Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Traditional lefty party precedes NDP make-up, school-closure delay, rent protest

December 6th, 2010 · 28 Comments

It seemed like just another Christmas party, but clearly there was a lot going on Saturday night at the traditional gathering, hosted by Bill Tieleman, Harvey McKinnon and Vanessa Geary among others, of the green/progressive/media/COPE/Vision/NDP crowd — which has also attracted NPA councillors Peter Ladner and Gordon Price in the past —  frequently called “the lefty party.”

The party included people on both sides of the NDP fracture, school-board chair Patti Bacchus, and Sharon Isaak, an activist with the Renters at Risk group. While I was downing martinis and talking about holiday plans with whoever came into my range (plus  hearing murmurs that it was “kind of tense” in the room as various factions of the left tried to get along momentarily), others were clearly working much harder than I.

When I woke up Sunday morning, the two halves of the NDP were hours away from backing off from their showdown. The Vision/COPE school board made an abrupt turn on school closures and delayed any decision on them til next March. And Mayor Gregor Robertson, who I saw last at 2 a.m. on the sidewalk conferring seriously with Sharon Isaak, was out at Isaak’s rally on behalf of West End/Seafield apartment renters — shades of past standing-up-for-the-people glory!

The evening also produced a memorable appearance by Vancouver’s former director of finance, Estelle Lo, who appeared to have been brought to the party by COPE councillor Ellen Woodsworth. It was Lo’s email to city manager Judy Rogers about the problem at the Olympic village, leaked by an unknown person to Globe and Mail columnist Gary Mason, that set off a firebomb in the 2008 civic election, which ultimately led to Vision Vancouver’s victory at the polls.

(Lo, who was terminated by city manager Judy Rogers around the same time, always said she wasn’t the one who leaked the memo.)

Perhaps next year, perhaps some other politically minded group could organize a Christmas party issue an open invitation to all terminated, “took early retirement to be with his family,” or otherwise departed city staffers under Vision. Now that would be fun.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Michael Geller

    “It was Lo’s leaked memo to Globe and Mail columnist Gary Mason about the problem at the Olympic village that set off a firebomb in the 2008 civic election, which ultimately led to Vision Vancouver’s victory at the polls.

    (Lo, who was terminated by city manager Judy Rogers around the same time, always said she wasn’t the one who leaked the memo.)”

    Frances, while I am sure those at the party will want to post comments about it, I am more interested in your somewhat surprising statement that Lo leaked the memo that many believe significantly altered the results of the last election.

    Are you certain she was the source of the leak? On what basis do you state this?

  • Dan Cooper

    I think she is saying that Lo wrote the memo, which was then leaked by an unknown person.

    Moving on: Seems to me good news about the NDP hopefully working things out. Not so good (IMHO) about the school non-closure decision. I’ve written here before that I think some schools in areas with more “seats” than students need to be closed, to keep money available for district-wide programs like special education and music – and not incidentally to allow the construction of new schools in areas that don’t have enough seats. The Board started off with – as I remember – 11 possible schools on the closure list, then cut it to five, and now to none.

  • Dan Cooper

    p.s. “Perhaps next year….Now that would be fun.”

    Trolling, are we? THAT’s fun! *heh*

  • George

    I tend to agree with Michael Geller, perhaps the article is poorly worded as it reads to me an implication that Estelle lo leaked the document.

  • Frances Bula

    @Michael. Yes, just poor wording on my part. Her memo was leaked, but we don’t know by who. As I say in the subsequent sentence, she has always said she was not the person who leaked it.

  • Michael Geller

    Thanks Dan and Frances for the clarification…but having raised the issue again, perhaps you can find out who did in fact leak the memo!

    If not, maybe we can get Wikileaks to follow up on the matter.

  • PeterG

    @Dan ;”The Board started off with – as I remember – 11 possible schools on the closure list, then cut it to five, and now to none.”
    If Patti Bacchus was a “real” politician she would have closed 11 schools in McDiarmid’s riding. That would have got a reaction.

  • Doug Ragan

    You were on the wrong floor of the party – anyone upstairs was politicking, downstairs partying. As my son says, you have to be a “newb” to politic at a xmas party.

  • Richard

    @Michael
    That would be WikiLeakLeaks, a new web site that leaks the names of leakers.

  • Jason King

    Francis,

    This post brings up the issue of “coziness” between reporters and their subjects for me. I’m not questioning your objectivity, but I was wondering if you could comment.

    It seems to me that many of the political reporters covering the Carol James/NDP fiasco have laid the blame solely at the feet of the dissidents and basically given James a complete pass. There seems to be a view among the reporters that James is a “good person” who “didn’t deserve” this. While this very well may be the case, a more objective view would be that she had failed to connect with most in BC, that she was unable to put together a comprehensive alternative to the Liberals, and that after 7 years she couldn’t even keep control of her own party. Yet you’re hard pressed to find this view ANYWHERE in the media.

    I’m curious whether you feel there is a level of objectivity that is lost as a result of the close working relationship between the media and those they cover? I know that you have been labeled (unfairly or not) pro-Vision in the past, and I’m curious whether you ever get personally concerned about the “coziness” factor.

    Again, this is not an attack or a dig on you in anyway….I’d just be interested in the view point of a political reporter.

  • Bill Tieleman

    Thanks for the reference to the party Frances – a good time was had by all despite some obvious tensions.

    I’d love for the right side of the political spectrum to hold a big bash and invite folks like me – maybe Kevin and Christy could co-host!

  • MB

    If things keep going the way they’re going, Vision Vancouver may be seeking a new name.

    Perhaps Laser Vision Vancouver. That one conveniently has two meanings: laser-sharp Vision; or cross the line and get lasered.

  • MB

    @ Bill T.

    I think Kevin would throw a helluva party, rockin all night, entertaining the entire crowd.

    But he’ll still be up before everyone the next morning to sharpen his talons and file his teeth.

  • spartikus

    It seems to me that many of the political reporters covering the Carol James/NDP fiasco have laid the blame solely at the feet of the dissidents and basically given James a complete pass. There seems to be a view among the reporters that James is a “good person” who “didn’t deserve” this.

    Charlie Smith (Georgia Straight) just tweeted this:

    There’s an odd disconnect. Establishment journalists seem to adore Carole James, but commenters on our site couldn’t wait for her to quit.

    This is a very interesting subject, and you can easily extend it beyond Carole James. Heck if you were to delve deep, you could even throw in WikiLeaks into the discussion…

  • Frances Bula

    @Jason. Hmm, I don’t claim to have read all of the coverage, but I’m sure I read at least one commentator saying that Carole needed to go because, if she couldn’t bring the NDP up enough to poll higher than the Liberals under Gordon Campbell, she had no chance ever of winning against the Liberals under a new leader with less baggage and potentially more appeal. That certainly would be my view. There was no way she was ever going to lead the NDP to a win.

    And the NDP is probably smart to go through the angst now, while the Libs are also reforming, than to arrive at this same point a year from now. That would have left them wide open to the newly established Libs, under whoever, calling a snap election while the NDP were in disarray.

    Re the coziness factor. Glad you asked that question, as it comes up over and over for all kinds of reporters. It tells me that the public generally doesn’t understand how reporters negotiate with people in positions of power and assumes that, because reporters spend so much of their time with those people, they must automatically be in their pockets, either knowingly — sucking up to get scoops or curry favour — and unknowingly — just drinking the bathwater and spewing it back out because they are so far in the bubble. (My god, that is the worst mixed metaphor I’ve read in a long time.)

    How would the public know, of course, because we never explain it. But to the general public, it often seems as fishy as arriving in court where all the lawyers, supposedly doing battle with each other, are always referring to each other as “my friend.”

    Anyway, back to the subject, every reporter who covers a beat is a kind of embedded reporter always having to negotiate maintaining a good relationship with a wide range of people in the area s/he is covering but also maintaining a distance from those same people. I’ve had lots of people on this blog suggest that because beat reporters need to “get scoops,” they can’t afford to piss off the government people they’re covering.

    But that is exactly NOT how the power dynamic works. When you cover a beat, there are all kinds of different groups that you’re talking to, negotiating with, and potentially getting your mini-wikileaks from. If you only work with one group, you’re really limited. The good beat reporters I know maintain relations with all groups — the ones in power, the ones not in power, the supporters, the protesters — and they negotiate with all of them for information. Good beat reporters also know that if you only work with one group, you actually undercut yourself. You don’t have as much leverage to negotiate if you’re seen as only providing a pipeline for information from one group.

    I’m not going to pretend it’s easy to keep that balance. I don’t anyone who doesn’t struggle somewhat with it. Sometimes you buy in — for all kinds of reasons: the likability of the person you’re dealing with; the actually policy that resonates for you; the accessibility you get — to certain people among the group in power. Sometimes you get aligned with the opponents — who are always digging up great stuff and willing to go out and be critical publicly. Sometimes you tend to sympathize more with the bureaucrats over the politicians. Sometimes it’s the other way.

    The important thing as a journalist is that you keep at least trying to stay open and maintain your lines of communication with everyone, to make sure you’re really listening and getting information from everyone. I’d say that’s the main difference between us and bloggers or advocacy groups, who often do not have an interest in talking to all groups. They know who they want to support; they know they’re only interesting in damaging (or positive) information; and that’s what they focus on.

    Sure, I have seen journalists, too, who I think have gotten too close to their sources and start channelling their every thought. Sometimes, though, what happens is that those journalists already had a similar worldview and so they tend to gravitate to the people who most reflect it.

    There is lots more I could say on this, but I should get to work here on some stories.

  • IanS

    Frances, you wrote:

    “… just drinking the bathwater and spewing it back out because they are so far in the bubble. (My god, that is the worst mixed metaphor I’ve read in a long time.)”

    Mixed metaphor? Not at all. Just think bubblebath.

    Couldn’t resist. Sorry.

  • Jason King

    Francis…actually your view on James and the NDP is fairly different from the Vaughn Palmers and Keith Bauldry’s out there…they all seem to feel this was wrong and unfair, and an unjustified attack. My own view coincides with yours.

    I do appreciate the response back on my question…and for the candor in admitting it’s a hard balance at times.

  • landlord

    “…sucking up to get scoops or curry favour — and unknowingly — just drinking the bathwater and spewing it back out because they are so far in the bubble.”

    Must have been the curry they were favouring.

  • Frances Bula

    @landlord. I think I should submit that whole sentence to some kind of competition for bad writing. It’s kind of awesome in its mix of visual images and flavours

  • spartikus

    your view on James and the NDP is fairly different from the Vaughn Palmers and Keith Bauldry’s out there…they all seem to feel this was wrong and unfair, and an unjustified attack.

    It is. I think there is a case to be made that the Vaughn Palmers and Keith Baldreys have not, per Frances, been maintaining relations with or soliciting the views of all groups. Especially ranks and files.

    They may have used to, have stopped, for one reason or another.

    There is a clear disconnect at the provincial level, and it’s not simply that the views of the BC Liberals are overrepresented and overvalued, although there is that.

  • MB

    Just a note to say Derrick Corrigan, mayor of Burnaby, said he’s sticking to his current job and not running again for the provincial NDP leadership.

    I think that’s too bad because he knows local government issues well, is not from Vancouver or the boons, and is articulate, though I sometimes disagree with his strong opinions on regional governance.

    Moreover, Corrigan would have enlivened the field from outside the provincial caucus, which at this juncture needs to vent the stale air.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    Mmmm! Curried black swan….

    Tasty Frances!

  • Tom Hawthorn

    The success of the NDP putschists makes nothing but sense, because now (Insert name here) will lead the party to victory and the people of B.C. to a social democratic utopia.

    Except nobody seems eager for the job.

    The NDP was polling ahead of the Liberals. Yes, James trailed her party in popularity. The same circumstance did not prevent Gordon Campbell from winning three consecutive elections (four, really, as the Liberals won the popular vote in 1996).

    The traditional Opposition party presented itself as a government-in-waiting while the Liberals destructed. That’s proper historical behaviour — when a government goes into free fall, get the hell out of the way.

    The anti-James position was a minority in caucus; a minority in the provincial caucus; and, I’d suggest, a minority among the NDP membership. Anyone have any evidence at all that James-must-go was a majority opinion among party stalwarts I’d be happy to see it.

    To read the pro-dissident statements from the “progressive NDPers” is to stroll along Fantasy Lane with a detour to Delusion Boulevard followed by a hard left to the Cul-de-Sac of Irrationality.

    My favourite comment on their Facebook page is this: “Let the renewal begin! Now, who will bring the NDP back from the brink?”

    Back from the brink of 49 per cent in the polls.

    The NDP’s traditional support falls between 38 to 46 per cent (except for the post-Clark elex of 2001). It’s a limited universe. Bob Skelly, a terrible campaigner and widely regarded as a weak leader, got a higher percentage of the popular vote than Barrett in ’72, Harcourt in ’91, or Clark in ’96. He lost because the 1986 elex was a straight up Socred v. NDP showdown. The only way the NDP can win in B.C. is if a centre-right or rightist party takes about eight per cent away from the main non-NDP alternative (Socred then, Liberal now).

    The Liberals’ HST albatross plus the BC Conservatives at 8 per cent in the polls made it possible for the NDP to slip into power, no matter who was leader. That advantage may have been squandered and trumped by the leadership fiasco.

    The dissident uprising comes a year too late.

    As Baldrey said on Global: Who is going to trust the NDP now to run a government when they couldn’t manage an opposition?

    Look at what the new leader inherits — Hothead Harry Lali. Et Tu Jenny Kwan. At least two-party Bob Simpson has jumped ship to sit as an independent; if he runs again, he’ll be lucky not to finish third.

    Palmer and Baldrey are aware of Carole James’ weaknesses as leader. They also understand the sentiments of the anti-James faction. But they’ve reported on enough dissension in all parties over the years to recognize a fiasco when they see one.

  • spartikus

    The only way the NDP can win in B.C….

    Those that prepare for the last war are doomed to lose the next one…

  • Jason king

    I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the NDP situation is a fiasco or that the dissidents haven’t made matters worse, but to put no blame at the feet of James, nor recognize that she never connected with voters (nor had a coherent platform alternative) is lousy journalism to me.

    The NDP wins elections when they move to the middle…not when their party leader is being paid DIRECTLY from the unions that back it

  • Only in BC …

    Why the snipe about “departed city staffers under Vision”? You and Jim Green have been defending Vision’s HR record on CKNW for years.

  • Frances Bula

    @Only in BC. More selective listening from my fans. Why don’t you check back on the history of this blog to see previous posts about staff being upset because they’re treated like morons. I have frequently made the point that Vision has managed to alienate, not just Judy Rogers’ loyalists at city hall, but staffers who were actually supportive of things Vision had said it was going to try to do.

  • jaymac

    And more’s the pity that the recent job satisfaction survey conducted by Penny Ballem did not include reference to those who have left employment in the City since VV came to power. Presumably. many of those who left were also dissatisfied with working conditions.