Colin Brander frames this column from Geoffrey Simpson in the Globe in response to the question, Did Anyone Win?
The one winner was the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.They got what they wanted and raised their profile at the same time.
The Yes side’s biggest mistake was allowing the CTF to not only to start the debate, but also to frame it. The Yes side left the No sides arguments unanswered for far too long. The Mayors Council should have been much more aggressive and should have started long before they did. They seemed disorganized and didn’t seem to work well with TransLink who also made some blunders along the way.
Here’s an edit of Simpson’s column: B.C. Transit Plebiscite a Failure of Leadership.
Plebiscites make no one accountable, except for the people. But then the people, having voted, move on to other matters, which is what just happened in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.
Afraid of taking leadership, or even a position, the provincial government of Premier Christy Clark allowed a plebiscite on a small tax increase to fund transportation improvements sorely needed in this geographically-constrained space between the mountains and the sea. But the government then sat back and let the plebiscite carry on, refusing to take sides, an abdication of responsibility in a system that we choose to call “responsible government.”
It was as if the government had read the textbooks about the fate of plebiscites or referendums: most of them lose, not only in Canada but in other democratic countries too. …
Maybe, too, the usual dynamic of plebiscitary democracy would have occurred whereby opponents are full of fury at government for all manner of reasons, whereas the proponents fixed on just one item. Opponents in the GTA, as in the Lower Mainland, might have been mad at the transit operator, the specific plan, the idea of a tax increase, the “bloated” bureaucracy, the role of government in society and, best of all, they would not have been forced to suggest an alternative. Or, if they did, their alternative might have been based on some notional “savings” from eliminating “waste and duplication” to finance projects other than through the tax system.
That’s the point about plebiscitary democracy: It’s a yes or a no, without any intermediate compromises or competing ideas. It is not like an election where there are choices among rival ideas, policies, parties and leaders. In a plebiscite, it suffices for critics to know what they are against without needing to say what they are for.
A certain kind of democracy “won” by saying No in the transportation plebiscite; the wider kind of “responsible government” lost, and for that the B.C. provincial government is responsible.
And this applies even in countries where referenda are a regular part of the process. Why doesn’t Zürich have a subway? Because the people voted against it. Why did they vote against it? No one really knows.
And, no one really has to know. That is the democratic process; the people are given the opportunity to make a choice, and they make it for their own diverse reasons. That is their right and privilege.
Most people, like me, made their decision to vote “No” before and regardless of the CTF’s position. This one hit home for Vancouverites, who are already over-taxed and unsatisfied with transportation services and the government’s repetitive too easy solution of dumping the problem on the taxpayers. We’ve had enough. This is a fact and does not need to be iterated by the CTF or any other organization. We know it ourselves.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t often lead to good policy. For example, if we actually knew which No voters oppose new expenditures on transit expansion versus who wants expansion but a direct provincial funding mechanism, it would lead to better policy. A simple “No” means we don’t really know what the electorate wants, and can’t easily move forward.
Under responsible government, there is a continuous dialogue between the voters and their representatives. The different motives and opinions of the population are far more transparent to politicians who deal with endless letters and focus groups than the binary outcome of a plebiscite. The representatives are called to account for their policy decisions in elections.
Well said, Chris.
Chris,
I fully support consistent and open discussion between the public and government, and unquestionably such an exchange of information should in theory lead to better policy, but the fact is that we have not had such an interchange. Indeed, the vote has been the only such opportunity, and the people have expressed themselves.
Actually, only 759,696 of 1,562,386 registered voters in Metro Vancouver expressed themselves. So, we know the decision of 48.6%, but not the other half of the population.
@susan
I insincerely hate the nonsense bleat, “we’re overtaxed!” I ask you: in comparison to what?
By the Fraser Institute’s own reckoning (Fraser Research Bulletin, June 2015), BCers pay less tax now then they did in 1981. Moreover, we’re tied with Saskatchewan as the lowest taxed provincial citizens in the country.
And I must say it shows: the elderly and those with differing abilities having their transportation services frozen at 2009 levels, inefficient (hide-the-pickle bookkeeping) P3s running rampant across the province, and a sweet-heart deal on rates to Malaysian gas addicts – it all adds up to a society that this pennywise and pound foolish.
So it ain’t the tax that’s burdening your wallet, it’s price inflation and stagnating wages, which leads to income inequality. And guess what, a robust public transportation expansion (as proposed in the mayor’s plan and funded through the sales tax) would have been a net win for people’s wallets.
Which is all to say, this is the inherent danger in trusting your gut on complex policy decisions and making up your mind before you’ve seriously considered the relevant facts.
**sincerely. haha
damn android keyboards “as the 2nd lowest”
“Most people, like me…”
Susan, weren’t you complaining the other day about people who pretended to speak for the No voters?
“That’s the point about plebiscitary democracy: It’s a yes or a no, without any intermediate compromises or competing ideas. […] In a plebiscite, it suffices for critics to know what they are against without needing to say what they are for. A certain kind of democracy “won” by saying No in the transportation plebiscite; the wider kind of “responsible government” lost, and for that the B.C. provincial government is responsible.”
Very insightful comments by Simpson.
The Yes side kept saying “there is no Plan B.” The No side kept referring to Plan B, like it was a mythical script that would be conjured from the smoky air.
Perhaps the real Plan B would be to replace the provincial government.
And once again, you have just made the “No” side’s point: there are indeed many Plan Bs. One had to vote “No” in order to hear them, though, because taxpayers were not provided with any alternative plans prior to the vote. Nobody appreciates ultimatums because they are short-sighted and unfair. Now the drawing board is erased for a new start.
MB. You say that the Yes side kept saying there was no Plan B. Nobody believed that. Transit and road infrastructure cannot stop developing and it was never suggested that it would; except by a couple of the usual extreme scaremongers. In fact, the calls of doom hurt the Yes side with their silly statements and declarations.
We all remember Gregor Robertson finally confessing during his speech to the Urban Land Institute in early June: ‘After months of adamantly stating Vancouver has no Plan B to fund the Broadway subway should the transit referendum fail, Mayor Gregor Robertson revealed Wednesday that the city has started to work on a back-up plan.’ … “Obviously we’re hopeful we have a ‘Yes’ vote and can proceed as planned. If that doesn’t work out, we’ll go to Plan B.”
Only after being pressured by the Liberals did TransLink vote a third time and approve the RAV/Canada Line. If it were not for the Liberals there would be one less subway line in Vancouver. Jeffrey Simpson might want to remember that. Up until last week Vancouver was the only city in Canada to have a direct rail link from the airport to the downtown. It took the Liberals of BC to make it happen.
Eric, stop chatting already and start drawing up your Plan B.
Everyone should have at least one.
First I’m going to need a $100,000, plus expenses, contract fee from TransLink, so I can go on the usual fact-finding tour to Australia, Scandinavia, a few cities in Asia, and, of course New York and Paris. Plus the standard $35,000 per month. I will also need to be considered an employee temporarily because I think I might need a bridge across a couple of lower molars. Once you accept my terms I’ll need a month of stress leave to let it all sink in – and to pack for the first trip.
Again, you’re chattering. Time to tune you out.
“Now the drawing board is erased for a new start.”
===
For what, exactly? That’s the point. There is no PLan B.
MB,
You just offered one of many possible Plan Bs.
So sharpen your pencil already and draw us a Plan. Good luck!
Susan what is your plan?
1)Do you propose another revenue source?
2)Do you want to cut some other government spending?
3)Do you prefer to spend money somewhere else? IE you don’t like LRT or Broadway subway
Armchair critics like Susan and Eric just can’t seem to come up with viable alternatives to the Rage Against TransLink / Taxes / Bureaucrats / Elites / Evil Developers / Gregor / Christy / Transit Riders / Unions / Planners / Urbanists / Nothing in Particular / Everything In General.
The vote was little more than permission to throw a big hissy fit, not about issues. Now come the consequences.
Mayor Robertson and Translink lost. The tax payer won and told GVRD leaders, especially Gregor Robertson and Translink leaders to be use our precious taxes more wisely.
Totally agree. Now can you please let Christy know you want a referendum on ten billion taxpayer bucks worth of unnecessary freeways and megabridges?
Yes would either Pete or Eric please explain why it is ok to spend billions on a bridge/highway but yet when it comes to public transport that is not acceptable.
Who is up for another highway 16 avenue expressway or parkway or sprawl way? http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/17423.aspx Have your say with a survey. Please note in your survey the inadequate bike lanes. 1.5 m wide on 70 km/hr road is plain stupid. If it becomes a 4 lane highway at least provide 2.4m shoulders like Highway 10 or a separate path
Thanks Tim, I submitted my thoughts, definitely no to more urban sprawl.
The 1.5 m wide “bike lanes” are really just the shoulders required on a 70km/h road.
Only a separate path would be a meaningful cycling facility on such a road. Everything else is window dressing and only serves a fringe.