7 things Gregor Robertson and Vision Vancouver have in common with Stephen Harper and the Conservatives

    1 of 2 2 of 2

      Governments across Canada sometimes have more similarities than they like to admit.

      Take the Vision Vancouver–led administration at Vancouver City Hall.

      Many people working there would be appalled and angry if they were likened to the federal Conservatives.

      But this morning, it dawned upon me that these governments have striking parallels, such as:

      1. The Conservatives and Vision Vancouver have each gone to extreme lengths to prevent civil servants from speaking to the media. In Stephen Harper's case, the media can't talk to government scientists. With Gregor Robertson, the media can't talk to government planners. Only their bosses are permitted to comment. (The Vision-led government relented only slightly by expanding the list of bosses after being shamed by NPA mayoral candidate Kirk LaPointe in the last election campaign.) 

      2. The Conservatives and Vision Vancouver love to bring forward wedge issues to divide their opponents and pander to their base. In the Conservatives' case, it's the new antiterrorism legislation. With Vision Vancouver, it came during a strange park board meeting on a Saturday in July that culminated in trying to ban cetaceans from breeding at the Vancouver Aquarium. After the election when it was no longer useful, two Vision commissioners dropped the issue, ensuring this measure wouldn't go forward.

      3. During election campaigns, both parties raise issues that are really peripheral to their jurisdiction to divert attention from their record. Vision Vancouver ran a campaign about tanker traffic and the Broadway subway, tricking naive voters into thinking that the civic government held all the cards. The Conservatives throw muck at their opponents with ads and Internet campaigns highlighting whether or not the Opposition leader is "just visiting" or whether another Opposition leader should have a bird crapping on his shoulder. These messages, like Vision's, have little to do with the real issues facing voters in their area of responsibility.

      4. Both leaders, Harper and Robertson, are largely kept away from the media. In Harper's case, he's perceived as a ruthless, control freak, whereas with Robertson, it's often characterized as him being kept in a bubble by his handlers. But the effect is the same—neither is accessible in a very meaningful way. If you notice, they each like giving interviews during the slow news season to hide this reality. 

      Gregor Robertson (left) permitted more senior staff speak to the media after being shamed by Kirk LaPointe.
      Charlie Smith

      5. Who listens? If you've attended a public hearing in Vancouver over the past six years, you would have seen councillors rolling their eyes, doing their email, and often just ignoring citizens who take time to visit City Hall to speak on an issue of major importance in their lives. It's plainly disrespectful. Similarly, the Harper government has a propensity for ignoring public input on major issues, such as the supervised-injection site. In the end, people take these governments to court because they have no other option. In Harper's case, he's been consistently slapped down by the Supreme Court of Canada for ignoring constitutional imperatives. The Vision Vancouver–led government was similarly rebuked by B.C. Supreme Court judges for the way it managed a public hearing and for proposing a bicycle lane in a park protected by a trust.

      6. Each party panders to certain voting blocs while not always delivering to these communities. The best example in Harper's case is on immigration. During Vaisaikhi and Lunar New Year or unveiling of the Komagata Maru memorial, the Conservatives are at the front of the line at community celebrations. But they'll hammer immigrant communities with immigration legislation that makes it harder for families to reunify and easier to deport people to countries where they might be killed. Meanwhile, Vision Vancouver makes a big deal of its support for the LGBT community every Pride parade. But the party's politicians wouldn't approve moving a liquor licence to permit the Odyssey LGBT bar to remain open in the West End and Vision made it difficult for LGBT community writer Trish Kelly to remain a park-board candidate.

      7. Here's another parallel: both parties shamelessly borrow from American politics. Vision Vancouver copied Barack Obama's 2012 campaign slogan "Forward". Harper repeats phrases pioneered by Republican spinmeister Frank Luntz to demonize his opponents.

      Comments

      10 Comments

      Mavis

      Feb 19, 2015 at 10:17am

      Charlie - I always love reading your column but this time, you're reaching. If you think Vision makes a point of using diversionary issues to pander to their base while distracting from their core plans - you should look at COPE and NPA and several of the newer parties which are even worse. But I will concede one fair point - that the Cetaceans in captivity consultation was a diversion. As for access - putting Harper and Robertson in the same camp is a huge distortion. Have you ever interviewed the PM? How did it compare with your conversations with Robertson?

      0 0Rating: 0

      Tommy Khang

      Feb 19, 2015 at 11:13am

      Oooh kill'em, can't wait to see the card carrying VV party members come out of the woodwork to comment on this one.

      0 0Rating: 0

      everything

      Feb 19, 2015 at 12:12pm

      None of these really make any sense.

      0 0Rating: 0

      Richard Campbell

      Feb 19, 2015 at 12:24pm

      Not surprisingly, successful political parties use some of the same strategies. Not much news here.

      0 0Rating: 0

      Oh Mavis

      Feb 19, 2015 at 1:48pm

      You poor delusional soul. Cope and the NPA could take a PHD course from Vision in diversionary tactics. I don't normally agree with Charlie on just about anything he writes but this time he is bang on.

      0 0Rating: 0

      Ayinedollah

      Feb 20, 2015 at 2:15am

      A lazy article filled with contrivances and maybes.
      Charlie, please scratch the surface and stop skipping stones on the pond.
      You might be onto something with a few of your points but I need a little more meat on the bone.
      Thank you.

      0 0Rating: 0

      VanCancer

      Feb 20, 2015 at 9:56am

      I've thought this for years. "Openness and accountability" were promised before Vision's first term in power. What did we get instead?

      And the City Manager, Penny Ballem? Her style would be a perfect fit for Harper's PMO.

      One is fanatical about oil and resource extraction. The other can't bend over fast enough to rezone anything and everything for high-rise development.

      A pox on both of them and those who vote for them.

      0 0Rating: 0

      WTF?

      Feb 20, 2015 at 11:23am

      Is this another in the series of "Pieces that We Killed Before the Last Election?" I know the basic editorial bent of the Straight hasn't changed, we heard recently in the "news" section about the Mayor's "private life" about which he tweets. Seriously. This is the same mayor who publicized his marital breakup and used the same press release to accuse his opponents of publicizing his marital breakup. Oh and he lived in a condo in the west end but we didn't hear much about who owned it .

      There were the many lawsuits against Vison's actions in power, dismissed by this paper and others in the media as "nuisance" efforts funded by evil old white men determined to defeat good young white men like the mayor. Pandering doesn't begin to describe the treatment of the Mayor by the media, fawning certainly captures an element. The mayor merely waved a bone marked "NPA" or "Rob MacDonald" or "tankers" and the media followed it while "public" hearings and closed door meetings decided the major issues in the city. The media even bought that Vision had a change of heart on Cetacean captivity, just like they bought the idea that privatizing Point Grey Road was about bike safety.

      The next 45 months of Vision rule will be long and as the media run pieces like this. Pieces that will bring up issues that existed before the last election yet were dismissed or ignored by the media. There are more dirty deals out there involving Vision that diligent journalists can uncover, perhaps something as simple as the ownership of Central Heat Distribution and its equivalent that will service the cambie corridor as well as their provider of "green" power: the city is subsidizing that shenanigan.

      0 0Rating: 0

      Charlie Smith

      Feb 20, 2015 at 1:01pm

      The legal actions against the city weren't "dismissed" by the paper.

      Carlito Pablo covered the STIR case, wrote five articles about the CANY/Brenhill action, and we covered the Hadden Park case.

      We covered the Vision park board flip-flop (by two commisisoners) on the aquarium. And I wrote an article about how Vision changed the rules to reduce public input at public hearings.

      The reality is that a bunch of Yaletown residents are mad at me over one article I wrote about Brenhill that highlighted how 89 low-income people won't get new homes because of their successful court fight. They didn't like me mentioning that their lawyer, who provided bargain-priced legal services, was the sister of an NPA candidate.

      I've also written many articles about Central Heat Distribution in the past, particularly when the city was suing it while the then-mayor, Philip Owen, was the secretary-treasure and on the board of directors.

      0 0Rating: 0

      Gregor Robertson

      Feb 21, 2015 at 9:21pm

      Gregor Robertson Rules!!!

      0 0Rating: 0