These wo former competitors have since formed a strong working relationship within City Hall, giving Vision peace within the caucus.

The landscape of BC politics right now is like nothing that observers have ever experienced before.  A Premier has just stepped down, and his party is now at the beginning stages of what should be a hotly contested leadership contest.  The stakes of this race are huge, as the winner becomes the new leader of the province, and the one tasked with pulling the BC Liberals out of the toilet.

Far be it for the ridiculous New Democratic Party to take an advantage of such a situation, as they are embroiled in a partial caucus revolt against their own leader.  The dissidents are determined to push the envelope until Carole James walks out the door, which might happen soon with a leadership review likely coming in the new year.

If we turn our attention to the municipal scene in Vancouver, even the NPA continues to struggle with factions within their party, even as they try to rebuild the organization back into a competitive force for next year’s election.  The recent party fundraiser saw Park Board Commissioner Ian Robertson and his silent supporters draw a line in the sand between them and the Sam Sullivan loyalists, while delivering a speech that showed he was most definitely going to take a shot at being the party’s Mayoral candidate.  Meanwhile, Councillor  Suzann Anton continues to cling to the Sullivan faithful for her base of support, making a showdown between the two an inevitability, and rehashing of all the nastiness that ensued between the Peter Ladner and Sullivan forces back in 2008.  This is of course just the latest episode in a party that for many years has cannibalized its own in the name of personal politics of ambition.

Which brings me to Vision Vancouver.  For a party that continues to grow as a coalition of progressive forces, the caucus has been one of the most peaceful that Vancouver’s civic political scene has seen in several terms.

Philip Owen was deposed by one of his own Councillors.  Larry Campbell hated the majority of his caucus and started his own party.  Sam Sullivan was also taken on by one of his Councillors intent on carrying the party’s banner into battle.

Gregor Robertson, however, has presided over a caucus that is not only personally friendly with each other, but extremely loyal, both publicly and privately.

Raymond Louie, Robertson’s main competition in the 2008 Vision Vancouver Mayoral nomination battle, has been relied upon by Robertson and his crew for his experience and know how of how City Hall runs.  The working relationship between the two is solid and without political backbiting.

And while each member of City Council has their own portfolios, the way in which Councillors collaborate together (Jang and Meggs on Olympic Village and Social Housing, Reimer and Louie on the Greenest City Action Team, Chow and Deal on business development and creative capital initiatives) is a model for political peace.

As an example, what happens when one member of the caucus goes public with their budgetary concerns?  Well, it is an exchange that is handled with respect, class and non-aggression:

“Park Board stretched thin

VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980)
Penny Daflos
11/26/2010

The Park Board isn’t happy about what it has to do to help balance the budget.

Chair Aaron Jasper says after shedding more than one point six million dollars from their budget in the first round, it’s tough to find another million dollars in savings to help balance the budget, “This is really starting to eat into our core operations. We’re asking Council to reconsider that and that’ll be our job. My job as the Chair of the Park Board and my colleagues as Commissioners, to make the case. I would hope Council is open to that discussion.”

Jasper says some public washrooms may have to close and lawns will go longer between cuttings as a result. He adds that in general, he supports keeping property taxes down, but the Board can’t cut much further.

City budget balanced?
VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980)
Penny Daflos

11/26/2010

A month after City staff whittled down Vancouver’s 2011 operating budget to 21 million dollars, City Council has squeezed it down to zero.

Councillor Raymond Louie says a spending review found 13 million dollars in savings and they’ll only raise property taxes by two percent to raise the rest along with some service increases.

He’s not sympathetic to Park Board complaints they’re not getting enough money to run their services, “It’s sort of like when you’re running household finances and your income isn’t there to match the service needs of your household; you really do need to rationalize and make hard choices on what’s necessary.”

Louie is confident no jobs will be lost since last year’s budget had similar savings and no one was fired as a result.”

In terms of the internal party workings, caucus peace has been one of the strongest features of Robertson’s reign as leader, which when compared to other political entities, is a real accomplishment in a time of political egos and selfish political in-fighting.

With the NPA likely headed for a leadership showdown between Ian Robertson and Suzanne Anton, the old cleavages that destroyed the party 2 years ago are going to come bubbling to the surface once again.

And in a climate where the NPA as an organization has lost its ability to raise money, attract volunteers and entice talent to be a part of their team, this race could be the death knell for the party’s chances in November, 2011.

I have a feeling that party solidarity is going to give Vision Vancouver a decided edge as civic political forces gear up for next year’s campaign.

With former electeds like Chiavario, Cowie and Rogers, vcaTEAM had a respectable group of candidates back in 2002. The party's Achilles heal was the lack of a viable Mayoral candidate.

Back in 2002, I became involved with a group of municipal activists who had the the notion that the polarized politics of COPE and the NPA could use a dose of moederation, and as a result formed a new party named vcaTEAM.

The tried to take a middle of the road approach.  They had established candidates (Nancy Chiavario and Alan Herbert was were both former NPA Councillors, Art Cowie was a former TEAM Councillor and Liberal MLA, and Stephen Rogers was a six-time Cabinet Minister and former Speaker of the House).  They had a platform that spoke to many of the issues that are topical today (biking corridors, opening up the city to fun, adding social and affordable housing and a push to increase support for alternative forms of transportation other than the car).

At the time the NPA was in total disarray.  Councillor Jennifer Clarke had organized a coup against popular former Mayor Philip Owen, and the party was divided down the middle as a result.

So it sounded like a recipe for potential success – the elements certainly were there.

And then the party introduced their Mayoral candidate very late in the game, and everything changed.

For weeks, the party brass told me that they had lined up an individual who would blow everyone away in terms of profile and capability.  Managing a joint campaign for established stalwarts like Cowie and Rogers, I was excited by the prospect of this mystery figure making us competitive.

Then, the oft-talked about and hyped person was introduced.  It was Valerie Maclean.

Who you might ask?  Well, I had the same reaction at the time.

At the time, Maclean was the face of the Better Business Bureau here in BC, and so from time to time she would pop up on the news warning consumers about a new scam or company to steer clear of.

One supposes that this occasional TV time was why certain members of the recruiting committee were excited, although as an avid news watcher I didn’t know the name or face off hand.

Now Maclean was a very nice and pleasant woman.  And in regards to the issues, she was more than intelligent to speak about them at least on a peripheral basis.

But when facing off against a political pro like Jennifer Clarke or a personality like Larry Campbell, she seemed over-matched.

And ultimately, she did not have the profile that drew people to the party, if nothing else for curiosity sake.  That lack of drawing power, as opposed to a guy like Larry “Da Vinci” Campbell, was a death knell for those running under the vcaTEAM banner.

And this is the fate the the NPA faces within its current situation.

I refer to an uphill battle for two reasons.

First, finding a person with enough profile, cachet and connections to take on Gregor Robertson is not going to be an easy task.

I notice that this evening Global is going to do a puff piece on John Furlong and his potential political future.  I also notice how the biggest anti-Vision Vancouver members of the press gallery put Furlong shaking hands with Robertson as the image for the promo hyping the piece.

The likelihood of someone like that stepping up to the plate – particularly after saying this last week to Gary Mason:

“I’m both moved and flattered by the number of people who are urging me to consider taking a run at the job, but honestly I just don’t think I’m cut out for the sacrifices of a politician’s life.  It seems like there is no bottom to how cruel we can be to each other. I believe very much in people and in service and the power of a compelling vision to bring people together, but I just cannot imagine being effective in an environment that has become so terribly unforgiving and openly hostile.“

Once again – this polling is a powerful deterrent to anyone considering a run, in spite of what the usual suspects of anger have to say.

Why would a Furlong, or a Christy Clark, or a Carole Taylor, or even a Tung Chan for that matter, put their name into the mix of such a tough, uphill battle?

They would give up salary and/or business opportunities, their private time and family lives, and most importantly, put everything they have built in their careers on the line in what can only be considered a huge gamble.

The NPA is downtrodden, and does not add anything to the equation.  Fundraising, political support in the polls and profile would all have to come from the candidate, who would be bequeathing the party with a boost rather than the other way around.

The second reason the NPA faces an uphill battle is that there is no palpable anger against Vision Vancouver like there was in Toronto, for example, to propel a groundswell of support for who will eventually become the face of the party.

Vision Vancouver, much like the administration of David Miller in 2006, is in a good place to repeat their 2008 victory.  The pockets of opposition to bike lanes, as an example, do not constitute an uprising of backlash as the media loves to try and portray.

Changing governments happens when one of two factors comes into play.  Either a) the incumbent is a disaster and there is a growing disdain amongst the electorate (the majority of administration changes can be traced to this) or b) the alternative comes in and captures the public’s imagination (a phenomenon that is far less common, with Nenshi in Calgary becoming the new exception to the rule).

Neither of these factors are in play in the upcoming Vancouver election, which makes me think that no one that is outside of the municipal sphere of self-importance like Suzanne Anton or Ian Robertson will be idiotic enough to risk their reputations on a race like this.

I keep hammering away at this point, but that comes from an acquired understanding of how civic politics in Vancouver’s at-large system works.

The bottom line is that from the Mayoral candidates, all results for Council, Park Board and School Board flow.

And on that front, it seems as though the NPA machine is a little…or maybe A LOT…backed up.

Toronto's ballot anger isn't likely to carry over to Vancouver's election next year.

“The revenge of the suburbs” is the best explanation that I have heard about Rob Ford’s victory yesterday.

And if the voter turnout is any indication, the Toronto electorate wanted vengeance – an amazing 53.2 per cent cast a ballot.

By contrast, the last election in Vancouver saw an embarrassing 31 per cent of registered voters turn up, which was the lowest participation rate in over fifty years.

Anger might have been the motivating factor, but as difficult as it is for me to admit, there was a message that Ford delivered that resonated with people.

Unfortunately for those of us who believe in the merits of results based on participatory democracy, I see nothing to propel voters to the same extent here in Vancouver.

Was Ford a man that everyone respected?  Certainly not.  Was Ford a man that captured the imagination of the citizenry?  Hardly.  Was Ford a man that tapped into a general dissatisfaction for David Miller and his performance over the past 7 years?

Bingo.

A garbage strike that revolted the city.  Increased spending fuelled by increased taxes.  More employees at City Hall creating a ballooned unionized bureaucracy that people had begun to resent.  A suburban population that felt left out of the plans of a what they considered to be an elitist Mayor catering to the downtown core.  Transportation woes galore, from increased traffic congestion to slow and crowded subway lines.

What Rob Ford did was formulate the mood of the public immediately after the garbage strike of 2009, and began to plan how he – a man who for years has generally been considered as a blowhard that embarrassed the city – could tap into that the above-listed sentiments.

Now, politics in general these days, regardless of which level of government, most often elicits groans and generally a bad taste in most people’s’ mouths.

But that latent anger is also more often than not met with indifference – a lack of interest such that turning up at the polls is akin to having a toenail removed.

Ford sensed this, and riled people up so that they had a message, and a deliverer of that message, to believe in.

And that is what carried him to victory yesterday.  Purpose, a clearly defined agenda, and a personality that served as a spark to get people off their asses.

Obama inspired and propelled dreams…Ford perspired (something, I might add, he tends to do regardless of the setting) and prompted a simple action.

Now let’s contrast this with the state of politics in Vancouver.

In spite of the doomsday sayers, the pundits and bloggers with an axe to grind, and those that are angry about a bike lane taking up the space they feel is their rightful domain as a driver, there is NOT a sense of anger in this city with Gregor Robertson and the current Vision Vancouver controlled Council.

In fact, if I had to offer a criticism, Gregor Robertson’s fanfare has never seemed to match the outpouring of interest for a guy like Larry Campbell, whose rough around the edges and indifferent approach and attitude to the job still garnered a larger reaction (the wave that Campbell got elected under produced a turnout of 50 per cent, by the way).

But he has moved forward with an agenda that has tended to be popular – bike lanes are being embraced by many sections of the city, the homelessness agenda continues to top the polls as the number one concern of voters, and the fact that the City is now operating as a business that markets itself is also something that is being seen and appreciated by those looking for self-sufficiency rather than tax revenues to propel growth.

This state of satisfaction is the basis of why a repeat of Toronto is unlikely.

But the second factor, and quite possibly the most important, is the fact that there is no one to carry the banner for change.

As aptly pointed out in Frances Bula’s article in the Globe yesterday, no one seems to want the job.  That is a combination of being intimidated by Robertson’s re-electability, being completely unimpressed with the organization that he or she would be asked to lead, and a highly politicized environment that makes public life very unattractive.

And so, as I see it, an uninspiring NPA Mayoral candidate that really has no hope in hell of winning, combined with a general malaise amongst the Vancouver public, means that voter turnout could even drop below 2008 levels.

Last month I wrote a few posts about how incumbents across the North America were experiencing the same kind of anger that Toronto embodied yesterday at the polls.

As things stand right now, Vancouver seems likely to escape that kind of backlash.

Robertson's looking for another kind of handshake like this (minus the Conservative propaganda), but is unlikely to walk away with anything of substance from Harper this time around.

I have been delinquent during the Games, as unlike those who transformed themselves into “media”, I took some time away from the blog and municipal politics to enjoy the civic experience of a lifetime.

That being said, I am now back in the swing of things, and will be posting regularly from this point forward.  CivicScene will also have some featured pieces coming out in one of Vancouver’s preeminent news outlets in the coming weeks, so stay tuned.

Mayor Gregor Robertson has left himself little time to rest in between the Olympic and Paralympic Games, as he has made his trek eastward to Ottawa and Toronto in search of “a commitment to a national housing strategy” and more provincial and federal funding for transit.

Yet on the heels of Premier Gordon Campbell’s government preparing people for today’s budget which will dramatically “cut back on the operating budgets of government” as well as Prime Minister Stephen Harper prefacing his upcoming budget by calling it the “toughest of his career,” I can’t see the Vancouver Mayor walking away with anything at all in terms of financial commitments.

But the trip is significant for the way in which Robertson is graduating from his roles and responsibilities that are most often bound within the confines of Vancouver’s official boundaries.

First, let’s talk about transit.  Robertson is saying all the right things when it comes to an area of public policy in which he has little to no autonomy over.

He understands the trend in retail politics that links transit with the municipality it is operating within, even though Translink is of course regional in scope.  He gets that in spite of his goals for making Vancouver one of the world’s greenest cities, public transit is never something that he can ever firmly commit as part of the plan without the dollars kicked in from the upper levels of government.

He also understands that Vancouver is far better served by transit than municipalities like the Tri-Cities, and thus adhering to the prevailing logic that the “Evergreen Line is first up” is smart politics based on reality.

A UBC line down the broadway corridor?  Yeah…maybe in a decade.  And I strongly emphasize MAYBE.

Gregor is beginning to position himself behind the need for transit solidarity with his regional partners across Metro Vancouver, and that he is well placed to advocate broadly rather than just for the purposes of Vancouver’s benefit.

Which leads me into my second point having to do with homelessness.  I have written before about how Robertson should be leading a national rallying cry for better support for housing across the country.

Once again I am going to reference J. David Hulchanski report from 2002 entitled “Housing Policy for Tomorrow’s Cities,” which details how the “federal role in housing since the Second World War has been…checkered.”

It also delves into the fact that municipal or urban affairs has been something that the federal government has only delved into a handful of times over the past century.

Sorry, but this kind of hands off approach to municipalities – REGARDLESS of jurisdiction – does not lend itself well to the realities of the majority of our country’s population.

Enter Gregor Robertson.

Now I am by no means arguing that Robertson is definitely going to have any more success than the Larry Campbells or David Millers who over the years have been very aggressive in engaging the federal government on a number of public policy issues.

What I am suggesting, however, is that housing policy is a place where Gregor can make real inroads in if nothing else, raising the issue back up to a national consciousness and in turn initiating a cross-country debate.

If housing and eliminating street homelessness is his baby (and from all indications thus far into his term, this is shaping up to be his defining legacy – good or bad), then he needs to play a larger role in lifting the issue out of the specific situations found in every city across this country.

So, let’s see what comes about from the glad-handing and the post-Olympic Ottawa love-in that Gregor is bound to encounter.

Even without the dollars, this could be the start of Robertson emerging as an impact player within Canada’s municipal affairs.