Are NPA members really ready to give up on their final remaining bastion of political viability?
Over the weekend I received a phone call from a reader suggesting that I head over to the NPA’s website to see the latest desperate attempt by the remaining party faithful to remain relevant.
As some might remember, the association gathered on April 30th for their Annual General Meeting to discuss the future. Dissatisfied with their current lot in Vancouver’s political scene, a proposal emerged to change the name of the entire entity in the hopes that voters might forget how out of touch and arrogant the NPA had become in their final days of power.
Well, the bright idea for change has emerged, and apparently, the brain trust are looking to Diane Watts for inspiration.
Here is the exciting question that the 50 or so members that can be assured to turn up (and yes, that likely includes Mike Klassen, whose potential future City Council candidacy is still an ambiguously guarded secret) will contemplate on June 29th:
“Notice of General Meeting
Whereas: the Board of Directors of the NPA was directed at the 28 April, 2010 AGM to constitute a Special Review Committee to review the name of the Non Partisan Association and recommend the present name, as well as additional appropriate alternative names for consideration by the membership which will help to position the NPA as a group of forward-looking people working toward a better Vancouver, the final choice of name shall be determined by the membership at a General Meeting to be held on or before 30 June, 2010;andWhereas: the Board of Directors appointed a Special Name Change Review Committee, which in turn sought input from members of the NPA for new names which may better reflect its core values to the Vancouver public and, has given due consideration to this information as well as other relevant considerations; the Special Review Committee submitted the Name Change Recommendations Report to the Board of Directors and then to the NPA membership along with the Notice of the 29 June, 2010 General Meeting for their review & consideration.Be it resolved that Article 1 of the Constitution of the Society known as the “CIVIC NON PARTISAN ASSOCIATION” be deleted and replaced with:1. The name of the Society is “VANCOUVER FIRST”.
Voters might remember the brilliant political play made by Mayor Watts back in 2007, when she used her overwhelming popularity to create a new entity with a focus on “bringing people together” without concern for “where the idea comes from, but [rather] on what ideas work best for our community.”
Watts took a sprinkle from the Conservative, Liberal and NDP contingents of the Surrey municipal scene to build a coalition that was diverse and talented. Watts also embraced the “non-partisan” approach, and by all accounts, she has been able to run one of the most dynamic and successful City Councils in the province without strict adherence to any one ideology. “Surrey First” was born on the back of a dynamic woman that had the capability to carry many to the promised land.
Here are just a few of the reasons that the concept of “Vancouver First” would be likely to fall flat on its face if 75% of the membership are inclined to blow things ups:
- First, there is absolutely no coattails that the NPA can attach hope to, making a completely new name on the ballot in 2011 an extremely risky proposition. I’ll be shocked to see the individual(s) who step forward to challenge the Gregor Robertson phenomenon (save for lone NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton and lone NPA Park Board Commissioner Ian Robertson, both of whom continue to have delusions of political grandeur). Watts, by contrast, represented a true juggernaut, and had people clamouring to be chosen to be a part of her ticket.
- Secondly, the NPA’s brand, however damaged it may be, still remains as the association’s biggest asset. If played correctly, the NPA name can still be good for at least a block of about 30,000 votes, with the rest and any subsequent hope for victory coming on the name recognition and appeal of the Mayoral candidate. Thus, with no one of significance or sway likely to step forward, they had better hold true to something that can at least garner some kind of voter loyalty.
- Lastly, and most importantly, it will be seen as a desperate and shallow political ploy for a group that doesn’t even know if it wants to embrace defined policies or not. Voters will look at a name change and expect something to justify it in terms of a shift in views, or ideas, or direction. And without any kind of rudder in the current makeup of the association, they will quickly relegate the updated branding as unworthy of consideration.
It will be interesting to see if the membership is ready to take such a bold and at the same time bone-headed decision, because as mentioned above, a successful vote will be represented by 75% of the members in the room.
I hear from my NPA contacts that there are those who are frantically organizing to stack the room and initiate the change.
So my advice to those traditionalists who want to stay the course is this: don’t take anything for granted as you did with Sam Sullivan’s failed mayoral nomination bid. The knives are out for anything to do with the past, and unless those of you who believe in the value of the NPA branding get off your asses, you might just be in for a rude awakening.
Then again, I will be popping a bottle of champagne on June 30th if indeed a new name emerges, as such a decision will likely cement Vision Vancouver’s reign in power until 2015.
