Marking 20 years
of bold journalism,
reader supported.
Opinion
Municipal Politics
Elections

'COPE Exceeded All Expectations'

It didn't split progressive votes because Vision is no longer truly progressive.

Tristan Markle 18 Nov 2014TheTyee.ca

Tristan Markle is a writer/editor with the The Mainlander, and has been an executive member of COPE since 2012. He is also an anti-poverty activist and HIV researcher.

image atom
'This election was boring until COPE came along and talked about real issues that affect them,' candidate Wong said voters told her. Photo by knightbefore_99 from Your BC: The Tyee's Photo Pool.

This election, Gregor Robertson eked out a narrow win, but almost half of Vision's candidates went down in defeat. For those looking deeply into the numbers, it's clear that Vision Vancouver is in trouble.

Geoff Meggs has been quoted as saying "we were close to a shipwreck."

And for those looking into its soul, the signs show that the Vision experiment has run its course. That's because Vision was only ever possible with COPE under its control.

On the other hand, a brief glance and the numbers show that COPE did worse still. But look into the soul of COPE and what you see is a vital force, which last week made the powers-that-be tremble.

On election night, COPE mayoral candidate Meena Wong displayed that energy in an interview with the South China Morning Post: "Wong was still in a fighting mood after the results were declared on Saturday night. She said she had no regrets about running against Robertson, that he was no longer a true progressive... 'He has sold his soul to developers.'"

Two defeats, a world of difference

COPE did not elect candidates to city council in either of the last two election campaigns. And yet there was a world of difference between the mood on election night in 2011 versus 2014.

In 2011, the mood was sombre, even demoralized. Ellen Woodsworth spoke shortly about COPE failing to connect to the grassroots. In contrast, as the election results came into the COPE campaign office this weekend, the crowd was disappointed but emboldened and hopeful for the future.

Meena Wong opened her concession speech saying: "The results tonight are disappointing, but let's look at the whole campaign. COPE has exceeded all expectations. Because of all your hard work, we have awakened the people of Vancouver."

How do we explain the difference between the mood in 2011 and 2014? I believe that there are important reasons, and to understand these reasons is to understand the future of civic politics in Vancouver.

Beyond banal platforms

Looking back to the 2011 campaign, COPE had good policies, but no mayoral candidate to champion them to a broader public. Furthermore, the 2011 coalition meant that COPE couldn't criticize Vision, but only focus on areas of agreement.

For example, in 2011 the two parties agreed that "ending homelessness" was important, but COPE didn't mention that Vision had long ago lost support of the anti-poverty movement and housing activists and was ramming through its gentrification plans across the city.

This election, Meena Wong and the COPE candidates visited every affordable neighbourhood in the city -- from Grandview-Woodland, Marpole, DTES, to the West End -- and denounced Vision for targeting them with luxury condo development, evicting homeless people from shelters and squats, and actively seeking millions from property developers.

COPE council candidate Lisa Barrett brought town halls to their feet for saying Vision's policies are all about "big profits for big developers."

On election night, Wong said: "I was told by some people that this election was boring until COPE came along and talked about real issues that affect them."

This was quite the understatement. The campaign started with Vision and the NPA unveiling banal platforms. Vision's "affordability agenda" included a free swimming lesson, while the NPA promised free parking on Sundays. It would be funny if the affordability crisis weren't so serious.

On housing, Vision's plan was to give $30 million in tax cuts to Aquilini Development in exchange for them building luxury housing near Rogers Arena that will be rented-out at high rents. Aquilini Development gave Vision $60,000 in donations this election. Robertson repeatedly denounced the Non-Partisan Association's supposed opposition to this policy as "atrocious" -- although the policy was developed by the NPA in 2007.

In turn, Wong rolled out a series of major -- and radical -- policies that would actually make Vancouver affordable. Wong drew on COPE's robust platform, developed by hundreds of party members and community groups. Robertson and LaPointe struggled to dismiss Wong's policies as impractical. But Wong's concrete policies were all costed, including building 800 units of city-owned social housing per year.

When Vision finally released a "costed" platform late in the campaign, the highlight was spending $500,000 for more police to give tickets to cyclists. The NPA's "costed" platform was similarly "vapid," to use Robertson's word for it.

No wonder the COPE campaign headquarters broke into applause when Wong stated: "Our bold platform shaped the discussion through the whole campaign. We focused on homelessness, vacant properties, raising your wages, protecting affordable neighbourhoods, ending renovictions, banning corporate corruption."

Far more votes per dollar

In 2011, COPE lost its two council seats, and only elected Allan Wong to school board. COPE had entered into a coalition with Vision, from which Vision benefitted a disproportionate amount, electing every single one of its candidates.

In between 2011 and 2014, COPE began rebuilding itself as a left-wing party independent of Vision. Everyone knew the road would be bumpy. Many warned that if pro-Vision NDP and labour leaders withdrew support, it would make a big difference.

Although no COPE candidates were elected this time around, the COPE team was emboldened by several facts. For each dollar spent on the campaign, COPE candidates got 10 times more votes than Vision candidates.

Another important result was that the success of COPE candidates was not dependent upon endorsement by pro-Vision politicians or labour leaders. Lisa Barrett for council (35,000 votes) and Diana Day for school board (39,000 votes) received more votes than candidates backed by the Vancouver District Labour Council (including some COPE candidates) or than OneCity's candidate who was backed by pro-Vision NDP MLAs. The take-home message is that voters supported strong COPE candidates regardless of such endorsements.*

I believe that the most important factor behind the resurgent COPE was its candidates. It's not simply that there were a majority of women candidates from diverse communities. COPE's candidates were not politicians, but relentless community organizers.

The Georgia Straight editors worried that COPE candidates blurred the line between politician and activist, between electoral and grassroots. But the crossing of those two wires has already began to short-circuit the municipal scene.

On election night, Wong garnered the biggest cheers of the evening when she said: "We also had the most groundbreaking team of candidates the city has ever seen... I want each candidate to stand with COPE and with me for the next four years. It is only a matter of time before we break through."

If in the last week of the campaign Vision was "very close to a shipwreck," the holes in the ship were plugged with millions in corporate donations. But the momentum has shifted: Vision's candidates are out of ideas, and have been disconnected from the grassroots for too long. Vision councillor Andrea Reimer told journalist Frances Bula that "it is 'definitely a concern' that none of the party's younger-generation candidates won."

Meanwhile, COPE's new generation of candidates gained experience by speaking truth to power.

COPE built new relationship with voters

On this election night, Wong said: "We have rebuilt COPE. COPE has not run a mayoral candidate for 12 years. Even though we didn't get anyone elected this time, more people know about COPE, and the people of Vancouver know where we stand."

This seemingly simple statement contains a world of significance. Polls showed that Wong's name recognition was very high -- even matching Kirk LaPointe's and exceeding him in East Van.

While in 2011 it wasn't clear where COPE stood with respect to Vision, now most voters know were COPE stands. Wong and the COPE team are understood to be the true progressive party in Vancouver, and that means that Vision is now increasingly understood to be the centrist, civic Liberal party that they are.

As council candidate Audrey Siegl said, COPE candidates "shone the light of truth" everywhere they went. COPE shone the light of truth on Vision, and it wasn't pretty.

Robertson's "desperate" appeal to COPE voters was based on a politics of fear, straight out of the playbook that Paul Martin used against Jack Layton in 2004. But by doing so, Robertson anchored his support fully in the efficiency of his corporate-funded get-out-the-vote machine, rather than policies, principles, or even likability.

While "strategic voting" concerns limited Wong to 17,000 votes this time, her actual support was much higher.

Although the mood in the COPE headquarters bristled with pride and determination, there was some disappointment because several COPE candidates may have been elected if everyone felt safe voting with their conscience.

Critics may blame COPE for Vision's many defeats, saying that COPE split the progressive vote. But COPE "activated new voters" as pollster Barb Justason noted. COPE candidates were told over and over again that people who haven't voted in years had a reason to vote again. We haven't seen a higher voter turnout since COPE ran a majority slate in 2002. COPE is good for democracy.

Second, COPE was very clear this election: Vision is not progressive. Follow the money. Vision is the vehicle for big developers to make big profits by kicking low-income people out of the city, and now everyone knows it.

Just as importantly, everybody knows that COPE will fight to protect affordable neighbourhoods, and sweep the property developers out of City Hall. Now COPE has to learn from this first real fight against the corporate parties, and build a movement that can withstand the assault of $3 million dollar campaigns.

As Wong concluded on election night: "COPE will continue to fight against corporate influence at city hall. But you know what, with progressive voters coming home to COPE, I feel that next time all the money in the world won't save Vision or the NPA."

*Edited for clarity, Nov. 18 at 12:20 p.m.  [Tyee]

  • Share:

Facts matter. Get The Tyee's in-depth journalism delivered to your inbox for free

Tyee Commenting Guidelines

Comments that violate guidelines risk being deleted, and violations may result in a temporary or permanent user ban. Maintain the spirit of good conversation to stay in the discussion.
*Please note The Tyee is not a forum for spreading misinformation about COVID-19, denying its existence or minimizing its risk to public health.

Do:

  • Be thoughtful about how your words may affect the communities you are addressing. Language matters
  • Challenge arguments, not commenters
  • Flag trolls and guideline violations
  • Treat all with respect and curiosity, learn from differences of opinion
  • Verify facts, debunk rumours, point out logical fallacies
  • Add context and background
  • Note typos and reporting blind spots
  • Stay on topic

Do not:

  • Use sexist, classist, racist, homophobic or transphobic language
  • Ridicule, misgender, bully, threaten, name call, troll or wish harm on others
  • Personally attack authors or contributors
  • Spread misinformation or perpetuate conspiracies
  • Libel, defame or publish falsehoods
  • Attempt to guess other commenters’ real-life identities
  • Post links without providing context

LATEST STORIES

The Barometer

Do You Think Trudeau Will Survive the Next Election?

Take this week's poll