The recent hubbub being stirred up by those who have set their own hair on fire over the introduction of smart meters is refreshing in one respect: it’s a nice change from reports of suspicious chem-trails and inside jobs on 9/11.

British Columbians are probably right to be apprehensive about BC Hydro’s motivations and future intent, particularly as the utility is controlled by a provincial government that already seems determined to govern more from an ideological imperative (or to satisfy the demands of crony capitalists) than from interest in the common good. When decisions are being made behind closed doors by cabinet – or politically appointed bureaucrats – with little or no independent oversight, we should not be surprised by hoi polloi expectations of conspiracy (see BC Rail, HST, et al). However, as far as I can see most of the anti-smart meter bleating is just annoying and politically counterproductive.

What are Smart Meters?

If you’re not aware, BC Hydro, the publicly owned utility that provides electricity to British Columbian homes and businesses (and exports electricity to the United States), has launched a project to replace all of the old analogue meters currently in use with new digital meters equipped with wireless signalling technology. This has inspired a minor movement in opposition, with people threatening to blockade their analogue meters in order to prevent replacement.

They’re called smart meters because – unlike the old analogue meters, which only recorded the total electricity usage and had to be read manually every month or two – the new meters can record usage on an hourly basis, detect power failures and irregular voltage levels, and contain two radio transmitters. One of these radios transmits data hourly to a receiver located in the same neighbourhood (which then relays the data to BC Hydro’s mainframe). The other radio, disabled unless the customer requests activation, allows that customer to use in-home or in-business technology to manage his or her own electrical conservation.

I expect that the new meters are also capable of recording bi-directional power transfers. I’m sure there’s a more technically accurate phrase to describe that, but basically it means that if you are generating your own electricity on your property, you’ll be able to “upload” it to the grid and be paid for it. BC Hydro doesn’t make this very clear in their promotional propaganda, beyond one sentence that reads “The measurement technology determines how much power is being consumed and produced.” I’m too lazy to read the technical specs to find out for sure, but that “produced” sounds promising.

If you think that the likelihood of your generating any power, let alone surplus power, is science fiction, just think of a product that is getting a lot of hype (and taxpayer subsidies) lately: the electric car. Personally, I have a lot of concerns with the electric car (at least from an metro-urban planning perspective – see pending separate rant on this topic), but if you want to know why you might soon be in a position to sell electricity, check out another smart concept, the smart grid, in this Wikipedia article.

Speaking of smart grid, the smart meter program isn’t just about individual meters. All of those individual meters collectively provide additional functionality as well, within neighbourhoods, within regions, and across the province. For instance, if one of your neighbours is by-passing the meter in order to steal electricity to secretly provide lighting to his basement hydroponic herb garden (a problem that can increase the likelihood of electrocution, fire, power failures, and electrical interference), the aggregated meters will record a discrepancy between the amount of power used on one block compared to the amount of power recorded by meters, making it easier to track down the leak. It’s only fair, after all, that everyone pays for what they use, regardless of the nature of that use.

Of course, it should be pointed out that this wouldn’t be as significant an issue if governments hadn’t put BC Hydro in the absurd position of being forced to fink to the police on anyone with higher-than-average power usage, effectively using a public utility as a law enforcement investigation unit. That few would bother to steal the electricity in the first place if they were just left to grow their herbs in peace is a detail that merits no official recognition.

There are undoubtedly larger-network benefits to the smart grid as well. For instance, the ability to manage the overall power network based on demand and supply is desirable. Power might be shifted across different transmission systems based on higher or lower demand in one region, or in order to react to supply problems in the form of generation outages (ie: dam maintenance or transmission line damage). An intelligent grid can potentially better manage electricity and promote better conservation, with less waste. Besides potentially relieving upward pressure on domestic electricity prices, it’s possible that better resource management might also reduce the need to generate extra electricity through the burning of coal and other polluting resources at times when systems near, or exceed, capacity.

The Opposition

There are certainly questions to be asked about any new technology being introduced, particularly when one has no choice over whether one uses the technology. “Is it safe?” and “Will my privacy be protected?” are two that immediately spring to mind.

Unfortunately, rather than have constructive conversations about these subjects, we seem to have a bunch of people with varying political agendas who would rather scream “It’s going to give me brain cancer!” and “They want to track how often I recharge my vibrator!” Most of these people are quite rational about most other things, and have legitimate political concerns about many topics, yet resort to irrational histrionics about smart meters.

Not only does this behaviour call into question their general credibility about other topics, but more importantly it occupies the space that should be used for more constructive conversations about resource management, public ownership and privatisation, environmental stewardship, open government, and equitable and fair cost recovery.

Considering its history, it is highly likely that the provincial government, in collusion with vested interests and foreign powers, is incrementally working toward the privatisation of British Columbia’s electrical grid. In all likelihood, the universal use of smart meters will make BC Hydro and/or its component parts more attractive to private investors. This presumed fact does not mean that the adoption of smart meters is the wrong decision any more than offering free wifi on BC Ferries will make it easier to privatise the ships. A strong case for smart meters can be made even if continued public ownership were certain.

British Columbians who are genuinely interested in continuing to have a publicly owned electrical utility would do well to aggressively promote that idea. Instead, people seem content to fritter away their increasingly limited political capital on absurd-sounding claims, like how smart meters “will effectively blanket homes and neighbourhoods with radiation”¹, “[...]what you are doing at any moment can be intercepted by market researchers, insurance investigators, saboteurs, would-be burglars[...]², or one American site that says “Smart Meters is a grid designed to control and incarcerate the public”³.

It’s not just anonymous cranks and semi-literate Facebookers, though. Opposition to smart meters seems to be the thing to do for some NDP activists. Take Bill Tieleman, for instance. His Tyee article on the subject last summer resorted to a lot of the same sort of panicmongering. He quotes a New York doctor who speaks of “exposure to radiofrequency radiation at elevated levels for long periods of time”. It seems that the doctor is either speaking out of context, or doesn’t understand how smart meters work, and Tieleman only impairs his own credibility by quoting him.

One thing Tieleman does mention, which is quite important to any discussion about ethics in government and about the implementation of the smart meter program, is the allegation by journalist Will McMartin about possible Liberal-party graft in the awarding of the smart meter contract⁴. This is certainly an issue of concern, and both McMartin and Tieleman are right to raise it. However, it is only an issue of implementation, not about the value of the program itself. If city council awards the garbage collection contract to one of the mayor’s political cronies, it does not therefore mean that garbage collection should be abandoned.

At least the NDP’s energy critic, John Horgan, seems to be staying away from the loonier claims of the anti-smart meter folk, which is probably tricky since many of them are probably people who vote NDP. At a public meeting in Kelowna, he avoided appearing to agree with those making hysterical health claims but tried to sound sympathetic by saying “But I do know, with absolute certainty, that the anxiety that these smart meters are creating are leading to health issues for people.”

In other words, if I may creatively paraphrase Horgan, “you people are making yourselves sick worrying about something that emits a mere fraction of the radio frequency power of that iPhone in your pocket, and you’ll never have to hold it up to your head. Get over it and let’s talk about something important.”⁵. Horgan can’t say so, but no doubt he thinks that that the crazy lefties who rail against smart meters for health reasons are as loony as the crazy rightists who rail against fluoridated drinking water and polio vaccination.

The NDP is well advised not to jump on the bandwagon of the irrationally discontent, unless they want to further drive away the environmentalist voters that they alienated in the last election by opportunistically opposing the carbon tax, a decision that cost them more votes than they gained.

It is difficult to comprehend how people can get worked up about a meter that sends out a two second signal once an hour, compared to all of the other much more intensive signals surrounding them. At this moment, there are, within detectable range of the chair in my living room, no fewer than twenty-eight detectable wireless modems all beaming signals, many probably doing so continuously, 24 hours a day. And then there are the cellular signals. Here’s a cell tower map of greater Vancouver:

Add to that the satellites beaming cable television throughout the city, the commercial radio signals, the two-way radios, the ham radios, the microwave transmitters on the mountains… even if you add up all the smart meters on your street, their output is minuscule by comparison.

Effectiveness of implementation

I’ve already mentioned the increased opportunity for privatisation. I’m not going to launch into a discussion of the merits, or lack thereof, of a privatised utility, other than to say that I doubt that most British Columbians are enthusiastic about the prospect. Privatisation is not an issue with meters per se, and some might call it a slippery-slope sort of suggestion, but if the subject is relevant, it relates to implementation. I’m uneasy about appearing to engage in conspiracy-mongering myself, but with this government almost anything sounds plausible, especially after the BC Rail fiasco.

With that in mind, it occurs to me that having the population in an uproar that appears to be caused by BC Hydro (even though BC Hydro is effectively forced to do whatever the provincial cabinet decides) serves very conveniently to cause deterioration of the traditionally good relationship between BC Hydro and its customers. Is the smart meter controversy eroding the pride that British Columbians feel about their utility? Even among those who don’t care much about the meter question, just being peripherally aware of controversy may be erosive. In business terms, it’s damaging the brand, and a damaged brand will be easier to dispose of, politically.

BC Hydro has provided on their FAQ, in my opinion, sufficient information about the health and privacy concerns that customers might have about how the meters will be operated at the time of implementation. Rather than report total electrical usage once a month, the meters will report total electrical usage once an hour. No one reasonable is going to have a problem with that.

One thing BC Hydro probably did wrong was to call them “smart meters.” The word smart evokes the concept of intelligence – artificial intelligence, in this regard. Who wants one of Ridley Scott’s replicants hanging on the wall outside her bedroom window? “Smart” vaguely suggests “sinister”, or “spying”, at least when applied to a cold machine of efficient calculation that doesn’t play games or have a “like” button. It’s no wonder there’s resistance. They should have stuck a fruit decal on it and called it an “iMeter.” Then, instead of launching anti-meter websites, the citizenry would be lined up outside of BC Hydro’s Dunsmuir Street headquarters, holding up fists full of cash and clamouring to be the first on their blocks to take home the new iMeter.

Though I found many of the answers on BC Hydro’s FAQ candid and informative, I also felt that a couple of the answers were potentially less than honest. Oddly, though, I kind of hope that they are lying. The first questionable question is “Will my rates go up because of smart meters?”, to which they provide an unqualified “no” as an answer.

The second question is “Will BC Hydro be introducing time-of-use rates?”. The answer here is also negative, ostensibly because time-of-use rating is generally only used in markets where the risk of exceeding capacity is high and time-of-use helps prevent it.

The paranoid in me thinks that they mean what they say, that “they” will not raise rates, but who can say what the government will force them to do, or what a future private owner might do? But the fact is, rates are almost certain to rise, eventually. It’ll just be for some other reason, of course.

But really, I’m nor terribly concerned. I think that they should raise rates.

As citizens of British Columbia, and therefore as investors in the utility, I think every residential household should be entitled to a base amount of electricity, regardless of the size of dwelling or the number of occupants, for free. Yes, that’s right – for free. But just a base amount. I’m talking about just enough to power a minimal number of energy-efficient lights and appliances necessary for basic survival and comfort. Any electrical usage above that basic amount would be charged for, at graduated rates based on a usage scale, so that the more you use, the more you pay.

(BC Hydro should stick to its commitment to avoid a time-of-use scheme as much as possible, unless capacity issues make it necessary. However, I would not favour time-of-use if capacity issues arise as a result of selling excessive quantities of power to jurisdictions outside of British Columbia, especially those who have no conservation incentives of their own.)

The result? Customers would have a much stronger incentive to conserve energy than currently exists, and the incentive would apply to all users, regardless of economic station, without unduly burdening (and even helping) the low income. This could mean everything from turning out a light when you leave the room to investing in energy efficient appliances and better insulation.

Now that’s something I’d like to see the anti-meter crowd redirect their energies toward.

1. http://www.notosmartmeters.com/health-issues/
2. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Smart-Meters-in-BC/104594719619502?sk=info
3. http://ppjg.me/2012/01/21/icleis-murder-meters-and-spy-grid-turning-mr-roger-neighborhood-into-electronic-internment-camps/
4. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/07/SmartMeterProfits/
5. http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/134976123.html

edwardsblock.com

Only two days remain until Vancouver’s triennial civic elections. If you’re reading this from somewhere outside of Vancouver, no need to go on – I recommend you read the label of a ketchup bottle instead – unless you care to learn more about the political underbelly of this town. After all, if even Vancouverites haven’t any significant interest (last election, less than one-third of those eligible voted), why should you care? On the other hand, urban affairs nerds might find the whole exercise a lesson in how not to elect governments in their own cities.

For starters, we have here what we call an “at-large” electoral system. Contrary to how that sounds – and what the quality of some of the candidates might lead you to believe – that does not mean that one must be the subject of a police hunt in order to run. What it means is that we have no neighbourhood-based electoral districts: all voters vote for the same pool of all candidates.

Yes, it’s awkward. There are at least four different ballots (excluding special resolutions): The ballot for city councillors lists 41 candidates on which voters must place an X beside up to ten names; the ballots for Parks Board (elect 7 of 21 candidates) and School Board (elect 9 of 20 candidates) are similar. Somehow, voters are expected to be familiar with the positions of 94 separate candidates, including the twelve running for Mayor.

It’s also expensive, from a candidate’s perspective: he or she must advertise to the whole city, not just a neighbourhood. Hence, candidates who do best are generally those with the most money. The ones with the most money are, of course, those who band together in political alliances and present themselves to voters in slates.

As you can imagine, the process of deciding for whom to vote is burdensome, and the outcomes for individual voters depend on several factors. Some voters are ideologically motivated; they vote for either the right wing slate or the left wing slate. Others pick and choose from the slates, and occasionally toss a vote or two to independent candidates (though these are seldom elected). Even with the slates, it seems likely that many voters choose their candidates based on other factors that reflect their own preferences and prejudices. For instance, in many elections, a candidate with an “ethnic” sounding name will often receive fewer votes than the other candidates on his or her slate, suggesting that xenophobia may sometimes be a factor. I suspect that in some cases, candidates whose names start with a letter early in the alphabet have a bit of an edge over the Wongs and Zigarliskis, if only because the voter runs out of Xs before she gets to the Xs.

In the past, there have been resolutions to move to a much easier ward system, where everyone votes for mayor, but only vote for council candidates in their own districts. This would certainly simplify things, though undoubtedly introduce other problems. I’m of the opinion, though, that at least a partial ward system would have to be better. I suspect that many people are dissuaded from voting chiefly because of the complexity of the ballots and the impossibility of really knowing for whom one is voting.

The reality is that our city governments are usually chosen through two factors: name recognition, and what I’ll simplistically call a rich/poor divide.

In a system like this a candidate whose name is familiar to voters is probably going to have either a distinct advantage, or a distinct disadvantage, (depending, of course, on whether that familiarity engenders positive or negative emotions in the voter). However, familiarity of name can be a neutral, but still problematic, reaction. For instance, our current Mayor, Gregor Robertson, would very likely suffer from the effects of vote splitting if an independent candidate named “George Robertson” ran for mayor. (For an example of this phenomenon, see the election involving Jim Green and James Green, 2005. There was another example in the 80s that I can’t recall now). In both cases, it is likely – though unproven – that a major candidate’s opponents deliberately engaged a similarly-named nobody to confuse voters.

The rich/poor divide, more accurately referred to, perhaps, as the east/west divide, has been abating to some degree in recent years, since the increase in home ownership (if that’s what one can call being mortgaged for a leaky, plywood box in the sky) concurrent with a continuous and dramatic rise in real estate prices is making those who formerly felt poor start to feel rich, if only on paper. Taking into consideration the aforementioned factors that discourage people from voting, it turns out that our elections are generally won by whichever slate manages to motivate more of its voters to actually go out and vote. Some would say that this is true in all elections, but I think that it is more critical the lower the turnout overall.

And of course, we can’t overlook the money factor. Since there are no spending or contribution limits in elections, our governments tend to be dominated by low-level status climbers and privilege seekers willing to dance to whatever tune the bankrolling developers and real estate types call. I’m sure that some would call that overblown hyperbole, but since I was once an active member and campaign worker with the most successful of the civic parties (before I quit it in disgust), I feel at least slightly qualified to spew forth on the subject.

At any rate, choosing candidates is an exercise fraught with frustration. Who has the time to go to all candidates meetings? It’s often a waste of time anyway, since they are usually stacked with a) campaign workers trying to hog the microphones so that they can target hard questions to opponents and easy questions to their candidates; and b) lonely – and usually long-winded – people for whom and open microphone is as tempting an invitation as is a bag of heroin is to an addict.

One could stay at home and read all of the candidate websites to find out what they stand for. Unfortunately, most of them are full of empty buzzphrases intended to fill out a “Platform” page with as many meaningless words as possible. E-mailing candidates specific questions is one option, though the chances of receiving a cogent response – if a response is received at all – from a major candidate is low, especially as the official election day draws near.

As I said – who has the time?

Fortunately for my readers who also happen to be Vancouver voters (whom I’m sure make up a voting bloc of such proportions as to fill a public washroom stall), I have taken the time to attend public meetings, read websites, e-mail candidates, read Twitter feeds, judge them on the quality of their campaign photos (and the style into which those who have hair have groomed it), and for good measure incorporated my own reactionary prejudices into the mix, too. Forthwith I present you with a summary of all of the candidates. I’ll deliberately try to avoid making explicit endorsements (with one or two exceptions), as my intention is to help you make up your mind, not necessarily get you to vote in lock-step with me. However, for those who wish to know, my endorsements will follow the summaries.

AFFILIATION KEY:

NPA: Non-Partisan Association, the (generally right-leaning) traditional victor in city elections.
VIS: Vision Vancouver. The (generally left-leaning) major alternative to the NPA.
CPE: COPE, or Committee of Progressive Electors, the decidedly left party that is in a semi-abusive relationship with Vision.
RPC: Resolutionist Party Canada. Whatever that means.
NSV: If you Google NSV the first result will be “No Scalpel Vasectomy”, but scroll down to “Neigbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver”, a party created largely due to a perceived denial of community input by Vision regarding new developments, particularly in the West End. I’m struggling to decide whether I think NSV will improve the city by increasing democratic participation, or impede its necessary progress toward densification by blocking change.
VCV: Vancouver Citizen’s Voice (a one-candidate - and possibly one member – party.)
GRN: Green Party. Sort of. The candidates (one Council, one School, one Parks) are Green, but they seem to be underplaying this label this election.
RICH: Rent is Crazy High. A couple of young people who feel – justifiably, I’d say – under-represented by the developer-funded major parties.

MAYOR:

[Mayoral candidate statements on city website].

Anton, Suzanne    NPA: Anton has been a councillor for two terms and, let’s be frank, is only the NPA’s mayoral nominee because no one else wanted the job. Known as a bit of an opportunistic flip-flopper (which her team tries to promote as “flexibility”), I have seen no indication that she has any real comprehension of any world except her own privileged, west-side one. She’s obviously not stupid, but it seems she hasn’t yet broken down the silver-spoon barrier that would enable her to be a mayor for everyone. Think Phillip Owen in a dress. Like Owen, she might suddenly come to some kind of an understanding of the other side of town once she’s been defeated at politics, but judging by her opportunistic grandstanding on bike lanes and Occupy Vancouver, she’s not mayoral material yet.

Buday , Golok Zoltan    IND: Possibly the candidate with the worst website. Has some valid concerns and is obviously thinking about issues, but not mayoral material.

Caissy, Menard    RPC: I can’t tell if the text on his cryptically-nested collection of webpages is campaign material, punk band lyrics, or both. Poor literacy level not encouraging.

Cooke, Lloyd Alan    IND: Too little information to judge positively.

Dubgee    IND: East Van musician. This guy sounds kind of interesting, though I wouldn’t necessarily say mayor material. He’s exactly the kind of person Suzanne Anton ought to spend some time getting to know a little. Unfortunately, she’d probably call the SWAT team if he ever came near her.

Helten, Randy    NSV: Although I haven’t yet convinced myself that he’s not a NIMBY candidate, this guy is on my maybe list. Seems to have more interest in democratic participation than other candidates, and that’s a big plus.

Lawrance, Robin    IND: The only candidate who has his eyes closed in his campaign photo. I hope he just blinked and isn’t deceased. At any rate, I’m not sure Vancouver needs a mayor that can’t take TWO digital pictures and pick the best. (Mind you, maybe he did…) No website, so what he stands for is unknown, but he gets points for confidence.

McGuire, Gerry    VCV: Has some good ideas, but can’t really be considered a serious candidate. Might be a good place to park your mayoral vote if you really can’t stand anyone else running.

Paquette, Victor B.     IND: Opposed to parking meters. Wants to return parks to the people by filling them with parked cars. Bzzzzz – Next!

Pelletier, Samuel    IND: Earnest young man with a highly sensible platform that is possibly the clearest and most literate of any of the 94 candidates. Blurry campaign photo makes him look a bit like Frankenstein. May have a future – should perhaps start with more modest goals.

Robertson, Gregor    VIS: Ah, Gregor. “The Juiceman”, as he is derisively known by rightist critics. There’s nothing the right doesn’t object to more than success, and Robertson seems to have some of that. Built a big business. Was born with good looks. People on the west side vote for him. Is building infrastructure for the city’s beleaguered bike riders. And yet… I still find it hard to get excited about him. Maybe because he seems a little too friendly with developers, or perhaps because he gushed enthusiastically about Gordon Campbell right before the provincial election. He seems a bit like a tactician most interested in whatever will improve his own political successes in the future. On the other hand, maybe that’s just good politics.

Zimmerman, Darrell “Saxmaniac”    IND: Hard to take seriously a candidate whose nomination form consists of “No profile provided. No contact information provided. No photo provided.” (and whose list of nominators looks like he passed the form around at the legion where a bunch of drunks scrawled names on it, many of them illegible).

COUNCIL:

[Link to all Council candidate statements on city website].

AFFLECK, George    NPA: I saw this guy at an all-candidates meeting and thought he sounded pretty reasonable and intelligent, except for some odd comment about how we need super-charged Chinese buses on Broadway, and I left the meeting thinking he might be worth a vote. However, I went and looked at his website, and it has to be the most content-deprived site I’ve seen. He says almost nothing, and taking that into consideration with his Twitter feed I must conclude that he’s either wilfully mute or simply vacuous. Perhaps his candidacy is simply a roll of the dice of fortune to see what happens, or maybe he’s building name recognition for a future run. Reminds me a bit of Gordon Campbell when he first ran for alderman in 1984 – and he was mayor two years later.

ALM, Kelly    IND: Has two websites, both the same, except the .com version is in a giant font (for the visually impaired?) and contains a bizarre chart that looks like a route map for Cathay Pacific. Seems a bit pro-car, and anyway, he’s a real estate agent, a career that rates lower in my books than school-yard pusher.

AQUINO, RJ    CPE: Seems like a nice enough guy, and seems potentially competent. Like most of COPE he has a lot to say about what isn’t working, but is a little short on what can (realistically) be done about it, such as the cost of housing.

BALL, Elizabeth    NPA: Website pretty much says what she’s done in the past (personally), not what she wants to do in the future (as a councillor). The most informative statement her site makes is “Elizabeth would like to continue her work and generate more revenue for Vancouver through arts, culture and heritage initiatives as well as improve our community by supporting children and working towards creating safer streets”, which really doesn’t say much at all. I fear she’s just a little too much of Anton’s world. She’s big on arts and culture, but I suspect her definitions of those are on the corporatey high-brow side.

BENSON, Nicole    NSV: Seems pretty good, though I haven’t heard her speak, except in a video intro. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the NSV candidates for their interests in neighbourhood consultation, transparency, and a reduction of blank cheques and subsidies to developers, but I’m also leery of NIMBYism and a rejection of the sort of densification that will be required, inevitably.

BICKERTON, Sean    NPA: I put Bickerton on my “maybe” list right off the bat mainly due to his opposition to expanded gambling in the city, though he’s not yet assured of moving up. I have some concerns about his “Safe Streets” initiative, which kindles an unfortunate memory of Lorne Mayencourt. I found his safe streets stuff to be rather vague about specifics and disproportionately targeted to the “crimes” being committed by marginal or minority groups, and without any hints about how he plans to fund his initiatives, since he’s running with a party that’s opposed to new taxes. How (or if) he responds to my questions will depend on whether he gets a vote. He got extra points for having the most detailed and informative website generally (though it still could have more meat).

CARANGI, Joe    NPA: Seems to have a lot of spunk, and as is well known, I like spunk. However, he likes to spew a lot of anti-bike twaddle, so low on my list.

CARR, Adriane    GRN: I’m pre-disposed to voting Green, so Adriane was on my ‘likely’ list early on, though not without reservations. I’d like her to be a little more assertive in presenting her opinions. She’s run for office seemingly countless times and has great name recognition. If she can’t get a seat on council this time, in a race that’s almost all about name recognition, it might be time to pack it in, or start getting a little more aggressive about her campaign style.

CHARKO, Ken    NPA: Another successful businessman who thinks that’s qualification enough to be a councillor. At least, that’s all I get from his website. Seems to be of the anti-bike variety, not uncommon in the NPA. I’m grateful to him for making his business known so that I can avoid giving him my money in future by choosing somewhere other than the Dunbar to watch films.

COPELAND, Cord “Ted”    IND: Types in all-caps, doesn’t know how to spell “independent”, no website. I’m not motivated.

DEAL, Heather    VIS: I don’t really understand why Deal seems to be unpopular with the right wing ranters to a degree that seems out of proportion to other Visioners. She doesn’t strike me as someone who is a rabid ideologue. On the other hand, I’m not sure that she stands out particularly, either. Undecided.

DHARNI, Michael Singh    IND: Candidacy seems to be all about the price of parking on city streets as far as I can see. Perhaps there’s more, but since he’s another independent council candidate without a website, who knows? Hellooooo? Does the 21^st century ring a bell? Even a child can set up a website on WordPress. For free.

FOX, Amy “Evil Genius”    IND: Her website has only a video, and I don’t do video when a paragraph will work just fine (the canny among you will have noticed the hypocrisy of that statement after what I said about Dharni). Appears as a joke candidate, but on the other hand, the candidate statement on her nomination form says far more in 140 words than most other candidates could apparently say in 140 pages. Maybe we should think beyond the necktie-and-fake-smile crowd and give her a chance.

FRASER, Grant    IND: He says that he has “had to wait for as many as 16 full trains at the Broadway SkyTrain station during the morning rush hour”. I would imagine that service could be improved, but I suspect that either he can’t count or he’s simply full of shit. Has provided nothing else to go on, let alone anything that makes me want to vote for him.

GAROSSINO, Sandy    IND: An early favourite. I like her boldness, her style, her enthusiasm, her ability to challenge and criticise things that deserve it while remaining positive. She started out anti-casino, and has a lot of vision (as opposed to Vision, of course) and the ability to communicate well. Seems able to work with many kinds of people. Should go far, if she can beat the “independent” odds. Might even make a good mayor. Deserves your vote – she’s almost certain to get mine.

GILL, Lauren     RICH:Likely to be viewed as a frivolous young idealist, and perhaps she should be, for her platform is not extensive. On the other hand, it’s no less extensive than some major party candidates who will be more readily accepted. Who’s to say she’s not just as worthy?

GREGSON, Ian    DEG: The De-growth candidates, of which Gregson is one, have an uphill battle, but they are initiating important conversations that tend to be stifled and pilloried quickly by those with competing vested interests. Having some of them on council along with a variety of other views would make for a more interesting city.

JANG, Kerry    VIS: Jang’s website suggests that he’s thinking about important things and suggesting progressive, creative solutions, though the website content also appears a bit dated. I’d like to know how he actually voted on some of the things that came before council.

KERCHUM, Marie    NSV: Doesn’t have her own website, and her Twitter account contains only 10 tweets, several of which are messages to new followers that say “Hope to give you good reason to follow me.” They’re probably still waiting. Rather unimpressive video interview on NSV site.

KLASSEN, Mike    NPA: His website extols all his virtues, but says nothing about what he wants to do. There’s simply a link to the NPA Platform which, if clicked, results in a “page not found” message that says “This is somewhat embarrassing, isn’t it?” Runs the citycaucus.com “news” site, which really seems an organ for abusing political opponents and promoting… Mike Klassen! Closely linked to Gordon Campbell and Colin “HST” Hansen, which is really all I really need to know.

LAMARCHE, Jason    NPA: Well, let’s put aside the fact that I never vote for anyone who poses for a campaign photo with his dog, especially when the dog is wearing a golf shirt. The whole sexist “date matrix” thing, along with some unfortunate sexist web dictionary entries that he swears he didn’t write (but that no one believes he didn’t) pretty much finishes him off for me. For gory details, read Jeff Lee’s Sun blog (where you can also view the stupid pet trick).

LOUIE, Raymond    VIS: Has no (known) personal campaign website, and there’s a Twitter account that might be his (@ClrLouie – but has never been used to tweet). I’d like to know that he has more in mind than simply toeing the party line.

LOUIS, Tim    CPE: Louis is an interesting character. Unlike many candidates, he’s prepared to take stands, even if unpopular, and I respect that. Unfortunately, he’s a bit of a polarising figure and I don’t think ideal council material, though he’s been a councillor before. He reportedly has a woodcut of Che Guevera hanging on the back of his wheelchair, and I once saw him at a showing of the movie “Fidel” (not at the Dunbar, thank the gods) wearing a bright red “Che” shirt. Now, I’m willing to acknowledge that Cuba perhaps does a few things better, or more humanely, than we do, and perhaps armed conflict was the only real way to get rid of the (U.S. backed) mafia running Cuba way back when, but I still can’t accept that a military dictatorship is a model from which to work here and now. I wonder, if Tim were able to hold a gun, would he be campaigning for votes or running through the woods picking off enemies?

MARTIN, Terry    NSV: Not much I can say that I can’t say about the other NSV candidates.

MASSON, Chris    DEG: Another De-growth candidate. They haven’t really distinguished themselves much, so whatever I said about the previous one likely holds for this one.

MAXWELL N BUR, RH    IND: Probably a nice guy with good intentions, but not likely to attract significant attention.

MCCREERY, Bill    NPA: I don’t care what his website says. I don’t care what he tweets. He lives in Richmond. Not even just across the river, but practically in Steveston. If I were in charge, a candidate would have to actually live in the city to govern it. I suggest he run for Richmond council. Next!

MEGGS, Geoff    VIS: I think Meggs is a pretty smart guy, and obviously pays a lot of attention to the city’s business. I approve of his support for bike infrastructure, and am tentatively in favour of reconsidering the future of the viaducts. However, he does seem to have a bit of a reputation as arrogant, and may have a few enemies. I think I saw a few in suits at the transportation meeting trying to nail him on something about attendance, but he shot them down easily. I’m not sure that I can trust him to stand up to developers, but he’s tough and competent otherwise.

MURPHY, Elizabeth    NSV: Not much I can say that I can’t say about the other NSV candidates. Saw her at the transport meeting – a mediocre speaker, likely due to inexperience. I’m sure she’d get better.

NGUYEN, Bang    IND: Seems to be hedging his bets by running for both Council and School board at the same time. Claims you “can’t make every single person happy”, but then tries to do that by saying “I will not remove the bike lanes but will not add to them as well.”

NGUYEN, Marc Tan    IND: As they used to say in high school annual write ups of the nerdy, awkward, virtually unknown students: “Best of luck in your future endeavours”.

ORSER, Rick    IND: A curious candidate. Put together a pretty thorough, if slightly odd website. Not sure what to make of him.

REIMER, Andrea    VIS: I like Andrea. She seems sincere, and has Green roots. Like Jang, I’d like to know how she voted on issues in council, especially related to development, but seems a good councillor.

SHAW, Chris    DEG: Shaw was an outspoken critic of how the olympics affected Vancouver, and I appreciated his tempered, reasoned voice. A smart guy who should perhaps be given a chance to participate in government.

SPIRES, Aaron    RICH: Another voice that deserves a little more attention than we generally provide.

STEVENSON, Tim    VIS: I once stepped into an elevator containing Stevenson and greeted him with a slightly unenthusiastic “Well, well. It’s our MLA”. He (inexplicably) blurted out his admiration for then-boss Glen Clark, and beamed proudly. When in return I offered a critical comment about NDP forest policy, he clammed up. I don’t know if it’s justified, but I find him a bit of an Elwood Veitch-like pleaser of people with power.

TANG, Tony    VIS: Another candidate who says little more than that he has a wife and a dog. Some people sure don’t do much work to earn votes.

WENDYTHIRTEEN    IND: Dear Tony Tang: Please see WendyThirteen’s website for an example of how to tell voters what you think you might like to do if elected. No need, however, to mimic her hairstyle – you’d undoubtedly frighten Penny Ballem.

WONG, Francis    NPA: Cute as a button, but not much to say beyond the party-line basics.

WOODSWORTH, Ellen    CPE: Years ago, I went to a few demonstrations that inevitably featured Ellen speaking into a bullhorn. I usually didn’t stay too long, as I’m not keen on bullhorn talk generally, and listening to a left-wing manifesto being read doesn’t make it more appealing. Mind you, right-wing manifestos are no more exciting, but they sound a lot better through expensive audio systems that only the right-wingers can afford. Anyway, yes, Ellen is of the old-school Rankin-style leftist that used to dominate council. I don’t necessarily agree with all of her positions, but she’s pretty hard working and earnest and is trying to is make Vancouver better for all. Maybe I wouldn’t be keen to have ten of her on council, but I think it’s pretty important that there’s at least one.

YUEN, Bill    NPA: “Bill Yuen is a professional engineer, who specializes in process optimization and performance improv….”. Zzzzzzzz…. Huh? Oh yeah. We’re down to the last council candidate. Sorry about being at the end of the ballot, Bill. Tough break. You ought to campaign for a randomly scrambled ballot. Anyway, as far as I can tell, Bill seems to be pretty involved in community stuff. If he hasn’t made it all up, and you’re inclined to vote for an NPA candidate, he’s probably a decent choice.

Ooo000ooo

Well, there you go. My brief summary of the election took eight pages, and I haven’t even gotten to the School Board or Parks Board candidates. You see why we need a ward system, already? Perhaps I’ll get to the rest before Saturday. If not, best of luck. I’ll need it too.

If you’d like my working spreadsheet, which contains all the candidates along with (if known/relevant) their party’s website links, personal website links, and Twitter feed links, feel free to view it here.

Update – Nov 19 @ 16:58h:

Late circumstances have caused me to drop the three NPA candidates that I had on my list: 1) The offensive chicken stunt held near city hall yesterday; 2) Bickerton’s failure to acknowledge, let alone reply to, my e-mail; 3) The reports that the NPA had hired lawyers to prevent identification- and home-deprived people in the DTES from voting.Best of luck to the rest of the party and independent candidates that I selected!

edwardsblock.com

It is frequently asserted by media pundits that, in Canadian federal politics, the Liberal Party campaigns from the left and governs from the right. Whether you agree with this or not depends on where you sit, ideologically, on the political spectrum. If you’re a contemporary conservative, you may be of the opinion that the Liberal Party is only barely rightward of Leninism. If you’re a more left-leaning New Democrat, you probably see little practical difference between Conservatives and Liberals, except that Liberals tend to keep their social policy reactionaries more or less subdued.

One might also say that the Conservative Party campaigns from the right and governs from centre, or that the New Democratic Party campaigns from the left and governs from the… uh, from the imagination. The NDP has never come even remote close to power federally, and until last week it was widely presumed that it never would.

However, in a peculiar turn of events, Canada’s third party, also known as Canada’s conscience, has suddenly and inexplicably leapt ahead in the polls with one week left in the election campaign, to the point that the Globe and Mail recently reported that the NDP might take 100 seats in parliament if the trend holds until Monday’s election. Most of the gain is said to be taking place in Quebec, at the expense of the Bloc Québécois, but the media are telling us of a spill-over effect in which the NDP are suddenly rising in the polls in much of the country.

It says a lot about the appeal of the other leaders when a bald, clumsy cyclist with prostate cancer and a fractured hip is seemingly on the verge of ruining the careers of guys with piles of money and the backing of powerful corporate interests. That’s not to say that all (ok, most) of those things should be taken into account when choosing a prime minister. Personally, I find it a little refreshing to see a major (male) politician who embraces his own natural hair loss proudly instead of wearing a toupee, especially one that looks like it was stolen from Ernest Angley.

If a random sampling of my Facebook acquaintances is a reliable indication, even the NDP faithful are surprised at the current turn of events, but they are nonetheless getting excited, even celebratory. And why shouldn’t they? Isn’t this what they’ve been working toward for so long?

I have to admit, I’m a little excited about this development myself. It’s not that I’m particularly sympathetic to the NDP: I’ve only voted for the party once in my life, and that had more to do with dislike for an opponent than affection for the NDP candidate. Exciting to me is that: A) voter participation appears to be set to increase considerably; B) that a shake-up of the established order seems possible; and C) that Quebec may be on the verge of rejoining the national conversation.

I’m also a little apprehensive, though. I wonder if my NDP friends are giving much thought to the longer term? It’s one thing to throw a wrench in the works and enjoy the gnashing of gears; I’m rather looking forward to that myself. Politics is very much about long-term strategy, however, and no one in this country is more aware of that, and no one is working it as tirelessly, as Stephen Harper.

What are the likely outcomes in this election? One is that Harper will win another minority, and in all likelihood – Ignatieff’s denials notwithstanding – he will quickly be deposed in favour of a coalition of the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc. It’s difficult to imagine any other result if Harper once again secures the most votes but fails to achieve a majority.

Unless there is a tidal change in affection for Michael Ignatieff in the next few days (which is also difficult to imagine), and assuming that the NDP poll numbers don’t dissipate when the actual time comes to cast real ballots, as it often does, the other potential outcome is an NDP plurality.

Which do you think that Stephen Harper – if he’s going to lose either way – would prefer? Harper’s not interested in perpetually revolving door opportunities for minority power. He may be a sleazy, scum-sucking, preacher-haired, far right, Rapture-inspired, warmongering, Christian fundamentalist zealot, but he’s not stupid. This man is a master tactician. He has longer-term ideas, and I can’t imagine that he’s not sitting in the lavatory of his campaign plane right now, fantasising about a coalition of the centre-left, practically orgasmic at the prospect of the NDP gaining a plurality. Think of it as sort of an auto-erotic mile-high club for wonks.

What if the NDP does get a plurality of votes? My NDP friends seem to imagine that all of the Liberals and all of the Bloc will fall in line to support a Layton Prime Ministership, if only to keep Stephen Harper out of office. And they might be right. But then what?

A minority Prime Minister Layton probably won’t be able to undertake any dramatically radical changes to Canadian society without losing the support of the more rightward members of the Liberal Party, on which they will rely for support. At any rate, Layton has, throughout his leadership, positioned himself as more of a left-leaning Liberal anyway. If Canadians do support the NDP, it will be this centrist party that they are supporting, not the NDP of its Waffle Manifesto origins. Layton will have no mandate to undertake significant moves toward a socialist vision, even if he were inclined to do so.

Such a minority will probably last for at least a couple of years, and in the interim, the Liberal Party will probably implode and gradually cease to exist, except for a few stubborn rump members. Some Liberals will join the NDP, certainly. But if New Democrats believe that the two parties will simply combine, and thenceforth recreate a natural governing party that will dominate Ottawa for years, I think they are quite mistaken. There are a lot of people who support the Liberal Party who are wealthy, of old money, and while these Liberals are averse to the religious fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism of the Harper right, they care more about maintaining their wealth than they do about social justice. When push comes to shove, many will decamp for the Conservative Party, even if they have to hold their noses in doing so.

Jump ahead to, say, 2015. Prime Minister Layton has been embarrassed by a string of controversies by some of his new, inexperienced MPs, many of whom had been nominated without much thought because they had no chance of winning back in 2011 anyway. He is vastly unpopular with his own base because he’s been unable to satisfy their social-democratic demands while he tries to maintain power. Those Liberal party supporters who’d been sustaining the party financially have all lost interest. A pack of Liberal MPs cross the floor to the Conservatives, and soon after the Layton government is brought down by a motion of non-confidence. In the subsequent election, the Conservatives win a massive majority, chiefly because many disillusioned leftist New Democrats stayed home, and because three quarters of the Liberal Party voted Conservative out of self-interest.

And what, then, will be the longer-term result of polarisation? We need only look at British Columbia, or the United States, to see how much a part of mainstream public discourse is the subject of social justice. This, perhaps, will be Jack Layton’s legacy for Canada. He watered down his message in order to get closer to the seat of power, and in the process, perhaps, history will find that he strengthened the position of the right, and helped to eliminate strongly social-justice related discourse from the public conversation. Before he got ambitious, Canada had a visible, audible social conscience. It served Canada well. Now, I fear, the message will vanish altogether.

Of course, it may not work out this way. But I feel pretty confident that at this moment, Stephen Harper is sitting in that lavatory, rubbing his hands (or whatever) in glee at the prospect of the polarisation of Canada’s parliament. The bastard’s a warrior, and successful warriors don’t think just about battles.

edwardsblock.com