Vision Vancouver dominated yesterday’s Vancouver civic election. They elected each of their candidates for City Council, Parks Board, and School Board. The right-wing NPA only increased their council seat count from one to two, despite almost doubling their campaign spending to about $2.5 million. The Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE) are in an even tighter spot, clearly not benefiting from their electoral agreement with Vision. Like last time, COPE’s Ellen Woodsworth was fighting for the tenth and last council spot (some news reports originally stated that the advanced polls were yet to be counted, but Frances Bula later confirmed that the 18,000 votes were included in the poll-by-poll website).
The take-home message is that, three years after 2008, the electoral scene remains largely unchanged, only with COPE faring somewhat more poorly. How do we make sense of this? How did it happen — or how did change not happen?
1. A big lesson from the past month is that you need a mayoral candidate and a strong slate in order to be part of the election process. The corporate media framed the election as a duel between the mayoral candidates. This meant that COPE received very little air time, either in terms of branding or policies. As a result, COPE candidates suffered at the polling stations, and the people of Vancouver suffered for not having any substantive policy discussions over the past month. Also, running so few candidates made COPE appear marginal, comparable to Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver (NSV) and other secondary parties, rather than as a serious contender. This is especially true for first-time voters, who guessed (wrongly) that COPE has a small base.
2. COPE supporters voted for Robertson and Vision, but not vice versa. The results here are clear-cut and shocking. While COPE appeared to pull its historic base of 40,000 voters, it seems that Vision’s base of about 30,000 almost completely ignored COPE. This tragic case of unrequited love allowed Vision to dominate absolutely, trouncing the other parties, and leaving COPE feeling rejected and dumped — at COPE’s election after-party, the sentiment could be heard everywhere: “But I thought Gregor liked us!” Of course, by no means can the blame for COPE’s poor showing be placed enitirely at the doorstep of Vision; but nor should there be any illusions about Vision’s lack of solidarity with COPE.
3. Already Vision pundits are blaming third parties like NSV for COPE’s defeat. The numbers prove beyond a doubt that this is untrue. COPE’s most painful losses were on School Board and Parks Board, where there were no NSV candidates at all. Vision’s electoral machine seems to have completely thrown these COPE school and parks candidates under the bus. There are no third parties to blame here.
4. COPE is not in an unusual situation. Across Canada, and the world, wherever there is a strong centrist Liberal party, truly progressive parties often live in the shadows. In central and eastern Canada, the history of the NDP is the history stubborn commitment in the face of relentless defeat. There, as here, Liberal parties campaign from the left and govern from the right. Only rarely, and after years of building a base, can labour parties expose and break through this liberal sleight-of-hand. Make no mistake, Vision is Vancouver’s Liberal Party run by highly skilled and patently successful political operatives. The sooner Vancouver’s parliamentary left faces the fact that Vision is a top-down Liberal machine aimed at exploiting the left, the better. Better for morale, because we realize there’s nothing exceptional about the situation. And better for justice, because only after making an accurate diagnosis may we make the right prescription, and organize to win.
5. Too many working-class people stayed home. Vancouver is a working-class town, with a median household income of only $35,000 and with a population of over 50% renters — far more than any other city in the Lower Mainland. Meanwhile, the cost-of-living is through-the-roof. With these demographics, and with this inequality, Vancouver should have a downright socialist majority — as do many other similar cities. But it seems that most of these folks did not feel inspired enough to vote. Ellen Woodsworth stated explicitly after hearing the results: “progressives stayed home.”
6. Poor people who were inspired to vote were turned away at the polls. COPE campaign manager Nathan Allan alleged on Sunday that Downtown Eastside residents who had no fixed addressed were questioned by NPA scrutineers and later turned away at the polls. In an interview with David P. Ball from the Vancouver Observer, Allan stated, “Scrutineers on behalf of NPA created enough tension so [city] officials erred on the side of disenfranchising people…[The NPA] frustrated the vote by making the lines long and the process arduous — many people were not able to vote today.” Allan estimated that at least 50 people were turned away from the polls. The NPA denies the claim, and no city officials have been available to confirm the report. In the meantime, COPE is considering making an official complaint.
7. Fear. Vision, like any Liberal party, made everyone fear the NPA. COPE supporters bought this as much as, or more than, anyone else, truly believing Anton and her team to be a mortally dangerous threat. But with no incumbents, and few if any well-known or competent candidates, the NPA was not a serious threat. The fear was over-blown. There’s no need to demonize the other side to win. Campaigns should be fought on the issues, or else we get more of the same: the “same old, same old,” as Jack Layton said.
None of this is to say that this situation would have been assuredly better had COPE refused to form an electoral alliance with Vision. We will never know what would have occurred. A few things are certain: debate would have been more substantive, Vision would have fared poorer, the NPA better, and the rest is speculation. We do know that, in the long run, at some point, COPE will have to find a way to stand on its own once more. This will be difficult given the systemic corruption of developer-council collusion, but the future lies precisely in breaking that deadlock, which is in fact the ‘weakest link’ of corporate power in Vancouver.
Bob
November 20, 2011 at 11:46 pm
Sadly everyone (except the COPE executive) could see this coming. Vision threw you under the proverbial bus.
VanRamblings
November 21, 2011 at 2:41 am
A solid, unassailable analysis.
In 2014, COPE must run a Mayoral candidate, and a full slate if the left is to be maintained as a potent political force in Vancouver.
In respect of Vision, in fact, although Vision’s rhetoric suggests a humanist, centre left agenda, in practice that has proven not to be the case: from their failure to establish city policy mandating that affordable and social housing will be built (and the failure of the Mayor to use his bully pulpit to pressure the federal government into living up to their responsibility in this area), to the dismissive tone set at City Hall for the precepts of democratic input into decision-making, in reality Vision isn’t NDP, and can’t really be called Liberal, either.
With the exception of the Vision school board members, maybe Vision Vancouver is nothing more than a happy face, feel good civic party that’s caught a generational wave, a party bereft of policy and ideals, committed only to self-interest and the patina of a green future.
Elizabeth Meriwether
November 21, 2011 at 8:23 am
I agree with this article whole-heartedly. The left in Vancouver are not presently represented in our civic government at all. Let’s gear up for the next election. How about extending the coalition to include all voices that question developers’ interests; could COPE expand to include other voices of the disenfranchised such as DE-GRowth and possibly NSV? How about OCCUPY? Isn’t our financial disenfranchisement from the civic process what Occupy is all about? Let’s continue the good fight gang.
Bill
November 21, 2011 at 8:47 am
Great article Sean, but it fails to recognize that the VDLC endorsed Vision and that the provincial and federal NDP machines were out in full force for them. You cannot claim that Vision does not represent labour when BIG LABOUR embraced them fully. Vision Vancouver has managed to attract both labour unions and developers–an amazing feat in itself. For me the question is why would the unions support a developers party and abandoned COPE?
Chris
November 21, 2011 at 9:13 am
Personally, I voted for Vision and COPE and encouraged all my friends to do the same.
I know you want to blame COPE’s blowout yesterday to its coalition with Vision, however I think it might have more to do with dumping David Cadman. In 2008, Cadman was COPE’s strongest candidate, top vote-getter, de facto spokesperson (their was no mayoral candidate by Cadman filled this role in the media), and a man with an awesome beard. This election, he was replaced by Tim Louis, who didn’t have the same appeal or media reach.
In 2008, David Cadman received 56,665 votes, enough for the 7th council seat. Ellen Woodsworth got 45,877 votes to squeak into the 10th seat. This year, Ellen Woodswoth received 48,557 (in increase of over 2,000), but she just missed the last seat, finishing in 11th. If David Cadman had run again and won the same votes as 2008, he would have finished in 6th place. In fact, he could have dropped by 8000 votes and still won. There’s no guarantee he would have received the same number of votes, but considering Woodsworth went up by 2,000 I doubt he would have dropped by more than 8,000.
You can read more of my analysis here
Chella
November 21, 2011 at 9:45 am
You reveal your personal bias with this statement: “wherever there is a strong centrist Liberal party, truly progressive parties often live in the shadows.” Calling the left wing “truly progressive” is just your personal opinion (i.e. bias). Some of us believe that centrism is most desirable and movement towards centrism (especially in the U.S.) would constitute true progression. Centrism is a philosophical/political balance between business and social interests. Achieving balance is progress. It’s good that NPA now has 2, to balance city council. Having 2 COPE councillors would have been just as useful however. It’s a shame, Woodsworth & Louis would have definitely helped to bring balance.
Ian
November 21, 2011 at 10:14 am
I don’t think too much blame can be placed at Vision’s doorsteps for COPE’s loss. In their radio and TV ads, their voter guide, and even some of their press releases, Vision encouraged people to vote for both themselves and “their COPE allies”. They could have easily ignored COPE, but instead chose a better route.
It’s also incorrect to say COPE dumped David Cadman for Tim Louis. RJ Aquino was also added to the slate but performed poorest of the three candidates. A Woodsworth-Cadman-Louis campaign might have been stronger and more experienced.
Finally, COPE’s messaging seemed a little thin on policy at times. While their platform was sound and press releases were good, the campaign videos were vaccuous (the first was people putting up a sign and another was pictures of Vancouver). Running positive is good, but Naheed Nenshi’s win in Calgary demonstrates that you can run a positive and policy heavy campaign and win from behind.
VanRamblings
November 21, 2011 at 11:27 am
Bill, you make the query, “For me the question is why would the unions support a developers party and abandon COPE?”
The answer is simple: early in the next term of Council, negotiations will begin for new CUPE / IUOE Collective Agreements. Vision Vancouver will certainly offer a friendlier ‘partner’ across the bargaining table than the NPA.
The Unions ran a pocketbook campaign in support of Vision Vancouver, who they (rightfully) saw as the stronger of the two more progressive municipal parties, more likely to win a majority on Council. Thus the Unions poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Vision campaign, and much less money into the well-fought and principled, but ultimately unsuccessful, COPE campaign.
David Myers
November 21, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Wrong. If COPE, whom I’ve always supported, think they have to have a mayor candidate in order to get enough attention from the ill-informed electorate and the media, so be it, although that could indeed help elect an NPA mayor, maybe. But one thing is certain, if COPE and Vision both run full slates on council I can tell you exactly what will happen. Exactly the same thing that’s happened everytime that left and center parties each run full council slates (be it COPE and the Vancouver Civic NDP party or COPE and TEAM (The Electors Action Movement), the center party and the left-leaning COPE split the progressive vote and NPA sweepes in to take all or almost all of the seats. Look it up. It’s history. Progressives need to support both COPE and Vision, otherwise the same thing will happen (NPA takes most of the seats in council), which has never been good for this city.
We need to learn from history or we will be doomed to repeat it. Check out how many councils have been overwhelmingly dominated by NPA in the history of Vancouver’s city council, since NPA’s founding in 1937 in an attempt to keep “the socialist hordes at the gate” from getting control of Vancouver city council (details of the make up council for most years since the city’s founding can be found in “Vancouver’s Elected Representatives” by Wayne D. Madden (pub-2003). This book is available in the Vancouver Public Library.
The same thing happened on the provincial level when W.A.C. Bennet “united the right” by forming an alliance between the BC Conservatives and BC Liberals (called the B.C. Social Credit Party) in order to keep the NDP’s predecessor (the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation – C.C.F.) from being elected provincially.
Bob
November 22, 2011 at 8:26 am
David Myers-how is having Vision in power any better than having the NPA these days? The NPA today is not the party of Tom Campbell. It is a near twin of Vision, catering to developers. So you get a few more bike lanes, and some minor feel-good green programs with Vision. BFD.
What you don’t get with either is a party for the working residents of Vancouver. If COPE wnats to be that party, they need to disentangle themselves from Vision ASAP.
Thomas
November 22, 2011 at 11:48 am
I voted Vision-COPE this election. While I’m happy that Vision performed so well, I am really disappointed at COPE’s unsuccessful campaign. But ultimately, COPE’s failure to win any council seats is mostly their own fault.
The decision not to re-nominate David Cadman was unbelievably short-sighted and driven by individuals with thick ideological blinders. By no means do I think Tim Louis has been a poor manager of public affairs. But the reality is that Cadman has historically gathered a lot of votes. He is a prominent and respected figure in Vancouver politics. He most likely would have been elected again. So the decision to dump Cadman in favour of Louis was, in effect, a decision to shoot the party’s collective foot. This is especially true when you acknowledge another reality: Vision is riding a wave of generational support. The party enjoys a lot of support from a large group of dedicated young activists, and on a wider level the party has really succeeded in connecting with a broad-spectrum of Vancouverites. Why, then, would COPE nominate a candidate that is on the record as opposing co-operation with a party that commands such triumphant support? COPE may want to seriously consider placing the power to nominate candidates in the hands of the organization’s executive directors.
You simply cannot blame Vision for COPE’s demise. A lot of Vision’s campaign literature urged voters to vote for the Vision team and their “partners” in COPE. Labour union literature did the same. And I can personally attest to volunteering at Vision mainstreeting events where Vision campaign workers and volunteers handed out Vision *and* COPE pamphlets; waved Vision *and* COPE signs. Vision stumped for COPE on the campaign trail. They were faithful electoral partners.
A final note on COPE’s poor showing on election day. Remember that it was not a Vision or NPA candidate that beat out Ellen Woodworth — it was Adrianne Carr. Green parties are bizarre little outfits. They helped usher W. into the White House in 2000, they ensured that the BC NDP was kept to only 2 MLAs in 2001 and now they have locked out an awesome community activist in Vancouver. After Carr was elected, one of her comments to the media was that she wants to keep Vision “accountable.” Nothing about urban-green initiatives or helping council prepare for the 2020 plan. Carr is no friend to progressives.
The Vision-COPE alliance is really a model for progressives all over the place. Finally, left-liberals, social democrats and socialists can put aside narrow ideological differences and work together for common pursuits. The lack of unity on the left and the tragic frequency that leftists bicker amongst themselves has handicapped the pursuit of socio-economic justice for a very long time. On a local level, bridges have been built and they ought to be maintained.
The right-wing does not suffer from the left’s disunity. Free-market enthusiasts stuck together with the BC Social Credit Party and they stick together today with the BC Liberal Party. In Vancouver they have worked in the NPA for decades — we don’t see a splintering into right-wing equivalents of the NSV, or others. And I need not mention the frighteningly successful Alliance-PC merger that haunts us to this day.
Progressives need to wake up to some cold-hard facts. It is delusional to believe that all the different right-wing factions that coalesce into united front parties like the NPA, BC Liberals or Conservative Party of Canada always get what they want. Check out their discussion forums — they argue about policy and decry “selling-out” just as much as leftist activists do. The difference is that they seem to have mastered the art of compromise.
Of course there are elements that claim that Vision and the NPA are twins separated at birth. I wonder if some of the people who used to sleep on the street but now have basic shelter access would agree. I wonder if young professionals who want to stay in the city, but can’t afford a mortgage, but have been able to find a market-rental unit thanks to STIR would agree. I wonder if people who bike to work thanks to our cyclist-friendly infrastructure would agree. I wonder if any self-respecting progressive would agree once we reach the Greenest City goal of 2020.
When Suzanne Anton says that (to paraphrase) the only solution to affordability is a free-market solution, it should really be apparent that Vision and NPA do not inhabit the same philosophical sphere. To some, though, anything sort of declaring the Socialist Republic of Vancouver will qualify as being “NPA-lite.” To those of us who are serious about the fight for social justice, such individuals will perennially frustrate our efforts.
Richard
November 22, 2011 at 3:25 pm
@Thomas
Well said.
Vision organized a great get out the vote for both the Vision and COPE slates with over a thousand Vision and COPE supporters working side by side. Tens of cards were distributed with all the Vision and COPE candidates.
While we all worked very hard to get the vote out, if I knew it was going to be so close, I would have worked even harder to make sure Ellen was elected. Everyone pretty much is disappointed that Ellen did not make it in.
I think also some voters thought that since Vision, COPE and the Greens worked together last election, they were still working together and voted for Carr instead of one of the COPE candidates.
While Carr obviously benefited at COPE’s expense of from not working with Vision and COPE, clearly the other Green candidates didn’t as witnesses by Stuart’s loss. If the Greens had worked together with Vision and COPE, more COPE candidates would have been elected and likely the NPA would have been shut out.
Hopefully, next election, everyone will be working together again.
david hadaway
November 22, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Anyone wishing to understand the relationship between Vision and COPE should watch the movie “How to Get Ahead in Advertising” (UK 1989)