Frances Bula header image 2

The offical Vision-COPE non-aggression pact

September 9th, 2008 · 7 Comments

Here it is, the agreement reached by the two parties’ executives. The only question now is: Will the COPE members pass this at their policy meeting on Sunday (the 14th) or will there be a revolutionary movement to blow this arrangement up? I understand that COPE board member Tim Louis voted against this.


Joint Statement
September 8, 2008

Cooperative Agreement between COPE and Vision Executives

(VANCOUVER) The COPE and Vision executives are announcing a tentative agreement for cooperation for the 2008 election. Both organizations feel that the agreement is an important step to create the kind of campaign that can return progressive government to city hall.

Members of both organizations have consistently sought a cooperative effort and the executives of both Vision Vancouver and COPE have endorsed an agreement that will see the following:

1)    COPE, Vision, and the Green Party have agreed to run less than a full slate of candidates for each level. The breakdown is as follows:

a.    Mayor: Gregor Robertson
b.    Council: 8 (Vision), 2 (COPE)
c.    School Board: 5 (COPE), 4 (Vision)
d.    Park Board: 4 (Vision), 2 (COPE), 1 (Green Party)

2)    Vision and COPE will cooperate around specific policy issues, including a strategy on homelessness.

Vision Vancouver believes the issues in this upcoming election are too important to be ignored. With this agreement, we can work with COPE to maximize our chances to bring progressive government back to Vancouver,” said Mike Magee, co-chair of Vision Vancouver.

“It is crucial that we work together to return progressive government to city hall, park and school board, said COPE Councilor David Cadman. “We want to work with Gregor Robertson and Vision to cooperate around areas of common concern. With this agreement we can avoid splitting the progressive vote and create a better Vancouver.”

The cooperation agreement is subject to ratification by the COPE membership at their Sunday, September 14 policy conference.

Categories: 2008 Vancouver Civic Election

  • masalaman

    thx for posting, let’s hope cope sticks to it as well at their meeting… we really need a progressive vision in city hall

  • I followed the link from a posting on Janet Steffenhagen’s “Report Card”. I am copying my post to her blog:

    I’m surprised COPE is willing to trade any chance of a real voice on Vancouver’s city council (they would be agreeing to limit themselves to a maximum of 2 councilors?) for a long shot at control of Vancouver’s school board.

    By and large, voters have a tendency to vote the party line all the way down the ballot (if they vote by party line). If this agreement is passed, I expect the next VSB will consist of five NPA and four VISION trustees.

    I can see why VISION is pursuing this agreement, but the benefits for COPE are much less obvious.

    Vancouver School Board has a powerful influence on public education policy in BC – more so than almost any other school board, or group of school boards, outside of Surrey. The only other grouping of boards that comes close is VISTA – which represents the relatively politically homogeneous Vancouver Island boards of education. (Obviously, the BCSTA has a significant voice but they have to try and walk a line that encompasses all political views.)

    It is disappointed to learn VISION considers school trustee seats throwaways as they seek power in Vancouver City Hall. I don’t think they need to do this, and it speaks to how much they value (or don’t value) education.

    From my point of view, sustainable improvement to the lives of Vancouver’s poor and disadvantaged is inextricably linked to education.

    Just another reason why this move by VISION is so short-sighted.

  • tommi

    Don’t get too happy, this is only a press release to cover the chaos that’s really happening in Vision and COPE. It’s a straw-man tactic that isn’t going to do much to stop the huge amount of in-fighting going on.

  • nicholai

    I’m surprised COPE “caved” at the council level. Vision is more interested in council given that that’s where the power and money is. They walked away with 9-2 ( Mayor included). Nothing to complain about…actual reason to fill up those champagne glasses…developers will be happy! It means a blood-letting at the COPE nominating meeting. Cadman plus who? School Board is important BUT the Province pulls most of the strings and has most of the power there. Parks Board…subset of Council…will COPE members accept the crumbs at council???

  • The following 2 headlines were taken on August 30, 2008. Who do we trust? It takes courage to believe in what is real.

    1 – Union of British Columbia Municipalities website

    In 2058, BC celebrates its bicentennial. We want to ensure that our children’s children will have as much to give thanks for then, as we do now, in 2008.

    2 – Burnaby NOW newspaper


  • Wagamuffin

    This is a head scratcher to me. My question: Let’s say COPE get its traditional 33% of the vote from the diehards. They are perceived to be far left. Vision is perceived to be centre to centre left (including Liberals). Are those soft “L”‘s really going to lay down a vote for COPE just to say they are participating in an alliance?

    I think COPE has made a mistake and may be putting itself out of business, possibly forever.

    Do none of you people watch “Survivor”??? Alliances are fragile things…

  • Ed

    I think some of the comments are neglecting to account for the fact that many of the Vision candidates for Council are highly acceptable to the members of COPE, and vice versa. No doubt there may still be ill will towards Stevenson & Louie, but I think the notion that COPE is making major sacrifices to endorse the likes of David Eby, Andrea Reimer, Kerry Jang and Aaron Jasper is preposterous. On the other side of the table, Katherine are you really predicting that Jane Bouey and Noel Herron, and incumbents Al Blakey and Allan Wong, have little hope of being elected? This is bold, to say the least.

    I see this agreement as consolidating behind the best candidates. Tim Louis is grumpy because because he no longer fits into this category.