Frances Bula header image 2

Vancouver’s civic scene undergoing upheaval as COPE morphs, NPA spends money aggressively, and little parties bloom

December 10th, 2013 · 70 Comments

Okay, blogsters, here’s the kind of story that’s made for a niche audience — the kind that most of the voting public isn’t paying attention to right now, but which you, dear political junkies, are intensely interested in.

So, to recap the story I wrote today

– COPE is undergoing major transformations as many long-time supporters leave the executive, some saying they can’t work with the new leadership, many elected last April.(Apparently one other executive member quit today, on top of previous resignations, and another is expected to quit shortly.)

– A whole group of those leaving, including people like David Chudnovsky, are trying to decide what to do in advance of the next election, including possibly starting a new party.

– The NPA’s Peter Armstrong (about whom I wrote a fair bit in my recent Vancouver magazine story) is determinedly financing a very energetic effort to get the party on a solid footing.

– A bunch of smaller parties are sprouting up all over the map, some of them disaffected NPAers, others who have had nothing to do with politics.

The story is here and pasted below as usual, but I couldn’t stuff in everything that I accumulated in my notebook while reporting the story. So here are some additional details on what the unions, which have been trying to back both Vision and COPE, are thinking about all this, the new resignations, and other bits and pieces.

1. Where labour is at. Joey Hartman, president of the Vancouver and District Labour Council, says the VDLC, in a break from the past in Vancouver, will no longer endorse parties, but individual candidates. That’s how they handle it in every other municipality and that’s the plan from here on in Vancouver. “Previously, we’ve seen agreements between COPE and Vision and we’ve endorsed that. This time, we don’t anticipate that sort of agreement.”

The VCLC, however, doesn’t give money. Individual unions do. In the past, the biggest funders have been the CUPE unions (inside workers, outside workers, library, general B.C. union). So ….

2. CUPE B.C. secretary-treasurer Paul Faoro says CUPE endorsed and gave money to the joint Vision/COPE slate last time. He said each local will decide what to do, but “I can’t believe they would fund parties running against each other. If COPE follows through and runs a mayoralty candidate, it would be foolish for COPE to do that and you’d have to thin about the motive behind that. I suspect that supporting incumbents would be an automatic.”

3. David Chudnovsky, besides outlining the problems he sees with the current COPE leadership, also spelled out why he and the many COPE refugees won’t be switching to Vision (even though the Vision school board has done a very impressive job, he says).

a) “Vision’s affordable housing strategy hasn’t worked, isn’t working. It’s based on the assumption that the market can solve the problem when the market created the problem.

b) “It’s been very disrespectful and cavalier in their attitude to public engagement and democracy.”

4. Stuart Parker, the former B.C. Green Party leader, has also left the executive because, as the Georgia Straight reported, he didn’t agree with Tim Louis’ move to discuss a coalition with the Neighbours for a Sustainable Vancouver.  But he is staying in the party and still dedicating time and energy to organizing, hoping that he can help the party transcend its current preoccupation with fighting with itself.

He describes COPE as having a bad culture, where it fights with itself out of habit. “No matter which of the two sides is in charge, it’s going to look for enemies and dissent within the party and make that the problem to solve.”

Parker says he hopes the party will take advantage of the energy and enthusiasm of new members coming in, but added “I think what the party is evolving into is totally up for grabs.”

5. Tim Louis had many more pithy comments to make than I was able to include. Among them

“Our membership has spoken very clearly, in April this year, when it elected an executive by a 10-to-1 ratio that was committed to bring the failed experiment to an end of COPE as a prop to Vision.”

“Vision is just a gluten-free version of the NPA; the NPA with bicycle lanes. The new executive has set COPE on a new course. It will be a party that will offer the electorate a clear alternative to Vision.”

“I have a lot of respect for Allan [Wong, who left COPE for Vision on Sunday], but his decision to cross the floor is nothing more than a reflection that his values more closely align with Vision. Allan is now free to be who he always was.”

Louis says COPE now has almost 1,000 members and it is drawing more people to its quarterly general meetings than other parties can get to the annual general meetings. Those new people are signing up in greater numbers every day and volunteering at outdoor tables all the time.

6. The official line from Vision ED Stepan Vdovine: “We’ve had agreements with COPE in the last two elections. We’re going to be positive about things and we’re open to working with anyone. We’re going to be aggressively reaching out to progressive voices. We will have some new, strong candidates.”

7. Donalda Greenwell-Baker quit the COPE executive today. I’m told Kim Hearty may be next.

Okay, that’s all folks. (Again, for more on the NPA, I posted my Vancouver magazine article, largely focused on them, last month.)

And … the Globe story

21 comments

Vancouver’s political scene is undergoing profound upheaval less than a year away from the next civic election, with Vancouver’s two traditional parties splintering into many factions with no clarity on what choices voters will have beyond the status quo.

School trustee Allan Wong, the last elected representative of COPE, the city’s long-time left-wing party, announced on Sunday he is joining the ruling Vision Vancouver.

More Related to this Story

  • COPE school trustee quits party to join Vision Vancouver

Now a large contingent of former key COPE organizers say they no longer feel they can support the party. But they will not rush to embrace Vision, with which they previously conducted collaborative campaigns.

The once-dominant centre-right Non-Partisan Association, reduced to two city councillors, is fighting to regain power, throwing money around energetically. In spite of entrepreneur Peter Armstrong’s best efforts, and a substantial chunk of his cash, the party does not have a mayoral candidate yet.

And a host of small, new parties on various parts of the political spectrum are all hoping to capitalize on public opposition to the second-term Vision Vancouver council over bike lanes, development, community centres and more.

That is likely to mean voters who have been steady supporters of one party or another are bound to feel the ground – and possibly their loyalties – shifting over the next 11 months.

“The political landscape is in flux and there’s inevitably some confusion,” one-time COPE stalwart David Chudnovsky said. “There’s no doubt there’s a deepening crisis in COPE. Every week, there’s a new political party that seems to be announced on the right. And there’s no doubt in my mind, there’s increasing frustration with the governing party.”

Mr. Chudnovsky, who was a New Democrat MLA for a term, is one of several COPE executive members who have quit recently over disagreements with the leaders, along with Mr. Wong, former council candidate RJ Aquino, and Stuart Parker.

Mr. Chudnovsky said he became increasingly uncomfortable with COPE because new executive members elected in April appear to have no respect for people who don’t agree with them 100 per cent and engage in what he called a kind of politics that is “bitter, confrontational and often disrespectful to people throughout the city.”

He said he and a large contingent of people, young and older, who have been COPE supporters for all their lives now feel they cannot stay with the party.

That group has been talking for the past six months about what to do in the coming election. Some of the options Mr. Chuknovsky outlined include: abstain from the political fighting and “watch what I believe will be an electoral disaster next year for COPE,” organize to change the leadership, endorse individual candidates from various parties, or “create a new political home” – in other words, one more party.

Current COPE chair Tim Louis callled Mr. Wong’s departure the welcome last chapter in COPE’s failed experiment at collaborating with Vision, which it did for the previous two elections, losing votes and seats each time.

“We are now free of the very last anchor that held us back from offering to the electors a real alternative.”

And he said the departure of Mr. Chudnovsky and others is predictable because they are among the people in COPE who made the mistake of backing the partnership with Vision and don’t know where to go since it backfired.

Internal dissent on the right is nowhere near as loud. But the NPA, where Mr. Armstrong is spending his own money to pay two prominent former provincial organizers, is dealing with small breakaway groups.

Two former NPA candidates have formed new parties, TEAM and Vancouver First, saying an alternative is needed to the NPA’s reliance on developer money and dictatorial organization. A third small group has formed the Cedar Party, primarily to oppose Vision’s development policies.

It looks like an unusually combative election season ahead.

“Definitely there’s people saying all sorts of things about how they’ll vote,” says NPA Councillor George Affleck. “The next year is daunting. It’s going to be exhausting.”

In the end, he believes his party, which has kicked off a series of community discussions on city issues, will emerge as the clear choice for the opposition and, eventually, leadership.

“I feel confident about the team we’re putting together, that voters will think they’re the ones who need to take charge of the city.”

 

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • John Geddes

    Put me in the “ANYONE BUT VISION” category.

    To all the other parties, I have a simple message, “if you promise govern the City for the benefit of its residents, build consensus amongst its residents, and stop imposing a predetermined vision of how we must all live in our City, you will have my vote.”

    I want an end of the dictatorships of the elites whether they are the Tides Foundation, the academics in the Planning Department, or developers trying to exploit increasing property values.

    I trust the choices and compromises of my fellow citizens. I want a party that promises to use transparent methods to find and demonstrate citizen commitment and consensus.

    VISION is a failed experiment for those of us that wanted a middle way in our civic government. In terms of listening to its citizens VISION makes the NPA look like saints — and I’m the first to agree that the old NPA was not perfect either.

    To all those people that are rising up and getting involved in Civic politics, you have my heartfelt thanks. It is people like you that give the rest of us voice.

  • brilliant

    Colour me surprised Faoro and CUPE decide to go where the money is. Viva la revolucion!

  • jimbo

    “Vision’s affordable housing strategy hasn’t worked, isn’t working. It’s based on the assumption that the market can solve the problem when the market created the problem.”

    I wonder how voters will feel about taking “the market” out of the housing market. It sounds scary to me.

  • Glissando Remmy

    Thought Of The Night

    “Usually, prolonged political arse kissing will give one blisters of the mouth. Arse kissing for more than 5 years though, will give one a full blown Vision Vancouver infection.”

    So it’s apparent to me that after 5 long years of lying through their teeth, juggling, and lots of funny card tricks, the Vision Vancouver’s Circus Caravan is at an impasse.

    Of course, I say it’s apparent only, if you are not Allan Wong and/or Stepan Vdovine.
    Fool and Jester.
    Abbot and Costello.
    Violin and Trombone, members of the duly noted HMS Titanic Vision’s Band.
    Oh, well.
    It’s been quite a while.
    Since Vancouverites were known as a trustworthy bunch.
    Not anymore.

    Yeah. Some dues needed to be paid, socks needed to get wet, heads needed to hit door frames. But we are past that now.
    Even the hardcore journalists, totally enamoured and caught under a spell by Vision’s pheromones are starting to wake up.
    I’m not going to name names.
    You know who you are.

    The general agreed upon feeling is that of one… Seduced & Abandoned.
    No amount of worshipping, praying, or even Rabbis dancing and singing at your fundraiser, will be able to bring that “Vision grassroots” Heigh-Ho back.

    Busy times ahead.
    Perfectly normal, you know it … 🙂

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    “…end of the dictatorships of the elites whether they are the Tides Foundation, the academics in the Planning Department, or developers trying to exploit increasing property values.”

    John Gedes 1

    “The End of Tides”

    That may well be what we are up against for the next three years. Then, we will discover that it is impossible to build consensus in a vacuum. I know everybody is angry with everybody else.

    However, at the end of the day, we need a plan built on concrete and verifiable principles.

  • Agustin

    @ John Geddes,

    You raise a point of view that has puzzled me for some time. Maybe you can help me understand it.

    Why, exactly, do you trust “the choices and compromises of [your] fellow citizens”, but not those of “the academics in the Planning Department”?

    What do you mean by “trust” in this instance? Are you referring to the character or motives of the people, or are you referring to their intellect?

    On what do you base your conclusion?

    Thanks.

  • Tiktaalik

    “Vision is just a gluten-free version of the NPA”

    I think Tim Louis has come across a great way to frame Vision. Last election showed that a COPE that doesn’t clearly differentiate itself will fail and I think Mr. Louis understands how to differentiate themselves. Voters may still reject COPE, but their only opportunity for success is to clearly express how they are unique.

  • Blair Petrie

    How quickly people forget the decades of NPA rule. The years where, if it wasn’t for the provincial NDP or federal Liberals, there would be almost no rental housing built at all in Vancouver over the past 50-odd years. When development was only “highest and best use”, ie: luxury condominiums; where renters where second class citizens and their neighbourhoods were targetted to be razed for the owning class; their views rarely listened to or taken seriously. Want to build a freeway? Bye-bye Strathcona and Chinatown. And on and on.

    Be careful what you wish for in politics, you might just get Rob Ford and his slash and burn Ford Nation. Cities like Vancouver have difficult problems: People moving here en masse, where do they live? Can only the wealthy move to them? Can a city restrict growth? I guess for some, their property values would soar, but only senior governments can build social housing and major infrastructure. In Canada cities do not have the resources to build housing or transit, only the ability to influence those who can.

  • Kenji

    In his (I presume it is his) comment on the Straight article announcing his resignation from the executive, Stuart Parker indicated that his dispute was much less about NSV than Fire This Time.

    I presume this means that Parker is uncomfortable with the degree to which Tim Louis interacts and/or agrees with Ali Yerevani.

    Clarifying that would be very interesting, at least to me.

    I sympathize with progressive causes but FTT reminds me of that one guy in every leftist meeting who only wants to talk about smashing the pigs.

    Very very curious about Kim Hearty. Hearty, from what I know about her from her political writing and activism, struck me as being emblematic of the VANDUstanism at its most pious that is seen in the left wing of the NDP – an exceptionally good though not necessarily sensible person.

    If COPE can’t hold the right or the left wings of itself together, what is left?

  • spartikus

    Be careful what you wish for in politics, you might just get Rob Ford and his slash and burn Ford Nation

    And given Peter Armstrong/Rob MacDonald are apparently pulling the strings this looks like the direction the NPA are heading.

  • Ned

    The Bad news:
    Think about it. Half of the people elected by Vision were at some point in time, members, volunteers, candidates for COPE. Yes, true! Turns out that people with good, strong ethics and morals are not exactly born in COPE nursery either. Trouble starts when elected people from your party cross over to the enemy. Tells a lot about them, sure, but indirectly tells a lot about your organization too. Your selection process is as flawed as theirs. Not so good news imho.
    The Good news:
    Glissy is baaaack!
    “Arse kissing for more than 5 years though, will give one a full blown Vision Vancouver infection.”
    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  • boohoo

    There has got to be a better way than this incestuous, partythink, mob mentality.

  • Mark

    I’m on board and in agreement with most of Vision’s platform and direction, with the glaring exception of how they have handled affordable housing.

    The rent is still too damn high, and keeps getting higher.

    If a competent group of people gets together and runs on a platform of being essentially the same as Vision except being actively hostile to luxury developers, they would get my vote in a heartbeat.

    I don’t care how beautiful, green, progressive, or bikable/walkable the city is if we can’t afford to live here anymore.

    Active intervention in the housing market and supply is required. Renters need greater protections.

    Show me the party that is willing to do that while still being urbanist, environmentally conscious and socially progressive, and I’ll be on board, and I imagine a lot of others would be as well.

  • rph

    @Mark #13. “Beautiful place to visit, but could never afford to live here.”

    That is what I hear every time I show off the city to out of town friends and relatives.

  • Kenji

    @13

    Is it more likely to get a Vision that is effective on affordability by changing them or replacing them?

    I make an assumption that the NPA could bounce back and that COPE is splitting the progressive (ish) vote. But those could be wrong assumptions.

  • John Geddes

    Re Augustin #6

    An example of what I meant.

    If we had a plebiscite and a majority confirmed the plan to turn Oakridge into a mini-Manhattan, then I am OK with that. I wouldn’t agree, but I respect the views of my fellow citizens and I respect and accept that a majority of others might support different levels of development than I do.

    What I object to is the Planning Department determining for us how major parts of our City should be developed and manipulating so called consultation processes to confirm their plans.

    I have respect for the Planning Department expertise and I believe we as citizens should listen to them. BUT they should not be able to dictate their approach on citizens (and this is what is happening).

    Same analogy with a house renovation. I would certainly hire an architect to give me advice but I would still want to make the final decisions. I realize that in a City not every decision can be put to the total electorate and that we elect representatives to represent our interests. However, in Vancouver at the moment we have a democratic dictatorship. There is no meaningful opposition to Vision and the City Administration. Or put another way, the opposition to Vision and the City Administration have inadequate methods and procedures to apply appropriate levels of constraint.

    I believe the role of a politician is to build consensus for good ideas — not to dictate and impose a set of predefined principles regardless of how good those principles might be from some perspectives. Based on their behaviour the current Vision Administration does not believe that is their role. They believe that they know what is right and come hell-or-high-water they are going to give it to us. The list of examples is very long.

  • boohoo

    Reading about dictatorships, destroying neighbourhoods, mini-manhatten’s….

    How about a vote to ban asinine exaggerations? I’d be up for that.

  • Kenji

    @17

    What, on the Internet?

    Good arguments are still good arguments. The ones that are dressed up with EVIL and WHY THAT’S JUST LIKE HITLER and IT IS THE WORST THING EVER are…not as good.

    Ban asininity? That would that leave me with nothing to say ever!

    You’d have an easier time getting every writer on civic issues to discontinue the word “NIMBY”… ha ha ha ! ha! oh man. That still gets me.

  • boohoo

    @18

    True enough. One could only hope you could make your valid point without screaming about destroyed neighbourhoods and dictators as though that is even remotely close to what’s happening here.

    I marvel at those who rant about destroyed neighbourhood’s as though one, two or more towers would ‘destroy’ the very fabric of their neighbourhood. How little they think of, and how weak their neighbourhood must be! One wonders why it’s worth protecting if it could fall to pieces at any moment….

  • waltyss

    Well, we know we are into pre-election silly season. Mr. Remmy has offered us one of his H.I. anti-Vision screeds and his acolyte Ned has dutifully exclaimed: “yes, Massa, yo’is sho’ smart, and beautiful to boot.”
    So what do we have on the political scene. Well, COPE is imploding as the Lenin wanna-be Tim Louis drives out the Mensheviks. We may have our warts but who but a few true believers would trust their city to Louis Lenin?
    The N.P.A. remains the vanity project of our own little league version of the KochBrothers: Peter Armstrong and Rob Macdonald. Sorry, I almost forgot, and the jokester Jonathan Baker. Would you really entrust you city to an anti-union, uh, secretive developer’s “developer”. I think the answer for Adam Shrugged Armstrong is the same as for Louis Lenin.
    There is then NPA lite, AKA the new Team. Wow, a cast of…..one?
    There is Vision, bruised and battered and having used up a lot of their capital on too much change too fast combined with astounding tone deafness. However, the crap about not listening is just that; what has changed, as numerous more objective observers have pointed out, is that the decisions have become much more difficult.
    Then there are a lot of fringe parties. Well, Vancouver always has a lot of fringe parties on the ballot.
    Vision is vulnerable but only if voters coalesce around a reasonable alternative. One that is able to offer a radical but workable plan on affordability, as Mark points out.
    By next September, we will know if a realistic alternative has emerged. If not, Vision will emerge again as the winner again, maybe dropping a seat or two more to the Greens or to maybe even an independent like Sandy Garossino.
    I mean, despite Vision’s warts, would you entrust your city of Peter Armstrong’s secretly chosen and secretly financed yes- people? I thought not.
    However, it will be fun. Mr. Remmy will grace us with his lofty wisdom and indeciperable prose, ever displaying his contempt for the voters of Vancouver (why do I suspect that he is actually one fo those insufferable British ex-pats, ornery because the colonials don’s recognize his superior beingness?).
    Election silly season is good sport and the next eleven months may be even more fun than when the pigs ate my brother.

  • jenables

    Except that TEAM has a policy of not accepting corporate or union donations making it nothing like the NPA at all. A fact you consistently fail to mention, along with your reasoning behind why you would say that over and over again. By the way, NPA lite was used to refer to vision shortly after they were elected when people realized there was no difference from before. people can see that it is more like ecodensity on steroids now. Secretly chosen and secretly financed yes people?? Again, glass houses, waltyss. It seems the things that horrify you about the npa vision has in spades.

  • brilliant

    @boohoo 18-only if we ban passive-agressive Vision defenders.

    And if course Waltie rushes in waving his union flag. Hate to break it to ya Waltie but most taxpayers would be happy to deep-six the cushy union contracts that coddle city workers.

  • boohoo

    @22

    The first person to claim Vision is turning the city into an eco-paradise or whatever is the opposite of the standard issue neighbourhood destroyer/dictator nonsense, I’ll be there.

  • Terry M

    Ha, ha, ha, wahahahaha… Good comments all around and then there is … Waltyss!
    As per Mr. Rummy @4
    “Yeah. Some dues needed to be paid, socks needed to get wet, heads needed to hit door frames. But we are past that now.
    Even the hardcore journalists, totally enamoured and caught under a spell by Vision’s pheromones are starting to wake up.
    I’m not going to name names.
    You know who you are.”
    If I remember correctly , Mrs. Bula’s blog (and commentaries ) is the only Penny Ballem & Vision Vancouver approved source of civic information, in the council chambers that is. Another one who comes to mind is AllenGarr (read his last take on Vision and Mayor in the Vancourier)
    As for, ahem, Mr. Waltyss’s ramblings, not to bother, we’ll have to learn to live with it. Just like we learned how to live with … Lice, when we were in Elementary.

  • IanS

    IMO, this fracturing of political opposition is nothing but good news for Vision.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    It’s more than the luxury condos and the price of rentals that has gone awry in our city-building tradition. Keep in mind that what we do here influences the rest of much of western Canada.

    Yes—affordable rents—but how or from where? A significant piece of affordable rental can come from mortgage-helper suites where the landlord is either resident or nearby. Another significant piece can come from strata buildings where folks can buy starter-suites. However, outside the downtown, we should scale down the size of condominiums to blend indistinguishably with duplex and row house types.

    We also need non-market housing: co-op housing and housing with supports for people with mental health issues. In the former category a City Housing Authority should co-ordinate two issues at once: historic building preservation and co-op housing. CMHC could return in its former role. Old buildings in our city are in disrepair. The rental market is just not returning enough profits to keep them up. If we lose them, we give up too much in terms of local character and tradition. RE housing with supports, we are getting the scale wrong. The Biltmore and the tower at Fraser & Broadway are proven NOT to work in other jurisdictions. And we are not building enough of it. Were we going to end to homelessness in our city by 2015?

    Our arterials are not livable with vehicular volumes of 40,000 per day up to 60,000 and more. Granville, Oak, Kingsway, 41st, Broadway, Main, Clark and more: these automobile-dominated places are creating dangerous conditions and threadbare fabric in our neighbourhoods. The pollution levels are noxious and threaten our health and well being. Traffic management needs to include providing lanes for trolleys and buses (BRT) with a view to adding trams as ridership increases. With fast and efficient transit, we can pinch the majority of commuter trips from the cars and achieve significant emissions reductions.

    Human-scale build out along our arterials can support a doubling of our population. That is as much as we will need 100-years forward. Beyond this population, additional space can be created in the Fraser River watershed with an integrated regional urban form. Emissions reductions; walkable neighbourhoods that support social functioning; and an economy that is fuelled in part by construction with renewable resources; these are now the ‘low hanging fruit’ in our municipal culture.

    These are among the concrete and measurable outcomes available to us today that a tower-and-podium blind to everything else fiat has left out of the calculus.

  • Bill

    A first pass the post voting system will always penalize parties that occupy the same side of the political spectrum and eventually force a merger when they realize they have more in common that with the party in power. It is even worse with an at large system when it is very difficult for candidates to connect with voters and only very high profile candidates like Adrianne Carr are likely to be successful. (also the last election showed that you would have a better chance if you changed your surname to Aardvark.)

    The solution? A ward system with a preferential ballot where you rank the candidates. Candidates with the least votes have their votes redistributed until one candidate emerges with 50% +1 of the vote. While your chosen party may not elect a candidate, your vote will still have counted. Of course this system is very unlikely to ever be adopted since winning parties of any political stripe got there under the current system and have little incentive for reform.

  • Chris Keam

    “I believe the role of a politician is to build consensus for good ideas — not to dictate and impose a set of predefined principles regardless of how good those principles might be from some perspectives.”

    Hi, Debbie Downer here. I will point out that consensus decision-making is very difficult and very time-consuming. It requires a a level of maturity and mutual respect that I haven’t seen evidenced anywhere except in the isolated instances where people are highly committed to the process and trained in the nuances of getting to ‘yes’ within a consensus system. Certainly if the comments on this blog are a microcosm, any attempt at building support for consensus among the electorate is basically impossible when individuals don’t share common principles and values, let alone common goals.

    I’ll also point out that the poster, while voicing support for consensus, assumes the greater population shares his view of the role of politicians… but there’s no consensus that that is the case. Further, the current political system explicitly negates the consensus process via adversarial structures. Finally, while a preferential ballot system might offer the illusion of consensus, it’s more accurately a ‘hold your nose and choose the least objectionable alternative’ approach. Consensus equals buy-in from all IMO, not simply resignation and graciousness in the face of opposition to your position. It’s way harder than it sounds and practically impossible in larger groups. I believe attempting it at a municipal level would result in permanent stasis, which I don’t believe anyone would suggest is a solution.

  • Bill

    @Chris Keam #28

    “Finally, while a preferential ballot system might offer the illusion of consensus, it’s more accurately a ‘hold your nose and choose the least objectionable alternative’ approach”

    Perhaps but at least you are able to vote for your candidate of choice without ending up helping to elect the most objectionable alternative because you split the vote. But maybe you share Justin Trudeau’s admiration for the Chinese system.

  • Chris Keam

    Maybe a grown up conversation without silly off-topic jabs would be a refreshing change of pace? In the spirit of the season and all 🙂

    I actually have no issues with preferential ballots as an alternative… my point was that it can present an illusion of consensus where none exists. That can lead to rancour and claims of betrayal when the ‘winners’ move ahead on initiatives that might seem to have support by a majority, but actually do not.

    cheers,
    CK

  • Marvin

    @28

    “Certainly if the comments on this blog are a microcosm, any attempt at building support for consensus among the electorate is basically impossible when individuals don’t share common principles and values, let alone common goals.”

    Bingo!

  • Agustin

    @ Bill,

    Vancouver’s electoral system is not first-past-the-post. It’s a plurality-at-large system.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_at_large

    First-past-the-post is what many other Canadian municipalities use, in conjunction with a ward system.

    I personally prefer not having wards, because I think they lead to parochialism (almost by definition). I also dislike FPTP for a reason you gave: it leads too readily to a two-party system.

    I’m not married to plurality-at-large, either, though I prefer it to FPTP. In general I’d like to see a healthier mix of viewpoints in government.

    However, in the case of Vancouver’s most recent election, you’d be hard-pressed to find an electoral system that didn’t lead to a Vision majority. They simply had too many of the votes.

    I would like to see more healthy opposition* to Vision. Governing by majority for too long makes a party stale.

    * Note: by healthy opposition, I mean people that bring forth alternative solutions, not just people that complain. I think most of us agree that there are problems, so let’s have a constructive debate about which solutions are best.

  • Bill

    @Chris Keam #30

    It wasn’t off topic and wasn’t a jab. The Chinese system provides a system of government based on shared values and goals. Substitute “Progressive” for “Communist” (some might say that is not necessary) and we would have your ideal government. Then you could have vigorous debates about issues such as whether to implement a carbon tax or a carbon trading scheme or should we implement a tax just on excessive incomes or should we tax wealth as well. Narrow the scope of the discussion and no doubt you can achieve the type of consensus you describe.

  • brilliant

    @IanS 25 – yep it sure is convenient how the detectors have chosen to leave COPE now. I mean, its not like they would have known all about Vision all these years and figured out their beliefs aligned more closely with theirs. I guess they saw the jig was up on keeping COPE as Vision’s entered poodle.

    The best thing for COPE to do now is go nuclear on the antidevelpment theme and downplay the Marxism. They might actually capture some west side vote in addition to their base.

  • Bill

    @Agustin #32

    You make a distinction without a difference as there is really no difference in the voting methods but rather whether there is one or multiple representatives to be elected on one ballot. The weaknesses are the same and even more pronounced where there are multiple candidates. Vision Vancouver elected all of their candidates and it is not unreasonable to speculate they would have won more seats if they ran the maximum number of candidates.

  • Chris Keam

    Well, since I don’t think the Chinese system is something we should emulate it seems clear you don’t know what my ‘ideal’ government would look like. The topic at hand is Vancouver’s political landscape rather than my personal views, so why not contribute something that is more relevant? Or, failing that, you might choose to offer up some rebuttal or additional perspective related to my orig. point, which was that consensus isn’t practical, or perhaps even possible (at the municipal level) and would result in inaction. Either approach would be more considerate of the other readers of this blog, who are unlikely to find much of value in your remarks in post #33. If we are seeking some kind of consensus, perhaps we can all agree that comments that are based upon incorrect suppositions about individuals serve little purpose and have no real value if a productive dialogue is the goal?

  • Chris Keam

    above comment for ‘Bill’

  • Agustin

    Bill, “You make a distinction without a difference as there is really no difference in the voting methods but rather whether there is one or multiple representatives to be elected on one ballot.”

    In other words, there is no difference except for that one difference? 🙂

    I just thought we may as well use the right terminology, since we’re pretending to know what we’re talking about 😉

  • Kenji

    This is getting way OT but it’s fun.

    No person seriously (or no serious person) thought that Justin Trudeau was recommending China’s dictatorship. He was making a joke about the convenience of that setup in effecting policy, at least that’s how I read it.

    (Although it’s fun to take shots at Justin. Especially from Patrick Brazeau – the mirthful peak of Sun News.)

    As for China’s political system, they do have elections. Candidates for offices are proposed, nominated and voted upon as individuals – no political parties are allowed. At last an end to slate voting!

  • Bill

    @Agustin

    When you compare FPTP with plurality you are really comparing a ward system with the current at large system. Favouring the plurality system over FPTP suggests that you favour the at large system yet it has a greater probability of leading to lopsided victories than a ward system. I’m sure it makes perfect sense in your world.

  • F.H.Leghorn

    It’s amusing to observe so many people still claiming that there is a difference between winning an election and successfully marketing a consumer product. How many times do you have to see it staring you in the face before the penny drops?
    The same marketing firms that flog cars and prescription drugs and pipelines and liquor also sell you politicians. They use the same methods to identify and appeal to select groups of consumers (or voters). Same methods to promote the product. Objective truth, as such, is the first casualty as a rule.
    Politicians are not democratically-elected representatives of the majority will. They are disposable consumer products designed to carry out the wishes of their donors. Political parties are the factories which produce them and parties require a lot of capital, one way or another.
    Most consumers devote far more time and thought to a major purchase (an appliance, car, huge flatscreen, etc) than to who to vote for.
    COPE’s real problem is that they can’t nominate anyone who is marketable. It’s no accident that Mayor Robertson is so photogenic.

  • Agustin

    Bill,

    Yes, I prefer the at-large system to the ward system. The fact that the at-large system more frequently leads to landslide victories is a disadvantage, but in my view it is better than the FPTP system’s disadvantages of encouraging two-party states (or municipalities, as the case may be) and parochial thinking.

    IMHO we will have a better city if we govern it as a whole rather than as a collection of parts.

  • Kenji

    @42

    In theory, governing as a whole makes sense. The taxes are collected from all over the city, and my money is as good as yours. The government should be for all the city.

    But there is a great deal of smoke, often thought indicative of fire, to the effect that the east side gets the short end, or the end with fewer parks and amenities.

    There is also the office of a poverty watchdog, which indicates that central government does need to hear and indeed fund a critical voice to point out governance shortcomings.

    Ultimately, I think that most people agree that government is there to provide, within its jurisdiction and subject to what is practicable, very important (if not “essential” which has a legal meaning) services in an impartial, effective, transparent way.

    Wards or no, that is the goal.

    I suppose wards can be argued to be a vehicle to get to that goal.

    Are there studies showing that wards make civic government more nimble, responsive, effective etc? Or is “I want a ward” simply a cant phrase now, a goal in itself?

    Or am I missing some essential argument in favour of wards?

  • spartikus

    Or am I missing some essential argument in favour of wards?

    Such as wards become highly desirable when your party is out of power and become unworkable when it is?

  • catch22

    Politics is the art of the possible. Given that, Vision has accomplished a huge amount given the limited power of city governments. And these changes have been mostly for the good in my opinion.

    Take the bike lanes, and specifically the Burrard Bridge bike lanes. The hue and cry surrounding those bike lanes was deafening. But now they are here, and the world hasn’t ended. Traffic armageddon has not arrived. At most times the bridge traffic is passable. During rush hour, there is congestion, but it was that way before. As expected, the extra traffic simply shifted over to other routes, such as the under-utilized Granville Bridge.

    As for characterizing the Oakridge proposal as a “mini-Manhattan”? Really? I saw the display at the mall, and I liked it. I think it will become a vibrant nucleus of amenities, of restaurants, of shops, and eventually of culture. And it is on the Canada Line. It was always implicit that the building of the Canada Line would entail more density around the stations. That is what makes trains such a positive driver of urban development…they encourage clusters of density. Most downtown cores in North America were seeded during the age of rail, and were clustered around train stations. The car model of development encourages the opposite type of development…sprawl. Care to live in “downtown” Chilliwack with its vibrant walking culture?

    I think what irks me most about what I hear amongst voters is that it smacks of hysteria, of moral panic. Much of what I hear is shrill and parochial and shows many of the worst characteristics of NIMBYism. The simple fact is that Vancouver is a growing city. People want to live here, as reflected by the real estate prices. People like being able to walk to restaurants, to bike to work, and to generally minimize car use. People generally like the fruits of density…a wide selection of bustling high quality restaurants and shops and the ability to walk to those amenities from one’s residence. However they seem to (incorrectly in my opinion) equate density with traffic gridlock. Many residents seem to want to city to remain the same. Given the world we live in, I don’t think this is realistic. I think that if we embrace the forces that are pushing us to densify, we will bloom into a truly worldly and livable city.

  • teririch

    ‘NIMBYism’ a highly over used word.

    It seems that if people voice an opposing opinion about anything in their neighborhood, those pushing the agenda automatically pull out the NIMBY card.

    NIMBY has become common and boring.

  • teririch

    @Glissando Remmy #4

    Great to see you back in the blogosphere!

  • catch22

    What I mean by NIMBYism is an overly focussed concern about what happens near your immediate back yard with little or no focus on the broader needs of the city. It implies being concerned more about self-interest than the Public Good. I think it is also implicit in the term that the opinion in question is arrived at hastily and without much deep consideration. I am also implying that many of the more strident opinions I have seen expressed display something of a herd mentality.

  • Agustin

    @ Kenji,

    I think there is a certain size at which municipal jurisdictions become too large and too disparate, and the policies that benefit one part end up being detrimental to another. If Metro Vancouver were to amalgamate to a single entity, I think that would be too large.

    However, I haven’t heard that argument in favour of wards in Vancouver. I am open to it, provided that it comes with a proper analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the various options. In other words, it’s not good enough to say that ward systems offer one particular advantage without considering all the other ramifications.

    The only argument I have heard so far in favour or ward systems is “I don’t like the current government’s policies, I want a way to block them, and I suspect my next-door neighbour feels the same way.”

  • waltyss

    I think the main arguments for wards are that you have a representative that you know is elected to represent your interests. In an at large system, as we have at present, maybe you have 10 councillors plus the mayor representing you, but who should you go to.
    A ward system, at least in theory, should foster more responsible voting. As others have observed, it helps get around voting for the first letters in the alphabet because you have one as opposed to 10 positions to fill.
    While personally I favour wards, I am realistic enough to understand that it is a dead issue and is not coming back anytime soon. Partly I think that is that the NPA were against it because they saw it as a way to keep out the dreaded COPE and other lefties. Slate voting favoured them because their west side constituency was more likely to get out and vote and they were and are NPA supporters.
    Left of centre was in favour of wards but now that Vision is seemingly entrenched, they see no reason to favour wards. In the last election they would have received fewer seats with wards.
    Aside from being more able to vote responsibly for individuals rather than slates, a ward system tends to ensure that you have at least one advocate for your wards issues. When its an at large system, you have no assurance that anyone is representing the interests of your area. As a result, the governing party simply represents their voting constituency regardless where they are. That is why with the NPA in power for so long, their west side constituency had more parks and amenities. Wards involve horse trading but attention to different parts of the city is likely to be more balanced.