COPE news releases avoid criticizing Vision Vancouver and Mayor Gregor Robertson

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Yesterday, I wrote a commentary suggesting that COPE is treating Vision Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson with kid gloves on a $260,000 office renovation.

      I suggested it was because COPE's elected politicians want their senior partners in Vision Vancouver to help them get reelected in 2011.

      For that, I was condemned by some readers.

      That prompted me to do a little investigating. I read every COPE news release on its Web site since the 2008 election regarding a matter before Vancouver city council.

      Here's what I discovered:

      • COPE never used the words "Vision Vancouver" in any news release offering alternative policies to those espoused by Vision Vancouver.
      • COPE never criticized Robertson in any news release. Robertson was only mentioned on two occasions, both very positively. Once was in connection with an attack on the B.C. Liberal government's handling of the Little Mountain housing project. The other was in a news release praising the "COPE-Vision" city council for making homelessness its top priority.
      • COPE has not criticized a single Vision Vancouver councillor by name in any of its news releases. The only one who got mentioned was Vision Vancouver councillor Raymond Louie, who was praised after amending a motion by COPE councillor Ellen Woodsworth on provincial arts cutbacks. In fact, Louie watered down the effect of Woodsworth's motion and took away any credit she might have received from the arts community by expanding it to include B.C. Liberal cuts to childcare, education, and libraries.

      So what do I conclude from all of this? It's that COPE is not a true opposition party at Vancouver City Hall. It's clearly not interested in criticizing the party in power, Vision Vancouver, even when when COPE advances policies that are diametrically opposed to the wishes of the mayor.

      COPE is also not interested in publicly linking any Vision politicians to policies opposed by COPE. This is tremendously helpful to Vision councillors, who only have to worry about swatting away attacks from the lone NPA councillor, Suzanne Anton.

      The mayor's popularity is helped by COPE politicians' refusal to link him personally in any news releases to his party's less popular policies. This stands in sharp contrast to efforts to link former NPA mayor Sam Sullivan to the civic workers strike in 2007.

      It also differs considerably with statements COPE issued before the 2008 election. Here's one example from Cadman in connection with the NPA's approach to the Little Mountain housing issue: "Peter Ladner and the NPA are blind to the solutions before us. While Little Mountain Housing is boarded up, they want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on portables in empty lots,” said Cadman. “The answer is right in front of us but the NPA prefer election gimmicks."

      Based on the evidence on the COPE Web site, it's fair to refer to the left-wing civic party as the junior partner to Vision Vancouver. I reserve the right to change my mind if COPE starts criticizing the governing party's politicians by name, like any other real opposition party in this country.

      Update (August 31): Two days after this article was written and posted on Straight.com, COPE issued a news release with the following headline: "Mayor Robertson’s plan for West End consultation not good enough".

      Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at twitter.com/csmithstraight.

      Comments

      17 Comments

      Johnny come lately

      Aug 29, 2010 at 10:39pm

      Charlie, would you expect COPE, the NPA or Vision to be critical of themselves? Maybe you should just give it up and not get your knickers in a knot.

      Really?

      Aug 29, 2010 at 11:01pm

      Really? Half the time I see COPE in the media, they're criticizing Vision policies. So, maybe their media releases are about policies, not personalities. Maybe it's about reframing it to what COPE would do as opposed to what the other guys won't. We're going to judge this by counting names?

      Thomas Diaz

      Aug 29, 2010 at 11:57pm

      Hmm, so I guess freaking out at everything is what a responsible opposition party should do. Not work constructively to further good policy, not constantly meet with people all over the city, and not try to function like grown ups. Maybe COPE should go over to Vision's house and pee on their toothbrush...would that make you happy?

      Mike Dumler

      Aug 30, 2010 at 12:01am

      ”˜Charlie seems to be calling for a return to the days when Civic politics in Vancouver was a blood sport. I guess he misses the vicious personal attacks, and mud-slinging between parties. That must be why he did such a selective review and report on COPE’s media releases. Of course if Charlie had reviewed and reported on all of the times COPE opposed vision policies and motions, looking at the substance instead of choosing to do a name count, he could hardly say “it's fair to refer to (COPE) the left-wing civic party as the junior partner to Vision Vancouver”. The record suggest to me that COPE has chosen to act like a new style, rather than old style opposition Party. One Charlie should be praising instead of criticising.

      City Observer

      Aug 30, 2010 at 12:49am

      COPE is a pale shadow of the party ably represented by Harry Rankin, Bruce Yorke, Bruce Eriksen, Libby Davies, Tim Louis, Fred Bass, and Anne Roberts, among others.

      COPE, under the direction of David Chudnovsky - with outgoing Executive Director Rachel Marcuse acting as his handmaiden - has come to exist only as an entity dedicated to electing candidates to the Vancouver Board of Education, so that the Vancouver BoE can act as a 'front' espousing the policies of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation. For the current crew running COPE, municipal politics are an afterthought.

      All of the above is moot, though, as COPE is surely on the road to self-destruction. Why would any thoughtful citizen cast a vote for the current incarnation of COPE when the party is little more than a pale imitation of Vision Vancouver?

      What a sorry state of affairs.

      JamieLee

      Aug 30, 2010 at 6:59am

      I can't believe these comments. Someone has said COPE is working constructively to further good policy. Can you state what the good policies are which they have had implemented as the junior partner to Vision?

      UWSofty

      Aug 30, 2010 at 8:27am

      I'm glad all the parties are working together. The consensus (signified by the numerous unanimous votes) at City Hall makes me less cynical about politics.

      Stillsearching

      Aug 30, 2010 at 9:59am

      I'm with Mike on this -- look at all the issues that COPE has made central to its work and articulated really clearly. It seems to me that COPE is both principled and practical. Its policies are clear, its communications transparent -- the party fights hard, but chooses its battles thoughtfully...and realistically

      montyvan

      Aug 30, 2010 at 10:46am

      Charlie, you are ABSOLUTELY correct in your criticism of COPE and its two lone councillors. They have been willing to stay quiet about things that they would have been howling about had the Mayor been Peter or Sam. The hypocrisy of their actions and words are so clear now. And then you have David Cadman, who is absent for many sessions of Council and is being paid by Vancouver taxpayers to fly all over the world attending conferences of organizations that have no direct impact on Vancouver's business. He doesn't deserve to be re-elected for a 4th term.

      COPE has been a pathetic, weak-kneed opposition to Vision, who are clearly willing to stifle criticism and relinquish their independence all in the name of Getting Re-Elected. I know for a fact that many people who voted for COPE, mostly Union workers, are very disappointed in the way COPE and Vision have treated them over the past 2+ years. COPE has been alienating their core supporters due to their willingness to do exactly what Vision tells them to do. The spending at City Hall is out of control, and Ellen and David just sit by mostly silent.

      If COPE wants to run in partnership with Vision in the next election, then they should ALL be considered Vision candidates because they use that partnership to gang up with Vision and attack any opposition, yet want to still be considered a separate, independent political party, of which they are certainly not anymore. This "partnership" always gives them twice the amount of speaking time at any public candidate forum, which they only use to bash and personally attack those running with other parties, and that is not only unfair, but incredibly dishonest to Vancouver voters.

      Hope for COPE?

      Aug 30, 2010 at 1:33pm

      Thanks again Charlie, this is real reporting, looking through the public record, bringing facts forward and not hesitating to connect clear factual dots. As Charlie writes, the record speaks for itself, COPE has recused itself from being a critical player on the municipal political scene. Instead, it has chosen (as Cadman again makes plain w/ his plea for a 'coalition' with Vision) to annex itself to Vision.

      I'm with Montyvan, Jamie Lee and City Observer above. The COPEsters who defy reality with their representation of their party as somehow different from Vision are like the Obama-ites down south who are able to see a progressive edge to that failed president. Liberals everywhere want to relax in the safety of their own delusions. You have to decide whether you are for change at a fundamental level, or if, like Vision, Cope, the NDP, the Democrats, you feel that while their are corrections to be made, the system itself is fundamentally fair. People like Roberts, Bass, Louis, Rankin etc wanted fundamental change they did not pretend that the system could be patched together by enlightened political technicians tightening this bolt here or there.