James Trek II - The Wrath of Kwan

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture

remind wrote:

Well, you can feel that way all you want Cue, but I am not trying to misrepresent anything, you and kropotkin are inferring things about Elmore based upon yourselves and your beliefs of what her behaviour and actions might be.

The history that you both have contempt for James and those who are allegedly controlling her, provide the foundation of a disparaging pictorial of Elmore and her actions for supporting James.

Neither of your historical comments are stand alone to this occasion. They can't be. Nor can your giving hypotheticals of what you believe Elmore is doing, as if they were fact.

Anyhow, I bear no ill regard towards you about it, I just wish you would stop inferring others, especially women, would act and believe as you do.

You are even misrepresenting yourself. In the first case you said that I "stated" that Elmore was a hypocrite, and now you are saying I was inferring it. Nope. Never said that. And never inferred it either. In fact, I was pointing out that taking a stand with the party leadership was not necessarily hypocritical at all.

In point of fact, I was going to move on to point out that there were very good reasons to take such a position since James has actually promised a leadership review in November 2011, and that some might consider that since such a process was under way, that pre-empting that was perhaps a little problematic from the point of view of organizational ethics, just because some people felt it would be strategically better to have the review, before the Liberals get their act together.

Fundamentally, there might any number of reasons to back James at this point in time, aside from sympathies with her political beliefs. Personally, I am kind of betwixt being able to come down hard on either side of the issue. What is best is hard to say. What is clear is that it is now a mess.

But I only touched upon that, because I have spent the last bunch of posts dealing with a bunch of baseless accusations from you.

Policywonk

Charlene71 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Remind you do realize you are now aligned with Adrian Dix, Moe Sihota, David Schreck, Mike Farnworth and Bruce Ralston.  Can you say old boys network?  These people are not Carole"s friends and they are not democrats. They will support her but only until they are ready to dump her so one of them can win the leadership.  This is not just a game being played out at the one level of Carole versus the dissidents. 

I think this is a over-simplistic analysis of why these people back Carole.  I think for people like Dix and Farnworth, backing Carole in this battle is perfectly logitical given their inclination to distance themselves from the more traditional leftist stances.

I too do wonder about Elmore.

Both analyses are overly simplistic, but possibly part of the picture.

Policywonk

http://www.straight.com/article-362843/vancouver/corky-evans-accuses-car...

I was wondering when and where Corky's letter would surface elsewhere.

Policywonk

NorthReport wrote:

Trevena would prefer a leadership convention

 

 

http://www.canada.com/Trevena+would+prefer+leadership+convention/3920872...

Don't these people read the constitution?

remind remind's picture

Disagree cue, and we will have to agree to disagree, as I am not going to engage you further on this. I see it the way I see it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

remind wrote:

The history that you both have contempt for James ...

 

Thats part of your problem Remind you have a selective memory.  I remember clearly that in the lead up to the last election when many where calling for Carole to resign I was a staunch supporter of her and thought she deserved another election for all her hard work. You and I were almost the lone voices in that debate and I am sure I was allied with you on the Carole issue then.  I have moved on because she lost the last election by taking advise from the wrong people.  She is still listening to the same people who have been leading the party through the wilderness for 15 years now.  I for one don't want to wait forty years before these political wizards lead us to power by waiting until it is handed to them. 

For the record I have the greatest respect for Elmore and supported her in her nomination bid.  My view has not changed. You can take my words to your own weird tangental places but it still does not make them my words or in this case not even my thoughts.  Have a nice day!!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Policywonk wrote:

Both analyses are overly simplistic, but possibly part of the picture.

Easy to say when you don't even contribute a paragraph.  When I decide to do a 40 page paper on it I'll be sure to post it on this board.  LOL.  

In a sentence or two most analyses tend to get a little simplistic much like some of the glib commentary.

Policywonk

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

Both analyses are overly simplistic, but possibly part of the picture.

Easy to say when you don't even contribute a paragraph.  When I decide to do a 40 page paper on it I'll be sure to post it on this board.  LOL.  

In a sentence or two most analyses tend to get a little simplistic much like some of the glib commentary.

Of course. There is more to this than either analysis, but I'm waiting to see what happens this weekend before I decide to weigh in.

KenS

Count on it: it wont be over after this weekend. Or substantially different. Just moved on to the next stage [of the same stalemate].

KenS

And that most of us could sit down and write a script for what people on either or both sides will be saying publicly this weekend.

Pogo Pogo's picture

A month ago I could have gone into an election defending James.  She is not the perfect leader, but perfection wasn't necessary.  Now too much damage has been done.  If she remains until the election she will be compared to Campbell as a leader that should have quit (except she didn't). 

Blame it on the dissidents but it is too late now to fix the problem and keep James (and win an election). 

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Policywonk wrote:

Convention did not adopt that date prior to the election (and did not exactly adopt that date at all except in the timing of the next Convention). The constitution wasn't changed until the last Convention, otherwise there would have been no way to prevent one then.

11.03 At every Convention that is not a Leadership Convention a secret ballot vote will be held among
Convention delegates to determine whether or not a leadership election should be called. If 50% plus
one delegate supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one
year of the Convention vote. This Section may be waived by Provincial Executive when there is a
general provincial election that would not allow sufficient time to comply with the time frame set out.

Does this mean there has already been a leadership review since the last election?

NorthReport

Policywonk

You are oversimplifying the situation. Of course she knows the constitution, but what we have here is beyond the constitution. This is not time for legal muble-jumble. The future of the party could be at stake, and some people have had enough of losing, me included. We need a leadership convention now. Carole is very welcome to run, but she has been avoiding one for 7 years now. What is she afraid of, if she has all that support she says she has. You and I both know it's BS, and that her support is a mile wide and less than a centimetre deep. 

And if Carole does not back off  from recriminations this weekend, and show some brains instead of listening to all her sycophants, she will only be digging herself a bigger grave. She needs to move on gracefully as her time is done as Leader.

 

 

Policywonk wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Trevena would prefer a leadership convention

 

 

http://www.canada.com/Trevena+would+prefer+leadership+convention/3920872...

Don't these people read the constitution?

Fidel

How much money does the NDP have to spend on a leadership campaign and defeating der leaderless Liberals in two year's time?

I think the Liberals would just love for the NDP to divide and conquer themselves at this point.

Gordon Campbell has handed Carole James the premier's office. It's just a matter of an election. The BC Liebrals are not going to fix the broken down ideology anytime soon. This ideologically induced meltdown will have lasting effects for years to come.

BC NDPers need to unite under their leader. She damned near beat the well-funded Liberals when it appeared that the ideology was working in BC. British Columbians realize now that it wasn't and that they were lied to constantly by the Liberals.

Carole James is poised to become BC's first democratically elected female premier of the province but not without some hard work as usual. The Liberals are very beatable.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Thank you for that pep talk from the centre of the universe.  One thing though Fidel the election is less than a year away not two years.  That is the crux of the biscuit.

Brian White

I am interested in who wrote the constitution and I would love to see amendments proposed.   Leadership is clearly an issue now. Waving a piece of paper around now is a bit like waving Roberts rules around in a hockey fight.

James went for the jugular a few weeks ago when she threw  Simpson out on her own.  So after she broke her own rules everyone decided anything goes.   There is blood. There will be lots more if James decides to bluff it out.

  I do not know if James political corpse still bleeds but we will find out.  She seems to want the entire BC NDP to accompany her to her political pyramid.  Maybe she got fed up of reading her boring wikipedia entry?   The girl who stirred the hornets nest and ruined the party seems to be what she is aiming for.   Carole, you are gone already, you just do not know it yet.  

But nobody will ever forget you now! 

If you keep this up, even your friends will never forgive you.

Policywonk wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Trevena would prefer a leadership convention

 

 

http://www.canada.com/Trevena+would+prefer+leadership+convention/3920872...

Don't these people read the constitution?

NorthReport

Fidel,

The party grassroots and the public do not support the BC NDP Leader. Read the polls man! James' popularity is on a downhill slide. The BC Liberals are praying that we keep her as our Leader - just watching the full-court press from the Leader's sycophants splattered all over the mainstream press should be enough to tell you what is really going on. Do you want to kiss the Chinese community's vote in BC goodbye? Get a grip.

KenS

Policywonk wrote:

Convention did not adopt that date prior to the election (and did not exactly adopt that date at all except in the timing of the next Convention). The constitution wasn't changed until the last Convention, otherwise there would have been no way to prevent one then.

11.03 At every Convention that is not a Leadership Convention a secret ballot vote will be held among
Convention delegates to determine whether or not a leadership election should be called. If 50% plus
one delegate supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one
year of the Convention vote. This Section may be waived by Provincial Executive when there is a
general provincial election that would not allow sufficient time to comply with the time frame set out.

I misunderstood something along the way.

This isnt really a provision for a leadership review- except in a pretty pro forma sense. Same idea as the federal party I believe.

Convention of course is going to be planned away from known election times.

A meaningful leadership review comes after elections, and as such is a stand alone. I would say that your Constitution doesnt really have provision for a leadership review. This is a band-aid. [The NS NDP doesnt even have that much. Given the need for 2/3 majority, its not easy to get it done. So I'm not criticising, just stating what looks to be the case.]

Am I still missing something, or getting it wrong?

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If the convention had been given this scenario and asked when should there be a review I am sure the date would not be in the middle of the four year semi-fixed election cycle.

The lesson to be learned here is that in the future leadership reviews must occur soon after elections.

But unfortunately those weren't the democratically set rules. The leadership review was democratically set for the fall of 2011. To demand an earlier leadership review is not fair. Neither is demanding a leadership convention.

Rules are rules and should be applied equally.

Policywonk

NorthReport wrote:

Policywonk

You are oversimplifying the situation. Of course she knows the constitution, but what we have here is beyond the constitution. This is not time for legal muble-jumble. The future of the party could be at stake, and some people have had enough of losing, me included. We need a leadership convention now. Carole is very welcome to run, but she has been avoiding one for 7 years now. What is she afraid of, if she has all that support she says she has. You and I both know it's BS, and that her support is a mile wide and less than a centimetre deep. 

And if Carole does not back off  from recriminations this weekend, and show some brains instead of listening to all her sycophants, she will only be digging herself a bigger grave. She needs to move on gracefully as her time is done as Leader.

 

 

Policywonk wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Trevena would prefer a leadership convention

 

 

http://www.canada.com/Trevena+would+prefer+leadership+convention/3920872...

Don't these people read the constitution?

There is no provision in the constitution for a leadership convention, despite the section about a leadership review referring to one. Selection of the Leader is through a one member one vote process.

KenS

You dont have a leadership review to demand.

You have something that happens in the course of Convention. And Convention cannot be driven by desires for leadership reviews. Its a non starter.

Policywonk

KenS wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

Convention did not adopt that date prior to the election (and did not exactly adopt that date at all except in the timing of the next Convention). The constitution wasn't changed until the last Convention, otherwise there would have been no way to prevent one then.

11.03 At every Convention that is not a Leadership Convention a secret ballot vote will be held among
Convention delegates to determine whether or not a leadership election should be called. If 50% plus
one delegate supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one
year of the Convention vote. This Section may be waived by Provincial Executive when there is a
general provincial election that would not allow sufficient time to comply with the time frame set out.

I misunderstood something along the way.

This isnt really a provision for a leadership review- except in a pretty pro forma sense. Same idea as the federal party I believe.

Convention of course is going to be planned away from known election times.

A meaningful leadership review comes after elections, and as such is a stand alone. I would say that your Constitution doesnt really have provision for a leadership review. This is a band-aid. [The NS NDP doesnt even have that much. Given the need for 2/3 majority, its not easy to get it done. So I'm not criticising, just stating what looks to be the case.]

Am I still missing something, or getting it wrong?

What would a proper, meaningful leadership review look like to you?

Policywonk

KenS wrote:

You dont have a leadership review to demand.

You have something that happens in the course of Convention. And Convention cannot be driven by desires for leadership reviews. Its a non starter.

It's a vote as to whether or not there will be a Leadership vote. I don't know whether it would be a non-starter or not. It would depend on the situation.

Erik Redburn

FYI, there was a motion put fwd in 2009 to have a leadership convention THIS year but it was abitrarily rewritten into a leadership 'review' by table officers, and put off yet again.  So much for playing fair.  Carole and her old boys club either goes to the actual membership or the party goes down with her.   If she's so sure of her base of support then she shouldn't have anything to fear.   

Erik Redburn

kropotkin1951 wrote:

You and I were almost the lone voices in that debate and I am sure I was allied with you on the Carole issue then.

 

I supported her then too, if only for pragmatic reasons.  But last non-campaign just proved that she's not much of a pragmatist either.   

JKR

NorthReport wrote:
And if Carole does not back off  from recriminations this weekend, and show some brains instead of listening to all her sycophants, she will only be digging herself a bigger grave. She needs to move on gracefully as her time is done as Leader.

Hopefully Carole will put party first and step down and call for a leadership convention.

But this is not how things should have been done. People should have waited for the leadership review in the fall of 2011. If that had happened, a leadership convention would likely have happened in the beginning of 2012.

But a leadership convention will now likely be held in the midst of a deep rift in the party. This process that has produced a bloodbath has cast the NDP in a bad light and given the BC Liberals a new lease on life.

Too bad people using strong-arm tactics to get rid of James didn't consider the ramifications of a scorched earth campaign.

Good results are seldom derived from bad means.

Erik Redburn

JKR wrote:

Too bad people using strong-arm tactics to get rid of James didn't consider the ramifications of a scorched earth campaign.

Good results are seldom derived from bad means.

 

Would you please stop putting the blame on her opponents?    James and her backers are the ones who have used strong arm tactics throughout.  If James wants unity in the face of the enemy then she is still in the unique position to bring it about.   Try reading what is posted, by those who know the situation.

Policywonk

JKR wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If the convention had been given this scenario and asked when should there be a review I am sure the date would not be in the middle of the four year semi-fixed election cycle.

The lesson to be learned here is that in the future leadership reviews must occur soon after elections.

But unfortunately those weren't the democratically set rules. The leadership review was democratically set for the fall of 2011. To demand an earlier leadership review is not fair. Neither is demanding a leadership convention.

Rules are rules and should be applied equally.

The leadership review (or vote to have a leadership election) seems to be now required at every Convention, after the change at the last Convention. Fair or not, to ask for an earlier leadership review (or to change the constitution to allow for an early leadership convention, which is a non-starter) essentially requires an earlier Convention, which can called by a two-thirds majority of Provincial Council on 30 days notice. I can see a number of things happening in the next little while, but that doesn't seem to be very likely.

Policywonk

Erik Redburn wrote:

FYI, there was a motion put fwd in 2009 to have a leadership convention THIS year but it was abitrarily rewritten into a leadership 'review' by table officers, and put off yet again.  So much for playing fair.  Carole and her old boys club either goes to the actual membership or the party goes down with her.   If she's so sure of her base of support then she shouldn't have anything to fear.   

I don't know the particulars, but such a resolution (unless it involved a constitutional amendment) would have been out of order, because the constitution does not allow for the Leader to be elected at a convention, rather than through a one member one vote process.

NorthReport

I know why, at least for now, Bob Simpson is sitting as an Independent MLA.

By-the-way, thanks for that Carole, we are now one less MLA than after the election. Tough love works, doesn't it!

Check out the pic on the website.

 

I thoink I know why Bob Simpson is presently sitting as an Independent, although with a new leader he'll be back as a BC NDP MLA in a flash.

Bob Simpson rides again

Simpson: Jenny’s letter (see previous post) had three messages here that I fundamentally agree with.
One is caucus process and decision-making, and I’ve joked with people that I’m not a very pretty wallflower, and I was getting sick and tired of being a wallflower in that caucus.
And especially for somebody who goes to the public and says, I’m a collaborative, consultative, bottom-up democrat, I’m going to be a new kind of leader, we were not experiencing that in caucus.
The decision-making was certainly becoming more centralized and less clear to us what the agenda was.
The second one on not getting purchase with British Columbians, that was exactly what I said after I was kicked out. That was my main message. I didn’t think that talking about the gap between us and the Liberals wasn’t an important thing. We were not making gains, we were not making headway, we were not capturing the hearts and minds of British Columbians, and think that’s what Jenny’s speaking to.
And the final piece is, I think the whole deal with Moe Sihota and the unions stinks. And if that’s the kind of backroom deals that are gong to be sanctioned by the party and sanctioned by the leader, then I don’t feel that speaks well for what we would be like in government.

 

http://blogs.bclocalnews.com/victoria_secrets/bob-simpson-rides-again/444

scott scott's picture

from Saturday's Globe:

Baker's Dozen to give ultimatum to NDP leader

Quote:
B.C. New Democratic Party Leader Carole James will be presented with an ultimatum when she convenes an emergency caucus meeting on Sunday - she will have to fire all 13 of her dissident MLAs if she tries to eject any one of them.

Members of the so-called Baker's Dozen say they will go into the meeting united in opposing Ms. James - if they attend at all.

Meanwhile, in the latest shot in the "war of the open letters" is from Paul Ramsey, James supporter:

Paul Ramsey to NDP caucus: "what part of "no" is so hard to understand?"

Quote:
If an MLA feels he or she simply cannot work with the leader, abide by the wishes of the NDP, or support party positions, then the honourable action is to leave caucus and the party and sit in the Legislature as an independent MLA. That too is part of the nature of parliamentary democracy.

NorthReport

Welcome to the shootout corral. Laughing

 

West Coast Greeny

This is like, the political equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Brian White

I think Ramsey must think the mla's must be as stupid as the voters "As a rule, voters do not understand nor care about how parties or caucuses operate".

You are wrong with this voter, buddy.

"Those who are nominated by riding associations, have those nominations approved by the party, and are chosen by the voters to serve as MLAs have huge responsibilities and considerable power. But they do not have the right to select or depose the leader of the New Democratic Party".

All hail the piece of paper. The holy piece of paper that the finding fathers and mothers found.

If the leader is crap at his or her job, they do not have the right, they have the DUTY to depose her. Well done to the dissident ndp people. 

You are performing your duty to the voters of BC to the best of your abilities.

Sometimes bad people or incompetent people take over political partys and lay waste to them. We always need to be on guard against the crooks and power driven autocrats in our midst. They (the James gang) are as much a danger to the NDP as the BC Liberals. Worms in an apple.

JKR

Erik Redburn wrote:

Would you please stop putting the blame on her opponents?    James and her backers are the ones who have used strong arm tactics throughout.  If James wants unity in the face of the enemy then she is still in the unique position to bring it about.   Try reading what is posted, by those who know the situation.

James and her backers are not solely to blame here. Jame's opponents also bear responsibility for taking the BC NDP to the brink.

The biggest losers from this fiasco are the multitude of BC'ers who don't pay attention to internal political squabbles but put their faith in the NDP.

Will the NDP's leaders, within the legislature and without, be able to set aside their egos and avert disaster?

NorthReport

Let's see if the NDP has the royal jelly and can handle a bit of democracy, eh!   Laughing

 

Intersting' that the Jenny Kwan group is gaining support here over what is obviously now a full blown BC NDP Leadership crisis.

 

I wonder what the polling is telling us as well. Obviously it is not good for James or the party hierarchy would be trotting that out as well

 

Three former NDP MLAs echo Jenny Kwan's call for an NDP leadership convention

 

http://www.straight.com/article-362861/vancouver/three-former-ndp-mlas-e...

 

 

bekayne

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thank you for that pep talk from the centre of the universe.  One thing though Fidel the election is less than a year away not two years.  That is the crux of the biscuit.

I thought the election was in 2013?

Brian White

JKR wrote:

The biggest losers from this fiasco are the multitude of BC'ers who don't pay attention to internal political squabbles but put their faith in the NDP.

Will the NDP's leaders, within the legislature and without, be able to set aside their egos and avert disaster?

I hope so, that will require James to tender her resignation.  Are you aware of that yet? 

The aura of ability that she proclaims remains invisible to all but her closest confidants.

By the way, do you think the pecking order versus rational thought theory can help?  The aura of ability can only be seen by people in James pecking order. So the key is to disengage their pecking order impulse and reengage their thinking brains.

Lets try to get pecking orders (and your silly irrational emotions) out of the way first .   To do that you have to substitute different people.  How about Bennett for Kwan?  

How about Dion for James?     I guess even they are too close.  How about Marie Antoinette for James?

Or John the Baptist for Simpson?

If Shakespere was alive today, would this be concidered a comedy or a tragedy? Guess he would be writing a combo.

Brian White

I guess we have some forgetful time travellers in the thread.

Was is past tense.

So, who won?

And when did James resign?  Late 2010 or early 2011?

bekayne wrote:

 

I thought the election was in 2013?

bekayne

Brian White wrote:

I guess we have some forgetful time travellers in the thread.

Was is past tense.

So, who won?

And when did James resign?  Late 2010 or early 2011?

bekayne wrote:

 

I thought the election was in 2013?

I forgot "supposed to be"

Policywonk

NorthReport wrote:

Let's see if the NDP has the royal jelly and can handle a bit of democracy, eh!   Laughing

 

Intersting' that the Jenny Kwan group is gaining support here over what is obviously now a full blown BC NDP Leadership crisis.

 

I wonder what the polling is telling us as well. Obviously it is not good for James or the party hierarchy would be trotting that out as well

 

Three former NDP MLAs echo Jenny Kwan's call for an NDP leadership convention

 

http://www.straight.com/article-362861/vancouver/three-former-ndp-mlas-e...

 

 

I suppose a convention could be held at the same time as a leadership vote, similar to the 2003 Federal NDP Convention. However, rules for a leadership election most probably don't exist yet.

NorthReport

Come on Brian - we all know what bekayne meant, and he is correct, the next BC election is scheduled by law for May, 2013

NorthReport

Right bekayne, just like the federal election interval is supposed to be 4 years as well.

The thinking is once the BC Liberals choose their new leader, they will change the BC Election Act legislation to allow for an earlier election and then quickly pull the plug. That is if James is still the leader, however if the NDP picks a leader soon that has some charisma, and some leadership skills, the BC Liberals may well try and hang on til 2013.

Policywonk

Lou Arab wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

Convention did not adopt that date prior to the election (and did not exactly adopt that date at all except in the timing of the next Convention). The constitution wasn't changed until the last Convention, otherwise there would have been no way to prevent one then.

11.03 At every Convention that is not a Leadership Convention a secret ballot vote will be held among
Convention delegates to determine whether or not a leadership election should be called. If 50% plus
one delegate supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one
year of the Convention vote. This Section may be waived by Provincial Executive when there is a
general provincial election that would not allow sufficient time to comply with the time frame set out.

Does this mean there has already been a leadership review since the last election?

No, because the constitution was changed last Convention to allow for the Convention to vote to have a leadership election. At least that's my recollection.

bekayne

Here's the latest brilliant idea:

Carole James resorts to online petition in bid to hold on to B.C. NDP leadership

http://www.straight.com/article-362919/vancouver/bc-ndp-leader-carole-james-seeks-support-united-party-through-online-petition

 

NorthReport

The only problem is that BC Liberals are signing the petition. Frown 

 

Carole James resorts to online petition in bid to hold on to B.C. NDP leadership

http://www.straight.com/article-362919/vancouver/bc-ndp-leader-carole-ja...

NorthReport

Carole James through manipulative tricks, similiar to the yellow scarves BS at the recent Provincial Council, has managed to avoid ever having to face a leadership review. Quite the democratic party we have here, eh!

bekayne

Someone please post a picture of Fonzie on water skis, I'm going away from the computer for a while.

JKR

Brian White wrote:

How about Dion for James?     I guess even they are too close.  How about Marie Antoinette for James?

Or John the Baptist for Simpson?

If Shakespere was alive today, would this be concidered a comedy or a tragedy? Guess he would be writing a combo.

So far it's looking like a tragedy. I think the Bard has already written some of Jame's lines:

 

Quote:

To be, or not to be– that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And, by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep
No more – and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to – ‘tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep
To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub,

NorthReport

'Every MLA Will Be Held Accountable': James Laughing

 

 

As NDP leader announces emergency caucus meeting, some see fate of the party hanging in the balance.

 

http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/12/03/JamesResponseToKwan/

Pages

Topic locked