Tuesday, November 12, 2002
Notes on Vancouver's election - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER – The Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker used to warn people about polls. It seems that Dief never took much stock in polling in politics, saying that we should consider polls in the same manner that dogs do. I do take polls with a grain of salt. The only poll that really counts, besides the one taken by Saint Peter upstairs, is the one of election day.
The Vancouver Sun on Friday had the big headline up front: "7 in 10 voters: ‘Time for a change.'" The three candidates running for the office of mayor have got their mugs on the front page with the latest figures. The COPE candidate, the star of this particular campaign, Larry Campbell is pegged at 56%; whilst the NPA candidate Jennifer Clarke is at 29%. Valerie MacLean, the candidate for the upstart vcaTEAM, is running at 14% support. What's bogged down in the bowels of the story is the fact the poll is only sample of the population that's decided. The percentage that's undecided is pretty high – some 39%. To extrapolate from the figures it is clear that Campbell is popular. Other than that, the race will truly be decided by the undecided vote, and whether they will in fact show up on Saturday. Also, COPE has fielded a pretty good candidate. Never has COPE fielded a candidate that has come so close as this year. (Mike Harcourt was mayor 16 years ago as an independent, though he was endorsed by COPE.)
Last Wednesday afternoon, I joined the sparse crowd at Langara's all-candidates forum. The event was put together by and instructor of mine, and the thing that kept popping in my head was: What if they held a war and no one showed up? There were few attendees, and fewer candidates. COPE had two council candidates participating, and a third who stepped in for the ill Larry Campbell. Jennifer Clarke was a no-show, with three-time Councillor Sam Sullivan pinch hitting for the NPA. TEAM was represented by a council candidate, and its mayoralty candidate Valerie MacLean arrived late, and left before the event ended. It was clear without her opponents, as well as the lacking crowd, there was no reason for her to stay.
The quadriplegic Sullivan, though one of the more progressive NPAers on Council, was targeted and maligned rather unfairly. (I actually saw Sullivan at an event later in the evening, and I told him that I actually felt bad for him.) On the whole it seemed that the other candidates, including Green candidate Connie Fogal-Rankin, were in agreement on most matters. The main of course, that the NPA has grown staid and boring. The quality of candidates, and the fact that a party has sprung up in opposition to the NPA itself (TEAM) is proof positive that the people of Vancouver concur with the findings of that Ipsos-Reid poll: It is time for a change.
On the 16th of November, Vancouverites will cast ballots asking for once choice for mayor, ten councillors, seven parks board trustees and nine school board trustees. All currently have NPA majorities going into the race. Will COPE sweep council and both boards, on the way to claiming the mayor's office at the corner of 12th and Cambie? The prognosticators are saying Campbell will win the mayor's chair, because of his personal popularity, and because Clarke has been ineffective in getting major support.
The main issue that has been trotted about for this election is the Four Pillars agreement, which was the championing cause of out-going Mayor Philip Owen. It hasn't been popular within the NPA, which is pro-business. The plan to clean up the Downtown Eastside, the poorest postal code in Canada, would affect business so. Clarke had been cool on the project, whilst Campbell and Maclean have been all for it. Campbell, even getting into the race to make sure Four Pillars wasn't killed by Clarke and the future council. Clarke has since been in favour of it, but coy on how long it will take to implement the thing. Campbell's got the sexy date of January 1st (I poached that from last Wednesday's debate), which is smart politically, but I don't know how smart it is when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of implementation.
So if all major candidates (including Marc Emery of the Marijuana Party, which we know where he's coming from) are for safe injection sites and "harm reduction," who would I choose when it come time to mark my ballot? I do not think it is a good idea to have safe injection sites for junkies and addicts. If there is a problem, then prevention and treatment is the answer, not this "harm reduction" nonsense. Owen has been championing Four Pillars because it is the cheapest thing the city can do. I'm even thinking of voting for Jennifer Clarke just because I know she'll probably do some stalling on Four Pillars. It is absolutely sheer folly and errant nonsense to treat addicts, not by detoxifying them or counselling them through their addiction, but by building rooms and areas for them to shoot up to high heaven. But it's cheap and inexpensive, so that's why we should do it I guess. It's madness and it is maddening trying to pick amongst the candidates, as they seem to support Four Pillars so. I've got till Saturday anyways...
But my Council slate, I've already composed. Herewith are whom I'll be voting for come election day:
Fred Bass, COPE
David Cadman, COPE
Vern Campbell, NPA
Nancy Chiavario, vcaTEAM
Connie Fogal-Rankin, Green
Tim Louis, COPE
George Puil, NPA
Anne Roberts, COPE
Stephen Rogers, vcaTEAM
Sam Sullivan, NPA.
I urge all who are able to do go out and vote. It's democracy after all.
- 30 -
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .