The electoral future of the party is in the hands of COPE's powers that be.

Stephen Elliott-Buckley has an interesting live-blogging account of COPE’s AGM, which took place this past Sunday.

Now it must be noted that the one hundred people that showed up for the meeting, half of which were monthly contributors to the party, are about double the crowd that has bothered to show up for multiple meetings for the Non Partisan Association.  And so in spite of the fact that recent polling shows that the NPA still attracts about 28 per cent support when compared to 13 per cent for COPE, the ability of COPE to produce an army for getting out the vote on election day is still very real and formidable.  Election watchers will note that one of the NPA’s biggest downfalls in 2008 was the fact that their e-day contingent was absolutely dwarfed by the combined forces of Vision Vancouver and COPE.

Which brings me to the most important topic that emerged from the meeting: how the distinct stands of COPE over the past two years:

- opposing the tax shift from business to residents
- demanded a timeline on the province’s affordable housing sites
- reopening Little Mountain
- restoring arts funding
- city-wide wireless, and scooter parking
- campaign finance reform caps
- preserving Stanley Park farm and the Conservatory
- electoral reform
- opposing civil liberties violation by-laws before the Olympics
- amateur sports at Empire Bowl
- increasing green space at Hastings Park
- gave back Olympics tickets
- building a coalition to fight education cuts
- for transparent neighbourhood engagement

can be rationalized with a new deal of cooperation with Vision Vancouver.  Because as I see it, Vision and COPE will be equally reliant on such an agreement being reached in order for both parties to fulfill their respective electoral goals.

In both cases, the ability to re-elect their current representatives would be a huge success in consideration of the possibility of a reinvigourated NPA (although as I mentioned last last week, that storyline is still going to require a huge amount of fleshing out before becoming reality).

For COPE, their biggest strength lies with their 3 School Board trustees, which comprise one third of the entire Board.  Along with Vision Vancouver trustees, COPE has stood side by side in the battle against the provincial government, which is intent on slowly crippling the Vancouver School Board in particular with a severe lack of funding.

The NPA’s two representatives are long time veterans, and with another few NPA hopefuls on the ballot, COPE’s most viable result would be to maintain the three that they already have elected.

Next we come to the Park Board, where Loretta Woodcock has worked extremely well with the Vision Vancouver Commissioners – last night’s vote is a perfect example, where the absence of one Vision vote was replaced by Woodcock when it came to making a decision on the Stanley Park Petting Zoo.  Now even though Woodcock was a vocal and effective opponent of the budgetary cuts that the City went through last year, she exercised pragmatism for the simple fact that there were no viable private partners that stepped forward for an alternative plan, and the prospect of the Board spending $250,000 to keep the farmyard open made little sense.

With regards to COPE’s Councillors, I feel as though one is as solid as they come in terms of re-election, while another is in severe danger of falling out of the top 10.  For all of David Cadman’s international travel and lack of focus for local matters, he is a name that resonates with people from his Mayoral run in 1999, and his subsequent Council victories ever since (Cadman was of course the only COPE Councillor to survive in 2005).  Ellen Woodsworth, on the other hand, has been a largely silent presence on Council, and thus when you consider the possibility of 3 NPA candidates that might or might not emerge as viable – depending on their Mayoral candidate – Woodsworth is in real danger of losing her seat on Council.

In fact, I would argue that the the survival of all COPE representatives would be hugely hampered by the prospect of COPE running their own Mayoral hopeful like Tim Louis or even David Chudnovski in 2011.  In 2008, the lack of a Mayoral candidate, in conjunction with electoral cooperation with Vision Vancouver – which left openings on their slates for COPE – was the key to victory for the fledgling party.

This isn’t to discount the benefit that a friendly COPE campaign had on Vision’s success – being attacked on one flank instead of two was a huge boon to a party that was introducing itself in terms of policy and direction to the electorate.  And, this same kind of arrangement becomes even more important with the reality of defending incumbency – particularly within such a fractious and viscous local political climate that has emerged recently.

As one commenter in the live blogging commented, there is “nothin’ like a bit of Vision-bashing to make COPE-ites feel comfortable.”

Fair enough – making Vision into the boogie man for those COPE diehards that are either still pissed off about the split of the party in 2005 (the Tim Louis faithful) or who are just intent on being branded as individual political entity, unencumbered by another, can be an effective strategy, whether that relates to fundraising or membership drives or even policy development.

But the powers that be would be well advised to look at the political instincts of Loretta Woodcock and follow the path of pragmatism, as resurgent NPA – if they can ever get their shit together – is a real threat to COPE’s very existence.

COPE would be well placed to not only temper their expectations in terms of what they might get in a cooperative electoral deal with Vision Vancouver, but also to strike one early in light of the next few months of local political activity on the right side of the spectrum.

The survival of the party in terms of being able to elect candidates, is on the line.

• The CityCaucus are up in arms about “keeping the Mayor’s office website distinct from the City’s.”  They claim that “city’s website has been used to continually shill for Mayor Robertson.”  But similar links from other cities’ websites do the exact same thing – Calgary, being just one of many examples.  There is not one mention of anything political on that website – mention Vision Vancouver doesn’t appear anywhere.  So to accused such a site of being used to “politick” is ridiculous, and just another empty allegation from a potential future City Council candidate and possibly his future campaign manager.

• Alex Tsakumis stated this about George Chow at the end of one of his most recent blog posts: “Nice thing, being able to count on your ethnic vote every three years, eh Georgie?”  This statement seems to imply that the ethnic vote is is all the George relies on to get elected every term, which is not only completely false, but also quite offensive.  In spite of Alex’s taunts about George’s intelligence, sarcastically referring to him as a “MENSA candidate” and calling him a “useless nit,” they don’t at all match up with a man who is an engineer by profession and one of the most pragmatic, level-headed individuals elected to Council in recent memory.  Tsakumis’ continuing trend of making culturally insensitive remarks is piling up, giving people a deeper window into the man behind the bluster.

• Speaking of Tsakumis, I stumbled on the following comment from Frances Bula’s blog, and I thought it to be quite funny in light of recent developments: “24hrs. is a FIRST CLASS operation and I’m sure I speak for my highly respected colleague, Bill, when I say that it’s a pleasure to work there. On behalf of our editor and publisher, thanks for the employment suggestions, but neither of us is going to be fired and the reason we have two of the most popular and most read columns in the city is precisely because we are impartial and fair. 24hrs has almost a quarter of a million readers per day and ranks in B.C. only behind the Sun and Province in daily readership…and our trendline has always been on the up…”  I wonder if he still has the same opinions today about his former employer today…

• The NIMBY’s in the west end who are up in arms about the proposed STIR development in their neighbourhood might have a lot of names on a petition, but by no means are united in the reasons behind their opposition.  Some hate the developers and development in general, some feel that the height is too much, even though it would be on par with other buildings in the area, some feel attached to the church, and some just don’t think that the element that would be coming into the area would be desirable (a silly perception of what kind of renters would be attracted to such a building, but that is how myths turn into reality in a neighbourhood war like this).  Anyways, this is yet another example of how the few mobilize, and turn a program that has real benefit to the city and demonizes it.  City Council had better be prepared to have some open and honest consultations with this group, but hopefully won’t abandon a very worthwhile program for a city of Vancouver’s expense.

• This if probably worthy of a larger post, but where is COPE on City Council these days?  Ellen Woodsworth and David Cadman are nowhere on the public radar, as opposed to Jane Bouey on the School Board and Loretta Woodcock on the Park Board, who have both been excellent in their roles.  Woodsworth and Cadman (when he bothers to show up) have been silent in terms of advancing any causes, and yet I hear that COPE administrators are trying to demand more than 2 spots if a deal with Vision Vancouver can be agreed to.  So you have two under-performing Councillors who will have a very hard time getting elected next time around (particularly with the sorry state the party is in these days, both financially and organizationally), and now you want more guaranteed spots in an electoral arrangement?  These guys are delusional, and possibly heading the way of the NPA if they don’t get their act together.

• The Montreal hockey fans really disappointed me amidst my utter elation at the fact that my beloved Habs are moving into the third round of the playoffs.  Although, as was pointed out by CBC’s Mark Kelley yesterday, Montreal has a history or riots over politics, culture or sports, so it wasn’t entirely a surprise (they had Rejean Houle come on with a recorded statement in the Bell Centre asking people to show class and respect in their celebrations).  But what I found even more upsetting was the site of Minister of Heritage James “I”m eating crow now” Moore wearing a Habs jersey.  After labeling the Canucks “Canada’s Team” a few weeks back in a ill-thought out tweet, I get no joy in seeing that XXL sized jersey being worn by someone who clearly has no context about hockey history.  Let’s hope he hasn’t jinxed what can now be officially classified as “Canada’s Team” in the next series.

That’s it for today folks.  Enjoy the beautiful weather out there.

COPE and Vision Vancouver sang and danced together in 2008, but will their tryst continue in the 2011 electoral campaign?

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.

Councillors Cadman and Woodsworth are immersed in Olympic sized hypocrisy over Olympic tickets.

So COPE’s two City Councillors – Ellen Woodsworth and David Cadman – and their lone Park Board Commissioner – Loretta Woodcock – have been invited to the Olympic opening and closing ceremonies but have refused, citing the fact that they aren’t willing pay for tickets on their own, and thus they are not going to accept them from the City.

To begin with, there are a lot of things that these officials probably wouldn’t do on their own if their weren’t elected – sitting in Council chambers until past midnight listening to concerned citizens have their voices heard, attending events on many evenings and on weekends at the expense of family time, reading reams of staff reports that most likely is comprised of a small forest by year’s end, just to name a few – but they do them because they ran for office willingly, and are now fulfilling the duties associated with the job.

But what bothers me about this vacuous martyrdom (each and every Councillor should at the very least be responsible to attend the ceremonies to represent the host city) is that it benefits no one (do they think that by not showing up the city is going to save money when the tickets have already been purchased?) and worse, it has all the characteristics of partisan hypocrisy designed to get media attention.

This was the staff report that recommended to Council the purchase of the block of tickets, of which Recommendation C was voted in favour of by Councillor Cadman (Woodsworth to her credit was consistent in her opposition).  An amendment to this recommendation was added in by Geoff Meggs stating that the purchase was “pursuant to a full reporting process that indicates to the public who has received tickets, according to what criteria, and whether they have been paid for.”

So Cadman calling these tickets a “perk of position” is a little rich at this point in the game.  Funnily enough, he also asks “If I’m not prepared to buy them, then how can I expect taxpayers to buy them for me?” although that didn’t stop him from voting without a word last March.

Everything is being done in the open, as I mentioned last week, and the public will be completely capable of scrutinizing each ticket and the individual sitting in the seat in less than a month after the closing ceremonies.

But COPE’s distinction between opening and closing ceremony tickets and the rest attached to events that take place between those two events is where I get confused.

Here is what the Courier states about Woodsworth’s position:

“She said she will fulfill her duties during the Games…”

And here is what Cadman tells the Courier about what he considers as “duties”:

“Cadman said he will fulfill hosting duties during the Games, but insists only the mayor and his spouse are required to go to the opening and closing ceremonies.”

So let me get this straight…going to Olympic hockey, or curling, or speed skating events in the city are part of “official hosting duties” and thus acceptable, but the opening ceremonies do not fall within that distinction?

Give me a bloody break.  This is one of those convenient political definitions that lends itself to the generation of a news hit, but does not match up well with basic common sense.

If Woodsworth and Cadman have a duty during the games to attend events, then by all means the opening and closing ceremonies have to be considered just as important within that capacity.

If Cadman and Woodsworth said they were boycotting each and every event throughout the Games, then I would have a measure of respect for them, even if I didn’t agree with their decision.  However, this kind of hypocrisy is hollow, and I have absolutely no time for a stunt that is little more than an attempt to take cheap shots at the City of Vancouver and the ruling Vision council.

So I encourage all readers who just happen to run into either of these Councillors at one of the Olympic venues to ask them how much their tickets cost, and what exactly their “official duties” are during the duration of the event.

The release of exactly which events both attended on March 10 should be very interesting.