Penner’s piece seems to illuminate the failure of the Occupy Vancouver movement as well as the NPA’s campaign miscalculations.

That’s too bad, because the issues Occupy attempted to address are extremely valid. But the issues withered over the weeks even with near continuous media coverage. Occupy’s methods became the issue instead.

That’s a harsh lesson for them, and they need to think about it before there’s a next time.

the issue took them from 28% to 40%.

Something did – but according to Bob Penner it wasn’t really #OccupyVancouver

I am not surprised at all given the current deplorable state of the media who have not only abdicated their traditional role in the Democratic process that they are expected/needed to play by the community at large, but they have also been coopted by various corrupt leaders and institutions to carry water and maximize exposure of proprietary content/issues at any price (via hyperbole, sensationalism, speciousness, exaggeration, general distortion). This betrayal is part of what #occupy recognizes and protests against. The MSM have been so thoroughly caustic to their supposed constituents and are completely responsible for their current debilitated state and imminent demise.

We are living in an era where analog/traditional media is morphing into something mostly digital that lends itself profoundly to the democratization of information (and all of the correlating ramifications that more truth brings), as opposed to its former “processing and distribution” model by a comparatively small number of entities. The MSM has demonstrated abject ineptitude in recognizing how this new climate and its obvious trajectory affects their very relevance and survival. I can’t imagine who is directing their executives as they continue to push the accelerator whilst being over the cliff. My prediction is that they will even be further compartmentalized and marginalized until they all but disappear, and I am excited about the silver lining which that portends. They just don’t seem to understand who their true benefactors are; but they will.

“Many media commentators said that the election was a referendum on Occupy – that it was a “defining moment” or a “key leadership moment.” One reporter told me his editor was “obsessed with Occupy.” No doubt he was – but the people of Vancouver weren’t.”

Because something is happening here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mister Editor?!

Majority no longer subscribe to the MSM.

And many of us are never polled ( secret #s or we don’t answer the phone or we lie, don’t we Mr Jones!

@ brilliant

I think avoiding-drama-and-not-creating-confrontations-that-might-generate-some-sympathy-for-misguided-individuals is doing something.

We avoided drama on the city’s part. Avoiding farce on occupy’s part though….

I’m curious about the role of pollsters like Stratcom, Forum Research, and Justason in actually influencing public opinion. Their polls reinforced the idea of a two-horse race by only giving respondents two choices (Robertson versus Anton), or by adding the vague “other.” The results when announced were then picked up by media (e.g., the case of reporter Jeff Lee in the Vancouver Sun proclaiming Robertson in the lead while referring to a poll that was already weeks old) in a way that further reinforced the image of a two-horse race. How could this pattern of pollsters be changed to give a fairer representation of voter options in the future?

@ Randy Helten: Presumably the Vision pollster only polled about things that Vision cared about, and that probably didn’t include you.

Paul T.

Point is, it ended peacefully–not the case in other places where firmer tactics were used.

And don’t speak for all the residents of Vancouver. I’m one, and like many, I couldn’t care less if a few dozen people camped out for a month. There were/are so many more important issues–this was/is relevantly irrelevant to me.

“… finally doing what was right for all the residents of Vancouver.”

Perhaps it is instructive to think of it this way….

What would Gregor’s base have done if he had gone in with mace cans (or worse) a blazin’?

.

The moral of the story is:

1) Construct an ‘October surprise’, look that up if you haven’t heard it before.

2) glom on to a hot button issue with long legs. The more globally resonant, and leggy, the better, as that will suck up the oxygen from any campaign’s platform.

3) collect advertising revenues from well funded political parties positioning to get their brand/message/candidates above the October surprise noise.

4) ???

5) PROFIT!

I’ve been watching US campaigns for years, and what happened with OV this time, and that other OV the last time, is classic October surprise American style politics.

Well done, MSM, well done.

I was all ready to vote for a NPA candidate on Saturday. I’d contacted the candidate with questions and the reply was quick, thoughtful and very Canadian (an apology for disagreeing with me!) All good, but then I got the Kash Heed-esque “Take Back Vancouver” flyer in the mail slot and poof there went my NPA vote. Negative campaigning doesn’t just make some people stay home it makes some of us go vote against you.

MB (Nov 23, 2011 at 12:19 pm) and M. Penner seem to agree that Occupy Vancouver has failed, is dead and gone, and achieved little or nothing while it was around. My hit: they are wrong on both counts, again despite the media sounding chamber saying so to itself – and of course us – over and over obsessively. The Occupy movement, here and elsewhere, may have to change its tactics, but it has already brought changes in the discourse and people’s awareness of what is going on and motivation to do something about it, no matter how many times the G&M editors tell them to give up and shut up. Heck, even Christie Clark had to at least claim that her latest scheme to bring in foreign investment would somehow lessen income inequality.

In any case, Occupy is not dead. Occupy Vancouver is meeting back at the Art Gallery tonight. Since I can only put in one link without posting being delayed for Frances’ approval [hello, Frances!], I’ll just suggest googling “Occupy Vancouver” to see their website for further updates.

For a good analysis, focusing on the Vancouver connection and where Kalle Lasn from Adbusters recommends the Occupy movement go next, see: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/28/111128fa_fact_schwartz

What’s the difference between speaking on behalf of residents vs telling them what you think is right for them?

“I just feel passionate about the issues and respectfully to the Visionistas on this board, I think they’ve got it wrong. You can be respectful to all residents of the city without being mean-spirited.”

But being mean-spirited does not include childish labeling of a group of people? Gotcha.

Speaking of polls, am I the only one surprised Justason didn’t release her last one until after the election?

A lot of posters seem to miss the point of the Ocuupy issue (which the NPA didn’t fully exploit). It wasn’t about the encampment at the Art Gallery per se, it was about Robertson’s judgement and ability to lead. The city had a policy in place not to allow tent citys to take root, but it was ignored. The excuse that the Occupy crowd was too large on the day tents were set up doesn’t wash. The Art Gallery lawn isn’t so large that a large police presence wouldn’t have deterred tents. That lapse in judgement should have been more strongly linked to a similar one which led to the Stanley Cup riot.

@boohoo 15
Note that Portland’s liberal mayor was not afraid to take firm measures against the Occupiers, and Portland is no worse off than our fair city for it.

The real point of Bob’s piece is that the NPA ran a typical minority party campaign: motivate the base and reduce turnout.

I’m not against negative advertising – there are two sides to every story and thoughtful criticism is necessary to political decision making – but the cramped, Rob Ford style campaign the NPA ran was not designed to win.

I think Bob’s point is not that OV was bad, but rather that it was irrelevant to most voters. Or to be more precise, VV’s cautious approach enraged only a minority of voters.

I think that’s very true. The only voters OV seemed relevant to was the NPA base. Ipso facto, ramping it up was part of the NPA’s minority strategy.

The Thought of The Night

“Putz, Adjective…”

Richard,
Your arrogant, patronizing message comes out of all your Vision pores. Your sense of entitlement, is second to none. You fit perfectly with your crowd. Enjoy the moment, for now!

What to do, what to do…
After much thought and consideration, I’ve decided to let my tomcat do whatever he wants with your comment, so …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2W8XKK-3Rk

Good job, kitty!

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

The outcome of the election certainly appears to validate Penner’s view.

What I do find funny however, is that the electorate still seems to view Vision as a “grassroots”, “environmental focused” “People based” party, and that the NPA is the party of “big business”. Vision has done a superb job of marketing themselves….I view them in the same light as Lulu Lemon…they are selling the people a “vision” of the world that is appealing and warm, and lovely, but the people behind it don’t hold 95% of the values they profess. Vision is an extremely well financed, well oiled “big party” machine, that’s financial base is almost identical to the NPA’s (with the exception of the money coming into the Vision coffers from U.S. interests).

It’s difficult to make complex arguments with an apathetic electorate (or any electorate for that matter). You’re either for or against something….bike lanes, greening of the city, homelessness, etc. etc. To get into the specifics of “We’re for bike lanes, but there are multiple ways of doing them and we feel the implementation/lack of consultation resulted in a poor outcome” is not a debate the electorate is even going to listen to….and it instead degrades into stereotypical positions.

That being said…I do think that the NPA was fighting against something rather than for something….they did not produce an alternate view of how the city should look…how city hall would be different….how we could have a better city. It was a campaign fighting against Vision…and with a Lulu Lemon loving electorate…you need to provide them an alternate “dream” they can aspire to….the NPA failed to do this.

For those of us that don’t believe that Vision is what it claims to be…I think we’ll have to sit back and watch….the sheen will eventually come off…and the “true believers” will end up with a rude awakening. Or maybe they are the Lulu Lemon of the political world…people will just keep buying into their vision, because it makes them happy, regardless of the reality.

Or maybe I just need to drink the Kool Aid and be done with it…..

@ Jason and Bill:

I voted largely for Vision and COPE this election. As you both mentioned, this is because the NPA campaigned against things rather than for things. (So did NSV.)

It is entirely possible that Vision has done a really good job of marketing themselves, and they are only actually providing a mediocre product – I am not involved deeply enough in all aspects of running the city to be able to fully judge for myself.

It’s also entirely possible that what you consider to be a bad product is simply a different approach that you don’t like.

Bill, you might recall that I asked several times on this blog for the NPA to give me something to vote for. Give me an alternative to Vision and I will consider it. I thank you for replying, but your only reply was “put in a moratorium and study it further”. That just tells me you don’t like change (maybe you used to like change, but not anymore).

I encourage the NPA to come up with their view of how the city should be run. Tell me what you would actually do and why.

With Affleck and Ball in council, use them to present an alternate vision for Vancouver (pun only slightly intended). Use them to say more than “we are against Vision Vancouver”. Let’s hear some positive ideas that challenge us, and Vision, to think and debate.

If you’ve done all this and Vision has ignored your ideas (again: calls for moratoria and further study are not ideas) then you’ll have a legitimate claim in three years, and you’ll be in a much better position to win over Vision/COPE voters.

Either that or you can continue to court the “I don’t want change” voting bloc and see how that goes.

@jason #35

BINGO!

@brilliant and Glissy

Calling names is a sure sign that you don’t have any good arguments and just resorting to attacks. It didn’t work for the NPA yet you guys are still doing it. How about sticking to debating the issues.

“It’s also entirely possible that what you consider to be a bad product is simply a different approach that you don’t like.”

Agustin…yup, it’s possible…but I don’t think it’s the case.

While I’m relatively fiscally conservative, I’m socially liberal…in fact, I would argue that I fall into the Vision “demographic”. I’m in favor of increasing gas taxes that go to transit, I’m in favor of bike lanes (not the ones we got, but bike lanes), I’m a big believer in climate change, believer in taxation for services (I just want some accountability), and believe it’s our responsibility to help the homeless, focus on child poverty, etc. etc.

Not exactly a poster child for right wing Conservative thinking…that being said, I do own my own businesses, I do very well, I do drive an SUV (I have three kids)…but I’m willing to pay more taxes for all those things….again, provided the government shows accountability.

I believe you echoed my views on the NPA providing something to vote for….YES, they are in opposition, so yes they are going to be critical, but they do have to provide an alternate vision for the city.

What I don’t like about Vision is the belief that they are “beyond reproach”. They are fighting the “good fight”, the are standing up for what is right, and how dare you question their motives, tactics, or question what they do….you don’t get a free pass because you label everything “green”….you don’t get a free pass because you “believe your cause is right”. While the Hollyhock association has been belabored to death, there is a reason….the cult like belief that you are building a better society, know better than everyone else, and therefore are justified in your “social re-engineering”….that scares the living sh*t out of me. Are changes needed? Yes….but they need to be done with debate, under a spot light and with opposition to question how, what and why.

The source of funding for Gregor and Vision is also still a question without an answer….it does appear they get a lot of funding from the U.S., it does appear shady, and it SHOULD be questioned….and answers should be provided.

Governments need accountability, oversight, auditing, question – and this goes doubly so for campaign financing (which I hope Vancouver gets before the next election).

So Agustin…I don’t think it’s just a matter of me not liking the things Vision does…but again, maybe I just need to drink the Kool Aid.

@jason 43

Everyone in public office has past associations, a real history, connections, mentors, backers, etc….

The “thing” with Hollyhock is overblown as you mentioned, beaten to death… the mayor is really the only one of the Vision slate that has a real connection with Hollyhock as he lived on the island for many years. The funny thing is if you actually go there it is simply a new age funky retreat that specializes in seminars in writing, selfhelp, social ventures, and yoga ha!), if you are into that kinda of stuff … far from any cult that I have ever seen, I would argue that the alumni from St Georges (st tories) is more of a cult than those that attend seminars at Hollyhock – certainly St George alumni’s have more influence in the business community than Vision ever could hope for.

The “thing” with funding from the “Americans” has been analyzed and reanalyzed by the likes of VK but if you really look at her analysis there really isn’t anything to see. The amount of money from Canadian citizens and Canadian companies who donated are all legit and above board, the CRA has been all over it … the records bear witness and the funny irony is the amount of contributions (total) that VK points to that “Appear questionable” is a small percentage of total contributions to the party, dwarfed by local business contribution. And even more interesting is that the level of funding to the NPA in the last election looks to exceed Visions funding in this last cycle…. The VK inflated impact of the American influence on local politics is on the same scale as the NPA ranting non-stop about a $5k grant for a project by students to raise wheat as a learning experiment.

It is entertaining to read about the conspiracy theories of the American influence and the social engineering plan of Vision …. You must be kidding if you really believe this to be true. I have a little insight into Vision and it certainly isn’t this dark cloaked organization with a master plan to socially re-engineer the city into some green utopian society, believe me they are not that organized! … what you see in the Vision platform plan is what you get… the elected party is made up individuals, Canadian citizens, Vancouverites from a kaleidoscope of backgrounds who actually do have free will in their thought and actions (I know that is hard believe, as you would like to think that their caucaus coffee would be spiked with green vision kool-aid)….

But then again, hmmm … maybe Gregor is really our own Manchurian candidate who was abducted and brainwashed by the likes of George Soros during his around the world sailing venture after college – reactivated after building Happy Planet Juice to turn Vancouver into an American green utopian socialist society – a safe haven for american lefties after the US melts down.

Just be careful what you take for fact from all the self promoting “chicken littles” trying to carve out their little plot in the blogshere as they mine for their own share of the gold…. Be careful where you step.

@Jason, #43:

I believe you echoed my views on the NPA providing something to vote for…

Yup, I agree with you on that.

What I don’t like about Vision is the belief that they are “beyond reproach”.

I’m not sure where you’re seeing this. Sure, every party will have its groupies, but Vision does not have a disproportionate number. I’m not sure that Vision’s base is larger than the NPA’s. There are those who consider Vision to be beyond reproach, but there are also those who consider the NPA to be beyond reproach. I don’t think either of those views is useful.

It seems like you are calling for critical thinking on the part of voters, and I will join you on that. The more critical thinking, the better.

@ IliveinVancouver,

“….Be careful where you step.”

You didn’t finish that sentence – or else what?

Someone will sic your TED/mensa genius Jonathan Ross on ’em?