Here’s my latest column in Business in Vancouver:
How much do you have to love the Olympics if you want to lead Vancouver?
Will Vancouverites vote for a mayor who seems tentative in his support for 2010? A council that can’t quite get behind the Games? Do voters want Olympic cheerleaders or critics – because they’ll definitely have a choice of both. Candidates all over the political spectrum will be trying to assess how unreservedly they need to support the Games when their sincerity is tested in the upcoming civic election.
For some, like David Eby, who is aiming for a Vision Vancouver nomination, criticism of the Olympics is his brand: “Here we are, 18 months out, and nothing but broken promises to the Inner City,” he says on his blog. “Man, am I starting to sound like as much of a broken record as I think I am?”
Actually, that’s not Eby’s problem; it may be Gregor Robertson’s. As mayor, he would be the official host of the Games, the greeter, the spokesman, the most visible representative of who we are. Robertson might be able to fit the bill, but only if he is convincingly enthusiastic in ways that would be distasteful to many of his supporters. How will he deal with those who would dump on one of the most important events in this city’s history?
Ironically, he has an advantage over Peter Ladner, who as leader of the pro-Olympics NPA, will be expected to be booster-in-charge – and hence a target for anti-Olympic demonstrators. Ladner’s election as mayor with an NPA majority would free the opposition from responsibility for success of the Games. Robertson, on the other hand, if he can keep party opposition under wrap, would neuter the critics who had no other candidate to support and nowhere else to go.
It’s happened before.
Prior to Expo 86, then-mayor Mike Harcourt and a council dominated by COPE sent a letter of opposition to the international body responsible for sanctioning the fair. But Harcourt soon realized the danger of negativity in the face of broad popular support. He became a vocal proponent, especially in retrospect.
An even more classic turnaround came when COPE gained control of council under Larry Campbell in 2002. The party avoided outright opposition to the Olympics during the lead-in to the election by calling for a referendum by the voters, even though the city had already committed itself, fully expecting that the voters would turn down the obligation. Campbell soon enough grasped the consequence if the vote killed the bid: he and COPE would have been charged with political homicide, perhaps never recovering from the trauma.
Larry Campbell then became the biggest booster for the Games, and, with the support of Jim Green, ensured the vote would pass, much to irritation of the hard-line COPEsters. Eventually, the party split, resulting in the dynamics of the current campaign.
No one expects the city’s problems to be swept under the rug, but they also don’t expect the rug to be pulled out from under them. If there has been a sincere attempt to address the issues, then the citizens of Vancouver will expect everyone to pull together – and the mayor to be pulling the hardest.
If the mood turns turn sour, if Vancouver is humiliated on the world stage, then the party seen to be responsible will pay a severe political price. •
