Benjamin Netanyahu: The Political Survivor Who Has Finally Run Out of Road

Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ISRAEL AT THE CROSSROADS: Will October 27 Finally Bring an End to the Reign of Benjamin Netanyahu?

After years of political turmoil, the catastrophe of October 7, 2023, the devastation of Gaza and an increasingly bitter confrontation over the future of Israeli democracy, voters face a question tomorrow that reaches far beyond the fate of one prime minister: Can Israel change direction without changing its fundamental understanding of its place in the Middle East?

On Tuesday, October 27, 2026, Israelis go to the polls in an election that could finally bring down Benjamin Netanyahu, the man who has dominated Israeli politics for much of the past three decades.

For Netanyahu, 76, the stakes could hardly be higher. His Likud party faces a formidable challenge from an opposition led by former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot. Polling published in the final days of the campaign places Eisenkot’s party, Yashar, ahead of Likud, while suggesting that Netanyahu’s existing coalition is unlikely to retain its parliamentary majority. Yet, as anyone who has followed Israeli politics knows, defeating Netanyahu at the ballot box and assembling a government capable of replacing him are two very different propositions.

This is a contest about much more than personalities. It is a referendum on the political consequences of October 7, 2023, the future of Israeli democracy, the country’s relationship with the Palestinians, the increasingly strained relationship with its international partners, and the question of whether Israel can emerge from years of war with a credible vision of peace.

For VanRamblings readers, there is also a more uncomfortable question: if Netanyahu loses, will Israel actually change, or will it simply replace one right-wing government with another that manages the conflict rather than resolving it?

Netanyahu’s Political Career Has Been Extraordinary

First elected prime minister in 1996, after defeating Shimon Peres, he subsequently returned to power in 2009 and remained prime minister until 2021. After a brief period in opposition, he returned to office in December 2022, leading what became one of the most right-wing and religiously conservative governments in Israel’s history.

His political genius has always been his ability to persuade a substantial portion of the Israeli electorate that, whatever his personal shortcomings, he is the indispensable guardian of the Jewish state.

Netanyahu speaks the language of national security fluently. He has cultivated a close relationship with American conservatives, positioned himself as an implacable opponent of Iran’s regional ambitions and repeatedly presented his leadership as the only reliable defence against Israel’s enemies.

But his extraordinary longevity has come at a cost.

His latest government depended on far-right nationalist politicians, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, whose positions on Palestinian territory, Israeli settlements and the treatment of Palestinians have alarmed international observers and many Israelis.

Before October 7, Netanyahu’s proposed overhaul of Israel’s judiciary prompted enormous demonstrations. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets to oppose measures they believed would weaken judicial independence and undermine the checks and balances essential to a functioning democracy.

The protests exposed a country deeply divided over its identity: a liberal, democratic state governed by the rule of law, or a state in which an increasingly powerful nationalist and religious coalition could reshape its institutions to protect its own political interests.

Then came October 7.

October 7, 2023: The failure that changed everything

The Hamas-led attack on southern Israel was the deadliest assault in the country’s history. Approximately 1,200 people were killed, and 251 were taken hostage. Communities were devastated, families were shattered, and Israelis experienced a profound collapse of their sense of security.

Three years later, the central political question remains unavoidable: how could a country with Israel’s formidable military and intelligence capabilities have suffered such a catastrophic failure?

Netanyahu has argued that responsibility for the intelligence and security failures was shared across the country’s security establishment. His critics counter that a prime minister who has spent years presenting himself as Israel’s indispensable security expert cannot escape responsibility for the greatest security disaster on his watch.

Reports that foreign officials warned of an impending threat before the attack have intensified scrutiny. Netanyahu denies allegations that he knowingly disregarded advance warnings, and those allegations must be distinguished from established findings. But his refusal to authorize an independent state commission of inquiry has reinforced suspicions that he is more concerned with preserving his political future than establishing the full truth.

The families of those killed, survivors of the attack and relatives of hostages have demanded accountability. Their anger has become one of the defining forces of the election campaign.

Netanyahu has sought to counter that anger by pointing to Israel’s military operations against Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. For his supporters, those operations demonstrate his determination to defend the country. For his opponents, battlefield achievements cannot erase the failure that allowed October 7 to happen.

The question facing voters is whether they are prepared to accept another term from a leader who, in their view, has already had his opportunity to demonstrate that he can keep them safe.

Who could replace Netanyahu?

Gadi Eisenkot, Israeli general, politician, leader of the Yashar party, former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, advocate for a two-state solution with the Palestinians

The opposition is not a single, ideologically unified movement. It is a collection of parties whose common objective is to remove Netanyahu, but whose views on security, Palestinian statehood, religion and domestic policy differ considerably.

Gadi Eisenkot and Yashar have emerged as a central force in the campaign. A former military chief of staff, Eisenkot presents himself as a disciplined, relatively unpretentious alternative to Netanyahu. He promises more accountable government and a return to competent administration, while retaining a hard-line approach to national security.

Eisenkot’s appeal is particularly significant among Israelis who remain politically conservative but have lost confidence in Netanyahu’s leadership. He offers them an opportunity to change the government without embracing a dramatic leftward shift in Israeli politics.

Naftali Bennett, Israeli politician, served as the Prime Minister of Israel from 2021 to 2022, alternate PM, July to November 2022, Minister without portfolio 2023 to 2024 in unity government

Yair Lapid, former journalist, Israeli lawmaker and leader of centrist Yesh Atid party

Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid are another important part of the opposition picture. Their political partnership recalls the coalition that removed Netanyahu from office in 2021. Bennett, a former prime minister and religious nationalist, is hawkish on security and opposed to Palestinian statehood. Lapid, a centrist former prime minister, represents a more secular and liberal political tradition.

Yair Golan, leader of The Democrats, former Labour Party leader, reserve major general in the IDF

Yair Golan and The Democrats occupy a more explicitly social democratic position.

Golan, a former deputy chief of staff of the IDF, leads a party bringing together elements of Israel’s Labour and Meretz traditions. His political priorities include democratic institutions, social equality, opposition to West Bank annexation and greater accountability for settler violence.

Avigdor Lieberman, served as Minister of Finance 2021-2022, Deputy PM, 2006-2008 and 2009-2012

Other significant players include Avigdor Lieberman, a nationalist politician whose Yisrael Beiteinu party has clashed with the ultra-Orthodox establishment, and the Arab-led parties, whose parliamentary representation could prove decisive.

The fundamental difficulty for Netanyahu’s opponents is that their agreement on removing him does not necessarily translate into agreement on what should follow.

The likely election result: A defeat for Netanyahu, but not necessarily a new government

The latest polling available as of October 19 suggests that Netanyahu’s coalition is in serious trouble.

An election polling average puts the outgoing coalition at approximately 50 seats, well short of the 61 required for a Knesset majority. Eisenkot’s Yashar has been leading the party standings in most recent polls. But the opposition parties, taken together, have not established an indisputable path to a stable governing majority.

Israel elects its 120-member Knesset through proportional representation. Voters choose party lists, not a prime minister directly. The president subsequently consults political representatives and entrusts a member of the Knesset with attempting to form a government.

Consequently, the party winning the most seats does not automatically govern.

The Arab vote could be pivotal. Palestinian citizens of Israel constitute roughly one-fifth of the population, and Arab-led parties may hold the balance of power if the election produces a closely divided parliament. Yet both Netanyahu and major opposition figures have resisted committing to coalition arrangements with Arab parties, creating a potentially self-defeating obstacle to a change of government.  

VanRamblings’ assessment is that Netanyahu is more likely than not to lose his governing majority. Whether he actually leaves office will depend on the coalition negotiations that follow.

Another inconclusive election, followed by weeks of bargaining and political deadlock, remains entirely possible.

Could Eisenkot and Golan share power?

Possible: a coalition of Eisenkot (left), a security focused centrist, and Golan’s social democrats

One potentially attractive scenario for Netanyahu’s opponents would be a broad government bringing together Eisenkot’s security-focused centrists and Golan’s social democrats, with Bennett and Lapid or other centrists providing additional parliamentary support.

In such an arrangement, Eisenkot could plausibly take responsibility for national security and defense, while Golan and The Democrats press for a more socially progressive domestic programme.

It is an appealing division of labour on paper. A former military chief would oversee Israel’s defence, while a politician from the social democratic tradition would concentrate on domestic governance, democratic institutions and social cohesion.

But this should be understood as a possible political arrangement, not a confirmed agreement assigning those portfolios to Eisenkot and Golan. The opposition has not demonstrated that it can assemble a majority around that specific formula.

The differences would be substantial. Eisenkot is a security hawk who has rejected Palestinian statehood as presently proposed and supports strengthening some Israeli settlements. Golan has been more explicit about halting annexation and confronting extremist settler violence.

Their coalition would have to reconcile those positions while addressing the ultra-Orthodox exemption from military service, the cost of living, judicial independence, strained relations with Washington and the immense expense of rebuilding communities damaged by war.

The challenge would be to demonstrate that replacing Netanyahu means more than replacing the people occupying his ministers’ chairs.

Donald Trump and Netanyahu: An alliance of political convenience

Netanyahu and Donald Trump have cultivated one of the most consequential relationships in modern Middle Eastern politics.

During Trump’s first presidency, the United States recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved its embassy there and recognised Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The Trump administration also brokered the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states.

Netanyahu presented these developments as historic diplomatic achievements. His relationship with Trump reinforced his reputation as an internationally influential leader capable of securing American support.

Yet the relationship has always been transactional. Trump prizes displays of strength and political loyalty; Netanyahu needs American military assistance, diplomatic protection and support against Iran.

On October 18, Trump publicly endorsed Netanyahu, describing him as a formidable ally against Iran. The endorsement may energise Netanyahu’s supporters, but it also underscores the extent to which the Israeli prime minister has attached his political fortunes to an American president whose own priorities can change rapidly.  

Trump’s support is no guarantee of electoral success. Israeli voters, particularly those who believe their government failed them on October 7, will make their decision based on their own country’s experience.

Gaza, genocide allegations and the question of international justice

No discussion of Netanyahu’s future can avoid Gaza.

Israel’s military campaign following October 7 has devastated the territory, destroying homes, hospitals, schools and much of its civilian infrastructure. The resulting humanitarian catastrophe has generated international condemnation and allegations of grave violations of international law.

Netanyahu’s government insists that its war aims have centred on defeating Hamas and preventing another October 7. Hamas’s deliberate killing of civilians and hostage-taking were grave crimes. But the crimes committed by Hamas do not absolve Israel of its own obligations under international humanitarian law.

The legal distinction surrounding genocide is particularly important.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), often called the World Court, is considering South Africa’s case alleging that Israel has violated the Genocide Convention. The proceedings remain ongoing. The court’s provisional measures were not a final determination that genocide had occurred.

Separately, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu on November 21, 2024. The warrant concerns alleged war crimes, including starvation as a method of warfare, and crimes against humanity, including murder and persecution. It is not an arrest warrant charging him with genocide.

International Criminal Court. These are different courts with different mandates. The ICJ adjudicates disputes between states; it does not prosecute individual political leaders. The ICC prosecutes individuals for international crimes within its jurisdiction.

Could Netanyahu eventually face additional legal consequences, including proceedings related to genocide? Further legal developments are possible, but no outcome should be presented as predetermined. The relevant courts must assess the evidence and applicable law.

A defeat at the ballot box would not extinguish existing legal proceedings. Nor would it automatically lead to his arrest. Accountability depends on the courts, the evidence, and the willingness of states to honour their legal obligations.

What would a post-Netanyahu Israel look like?

A change of government could restore a measure of confidence in Israeli institutions, improve relations with European governments and reopen space for more pragmatic diplomacy with Arab states.

It could also permit an independent investigation into October 7, a reassessment of military priorities and a less confrontational relationship between the government and Israel’s judiciary.

A post-Netanyahu Israel should not be confused with a post-Netanyahu political ideology.

Eisenkot and Bennett are not advocates of an immediate Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Palestinian territory. Both are national security conservatives, and neither offers a straightforward path to Palestinian sovereignty.

For Palestinians, therefore, a Netanyahu defeat may offer some relief without delivering the transformation they need.

In Gaza, the immediate priorities must be durable security arrangements, humanitarian access, reconstruction, functioning hospitals and schools, and a legitimate Palestinian civil administration capable of governing without Hamas’s armed rule or indefinite Israeli military control.

Reconstruction cannot simply mean clearing rubble while leaving Palestinians without political rights, economic opportunity or control over their future.

The West Bank presents a different but equally serious challenge. Settlement expansion, settler violence, restrictions on Palestinian movement and proposals for annexation threaten to make a viable Palestinian state increasingly difficult to establish. Recent attacks on Palestinians and foreign observers have demonstrated the urgency of confronting extremist violence and ensuring accountability.  

Any new Israeli government that genuinely wishes to restore international credibility must confront these issues rather than merely changing the rhetoric surrounding them.

Is a two-state solution still possible?

The two-state solution — an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, with mutually agreed arrangements for borders, security, Jerusalem and refugees — remains the most widely recognised diplomatic framework for resolving the conflict.

It is also in danger of becoming an aspiration without a constituency powerful enough to realize it.

Israeli public opinion remains deeply sceptical, shaped by decades of violence and the trauma of October 7. Palestinian public opinion is likewise marked by distrust, dispossession, political division and the destruction of Gaza. Recent research from the Pew Research Center illustrates the profound pessimism on both sides about peaceful coexistence.  

Yet the alternatives are hardly reassuring: permanent occupation, recurring wars, further settlement expansion, or a single political territory in which millions of Palestinians remain without equal rights.

A viable two-state agreement would require Israeli recognition that Palestinians have a right to self-determination, alongside credible security guarantees for Israel. It would require Palestinian leadership capable of governing legitimately, preventing attacks on civilians and negotiating a settlement. It would also require sustained international engagement, including meaningful participation by the United States and Arab states.

None of this will happen overnight. Nor will it happen simply because Netanyahu is gone.

But a government that rejects annexation, curbs settler violence, supports Palestinian civil governance in Gaza and engages seriously with a negotiated political settlement could begin to reverse the forces making peace increasingly unattainable.

October 27: More than a referendum on one man

Benjamin Netanyahu has survived political defeats, fractured coalitions, mass protests, corruption proceedings and extraordinary international pressure. His ability to outlast opponents has made him appear almost invulnerable.

This election may finally prove otherwise.

If Netanyahu loses, Israel will have an opportunity to begin repairing the damage inflicted on its democratic institutions, its international standing and its own citizens’ confidence in government. But the opportunity will be squandered if his successors merely reproduce his security policies under a less divisive public face.

A new government must be judged not only by whether it restores administrative competence, but by whether it can imagine a future beyond perpetual war.

For Israelis, that means security, accountability and a government that answers to its citizens. For Palestinians, it means survival, freedom, political representation and the right to determine their own future.

For the wider Middle East, it means replacing an endless cycle of violence with a political settlement that recognises the rights and security of both peoples.

Peace is not inevitable. Nor is it impossible.

The question facing Israeli voters on October 27 is whether they are prepared to give their country a chance to pursue something beyond the politics of fear — and whether the leaders waiting to replace Netanyahu possess the courage to take that chance.

For all the uncertainty surrounding this election, one thing is clear: removing Benjamin Netanyahu would be a consequential beginning. It would not, by itself, be the end of Israel’s political crisis, the end of the occupation, or the beginning of peace.

That harder work would start the morning after the ballots are counted.

#BCPoli | Prepare for a Change In Government

BC Politics, Politics, Vancouver, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On Tuesday, September 22, 2026, BC NDP Premier David Eby — contrary to the demand of his Cabinet, and members of his caucus — announced a snap election, after meeting with Lieutenant-Governor Wendy Cocchia at Government House in Victoria. That means, Election Day is this Saturday, October 24th, one week after  municipal elections across British Columbia this past Saturday, October 17th. The upcoming election this Saturday is our province’s 44th provincial general election since Confederation.

David Eby’s 2026 B.C. election campaign: 20 major promises

David Eby began his campaign for re-election as British Columbia Premier on September 22, 2026, with a central message: protect jobs, make life more affordable, strengthen public services and build a more self-reliant provincial economy amid the trade dispute with the United States.

Two early announcements were particularly significant. On September 18, before formally calling the election, Eby announced a pause in the planned expansion of the provincial sales tax (PST) to professional services and said future BC Ferries vessels would be built in British Columbia. The PST delay was estimated to save businesses, local governments and others approximately $260 million in 2026–27.

Here, then is a curated list of commitments, based on the BC NDP’s published campaign material and election coverage available as of October 21, 2026.

Taxes, affordability and the cost of living

  • 1. Pause the PST expansion. Delay the planned application of the provincial sales tax to professional services until well after the U.S. trade war ends. The initial pause was announced on September 18;
  • 2. Cut gasoline and diesel prices. Suspend 10 cents per litre of the provincial motor fuel tax, with the NDP projecting that its combined measures could reduce pump prices by as much as 30 cents per litre. Plus, cracking down on excessive fuel prices, by giving the BC Utilities Commission a stronger role in enforcing pricing rules and limiting excessive industry margins;
  • 3. Limit grocery markups on essential foods. Cap retail profit margins on products such as milk, eggs, cheese, butter and poultry. As well as combat algorithmic price discrimination. Strengthen consumer-protection and privacy laws to restrict AI-powered pricing practices that charge consumers different prices based on their personal data;
  • 4. Freeze ICBC insurance rates for another three years. Extend the existing rate freeze, bringing the proposed period of frozen rates to a decade;
  • 5. Ask higher-income earners to contribute more. Increase provincial income-tax rates for the top two tax brackets and establish a new bracket for annual income above $1 million. The NDP says the changes would affect fewer than 4% of income earners and raise approximately $1 billion annually.

Jobs, manufacturing and economic independence

  • 6. Build the next generation of BC Ferries in British Columbia. Require future vessels to be built in Canada, expand the provincial shipbuilding industry and develop a Made-in-B.C. shipbuilding strategy, as well as establish a new B.C. shipyward, working with the federal government, shipbuilders and organized labour to develop a new shipyard, with up to $250 million available provincially to leverage private and federal investment;
  • 7. Create dedicated support for forestry manufacturers. Help tariff-affected mills modernize, produce higher-value products, reduce costs and find customers outside the United States;
  • 8. Prioritize B.C. and Canadian-made products. Introduce purchasing rules for provincial ministries, Crown corporations and health authorities to favour locally and nationally produced goods and materials where viable;
  • 9. Double critical-mineral production and exports, while expanding the capacity of the Port of Prince Rupert, doubling B.C.’s critical-mineral production and exports within five years, strengthening trade links beyond the United States;
  • 10. Help small businesses survive tariffs and wildfires. Continue targeted assistance, including interest-free loans of up to $1 million for eligible businesses through the Small Business Tariff & Wildfire Relief Fund. While also helping small businesses hire young workers. Offer a $5,000 refundable tax credit to eligible small businesses hiring a young person aged 18–30 for their first full-time, 12-month job;
  • 11. Expand food processing in B.C. Make use of eligible Agricultural Land Reserve properties poorly suited to primary food production, while protecting prime farmland and creating local processing jobs.

Health care and seniors

  • 12. Triple recruitment of health-care workers from the United States. Expand efforts to attract American doctors, nurses and other health professionals to work in B.C.;
  • 13. Make shingles vaccination free for everyone aged 50 and older. Expand access to vaccination by removing the cost for eligible adults in this age group.

Housing and child care

  • 14. Turn more empty condominiums into affordable homes. Pursue measures to bring more vacant condo units into use as homes people can afford;
  • 15. Add 7,200 before- and after-school child-care spaces. Expand school-based care to help parents find convenient care for school-aged children. While Introducing a universal child-care fee cap on child-care fees, modelled on Ontario’s approach.

Transportation and public infrastructure

  • 16. Give local residents priority in BC Ferries reservations. Introduce a pilot reserving 12% of advance-booking space for local residents;
  • 17. Increase funding for public transit. Add $40 million annually to BC Transit funding to expand bus service, improve connections between communities, while delivering rapid bus transit in Metro Vancouver, making seniors’ bus passes free for low-income seniors and extending free transit passes to an estimated 350,000 eligible seniors across B.C.;
  • 18. Double provincial funding for public libraries. Permanently increase annual provincial library funding from $14 million to $28 million.

Environment, public safety and community support

  • 19. Protect more of B.C.’s land and water. Continue the commitment to protect 30% of the province’s land and water by 2030. Plus, fund climate action through new resource revenues. Dedicate a portion of provincial revenue from new oil and gas development to climate programs, beginning with a proposed $50-million investment;
  • 20. Expand involuntary care options in the Okanagan. Advance plans to increase access to involuntary mental-health and addiction treatment for people who meet the applicable criteria. Also, strengthen protections against gangs, guns and extortion. Make organized crime and extortion a campaign priority, with additional measures aimed at protecting communities and businesses.

For all of the commitments made to the citizens of British Columbia by the David Eby BC NDP government seeking re-election, in all of the polls published in the final week of the election campaign, it would seem David Eby is on his way to ignominious defeat this upcoming Saturday evening.

With each passing day the polls and the projected seat count for what now appears to be the outgoing British Columbia New Democratic government only worsens.

Below you will find the results of intensive polling conducted in all 93 riding across British Columbia. First up, focusing mainly on Metro Vancouver.

Not bad for the BC NDP: 35 NDP; 2 Greens; 12 Conservatives. Next up: the Interior.

The entire rest of the province is turning blue. There are few, if any, safe seats for David Eby’s BC NPD outside of the Metro Vancouver region, with a handful of seats on Vancouver Island, and one on the Sunshine Coast.

The only question that remains is: what will David Eby do on Election Night? Speculation is that if the election is a rout, and Mr. Eby’s party is only able to secure 29 or so seats — a possible outcome according to internal polls conducted by the Conservative Party of British Columbia — Mr. Eby will resign as leader of the BC NPD on Election Night.

VanRamblings would prefer that Mr. Eby tender his resignation in the new year.

Prior to calling the snap election, David Eby made a commitment to the members of his Cabinet and caucus: if he were to win anything less than a comfortable majority on Election Night, he would resign the leadership of the BC NDP this upcoming late winter / early spring, in order that a New Democratic Party leadership contest might be called by the party brass. Chances are the leadership convention would occur in late March, or early April, when a new leader of the party would be chosen by the party membership.

The heir apparent party membership wants: Brad West, the popular three-term Mayor of Port Coquitlam, former Executive Assistant to BC NDP Minister Mike Farnworth and a former communications and political action co-ordinator for the United Steelworkers (USW) union in B.C. There is little doubt that Ravi Kahlon and Christine Boyle would mount effective, well-run, well-financed campaigns for the party leadership, as well.

With the help of her brother-in-law Avi Lewis, the leader of the federal NDP, there is little doubt that Ms. Boyle and her backers and supporters would mount a strong campaign. Not to mention which, Dr. Cailey Lynch, the Premier’s better half, would support a run by Christine Boyle to ascend to the leadership.

Ravi Kahlon — one of the most reliable and most competent Ministers in the BC NDP government this past 9+ years — wants the leadership, feels he is owed the leadership of the party so badly that he can almost taste it.

What does a government led by Conservative Party of British Columbia “interim” leader Lorne Doerkson mean for the people of British Columbia? In a word: chaos.

Lorne Doerkson is not the leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, he is only the “interim” leader of the party, even if he becomes the Premier.

The constitution of B.C.’s Conservative party requires a leadership contest be held to elect their leader.

The Conservative Party’s Board of Directors have been attempting to convince elected members not to run against Mr. Doerkson, such that he would be acclaimed leader.

If you believe that is a likely scenario, we have a bridge we’d like to sell you, cheap.

You just know the whack job / far right / conspiracy theorist / freedom convoy element in the party will run one of their elected members for the leadership, and mount a campaign to have her or him become the 44th Premier of the province of British Columbia.

So, all the time that a Premier Doerkson should be attempting to put a government into place, rather than focus on the tasks at hand, he’d be traveling across the province during the first five weeks of his new administration, attempting to keep the job British Columbians elected him to.

Only in the wild west of B.C. politics could such a disastrous scenario unfold.

#VanPoli | Vancouver Council’s Priorities Early in Their New Term of Office

#VanElxn 2026, #VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, Canada, City Development Planning, Housing, News, Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Votes 2026, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(Re-published article, written by Isabella Zavarise for CTV Vancouver News)

Vancouver Councillors Pledge to Reverse Previous Council’s Decisions

Vancouver City Councillors say they’re ready to get to work and deliver on their campaign promises, following a new term that will see a left-leaning council led by the city’s first Green Party Mayor.

On Saturday, Vancouverites elected four Councillors from COPE and the Vancouver Green Party, as well as Lucy Maloney with One City and ABC’s Mike Klassen.

The Greens and COPE are already committing to some shared promises such as reviewing the city’s budget.

COPE City Councillor Sean Orr, who received the highest number of votes of any Council candidate, with 83,038, said that will be one of his first priorities following inauguration in November.

“We didn’t see a lot of transparency in the last budget,” he said.

“It was famously very small. It wasn’t line-by-line. So, we need to go in and look at that and see the mess that we can clean up, see some opportunities as well for some cost savings.”

Annette Reilly, a newly elected City Councillor with the Greens, agreed, adding that once the budget is reviewed, the party would like to re-introduce some of the initiatives that were scrapped in the previous four years under ABC, such as the Renters Office which was shuttered in 2023, and the Equity Office which closed last year.

Reilly said she wants to champion renewing leases for co-ops, and address faster permitting for child-care spaces.

“That’s something I’d like to focus on right away,” she said.

Both Orr, Maloney and Reilly support reversing the ban on net-new supportive housing.

Orr said he will also be initiating a motion to bring back the city’s Living Wage Policy, which was scrapped in January, and will advocate for greater funding for libraries and recreation centers.

“Vancouver does have a lot of money, and we can fully fund the things that make Vancouver great, like our arts organizations,” he said.

COPE’s platform included a mansion tax, which would impose a one per cent tax on homes over $5 million to pay for public housing.

“We definitely think that there’s a lot of wealth in Vancouver, and that wealth can be redistributed,” said Orr.

As for the Vancouver Police budget, Orr said he believes there will be cost savings there.

He added that he supports the Greens’ campaign promise to introduce a Community Response Outreach Workers Team to respond to non-emergency calls regarding homelessness, public intoxication, and mental health crises.

“Getting mental health off of the plate of the police,” Orr said.

“We know that they don’t want to be doing that work either, and we need to be addressing that proactively, not re-actively.”

Both Orr and Reilly added they’re looking forward to the next term, and plan to work across party lines.

Lucy Maloney, with One City, said, “Vancouver residents have clearly expressed their desire for a progressive majority working collaboratively.”

Maloney added she’s committed to deliver results residents expect, “by drawing on our diverse perspectives.”

ABC’s Mike Klassen shared a similar sentiment, adding he looks forward to working constructively with his colleagues, regardless of political affiliation.

“I recognize that my role this term will be different, but I’ll seek common ground wherever possible while ensuring Vancouverites have a strong, independent voice at City Hall.”

There is a great deal of work to be undertaken by the incoming Vancouver Council.

#BCPoli | A Must-Read Note from Port Coquitlam Mayor Brad West

#CdnPoli | Canadian Politics, BC Politics, canadian politics, Politics, , , , , , , , ,

Image

Thoughts From The Campaign Trail! | Brad West 

As we look at election results from across the province, there is no doubt that voters have sent a message.

I know there will be plenty of commentators offering their interpretations of what that message is. I wanted to share a few thoughts about what I believe voters are trying to tell us.

People are looking for competence from their government, not ideology.

Politics can sometimes attract people who are more motivated by a desire to reshape society in their own image than by the practical responsibilities of governing. But I don’t believe that’s where most voters are.

First and foremost, people want government to do its job. They want it to deliver the basic services we all depend on, and to deliver them well. At the municipal level, that means good recreation centres, clean parks, potholes filled, snow removed, safe neighbourhoods and responsible management of property taxes.

Getting the basics right has been my mantra since the day I walked into City Hall. And I believe the people of Port Coquitlam have responded to that approach. Second, people want results they can actually see and feel. That means being upfront, honest and realistic about what we can accomplish.

Increasingly, I see politicians making grandiose promises designed to capture attention and win votes, even when those promises are completely detached from reality. And when those promises inevitably go unfulfilled, the damage goes well beyond the politician who made them. It erodes people’s trust and confidence in government itself.

That’s one of the reasons I place so much importance on delivering core public services exceptionally well.

It doesn’t mean government shouldn’t be ambitious. Quite the opposite. We should have big aspirations for our communities and our province. We should want to tackle difficult problems and make life better for people. But we also have to be honest about what is possible, realistic about what it takes, and accountable for what we promise.

Focusing on the basics: With the lowest property taxes in the Metro Vancouver region over the past eight years, Mayor Brad West and Council still managed to build and open a new community centre in each of their two terms in office, while at the same time building social and affordable housing.

When government consistently gets the small things right, it earns the trust and confidence necessary to take on the bigger challenges.

Finally, I think people are looking for a return to some normalcy in our politics.


Re-elected COPE Councillor Sean Orr has emerged as the thoughtful voice of a generation, the  reasoning and most reasonable political figure to emerge in Vancouver politics in decades.

I think people are exhausted by politics built around division, hostility and the demonization of anyone who happens to see the world differently. I can’t think of many other parts of our lives where we would consider that acceptable behaviour.

When I’m at the rink or the field watching my two boys, I talk with other parents who have all kinds of different opinions and perspectives. We don’t necessarily agree about politics or everything happening in the world. But I can tell you one thing we do agree on. We all want our kids to be happy, healthy and have the best possible shot at a good life. And I think that says something important about who we really are.

I don’t believe the public is nearly as divided as some politicians would have us believe. I don’t believe we’re locked in some do-or-die struggle where one side has all the answers and everyone on the other side is beyond redemption. That’s not how we behave in our families. It’s not how we behave at work. It’s not how we behave on teams. And it’s not how we should behave in our politics.

We can disagree without being enemies. We can have different beliefs without questioning one another’s character. And we can recognize that, despite our differences, most of us want many of the same things for ourselves, our families and our communities.

I believe there’s far more that brings us together than pulls us apart.

And I believe government works best when it focuses on those things we have in common, earns the public’s trust through actions and results (usually smaller, incremental ones), and stays firmly planted where the vast majority of normal people are.