Here’s the Roundtable that Shane Woodford hosted on CKNW this Sunday, with Mayor Greg Moore, Eric Doherty and, oh yeah, @pricetags:
.
[And if anyone thinks I’ve been a little critical of the Premier, listen to Michael Eckford’s take at the beginning of the clip (0:35 – 5:15). Brutal.]
Here’s why I don’t think the referendum is a conspiracy by Christy Clark to kill transit or divide the region.
1. I believe Christy is a shrewd, opportunistic and self-interested politician more than a deep thinker or an ideologue. I don’t think she necessarily has a strong desire to expend political capital damaging transit, but she will certainly damage transit if it grows her political capital.
2. When this referendum fails, and people begin to consider the repercussions of a shrinking transit system in a growing region, she and her party seriously risk being blamed and uniting their political opposition. She risks alienating voters in Surrey and damaging herself politically.
For these reasons, I think the referendum idea was simply a mistake. Now she is digging in, and hoping to pass ownership of the referendum’s consequences onto the mayors by opting out of the process and hoping they will write the question. The mayors don’t want to write the question because that will legitimize it and make it “their thing”.
Proposing the idea during the election was probably a vote getter, but I think the actual implementation of the plan will hurt Christy.
Great discussion about the issues surrounding Premier Clark’s Transit referendum and I’d recommend listening to this as a good primer for the issue. The callers on the show also provided good examples of the attitudes amongst the general public, attitudes which will somehow have to be overcome to win any kind of referendum.
There is a lot I could offer on these issues but I think an important part of the big picture is being missed in all of these conversations. And this is why, while I am glad to see increasing criticism of Premier Clark on this issue, I still don’t think the criticism is anywhere near harsh enough.
My big question to Premier Clark and her ministers is this: do you want British Columbia to be governable in twenty years or not?
If public referendums are going to be used more frequently to get specific public consent for specific policies then these first referendums are setting the precedents that are going to guide future ones. The HST referendum has already set a bad precedent, one which in my opinion is being used as the guiding light for planning this one and in the worst possible way, using a referendum failure to provide cover for the province abandoning responsibility for transit in the Lower Mainland.
Throw on the idea (as advocated by one of the discussion panel members) that this referendum should be used on a small question, basically restoring service to 2010, and we have the potential for future governments to claim that any increase in any services (but not cutbacks) have to be approved by popular vote.
The HST Referendum was (despite being won) a tactical and strategic defeat for the opposition forces that launched it. That experience directly contributed to this current situation. Long term planning, the very basis of establishing livable, desirable and durable cities, struggles enough with the existing cycles of political campaigning.
That’s what is as stake here, not simply the future of transportation in Metro Vancouver, but the essential way in which we choose to act in our long term interests. Good, well thought out referendums can be an important part of that, but the current trajectory for referendums in BC is towards one of paralysis, and basically for no other goal than to allow Christy Clark to abdicate her responsibilities as Premier and escape blame for the ensuing mess.