Monday, March 13, 2006

When I first noticed...

I cannot say that it wasn't happening before, but I know exactly when I first noticed it. It was in October, 2004. The day of the Vancouver city referendum on the ward system. I was standing at the corner of Hastings and Nanaimo streets, handing out pamphlets to encourage people, most of whom didn't give a $#@% to vote in favour of ending Vancouver's outmoded at-large election system to something slightly more sensible, a ward system. I wasn't my usual perky, engaging self. I was having a hard time engaging, which really is the worst frame of mind to be in when you are dealing with a whole bunch of zombies on a mission to spend their hard-earned cash on a Saturday.

Anyway, I took a look kitty-corner, and saw a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses holding the opposite corner, faces determined above their "Awake" magazines. At first, I felt sorry for them. What freaks, I thought. Spending their Saturdays on a street corner trying to make other people believe and think the same way they do. What possible return could there be for that? I attempted to hand out a few more Wards Now leaflets, and the irony struck me hard...I was doing the same thing. For possibly the same reward, a place at the table. Except I'd already got my promise broken. At least their disillusionment would be post-mortem, where it might not hurt as much.

I remember reading an article in the New Internationalist where a former Anglican minister described the effect on his psyche when he lost his faith. Praying, he said, was like talking on a phone line with no-one on the other end.

This is how politics feels for me. I've done a variety of insincere electoral acts...I've phoned people and tried to convince them that voting for COPE or the NDP will somehow make their lives better. But now it feels...hollow. Like I'm urging them to take that Awake magazine and join me and the others in Heaven, but I've no faith about getting there myself.

Politics has been my religion. And I've lost it.

Sorry for the brief but crucial interruption

A terrible computer virus killed my computer from October to December. A terrible civic election virus killed my desire to write from November to Now.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Giving a boost to the queen of hearts

Jamie Lee Hamilton entered the civic election contest with a bang today (pun intended), as her candidacy announcement at City Hall was given a big boost by an alleged lawsuit to be filed by Vision Vancouver Mayoral candidate Jim Green and council hopeful Heather Deal. Why anyone would think that doing something to give Jamie Lee MORE publicity was a good idea is beyond me--and if my memory serves me (because I didn't write down the hits on JLH's blog previously) but it seems like it may have doubled in popularity over the past few days.

I won't give a link to it (you know, I don't want to be sued), but you can easily find it yourself using Google's new BLOG SEARCH. Google her name or the name of her blog, Downtown Eastside. But prepare for a certain amount of Jamie Lee's self-promotion before you get to the somewhat veiled innuendo (ok, it isn't that veiled) that is apparently one of the causes of the law suit. Of course, I only know of the law suit from 24 Hours (which I don't read, but this seemed important!) so I'm unsure of its actual existence!

Apparently, Ryan Warawa, a bit of a conservative loonie, also is a defendent in the lawsuit for scooping up several "visionvancouver" type domain names and linking one of them to some of Jamie Lee's posts. But don't look for the naughty bits on his website, as he didn't link to the two allegedly offending articles (I haven't yet seen details of the lawsuit).

I think that suing these two fringe elements will only more widely publicize JLH's campaign and her wildly ranging blog. I don't think that any sexual innuendo will affect the outcome of voting in a civic election. This is CANADA, after all, and we think that stuff belongs in the bedroom, with Pierre Elliot Trudeau! It didn't involve same-gender interactions, so it won't rally the gay community in support. It doesn't involve minors, or even the exchange of money so it isn't a crime. There are no beasts involved, so even the animal rights folks won't be put off. And it isn't even kinky, so it won't draw a big following that way, either.

In fact, the biggest question I would have about this whole thing is: should we vote for a Mayor and councillor who would be bothered over something so trivial and obviously off-the-wall? On TV tonight, it was utterly unclear to me (and remember, I kind of understand what is going on) why on earth Jim Green would drag Sam Sullivan's name into it.

It was only nine years ago when Jim attended several drag show fundraisers supporting Jamie Lee Hamilton's bid for a COPE nomination. With the support of Jim and other prominent COPE activists, Hamilton won a nomination, but quit in a snit during the campaign because the other women candidates couldn't agree with her plans for legalizing the sex trade in Vancouver. There has been certainly nothing but bad blood between Green and Hamilton since, but I'd just have to say that Jamie Lee isn't worth this kind of legal tactic.

But if Jim Green's legal team is reading this (there is a note about me in JLH's blog), then I'd just suggest you go browse the discussion boards over at rabble.ca, because those folks are saying some really mean things about your guy.

Monday, September 26, 2005

The Race is On!





To me, it looks like they are leaning to the right (don't bother posting that it is their left, it's a joke, ok).

All of Vancouver's parties have finally fielded their slates, so it is time for a dissection of their candidates. I'll start with Mayor and move on to Council, but don't think I'm forgetting schools and parks, they'll be along soon enough.

For Mayor, we have the NPA's Sam Sullivan versus VV's (that's Vision Vancouver) Jim Green. Both are sitting councillors. Sullivan with 12 years elected, is more experienced at Council, although Green has been involved in civic issues for going on 30 years. Some people think Green has much more charisma than Sullivan, and certainly Green has had greater profile, with out-going Mayor Larry Campbell promoting him constantly.

A shocked silence enveloped the NPA meeting when Sullivan's victory over Christy Clark was announced: the biggest shock being that Clark couldn't have convinced more than a handful of existing NPA members to support her. She had soundly beaten Sullivan in the sign ups, but the long-time NPA activists (is that an oxymoron?) couldn't bear to vote for her. Sam will emphasize his low key, small-c conservative approach and his ethics. The fact is, he hasn't really even had enough pull within his own party to actually do anything unethical. It's kind of like infidelity--it is easy to take the moral high road when you have no opportunity to fool around.

Sullivan's politics veer around the map, flip-flopping on gambling (perhaps just trying to decide which COPE faction to oppose on this issue), supporting Four Pillars, opposing other progressive policies. He calls himself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to make that fine a distinction, given his erratic voting record. Of course, since the NPA has no policy, he has done fairly well considering he was flying by the seat of his pants. He'll try to claim that his is a candidacy of democracy, but if you discount the last 3 years, when he has been in opposition, he really didn't do much to open up city hall during the 9 years he was in the majority.

Green, on the other hand, prefers the backroom all the way. Although he has made a living from the non-profit sector, his credentials are definitely developer-oriented. He stresses his personal over the political, and those who appreciate him will find favour. Those who publicly disagree--well, look for funding elsewhere. Green has been a little erratic in voting himself. He quickly moved to the centre after election, making some very pro-developer decisions (RAV, Gambling at Hastings Park, etc.), but he came back to the fold a bit with the Wal-Mart decision. He probably wanted to save a few left-leaning votes. Of course, Vision will not have any official policy either (just try looking for it on their website). It was policy that created the nasty split within COPE, so doing away with policy will just prevent such problems. Think of Vision as a kinder, gentler, but even less democratic NPA.

Green exudes a kind of smoothness and charm that has a high currency with some parts of the electorate. However, his bullying behaviour is buried even more superficially than Larry Campbell's--expect to see some of it at the all candidates meetings.

The COPE Mayoral candidate is a bit hard-line on the policies, but is an outspoken and energetic leader....oh, wait a moment, there is no COPE candidate. That'll cut COPE out of the major debates, but heck, who watches those anyway? With CBC locked-out, there'll be hardly a murmur...

Expect Jim Green to win, but his major weakness in this election will be to underestimate his opponent. All of COPE (including Campbell and Green) underestimated Sullivan in the Ward Referendum, and look where we are now, still with the stupidest electoral system this side of...Iraq.

Sunday, September 25, 2005

84 year old activist banned from NPA meeting

If you have ever been to an all candidates' meeting in the West End, or attended a park board meeting discussing Stanley Park, or in fact been to any community political meeting in the West End, you have probably heard Eleanor Hadley. This 84 year-old dynamo forcefully makes her opinion known, and frequently believes that speaking time limits are for others, not her. Usually you are with her at the start of her diatribes...she talks about neighbourhood or about community in a way that is convincing. As she goes on, however, she may digress into attacks on the gay community or on others that will make you slightly ashamed that you agreed with her.

Eleanor reminds me of that character that Gilda Radner used to play on Saturday Night Live (ok, my age is showing): you know, the one who would confuse Euthanasia with Youth In Asia, and have to end her opinion pieces with, "Oh, never mind." But the fact is, unlike many people her age and most people younger, Eleanor puts a great deal of effort into participating in the civic life of Vancouver.

Eleanor has been a perennial park board candidate, running in many elections as an independent. She maintained her independent stance all the way up until this September, when she reluctantly took out an NPA membership (all I can say is, thank God it wasn't COPE) to support Sam Sullivan against Liberal juggernaut Christy Clark. That's when the trouble began (or I guess, continued, but started to really bug the NPA).

At last Friday's all-candidates' meeting, those with questions for the council candidates had to submit them in writing. When Eleanor's question was asked in abbreviated form, she stood up and demanded that it be read in its entirety. This so offended the NPA folks in charge that Eleanor was banned from Tuesday night's Mayoral forum.

I don't know, but I've always figured that listening to people with differing points of view was a politician's job. But I guess it is the new world order, with G W Bush as the leader, it is necessary for all politicians to keep the sticky questions and their irksome questioners at bay. But if you can't handle Eleanor Hadley, should you be running the city of Vancouver?

Anyway, I have heard that Eleanor safely made it into the NPA nominating meeting on Saturday and cast her vote with the majority to nominate Sam Sullivan.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Whose split is more damaging?

Both major political parties in the coming Vancouver civic election are experiencing internal divisions, but whose split is more damaging?

Within COPE, 3 councillors, a parks commissioner and the out-going (by that I mean leaving) Mayor found the group process so horrendous that they formed their own party, Vision Vancouver. Vision uses an operating mechanism borrowed from Libya or pre-2003 Iraq, so the process there doesn't interfere with the backroom boys. In fact, candidates will be picked by some kind of committee headed by Am Johal, eliminating the need for messy and transparent nominations.

This split has caused COPE a great deal of grief over the past year and a half, draining the organization of human and financial resources. In addition, the rift is confounding to the general public, because its causes seem so esoteric. Is it personality? Is it style? Are there political issues that matter? Each of these seems to be part of the chasm, but to the electorate, teasing out the complexities of centre-left intrique probably seems like a waste of time and effort.

Within the NPA, the split is much easier to define and grasp. A hard-working, long-serving councillor is being challenged in his bid for the mayoral nomination by a parachute candidate with a party machine. That the councillor is a mild-mannered, somewhat uninspiring personality while the parachute candidate is vivacious and energetic adds interest to the conflict. But the fact remains that Christy Clark lives in the suburbs, has never lived in Vancouver, and seems to think that being Mayor of Vancouver can fit into a stay-at-home mum's schedule like selling Avon. Of course, perhaps to her yuppie lifestyle, the Mayor's salary IS equivalent to pin money!

The only way that the NPA's split can become as life-threatening as COPE's is if Clark actually wins the nomination. In fact, if I was Tim Louis OR Jim Green, I'd be organizing in Clark's favour. It seems that many long-time NPA supporters are disgusted with Clark's nomination bid, which in all honesty looks nonsensical except through the lens of blind (or is that blonde?) political ambition. If the "buy a nomination" tactic works for Clark, the NPA will be as filled with back-biting and dissension as it was in 2002, and the Vision/COPE slate chances increase astronomically.

The NPA website currently sports much less than a full slate as potential nominees for council, school board and parks board. So while COPE's problem is that it lacks enough spots to put some of its younger faces forward up to council, the NPA seems to be low on energy with less than 2 weeks to go to nomination day.

So what do you think? Whose split is more damaging? Who would you like to see running for Mayor. Leave a comment.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Sun Tzu and the Art of Splitting COPE

Jim Green just got lucky. Labour heavies on the COPE executive have managed to manipulate the 36 year-old civic organization into avoiding a mayoral showdown with the self-declared candidate.

Of course, luck may have less to do with it than Green’s adherence to the centuries old advice of Chinese militarist Sun Tzu, outlined in The Art of War. This text is pretty trendy reading by all the Howe Street warriors, but it was one of Jim’s philosophical cornerstones long before it was picked up by MBA’s. If you’d like to peruse it yourself, you can get it free at Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/132/132.txt). It ranks regularly in the top five down-loads at the website.

Jim Green’s recent split with COPE followed Sun Tzu’s advice almost perfectly.

The personal and political style differences between Mayor Larry Campbell and the long time COPE activists and councillors (sometimes called the “classics”) was apparent almost immediately after the 2002 election. Some were surprised that Jim Green quickly took sides with the Mayor, although those who have known and worked with Green were not shocked at all. According to Sun Tzu, generals need kings to give them power.

Green didn’t want to run for Mayor in 2002 unless it was a sure thing, which it wasn’t for him. He had tasted defeat twice—once as COPE’s Mayoral candidate in 1990, and once as an NDP legislative candidate against Gordon Campbell in 1996. He didn’t like it.

Instead, he helped recruit Larry Campbell, even though Campbell was a political neophyte whose life experience in the police force was antithetical to democratic decision-making. But that’s the kind of leader Sun Tzu would appreciate. Campbell’s motto is “An ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of brains.” At least, that’s what he says when praising loyal councillor Raymond Louie and condemning adversary Tim Louis.

After Campbell’s successful election (which was accomplished in part because of Campbell’s freshness, partly because of COPE’s organizing and fundraising, and majorly because the NPA exploded), Green immediately ensured that people who were his confidantes received top posts in the Mayor’s office. Geoff Meggs and Steven Leary, long-time Green associates, were the two first political hires.

As several contentious issues split the COPE caucus, Green and his political henchmen started to formulate a plan. Things came to a head in March of 2004, after the third (and actually final) RAV vote, when Vancouver and District Labour Council’s Bill Saunders moved to censure and expel four COPE councillors from the party for their vote on RAV. Never mind the fact that their “no” vote came a lot closer to COPE’s policy than the Mayor’s bloc’s “yes”. This attempted expulsion followed another of Sun Tzu’s directives: he suggests beheading disobedient officers.

While the expulsion was deferred, a deep schism opened in COPE.

A group supporting COPE’s policies formed to run a slate for the executive. An alternate group, supporting Green and the Mayor, formed to run an opposing slate. A battle looked imminent…and certainly if a battle had happened at that point, Green would have lost. However, he wisely clutched Sun Tzu’s advice close, and worked to avoid a fight when his side was weak. Instead, weeks of interminable negotiations ensued. An executive was picked which was a compromise, five from each slate and one neutral person. Cleverly, again with Sun Tzu’s suggestions coming to fruition, of the five Green loyalists on the executive, one would actually do work in COPE’s interest, one would do nothing and resign within a few months, and three would actively work with the Mayor and Green in setting up a separate organization, while sitting at the COPE executive table resisting every move forward.

The long time COPE members on the executive developed a naïvely slavish adherence to the 50/50 representation in the group. In August, the Mayor sent out trial balloons indicating his possible run as an independent. In September, the staff of COPE (Neil Moncton’s Chaos Consulting) announced their resignation, while promising to complete work on what became a disastrous WARDS campaign. By December, disorder was whirling around…exactly the conditions Sun Tzu suggests keeping the enemy in. A delegation from the COPE executive met with the Mayor to discuss his plans, but half of delegation were covertly helping to set up “The Friends of Larry Campbell”.

In February, a disastrous COPE meeting ensued. Councillor Fred Bass made his widely misreported call for Campbell and Green to work within the party, referring to Campbell as a “Trojan horse”. The COPE executive was stale-mated: few wanted to censure Bass, but only a single executive member supported his comments. This incident was used effectively by Campbell to spurn COPE and walk out, although the Friends of Larry Campbell had actually been set up in early December and, again, following Sun Tzu, they were only waiting for an opportunity to roll out their campaign plan.

By this time, the remaining COPE executive was a bedraggled lot. Three of the “classic” members were completely distracted and politically neutralized by their runs for NDP nominations. The internal chair, Donna Morgan, was exhausted and ineffectual. They managed to hire staff and conduct a new election just prior to the call for a provincial election. The new executive, however, was peopled by recruits from the trade union movement. As the intervening months have shown, their number one motivation has been the backroom murmuring of the union “bosses”, and the survival and development of COPE has ranked low. During this time, Campbell stepped down, and Green and company took over. They particularly focussed on wooing and threatening COPE’s school and parks officials. To quote from Sun Tzu, “When the enemy's men were united, they managed to keep them in disorder.”

The splinter group had stated in December that they had no intention of running school or parks candidates, but they now used the threat of splitting votes. Despite the fact that they showed minimal interest in either of the junior boards, they cast aspersions on the “classic” councillors as not caring about school or parks. This is quite ironic, given that the classics include a former Commissioner and a former school Trustee. It did, however, unsettle the COPE incumbents. Sun Tzu advises to keep your opponents focussing on your every move, but focus yourself only on your own moves.

In July, when COPE’s executive suggested a formal alliance with Green’s group, now officially called Vision Vancouver, the COPE membership voted it down. This was despite some stacking of the meeting with the likes of resigned former staff and executive members who had excoriated COPE. The executive was advised to go back and negotiate, but this was fruitless: Sun Tzu tells Green, “One mark of a great soldier is that he fights on his own terms or fights not at all.” And that’s exactly what Green did. Vision withdrew publicly from negotiations with COPE (as if there had actually been negotiations—really COPE was given only an ultimatum).

Green’s strength and tactics, combined with his ability to woo developers (passed over to him by Campbell, but who knows how long they’ll stay once the NPA settles down), put fear into the VDLC. The unions told COPE: support the deal, or you won’t get a single dollar. This, of course, is Sun Tzu’s favourite tactic: control the resources of the opposing army, and you have won. On September 10, COPE capitulated, the executive put virtually the same “deal” on the table, refused to take amendments, and pushed through the agreement by heavy financial pressure on all incumbents. The pressure pushed even Anne Roberts and Tim Louis to support the deal, disappointing many of their supporters. Score another victory for Sun Tzu: “Reduce the hostile chiefs by inflicting damage on them.” Only Councillor Fred Bass spoke against the deal, and who could understand what he said?

By a 2/3 majority, COPE surrendered to Jim Green. Sun Tzu’s magic working more than two millennia since he set his ideas down on paper.

There is one piece of Sun Tzu’s advice that Jim Green would do well to remember, however. During this process, the arrogance of the Vision Vancouver folks has made some bitter enemies. And as the great Chinese warrior says, “If bees and scorpions carry poison, how much more will a hostile state! Even a puny opponent, then, should not be treated with contempt."

Keep your guard up, boys.