Hurray!

Good show, Bill! Now, as a supporter of Vision and an insider, could you give us a hint as to who exactly financed their campaign? I would love to know why they're doing what they do in council, but, gosh, I just can't wait 117 more fucking days to find out who Vision has to thank for all those swell ads!

"Fifth lesson. Attack ads work."

I'll bet you can't even find anyone in the world, not even the NPA itself, saying that their attack strategy worked.
But that reality hasn't registered in the author's mind...

I agree

I agree that competent centrist government is what voters really want--and if it can also be ethical with a green and progressive tinge, so much the better.

Applying those same precepts to the provincial scene, I have long maintatined that what voters want is someone who can pick up where Mike Harcourt left off-- a more competent and effective version of Harcourt--and NOT some one who pick up where Glen Clark left off and provide us with a more effective version of Glen Clark.

Since Allan Blakeney, Roy Romanow , David vickers and Tom Berger are not available, that just leaves Gregor Robertson.

The real question is: how do we get around the problem that is Adrian Dix?

TO put it bluntly--how do we get rid of him if he loses in 2013?

Important clarifications for this article

Readers, please note when reading this article: (1) The Tyee gave virtually no coverage to NSV, but extensive coverage to Vision Vancouver. (2) Vision was a heavy advertiser in the Tyee, (3) Mr Tieleman does state that he supports Robertson, so all his words should be taken with that in mind, (4) the blame-the-COPE-loss on-NSV game was initiated by Vision's Meggs, and is probably wrong -- it appears more likely that Vision supporters failed to keep up their end of the bargain, and failed to vote for COPE, (5) Mr T. unfairly fails to mention that NSV's media release urged supporters to vote for COPE. (6) If you consider these facts, what NSV achieved was phenomental: Our top candidate got nearly 20,000 votes mostly through word of mouth promotions, with $40,000 spent in a 5-week campaign, virtually NO mainstream media coverage, and all requests to participate in mayoral debates rejected. Compare that with Vision's top Council candidate, getting 63,000 votes, with what may turn out to be $5 million of developer/union/Solomon money spent by Vision Vancouver, saturation advertising, years to prepare, and reportedly 1600 "volunteers" (many paid). Imagine what NSV could have achieved if more people had even learned we existed. It appears the election outcome is more a reflection of the entrenched "system" in Vancouver than a reflection of public wishes. In time this will become clear to more people.

election analysis

Bill,you say that NSV took votes from the cope councillor candidates,so it must be true,we of course also took votes from their schools and parks candidates as is evidenced by their dismal showing.This of course is because of our many school and parks candidates,oh wait,we didn't run any!I think your analysis is obviously very flawed,in fact Woodsworth got about the same number of votes as she did in the last election.Could it be that all those vision voters didn't vote cope as well,and cope voters seemed to honor the deal by voting vision.NSV likely helped cope because many of our supporters who had never voted cope previously,voted our recommended slate,which included cope.Doesn't it seem a little more likely that all three cope slates did so poorly for the same reason.

Responding to Randy Helten

Mr. Helten makes claims above that are easily demonstrated to be false.

He says the Tyee gave 'virtually no coverage' to his party. Actually, compared to other media, we devoted probably one of the most in-depth looks at his NSV party through the profile of NSV candidate Louise Benson linked to below. Does Benson agree with his analysis of the Tyee giving her party and platform short shrift? I am told she distributed the article while campaigning.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/11/09/Vancouver-Election-Financing/

He claims Vision was a 'heavy advertiser'. Not at all, as a percent of our annual ad revenue. And I challenge Mr. Helten to find any news coverage in The Tyee published during the time the Vision ads ran that can be in any way construed to be supportively rewarding of such ads. The fact is that any party was and is welcome to advertise on The Tyee. And that there is a firewall between our ad sales and editorial.

He claims we gave 'extensive' coverage to Vision. Actually, in the weeks leading up to election day, our coverage of Vision was minimal compared to our overall approach. We chose instead to invest our reporting resources in covering candidates in Abbotsford, New Westminster, Saanich...various places where we saw candidates taking a risk by running on 'hot button issues'. The only Vancouver candidate in this series that we chose to profile was...NSV's Benson.

http://thetyee.ca/Series/2011/11/08/Municipal-Candidates-2011/

The stories I've cited above, by the way, are news accounts and so are a fair gauge of where The Tyee chooses to invest its reporting resources. Please do not confuse columnists (whose job is to express a distinct point of view and are only asked to be clear in their biases as Bill Tieleman has been in his column here) with news coverage. It's a pretty basic aspect of media literacy to distinguish between opinion pieces and news stories, and we try to make it easy by clearly labeling each for what they are.

Know, as well, that Tyee columnists take no direction from the editor in what they will write about, and the opinions they express. That is why, I presume, they keep writing for The Tyee.

My humble opinion

"First lesson. Vancouver voters like centrist government that works."
Yeah, that 30% who bothered to go and vote - landslide victory. I wouldn't call it that. On the other hand, yeah, centre is better as it is more in balance.

"Second lesson. Your good name, and its rank in the alphabet, really matters."
Probably most voters didn't bother to look so they picked the first on the alphabetical list - kinda sad don't you think? On the other hand voters deserve their government is rather true. Dumb people can only elect dumb leaders.

"Third lesson. Name recognition counts."
Nah ... - the media didn't do a good job on introducing or bringing all the candidates into the spotlight. That should have been their job ...

"Fourth lesson. Party name matters, and it doesn't."
That is because in lesson #2 the media failed to do their job.

"Fifth lesson. Attack ads work."
Really? you kiddin' right? It is a juvenile behaviour and I even wonder why it is allowed when people can be reprimanded at work or in public saying something nasty about another person. But if it is politics it is allowed. A rather psychopathic behaviour of a society in my humble opinion.

Qualifications

As for the next election I would like to see a more detailed information of the candidates. I found it rather vague what candidates said about themselves in their 300 word intro. I could have run for a seat with that kind of blabla.

First: I want to see their educational backgrounds: diploma in urban planning, accounting, environmental education, economy etc. List them all and explain how that experience or education will help you in office.

Second: I want them to answer 3 questions:
1. Why should I vote for you?
2. What is the number 1 thing you are committed to change or fight for?
3. What is the number 1 thing that you will absolutely not do? And why?

If I as an employee have to explain my credentials in order to get a job I see no difference why civic, provincial and federal politicians should not do the same. They after all will be working for me. I am the employer as they are spending my tax money. Therefore I want to know how fit they are for the job.

I believe it is not enough to just be a good speaker anymore. We need QUALIFIED people who are capable to manage complex projects, protect the environment, engage the community and manage tax payers money responsibly.

Political science degree is a horseshit and in no way qualifies anyone to be elected into office. We need professionals who know what they are doing.

Perhaps we need to change the system how candidates are portrayed and how we vote for them.

In the next elections I want to vote based on qualification and not on popularity!

Something Missing!

One thing missing from the discussion is that the electoral system is rigged against progressive candidates, hence you do not get a true picture of what people want. It is absolutely crazy and totally undemocratic to have an at large system in a city as big as Vancouver. Since the wealthy are class conscious, and the working population much less so (sadly) the former vote in greater numbers proportionately than the latter. This skews the results to the right. With a proper ward system you would undoubtedly get COPE and NVS counselors. Of course this is the reason the greed creeps did away with the ward system in the first place - to keep the CCF out of office.

further falsehoodss

Adding to the falsehoods
Gregor Robertson, from my experience, is sincerely non-partisan, and perhaps even anti-partisan.

As for the spurious and poisonous suggestion that he is beholden to funders, it should not be forgotten that Gregor and Vision explicitly support banning all corporate AND union donations, unlike the provincial NDP.

BC Liberals - support corporate/3rd party funding but tried to limit it;
BC NDP - support 3rd party funding and even challenged the Liberals over attempts to limit it;
Gregor and Vision - Are against corporate, union, and 3rd party advertising. One person one vote, one voice.

Such funding regs are provincial and must be dealt with by the government. Their last attempt to step in the right direction was pounced upon (unwisely) by the BCNDP, the unions, and Mr. T.

To suggest that Gregor and Vision are part of some plot beholden to money, as some posters have, is not only a posionous notion but is also false.

They presently accept 3rd party funding given the current rules, but their official position is against it.

STOP the propoganda please.

Amor

You're asking a bit much, Amor.

The wonderful folks at Vision only "accept" funding from developers? Reluctantly, I'm sure! Oh, and then somehow, time and time again, rule in favour of developers when zoning applications are tendered by the same? What, do they keep dropping the stamp on their desk by accident because their hands are busy fending off corporate money being stuffed into their pockets?

I can't for the life of me understand how you misspelled "propaganda."

Response to Mr Beers

Thank you for your prompt response and clarifications, which are clear and fair. I appreciate it and will study the points you raised more carefully. Part of your response leads me to ask in sincerity if, in the interest of preventing any perceptions of even the potential for bias, The Tyee actually publishes any information regarding funding sources and advertising revenues so that readers can reach their own conclusions? This question is not something only for The Tyee, but is a valid question for all media outlets.

Response to Amor about political donations

If Vision Vancouver or the NPA wanted to show courage and leadership, they could voluntarily adopt a policy of only accepting donations from individuals, introduce dollar limits on the funds they accept from a single source, and create a credible screening system to avoid the perception of conflicts of interest. They could have declared such a policy at any point in the past three years. But they did not. And nothing stops them from doing it today. Regulators should never accept money from those they are supposed to regulate. To do so introduces the "potential" and the possible perception of systemic corruption, whether it occurs or not. There is no reason for either party to wait for rules to be imposed from above. In fact, Victoria is equally dependent, if not more than Vancouver's biggest parties, on corporate donations, I am told.

COPE ship sunk

I did attend the COPE nomination meeting for candidates and was surprised that David Cadman lost very very narrowly to Tim Louis and an unknown Filipino, and that there was no runoff vote. A grave mistake to let veteran incumbent Cadman go in favor of a little guy with a big mouth in a wheelchair. Compare Tim to a young, studly looking, composed Gregor as a party representative on the screen for undecided voters....

Carnac the Magnificent

Just who votes in Vancouver?

It seems the only so called centre left mayors who have been elected all lived on the Point Grey hillside.

It is my opinion that Vision voters did not support their COPE counterparts at the ballot box whereas COPE voters did support Vision candidates. The number of ballots where less than 10 councilors were chosen by the voter needs to be looked at.

Ellen Woodsworth should have been #8 if Vision voters actually honored their association with COPE. Again, a review and analysis of the ballots where less than 10 councillors were chosen would be worth it.

This will be Vision's 2nd term and if history is to repeat itself they just may implode like their predecessor TEAM which held the city hall flag for two terms and then hitched themselves to the NPA upchuck wagon.

Despite the short time controlling the activities of city hall, TEAM accomplished much and it was their vision which is the foundation of what makes Vancouver as well off as it is. I doubt whether Vision will ever achieve the same results TEAM accomplished.

I am not sure when Tieleman entered the Vancouver scene but he should have included Art Phillips as a centre-left Mayor and probably the most progressive out of his list.

At some point the centre lefties become the right wing, the establishment's toadies.

Qualifications (@ Oh Canada)

Let's get Elections BC to operate a web-site for all candidates (both local & provincial), so we can get EXTENSIVE backgrounds on why they deserve our votes plus a blog so they are forced to answer questions from the public.
We also need to limit local & provincial election funding to $100 per person or organization; let's get developers & corporations out of BC politics.

I'll bet "voters"...

...don't want "centrist" parties.

Non-property-owning voters want them.

Only they can afford to play with bike lanes, anti-nuclear weapons zones, "living wages", chickens, subsidized housing and urban farms...because the tax money being spent isn't paid by them...

Part 2 of Carnac the Magnificent's Reading of the Vote

I like the idea of registering persons 16 years of age for the next Provincial Election in 2013.

It is a great opportunity for our schools, universities and politicos to come up with a curriculum that informs young people about more than how many councilors sit around the table at City Hall.

The young people should learn not only how to vote but what takes place during election campaigns. They need to go behind the scenes to understand how a variety of forces are attempting to have them walk into a voting booth and make a mark beside their candidate's name.

The students should hear and read examples of how residents developed their own agenda for their communities together, how they created their own budgets, how they made sure everyone in their community was housed, fed and had an opportunity to make a contribution.

Let's register those 16 year olds but protect them from the wolves until they receive a comprehensive education.

Here's an example of some historical events surrounding elections in BC:

In 1874 Chinese and "Native Indians" were not allowed to vote. At one point in BC history the number of Chinese residents outnumbered European settlers. Is it any wonder why young Chinese worker residents were forbidden to vote?

In 1878 school teachers were not allowed to vote or campaign. This was repealed in 1883. (Dear Students: Don't let our current Premier know about this. She has some unresolved issues with her education and teachers and is looking for revenge).

In 1895 Japanese were not allowed to vote.

In 1899 "Civil Servants" were not allowed to vote. In 1900 Civil Servants were allowed to vote. It took the teachers 5 years to get the right to vote back again and civil servants only one. Go figure.

In 1907 "Hindus" were not allowed to vote. At one point in BC's history they weren't even allowed to step off a ship.

In 1917 Women were finally allowed to vote but still not considered "persons" "in matters of rights and privileges" under the British North America Act. It would take another 12 years before women were considered by Canada as persons. Women were allowed to vote in BC elections a year before they could vote in a federal election.

In 1931 Doukhobors were not allowed to vote. In the late 1950's and early 1960's BC government police took the Doukhobor's children from them and housed them in the same barracks used to intern the Japanese during WWII. And like BC's Aboriginal people the Doukhobor children were physically and psychologically abused.

In 1945 those previously not allowed to vote could do so but only if they had served in the military during WWII.

But BC was not finished with disenfranchising its residents from voting.

In 1948 Mennonites and Hutterites were not allowed to vote.

Wished I knew all this when I was 16.

Notes: 70% of eligible voters in BC did not exercise their right to vote during the 2011 civic elections?

Vox.Pop

I like that idea - how do you get something like this going? What needs to happen so that the next election or elections to come in the future will contain extensive information on candidates?
When we have a rising incidence of phsycopaths and idiots rising to power this might be one way to screen them. But regardless...those who vote deserve to know who they vote for based on merits and not some blabla that someone wrote for them.

Sore Loser?

Funny you call Bickerton a "sore loser" when I happen to know many people, including NPA types, completely agree with his assessment of the NPA mayoral campaign. It was courageous of him to come out with his truthful statement, and at least he waited until after the election to share his opinion. He could have said far worse, but didn't.

So, Bill, while you characterize Sean as being a "sore loser," others see that he's really speaking Truth to Power. And in my opinion, that's a lot more admirable than what you just did here.

center politcs for us as well

I dont live in Vancouver anymore, its far beyond what I can afford and what I like to endure ie traffic and bottlenecks, crime, the haves and havenots etc...
However I would have voted for gregor for mayor. He treads carefully and is an intelligent, patient man from what I glean. As far as the other vision candidates chosen I dont know them.
In our small village I voted for a center slate although I am hard left myself. It was more complicated than that, but every candidate I chose won. I figure it was mainly based upon a particular 'event' that divided our community and cost us money and good friends. From here I dont know what will happen. Most of us just want peace, harmony and some healing to occur, the kind of peace this region called nootka sound freely offers to the citizens.

Bill Tieleman replies to critics

Thanks for comments as always - a response to a few posters.

Randy Helten - David Beers replied for the Tyee but I advise you to re-read my column - I clearly say NSV endorsed COPE candidates.

Terry Martin - it may hurt to hear, but NSV likely cost Ellen Woodsworth her council seat. None of us can predict where voters will cast their ballots in a 10-seat race for council, nor do school or park board results clarify this. And to suggest a vast conspiracy of Vision voters secretly getting a decoder ring message to not do what all the advertising said - to vote for COPE and Vision - is absurd.

More likely is COPE councilor David Cadman's analysis - again that you don't want to hear - that COPE's TIm Louis shot the party in the foot when members dumped Cadman. David didn't say a word before the election, so you can't blame him now.

Lastly, someone has to explain why developers are the biggest single issue in Vancouver politics - bigger than homelessness, the environment, arts and culture and whatever else you have - even chicken coops and wheat lawns. I don't argue that corporate donations - and union ones - aren't significant - just that voters don't see developers in the same way they did in the 1970s.

By the way, COPE never succeeded in winning power in all those 40 plus year - until Larry Campbell became the mayoralty candidate in 2002 - but that's another story.

Voter turnout

For the life of me I cannot understand people not voting. It is the single most important thing to guaranty ones freedom and livelihood.