Why the loss for the NPA? I think this election, albeit distantly removed, was the first time people had a chance to express their discontent and disdain for those in charge for the past little while, particularly of the financial system. Not necessarily the ones around the Council table, obviously – but certainly to the ones they seemed connected to. And unfortunately, the NPA was in the line of fire.
Given the sudden and convulsive nature of the collapse, one wonders, as Queen Elizabeth asked about the global credit crunch, “Why did nobody see it?”
The smartest guys in the room were making deals worth billions – no, trillions – in arcane financial instruments that proved to be the real weapons of mass destruction. And deception.
The Olympic Village loan seemed to smell of that. It was complicated. It was global. It involved taxpayers dollars to back up a big company at possible risk of failure because of connections to even bigger, shadier entities.
So a lot of people who couldn’t begin to understand the nuances of the deal voted for change, for something other than the NPA. Or they didn’t vote at all.
However, a ten-to-one split (ten Vision/COPE, one NPA) is in neither side’s long-term interest. It happened in 1993, when Jenny Kwan was the only opposition councillor. Jenny felt she failed to get the respect she deserved, mainly because no one from the NPA would second her motions, preventing them from coming to the floor for debate.
Suzanne Anton, in her first post-election interview, quickly noted her expectation that Mayor Gregor Robertson would second her motions if no one else will, to demonstrate his spirit of “non-partisanship.”
Uh huh.
A pity indeed that NPA first-timer Michael Geller, who lost tenth councillor position by about 1,500 votes, isn’t there to second her motions – and to move his own. He was someone everyone on Council could have worked with, and his skill and knowledge in development, particularly non-market housing, would have been invaluable.
Robertson is promising “transparency” at City Hall. Please. The more involvement in civic decision-making by the kind of people who like to attend long and frequent meetings, the more inside government there has to be to get things done. Otherwise, tough decisions get put off for more process- and there’s never an end to process when people want something put off.
Robertson’s skill at keeping a Council unified will be tested, particularly if a small group emerges (perhaps Charlie Smith’s Kingsway Mafia) to shift the priorities (and maybe the senior staff) and to make the deals with the developers – to the dismay of those not included in the bargaining. That’s when disagreements can fester and ultimately result in division.
Thed NPA had a leadership split happen twice, and lost the subsequent elections. COPE/Vision did it once, and lost too.
No wonder there’s word of a T-shirt in the Vision camp that says “Don’t f*** it up this time.”
I think you’re being a bit hysterical about this Kingsway Mafia thing; do you think the Robertson camp would really allow itself to be subverted so easily? You’re talking about arguably the best political machine this city has ever seen, and one of the most well-funded. Robertson won the Vision nomination because he and his group are better at running a positive, modern campaign, and at GOTV. Vision would have fared far worse under Louie, and I suspect Louie knows that.
Re: “The more involvement in civic decision-making by the kind of people who like to attend long and frequent meetings, the more inside government there has to be to get things done.”
Gordon, I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Is this just a throwaway line? It’s pretty much an accepted truth in political science and governance circles that ever-more public input is the only way to increase the level of consent and trust in local government. While it’s true that “consultation” is a time-honoured way to delay decisions for all governments, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a bad thing to encourage more public input. Or do you disagree?
Why do I foresee another study on the rapid transit extension to UBC (underground SkyTrain or in-street LRT?)?
At least it looks like something (and a fiscally prudent something) will be done about the Burrard Bridge bike lane issue. They’d better not commission another study on that one!
Hi Gordon,
Long time no comment. Well, you could point at a lot of factors: little improvement in the housing situation (a big motivating factor), the sometimes painful performance by council, Sullivan’s enigmatic ways, or a general push for change as Michael Geller suggested. The talk I heard from the people in Vision was that the Olympic Village loan didn’t change many votes even though it soaked up so many column inches.
As for “Dont f— up, ” I didn’t see any shirts, but that is something I told Gregor some time later than night after the scrumming was over. That’s because I want my civic leaders to pull off wins for the city — on housing, on transportation, on practical sustainability, on a lot of things — regardless of what party’s in the majority.
Just wondering: did you second any motions from Jenny Kwan in ’93-’96? I’m genuinely curious as I wasn’t in Vancouver at the time and haven’t much knowledge of how that council worked.
Will Robertson and Vision be following Derek Corrigan’s lead in making anti-Port Mann politics a major plank in their platform? What kind of impact will that have at the provincial level?