Examining the the COPE/Vision Vancouver electoral deal

The recent utterings of hypocrisy by Councillor Ellen Woodsworth and Councillor David Cadman have got me thinking about the electoral cooperation that COPE and Vision Vancouver successfully exercised in the 2008 civic election.

(On a side note, I will be very interested to see how many events Councillor Woodsworth actually attended during the Olympics, as the rumour is that she was frantically asking for tickets to any event she could possibly insert herself into – regardless of comments by her colleague Councillor Cadman about said tickets being “a perk of position.”)

The deal between COPE and Vision currently remains in limbo, as both sides seem to be content to let things be ironed out at the last minute, as was the case in 2008.

Here are the strategic considerations for both sides to consider in a conversation that would be wise to have sooner rather than later.

The most obvious difference between then and now is the fact that there isn’t a united opposition – namely the NPA – that both parties can rally together to attack and attempt to defeat.

Vision Vancouver must now defend its record in office, while COPE will try and hitch its electoral fortunes on the Gregor Robertson bandwagon (which, when considering current polling, is an enviable mode of transportation these days).

Vision Vancouver had monumental success in the last election by securing 8 of 11 seats on City Council, 4 members on the Park Board and 4 members on the School Board.

Yet regardless of how well any administration is doing, maintaining such a majority is always a difficult task.

I would venture to say that the Robertson is relatively safe should he decide to run again, to the point where other parties will likely be hard pressed in their search for an opposing candidate.

This then leaves the Vision incumbents, who like most candidates or incumbents from Vancouver’s electoral past, will still be largely dependent on the coattails of the Mayor.

When you break down the numbers, however, maintaining their dominance is still going to be challenging, even with Robertson as an anchor.

Examining the results from 2008 indicates the strength of candidates like Michael Geller as a first-timer.  If you assume that the NPA gets organized enough to capture even a smidgen of its past glory (a very tough leap of faith to make these days after the decimation of the party and the subsequent lack of effort since), the association could conceivably provide company for Ian Robertson on the Park Board add even add another Councillor or two to join Suzanne Anton.

So to counteract this potential resurrection, Vision Vancouver has two options.

The first is to maintain electoral cooperation, which would once again ensure two Council spots and no mayoral candidate for COPE.

The second is to go it alone, run 10 candidates under the Vision banner, and likely face a three-way mayoral race.

As much as I hate to admit it, my previous inclination towards going it alone doesn’t make strategic sense for either party.

Serving as the top dog for three years inevitably places a big “X” on the forehead of every single Vision candidate come next election.  COPE’s performances, on the other hand, have embodied the word obscurity thus far.

So for this reason, Vision would be well placed to avoid attacks from COPE candidates, while COPE would be very happy to leech the spotlight as a result of their association with Vision.

Now while this kind of a deal might lead to peace within the context of an election campaign, it is going to present huge internal problems for both sides.

COPE and its hardliners (which from what I can tell still dominate the party) will rally against political pragmatism in favour of representing full slates of candidates, regardless of whether that translates into success or not.

Vision, on the other hand, will be overwhelmed by the kind of interest it receives from new potential candidates who are intrigued by the prospect of running under one of the most successful political brands in Vancouver’s civic history.

This then brings forth the question of whether incumbents will be protected internally when it comes to nomination battles.

Assuming that this is the case (because forcing electeds to go through the destructive and all consuming process of the Vision nomination races would be sheer idiocy), a deal with COPE would ensure that only one spot would be open for new blood.

With the exception of George Chow, who has indicated in the past that he might consider leaving politics to relax and work on his roof, I can’t see any of the Councillors even contemplating leaving the political realm.  The Park Board for all of its challenges in the first year is likely in limbo, and so there might be some open spots there.  And as for the School Board, Patti Bacchus and her caucus are so tight and involved in the issues that I can’t see anyone going anywhere.

So can Vision Vancouver risk limiting the choices of its membership and alienating those looking for open nomination battles in favour of campaign peace?  That is very hard to say at this point, although is likely to be discussed more heavily in the weeks before the upcoming AGM.

To a certain extent, the same dilemma can be attributed to COPE, although in consideration of the performances of Woodsworth and Cadman on Council to this point, a house cleaning might be the best thing that the party could do for its future (Loretta Woodcock on the Park Board has been fantastic and should go nowhere).

The new Vision executive will inevitably be forced to out their opinions on the proposed cooperation long in advance of the AGM, and thus we might very well get a clear indication of where the party is headed long before their names become official.

It seems as though some very interesting consideration and negotiations are ahead for both Vision and COPE.

And for the NPA?  Let’s just say they have a long road ahead.