vote decline from 2005 and the NDP’s 2005 vote would have picked up the seat (Burnaby-Lougheed [comparing to the old Burquitlam riding]; Burnaby North; Cariboo Chilcotin [from the old Cariboo South riding], Maple Ridge-Mission; Nechako Lakes [the renamed Prince George-Omineca], Oak Bay-Gordon Head; Vancouver-Fairview). That is to say, people who voted NDP in those ridings in 2005 did not vote for them in 2009, and are highly unlikely to have switched over to the Liberals.
Now begins the oversimplification for the sake of provoking thought. If the 2005 election featured a further left campaign than 2009, which I think is a fair judgment, then a similar campaign may well have seen a tie between the Libs and NDP, with Vicki Huntington holding the deciding vote (which has a certain symbolic elegance). And if that further-left platform had been strong on the environment (and Bill Tieleman was key to screwing that up this time around), there is a good chance that a small portion of the large number of Green voters in Comox Valley and Saanich North and Islands could have switched, leading to an NDP government. These are certainly “ifs,” but they don’t strike me as big ones. In other words, an electoral map exists in BC that can elect a party running further to the left than the 2009 NDP.
13 rf // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:39 pm
@gmgw: Huh?
@lp: Her (lack of) education is very relevant. I specifically referenced “entrepreneurial experience” because there are some things you just can’t learn there.
btw: Although Jimmy Pattison does have a high school education (not grade 9. You may be confusing him with former Canfor chairman Peter Bentley), he also attended and excelled at UBC (Commerce) for several years. He dropped out a year before graduation and took over a business. The rest is history…
How that legitimizes Carole James’ lack of experience or education is a stretch along the lines of gmgw comparing upper-middle class, right leaning people to Daddy Warbucks.
14 LP // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:04 pm
This is the first I’ve heard of this David Chudnovsky business. Where do we read more?
15 LP // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:15 pm
rf, after re-reading your post I see that I missed the “or entreprenuerial experience” you mention in your reply to me.
agreed.
I’ll have to go back to my biographies, now you have me wondering who I’m thinking of if Pattision went to UBC……
Anyway my point being I’d take a male or female who’s built a billion dollar business without a highschool education over an Ignatieff type with lots of letters behind their name.
Anyone who believes this guy is a worthy PM is as foolish as those who believe Carole James would make a fab-premier.
Back to the Vision discussion.
I’m not so sure Gregor wasn’t just in the right company of people launching his overpriced juice business. Clearly his 6 months in in the mayors chair have shown he isn’t as astute as most gave him credit for.
16 spartikus // Jun 3, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Gee Sparty, in checking that list of successful union companies, I don’t see too many who are active and vocal supporters of one side or other of the political fence. Could that mean something?
Indeed it does…that there really isn’t much difference between the two main parties in the United States.
17 LP // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I would think about 120 Million people who voted for either Obama or McCain may disagree with you on that statement Spartikus.
18 spartikus // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:11 am
I’m not sure how that disproves the notion there are significant policy differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. For all his charisma, Obama has merely continued policies the Bush Administration was pursuing - including the bailout and closing Guantanamo.
Perhaps Americans will finally get some sort of universal healthcare, but I won’t hold my breath.
Leave a Comment