Leadership Crisis within the BC NDP - started Friday, December 3, 2010

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
Erik Redburn

Not to mention that Carole is very likely to lose the next election anyhow JKR, even without help from the dissidents. Her active membership base was in steep decline well before this blew up, signficantly more than is usual between elections, while her polling numbers consistently lagged behind the party.

I have to say I'm impressed by your clear-sighted impartiality on this KenS.  It is a difficult situation for everyone who cares about the party and province.

KenS

So JKR, whats so different about what Carole James is doing?

She ups the ante, thereby risking further damage to the party.

Which leaves two options: one is complete surrender to her- which right or wrong, people think will cause huge damage; or they up the ante too.

Nobody knows exactly where this is going. But yes, all of them know what they are doing.

Not to mention, as I said before- 13 MLAs sitting as independents is just the next stage of the same stalemate. Its the length of time this goes on that makes this ever more damaging and dangerous. The form that the moves take are not as important and dramatic in themselves as people make them out to be.

JKR

KenS wrote:

So JKR, whats so different about what Carole James is doing?

James is willing to follow the democratically set rules set by the party.

The democratically set rules are that there the leadership review will be in November of 2011. Carole James has submitted her leaership to this review.

The reason there are basic rules is to prevent fiascoes such as is occurring now.

Once the rule book is thrown out, free-for-alls result. That's the sad place the party finds itself in now.

The only way the party will get back to some kind of equilibrium is if the major players involved start following basic ground rules.

JKR

I should add that I hope James puts the NDP first and calls for a leadership convention.

More importantly, the NDP must change its constitution and political culture to prevent anything like this from happening again.

NorthReport

This is it in a nutshell.

And kudos for such an accurate assessment, particularly because I believe KenS does not live in BC.

 

KenS wrote:

I dont know much about Jenny Kwan. But I do know about people in her position. And nobody goes publlic with a letter like that, not knowing that they torch a lot of peoples opinion of them. Its a no win situation where you take the personal hit because you think it has to be done, and essentially that 'you can afford it' more than others could.

Let alone no one with leadership aspirations would ever do it, you dont do it unless you are pretty confident you are bullet proof.

I know even less about Mable Elmore. But I agree with Cueball, there are always solid reasons to take a position of solidarity with the elected Leader. I think that Carole James has to go. And she is engaging in ever cruder manipulation and scorched earth to keep power. But I really dislike people portraying this as some kind of high minded democracy crusade.

All of the dissident MLAs and Corky Evans have portrayed this as a regretable situation they do not like, but see no choice. You should really listen to that.

NorthReport

When the leadership race begins, and maybe it has already started, you will see Adrian Dix running, you will see Leonard Krog running, and I hope you will see Mable Elmore running, to mention a few.

NorthReport

 

Debate over Carole James' leadership spills onto Facebook

 

Supporters and critics of embattled B.C. NDP Leader Carole James have taken the debate over her political future online.

 

 

 

Since Premier Gordon Campbell announced his resignation early last month, James has seen her approval rating drop and faced public criticism from 13 of her MLAs.

 

 

 

On the eve of an emergency caucus meeting set to address infighting in the party, New Democrats were tight-lipped on Saturday - but the fight over James' leadership was raging on Facebook.

 

 

 

Posters in one group, Progressives for BC NDP Renewal, continued calls for James to step down and criticized those who claimed her critics were damaging the party.

 

 

 

"Each attack on them increases their support," one group member wrote. "I know I speak for more than one candidate, campaign manager, organizer, volunteer and member of the public when I say I am humiliated by current events."

 

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101204/bc_ndp_emergen...

Erik Redburn

JKR wrote:

KenS wrote:

So JKR, whats so different about what Carole James is doing?

James is willing to follow the democratically set rules set by the party.

The democratically set rules are that there the leadership review will be in November of 2011. Carole James has submitted her leaership to this review.

The reason there are basic rules is to prevent fiascoes such as is occurring now.

Once the rule book is thrown out, free-for-alls result. That's the sad place the party finds itself in now.

The only way the party will get back to some kind of equilibrium is if the major players involved start following basic ground rules.

 

The problem again is that James and Sihota have *not* followed the rules, but have bent them to their will and made up a few of their own.  Asking delegates (who once again do not come close to representing the membership's demographic or will) to vote in full view of others is universally seen as undemocratic, outside of Parliament.  And it did not follow precedence.  Having Sihota 'explain' his controversial payment deal, without allowing for questions from members only displayed more contempt for the rank and file.  Allowing even less time than usual to debate and vote on policy may have more precedence, alas, but is hardly democratic either.  Handing out yellow scarves to those known to support her while not even Bothering to offer them to those suspected of not was widely seen as a cheap intimidation tactic, more suited to Stalinist or Mafioso purges.   Etc.  The whole event was really just a travesty.

She still retains the right to go to the Full membership (OMOV, not easily manipulated delegates) on her own but many of those closer to the scene are unable to just sit back and hope that she will -particularly after these latest displays.   With an early election becoming more likely a change in the conventions schedule is a reasonable demand and not exactly unconstitutional.  I believe the wording regarding the possibility of early elections does not necessarily mean putting it off entirely but could also be fairly interpretted as having one early.  In these matters the spirit of documents, the intentions behind them, should take precedence over strict form.

NorthReport

Remember this article.

 

How many times now have we heard the same BS from Head Office? LaughingCarole James: Mission accomplished?

 

 

Hearing Carole James declare that the challenge to her leadership is over - because the NDP's Provincial Council backed her - reminds me of George Bush on the US air craft carrier with the huge "Mission Accomplished" sign behind him after the initial attack in Iraq.

Talk about not getting it.

 

 

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/communityofinterest/arc...

JKR

Erik Redburn wrote:

In these matters the spirit of documents, the intentions behind them, should take precedence over strict form.

But who is to decide what the "spirit of the documents" are?

As far as I can tell, the NDP's Provincial Council is responsible for determining what the "spirit of the documents" are for the BC NDP between Conventions. The Provincial Council has decided that the leadership review should remain November 2011.

Members of the NDP agree to follow the rules of the NDP. These rules give the Provincial Council certain prerogatives. As the rules currently stipulate, NDP MLA's don't have the right to overturn decisions made by the NDP's provincial council. If MLA's feel they deserve to have more power within the NDP, they should work to change the rules. They should not feel free to break them. By discarding the decisions made by the Provincial Council, people are  attacking the NDP as an institution.

If the NDP allows its rules to be broken now, what will stop members in the future from thinking they are above the law and breaking them again? Where does this kind of mentality lead an organization?

If people feel the rules are unfair, they should work to change them.

NorthReport

You obviously don't understand what took place at that Provincial Council meeting - yellow scarves. Give it a rest. You just don't get it. She's over. The question now is who will be entering the leadership race.

Erik Redburn

JKR wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:

In these matters the spirit of documents, the intentions behind them, should take precedence over strict form.

But who is to decide what the "spirit of the documents" are?

As far as I can tell, the NDP's Provincial Council is responsible for determining what the "spirit of the documents" are for the BC NDP between Conventions. The Provincial Council has decided that the leadership review should remain November 2011.

Members of the NDP agree to follow the rules of the NDP. These rules give the Provincial Council certain prerogatives. As the rules currently stipulate, NDP MLA's don't have the right to overturn decisions made by the NDP's provincial council. If MLA's feel they deserve to have more power within the NDP, they should work to change the rules. They should not feel free to break them. By discarding the decisions made by the Provincial Council, people are  attacking the NDP as an institution.

If the NDP allows its rules to be broken now, what will stop members in the future from thinking they are above the law and breaking them again? Where does this kind of mentality lead an organization?

If people feel the rules are unfair, they should work to change them.

 

Well, that is what we are trying to do.  Provincial Council has been reduced to a bunch of syncophants under this regime, therefore they too must be challenged abit.  Your tight focus on legalities is mistaken IMV, unless you consider the context with which they were written (Council acting as a representative to all the members, not merely the Executive) and the political realities they were meant to operate in.   We live in extraordinary times. Don't blame us for that.  

The closest analogy I can find to this situation is when the Reform/Alliance broke down into inter-party conflict.   Short term turmoil but what did it ultimately lead to?  Well, Stockwell Day lost his job as leader but he is a player again under what is now in fact a Reform/Alliance government.  A lesser personal role in a much larger public role.   Now consider the more cautious, timeworn and modest strategy of the Progressive Conservatives.  They are only half a name now, with onetime members scattered across the spectrum.    So if the far right can survive such events and ultimately flourish why can't the not-so far left?  That could answer your primary concern couldn't it?

JKR

Erik Redburn wrote:

The closest analogy I can find to this situation is when the Reform/Alliance broke down into inter-party conflict.   Short term turmoil but what did it ultimately lead to?  Well, Stockwell Day lost his job as leader but he is a player again under what is now in fact a Reform/Alliance government.  A lesser personal role in a much larger public role.   Now consider the more cautious, timeworn and modest strategy of the Progressive Conservatives.  They are only half a name now, with onetime members scattered across the spectrum.    So if the far right can survive such events and ultimately flourish why can't the not-so far left?  That could answer your primary concern couldn't it?

It's true that you have to break eggs in order to make an omelet. Do you think that the NDP caucus breaking into two would ultimately be in the NDP's interest?

Stockwell Day never had a chance of becoming PM, so getting rid of him made sense. Before this internal implosion, Carole James had a very good chance of becoming Premier. So getting rid of her is not the sure bet getting rid of Day was.

The best case scenario now is for James to resign and be replaced with someone who has not been discredited. That scenario is much better then the possibility that the current NDP caucus will break into two. But who knows, maybe such an event would be a catalyst for better things.

Erik Redburn

JKR, I don't want an official split either.  I really don't.  I have fought further fragmentation on the left for years, with obviously limited affect.  Carole and Co however made a very thinly veiled treat that any of those who continue to oppose her on this will be out of caucus.  If most the others don't immediately back down -and i dont think they will- and she follows through with this -and she very well could-- i cannot foretell where it will end.  It worries me, but if it happens it doesn't have to be the end of prog politics in BC.  Might even be beginning of something better.  Depending...   I think that's what I was trying to get at.   Been an interesting discussion, night. 

Brian White

People should not be too obsessed with rules.   "I was only following orders"  is not that much different from I was only following the rules.

If the rules are wrong or if the rules put us at risk of Carole James as Premier, then it is time to break the rules.

There must be something seriously wrong when 40% of her mla's rebel. And at least one of them has said that their first duty is to their constituents not to the party.

James is a bit of a mystery, isn't she?  Nobody really knows what her plan or her backers plans are. Is she left wing or right wing?  It is like battlestar galactica.

"They have a plan" and presumably they have a vision.  After 7 years the public does not know what the plan and vision is.

Even the mla's do not know what the vision is!  Thats fine in a stupid si fi series but just a bit crazy in real life.  Perhaps James and her people have found religion?  You have to have a reason to follow a politician.  It cannot just be, I am following because they are leader.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Brian White wrote:

People should not be too obsessed with rules.   "I was only following orders"  is not that much different from I was only following the rules.

It is completely different actually. Because the phrase "I was only following orders" is a defense for breatking the rules by following orders. That is the point. In context it is the famous defense of some of the Nuremberg trial defenders. The signature of National Socialist order was not that they wrote new laws and then fiercely applied, it was that they broke every rule in the book, even their own, and power excerpted its force through bureaucratic fiat, and the will of the elite, through there direct orders, without regard to the law, moral or otherwise.

This is one of the reasons that they were defeated in my opinion.

NorthReport

Few, if any, constituency asssociations had an inkling, before the November Provincial Council, what was about to happen. To suggest that these provincial council folks had some kind of a mandate concerning supporting, or not supporting the leader of the party is just not true. That is why that 84% figure of support for the leader is a complete distortion of the support for the leader.    

remind remind's picture

...a bunch of men on the left who have done nothing to further progressive  thought over the decades, now still think they "know" just what to do. And are telling us so.

 

Pretty damn sickening I tell ya.

NorthReport

Talking about Jenny, Lana, etc., right.   Laughing

NorthReport

James' destructive path could blow up the NDP

 

James could also effectively kick the rebel MLAs out of the party, by refusing to sign their nomination papers for that election, ending their political careers under the NDP banner.

But that would trigger an even bigger crisis. Hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of party members loyal to the rebels would tear up their membership cards and cancel their donations. It could spawn the birth of a rival party that would steal NDP votes. For a party already hurting for members, money and support, it would be like pushing the self-destruct button.

The Liberals hope this is exactly what she does, by the way. It would practically hand them a fourth term in government on a silver platter.

Maybe James knows the destructive path she's on, and her plan is to scare the rebels straight. Maybe she'll only threaten to launch the nuclear bombs, and hope the rebels panic and cave in.

It won't happen. The dissident MLAs are sticking together and won't be bullied into submission. They will call her bluff.

I'm already hearing rumblings that the party big shots supposedly loyal to Carole James -- including the union bosses -- are starting to realize the devastating cost of a scorched-earth victory for James.

My prediction: Her support will crumble. There will be lots of hugs and tears. She will receive much sympathy for what the big meanies have done to her. But it will soon become evident to all concerned that she can't -- and won't -- win.

 

 

http://www.theprovince.com/news/James+destructive+path+could+blow/393028...

NorthReport

Carole, it's time for you to do the right thing here.

If you really do believe in the NDP, and what's good for the people of BC, please step down before you do any more damage. You have fought the good fight, but's it's time to go.

Please don't make things any more difficult than they have to be.

 

 

 

 

NorthReport

A class act in all ways

Dissident NDP MLA hopes for "respectful" emergency caucus meeting

 

Dissident New Democrat MLA Jenny Kwan says she doesn't have a replacement in mind for Carole James as party leader.

Regardless, Kwan is still pushing for a one-member, one-vote leadership convention ahead of Sunday's emergency caucus meeting.

If a leadership race is called, Kwan says she believes qualified candidates will come forward.

"You can't truly expect anybody to put their name forward for consideration until such time that the seat is available," she says, "and that won't happen until there is actually a leadership race."

The emergency caucus meeting was called after Kwan publicly slammed James' leadership this week.

Kwan says she hopes the meeting will be conducted in a "respectful manner".

 

 

http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1322022

remind remind's picture

NorthReport wrote:
Talking about Jenny, Lana, etc., right.   Laughing

Who has been in control of left politics, and the union movement for the last 30 years?

Answer, not women.

And how is the union movement, and progressive politics doing, in the face of all the male pissing matches and ego grudges? Society is moving ever rightward and unions are disintegrating.

Men want Carole gone,  I do not care who they have shilling for them.

 

West Coast Greeny

So then, Jenny Kwan is beholden to men? Right.

You don't even know what you're talking about, remind. Part of the problem with Carole is that she's allowed the party to become too closely identified with the unions. They're paying Moe Sihota's salary, and she's bringing their leaders in to try and shake the baker's dozen.

Remind, Carole James is a bad leader. I get that you're disappointed to see someone who looked like one of Canada's next female premiers get turfed, but she's the one responsible for putting herself and her party in this mess in the first place.

NorthReport

Today is Decision Day, 4 PM PT actually, for the BC NDP. Smile

Brian White

 

It is not completely different at all. James and her followers are trying to say that rules give her moral authority.  People who were just following the rules at the time used that to justify slavery and its rules.  

And James broke the rules big time when she kicked out simpson on her own. 

There is no rule that punishes her for that.

(They "forgot" to make  a rule to censure a despot).  So punishment of a despot has to be outside the rules.

MLA's refusing to follow the despot  may be legally messy but it is morally the right thing to do.  Despots get worse over time unless put back in pandora's box.

Cueball wrote:

Brian White wrote:

People should not be too obsessed with rules.   "I was only following orders"  is not that much different from I was only following the rules.

It is completely different actually. Because the phrase "I was only following orders" is a defense for breatking the rules by following orders. That is the point. In context it is the famous defense of some of the Nuremberg trial defenders. The signature of National Socialist order was not that they wrote new laws and then fiercely applied, it was that they broke every rule in the book, even their own, and power excerpted its force through bureaucratic fiat, and the will of the elite, through there direct orders, without regard to the law, moral or otherwise.

This is one of the reasons that they were defeated in my opinion.

remind remind's picture

WCG, I disagree...and how nice to see Green Party supporters and voters here telling the BCNDPers what is up and wrong..

 

 

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

NorthReport wrote:

James' destructive path could blow up the NDP

James could also effectively kick the rebel MLAs out of the party, by refusing to sign their nomination papers for that election, ending their political careers under the NDP banner.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/James+destructive+path+could+blow/393028...

I thought Michael Smyth, Vaughn Palmer and Keith Baldrey were just Liberal schills?  :)

Stockholm

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
I don't see the Manitoba or Saskatchewan NDP imploding like this - even though they have had hotly contested leadership races.

That's because as ineffective as some of their leaders have been, they had the good sense to step aside when it was clear their time was up.

I don't remember Doer quitting after losing three times in row?

West Coast Greeny

Stockholm wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
I don't see the Manitoba or Saskatchewan NDP imploding like this - even though they have had hotly contested leadership races.

That's because as ineffective as some of their leaders have been, they had the good sense to step aside when it was clear their time was up.

I don't remember Doer quitting after losing three times in row?

Twice, and the first election he fought the NDP was the 3rd party.

West Coast Greeny

remind wrote:

WCG, I disagree...and how nice to see Green Party supporters and voters here telling the BCNDPers what is up and wrong..

What do you want me to do? Point and laugh?

NorthReport

At least some have the courage to say what the grassroots and the voting public in BC think about the BC NDP Leadership crisis.

Thank you Jenny Kwan. Bob Simpson, Lana, Leonard, et al.

B.C. NDP groupthink puts MLA Jenny Kwan in a difficult position

Today, the NDP caucus has a choice. Do the NDP MLAs really want to make a martyr of Kwan? Or do they discard their groupthink and try to resolve this situation in a constructive manner, even if it necessitates the resignation of James as leader?

 

http://www.straight.com/article-362945/vancouver/bc-ndp-groupthink-puts-...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I remember Mike being forced to resign for the mistakes of others.  Some of those same assassins and installers of Glen are advising Carole.  To that crowd rules are for suckers, players make their own.

ghoris

No, Stock is correct. Doer lost three elections in a row, however they were under different circumstances. In 1988 he took over a governing party that was deeply unpopular and in single digits in the polls in the middle of a snap election. It was a minor miracle to win 12 seats and third party status. In the 1990 election, he achieved the goal that he had set for himself (and that had been set for him by the party) by pushing the Liberals back into third and becoming official opposition. 1995 was the first election that he was seen as having a realistic shot at actually winning.  When he launched his 1999 campaign (his fourth), he said at the outset that it would be his last campaign as Leader of the Opposition - either he was going to win or he was going to quit.

I think one of the differences between Gary Doer and Carole James was that Doer could point to significant progress in party support after each of his election losses. Carole James led a huge NDP comeback in 2005 and then basically flatlined in 2009, an election that a lot of people both inside and outside the party (rightly or wrongly) felt was winnable. Also, Doer had to fight with the Liberals for left-leaning votes in all three of his election losses whereas the Green Party vote pretty much collapsed after 2001. Finally, Gary Filmon was never anywhere near as polarizing, unpopular or divisive a figure as Gordon Campbell. In his first two terms, he was not especially right-wing either. All of which, I would argue, made him a lot harder to run against.

Aristotleded24

ghoris wrote:
No, Stock is correct. Doer lost three elections in a row, however they were under different circumstances. In 1988 he took over a governing party that was deeply unpopular and in single digits in the polls in the middle of a snap election. It was a minor miracle to win 12 seats and third party status. In the 1990 election, he achieved the goal that he had set for himself (and that had been set for him by the party) by pushing the Liberals back into third and becoming official opposition. 1995 was the first election that he was seen as having a realistic shot at actually winning.  When he launched his 1999 campaign (his fourth), he said at the outset that it would be his last campaign as Leader of the Opposition - either he was going to win or he was going to quit.

I think one of the differences between Gary Doer and Carole James was that Doer could point to significant progress in party support after each of his election losses. Carole James led a huge NDP comeback in 2005 and then basically flatlined in 2009, an election that a lot of people both inside and outside the party (rightly or wrongly) felt was winnable. Also, Doer had to fight with the Liberals for left-leaning votes in all three of his election losses whereas the Green Party vote pretty much collapsed after 2001. Finally, Gary Filmon was never anywhere near as polarizing, unpopular or divisive a figure as Gordon Campbell. In his first two terms, he was not especially right-wing either. All of which, I would argue, made him a lot harder to run against.

Thanks ghoris. While I don't quite agree with you about how right-wing Filmon was (public service unions ran ads attacking the Filmon government throughout the '90s, but Filmon himself was a very likeable person) I've tried to explain this to Stockholm several times, but he hasn't paid any attention to this explanation.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Well, we try.

NorthReport

Gew, I wonder what kind of a consultative process the BC NDP Executive Council used when they made the decision to allow Carole James to stay on as Leader after the last election here in BC. They fucked up, and now they are just trying to cover their collective asses. Shame on them. And it will be more than shame if Kwan is reprimanded in any way today. Hopefully some people in that room are going to lose their groupthink, and tell those scyophants what would happen if that were to occur. I'm optimistic though that smarter heads will prevail, than what we have seen and heard up to now. Most NDPers just want to win the next election, so let 's immediately thank Carole for her efforts, find a graceful way for her to exit, and find us a leader who can get the job done.

Basement Dweller

Before this current crisis, I was mystified at how a party supposedly about to win government could be so lifeless. From I've heard, donations are drying up and fundraisers are very underwhelming. I've seen half-filled rooms with no energy. That's the inspiration of Carole Jame's leadership.

Policywonk

remind wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Talking about Jenny, Lana, etc., right.   Laughing

Who has been in control of left politics, and the union movement for the last 30 years?

Answer, not women.

And how is the union movement, and progressive politics doing, in the face of all the male pissing matches and ego grudges? Society is moving ever rightward and unions are disintegrating.

Men want Carole gone,  I do not care who they have shilling for them.

 

Actually I can think of some powerful women in the union movement in Canada, and there has been some destructive conflict between progressive women too.  I could care less about Carole's gender; it's more about the perceived lack of direction of the Party and inability to take and communicate clear positions even if they are only interim. That is only partly Carole's responsibility. Changing the leadership (political and administrative) won't necessarily fix that problem.

Policywonk

NorthReport wrote:

Gew, I wonder what kind of a consultative process the BC NDP Executive Council used when they made the decision to allow Carole James to stay on as Leader after the last election here in BC. They fucked up, and now they are just trying to cover their collective asses. Shame on them. And it will be more than shame if Kwan is reprimanded in any way today. Hopefully some people in that room are going to lose their groupthink, and tell those scyophants what would happen if that were to occur. I'm optimistic though that smarter heads will prevail, than what we have seen and heard up to now. Most NDPers just want to win the next election, so let 's immediately thank Carole for her efforts, find a graceful way for her to exit, and find us a leader who can get the job done.

There is no such thing as the BC NDP Executive Council. There are the Table Officers, Executive, and Provincial Council. And most NDPers not only want to win the next election, but also accomplish something meaningful while in office.

Aristotleded24
Policywonk

remind wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Talking about Jenny, Lana, etc., right.   Laughing

Who has been in control of left politics, and the union movement for the last 30 years?

Answer, not women.

And how is the union movement, and progressive politics doing, in the face of all the male pissing matches and ego grudges? Society is moving ever rightward and unions are disintegrating.

Men want Carole gone,  I do not care who they have shilling for them.

 

The NDP did manage to elect two women as federal NDP Leaders and by my count nine provincial and territorial NDP Leaders (four of whom are still Leader, but two were interim, and one of the provincial Leaders was also one of the federal Leaders).

KenS

But insitutionaly speaking, as in having reasinably helathy institutions and processes, thats the problem with not having an automatic leadership review vote soon after an election. Which means a stand alone vote, not something that happens with everything else when Convention meets.

If the vote was known to be happening, the kind of discussions that were in the air at the time would have been more seriously and sytematically considered. Then the vote. Carole's same arguments she is making now would have been taken in a better light than they are now. And if she had won the day, people who disagreed would move on. Happily or not does not matter.

I would be willing to bet that had Carole won the vote, some of the dissenting 13 who might have voted against her would be satisfied with the outcome. But that was then [maybe]. Now is different.

havana

So the meeting has been postponed.

Message to Kathy Corrigan: Your statement is not what I would call conciliatory. Tthe only "clear direction" I see from Carole is her continued escalation of internal Caucus problems. 

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/005579.html

Emergency caucus meeting postponed
December 5, 2010

Moments ago, we reported rumours the provincial New Democrats wouldn't be holding their emergency caucus meeting today. Now, the opposition caucus has released a statement confirming that meeting has been postponed to allow for "private discussions to ensure that the clear direction set by our leader and our party is followed: to unite and offer British Columbians a positive progressive alternative in the next election." The following is a complete copy of that statement.

Statement from B.C. NDP caucus chair Kathy Corrigan

Centrist

I thought the postponement of the emergency caucus meeting was a signal that CJ may make a statement that she was stepping down. But after reading the caucus chair statement about the "clear direction set by our leader and our party to unite" I'm not sure anymore what will follow.

NorthReport

Carole obviously got the word - good!

Ok now, what day in March will we be having our Leadership Convention. That, and only that, should be the next item of business.

NorthReport

ghoris,

I don't think it is that cut and dried. There are divisions all over in most camps. Most NDPers want to win the next election but have different agendas. There has been growing disenchantment with Carole from the grassroots, plus the deteriation of her own personal polling numbers with the voting public. The fact that she has refused to even face the members once for a leadership review shows though a lack of confidence, and combined with Simpson and a large portion of the Caucus now against her speaks volumes. Everyone says they want unity, and to keep our diffences behind closed doors, but only when it suits their purposes, as demostrated by the totally dumb yellow-scarves bullshit we saw at the recent Provincial Council in Victoria.

Unfortunately I just don't think these present BC NDP decision-makers have clearly got the message quite yet, and I think there will be more attempts at dirty tricks.  But of course they will only damage themselves and the BC NDP even more. They're over.

And we BC NDPers can all thank our lucky stars there are courageous people such as Norm Macdonald, Jenny Kwan, Lana, Conroy, and others in our midst.

NorthReport

---

ghoris

I don't profess to be that intimately familiar with the inner workings of the various factions of the B.C. NDP and its history, but can someone who is please give the rest of us a bit of a "who's who in the zoo" rundown?

We keep having terms like "old boys club", "Clark people", "inner circle", "moderates", "lefties", etc thrown around but I'm getting a bit confused.  I was always under the impression that there were two predominant 'wings' in the NDP - the "moderates" and the "hardliners". I always thought people like Mike Harcourt and Carole James came from the 'moderate' camp while people like Glen Clark, Moe Sihota and Bob Williams came from the 'hardliner' camp.  The 'moderates' tended to include more of the 'champagne socialist/urban professional' crowd while the 'hardliners' had stronger ties to organized labour.

I always assumed that Carole James had the support of the 'moderate' crowd and that her detractors came primarily from the other camp, and that the former Clark 'gang' and organized labour (Jim Sinclair et al) were trying to undermine her and replace her with someone like Adrian Dix or Mike Farnworth.  But now we see people like Moe Sihota, Jim Sinclair and Adrian Dix (seemingly) standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Carole James. I would have thought someone like Mable Elmore would fall in line behind a challenge to Carole James' "Let's play nice with business" approach.  That being said, the dissenters do not seem entirely uniform in their political views either - for example, Norm Macdonald, Michael Sather and Bob Simpson don't strike me as being particularly 'left'.

Can someone please make some sense of this?  Or is this all just a clash of personalities?

Basement Dweller

Pages

Topic locked