Senior BC Caucus Member Jenny Kwan Issues Statement

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
Centrist
Senior BC Caucus Member Jenny Kwan Issues Statement

Other MLAs are also supporting Jenny's statement for Carole to step down. So what happens now? Does Carole kick them all out of caucus or does Carole resign? This is bad timing and shitty.

 

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/005556.html

wage zombie

I have been in BC for just over two years now and have not really commented on the Carole James threads because I didn't really know the history.

Kwan's statement seems very reasonable to me and matches what I observe.  I don't see the BC NDP taking bold stands on the issues that I care about, and I don't see my peers having much desire to engage with the current BC NDP.

If the party really is united behind James (her claim) then a leadership contest should be a shoo-in for her as well as allowing her to showcase her strengths.

With Kwan's statement, I think it should be clear to all that something needs to be done.  It is not an option to spend the next 3 years spinning this dissent as a few malcontents and opportunists.  Perhaps James can pull a rabbit out of her hat and put forth a bold, detailed, progressive vision in the next couple weeks.  Or whatever, there is perhaps some big step that she could take that could actually resolve this problem.  Based on what I've seen, I think it's unlikely that she is prepared to do anything like that.  Denying that there is any problem is not going to solve things.

I think it is time for a leadership contest.  And I think Carole James supporters would be well advised to switch from "Support the Leader" to "Here's why James is our best candidate for Leader."

puppet-13

Centrist wrote:

 So what happens now?

 

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/005556.html

 

What happens now is you get a segment of the party screaming that the NDP is controlled by mysoginist, racsist men. Secondly we will see some far away easterners trying to tell us what is best for BCers. Both groups obviuosly unwilling to look at the problems that caused this disaster.

 

This is Carole's doing.  The buck stops with her.  She has no option but to resign!!  We are handing the Liberals another victory. 

For those that spend time following the media in BC, a number of things have shifted in the last two weeks.  The hst anger has been difused by the referendum that will happen in June.  The recall of Ida Chong is being met with alot of negativity because the resignation of Campbel is what the people really wanted.  With the election of a new Liberal leader in Feb and the possibilty of that leader calling an election to "allow the public to have their say" on who should be Premier, could be called at any time.  I am betting that if the polls look good then an election tied in with the June referendum would seem logical to the voting public.  James has to go NOW!!!

 

 

Centrist

Jonathon Ross was the first to report about this earlier today. Here's what Jonathon Ross (a New Democrat/Vision Vancouver insider with mayor Gregor Robertson) is now reporting:

Quote:

UPDATE: Not who I expected to open up the floodgates - because the ones that were gleeful are still itching for their spotlight - but this is clearly a dare to Carole James to remove her from Caucus.

Jenny Kwan is playing chicken with the leader, and is hoping that she gets kicked out so that the entire party will revolt (Kwan was of course 1 of 2 MLAs with Joy MacPhail who held down the fort after the 2001 BC Liberal landslide victory, and thus carries a hallowed status amongst many factions within the party).

There are more waiting to make a string of announcements that are similar to Kwan's, and instead of coming out as a group as I was first informed, they are going to stagger this process so that the bleeding never ends in the media and in the public for James.

What a mess this is turning into...I have to say that the BC Liberals have all the momentum right now, precisely because of this shortsighted and selfish politicking.

* * * * *

I am hearing that a bunch are going to go independent en masse, but that has yet to be confirmed. Whatever the message is going to be, the people ready to deliver it seem elated.

Developing...

http://civicscene.ca/bc-ndp-dissidents-to-make-major-announcement-in-the...

 

West Coast Greeny

I get the feeling this is the last chance Carole has of keeping her caucus from completely disintegrating. 

There's only two ways the NDP goes forward at this point: Either they hold a leadership convention, or they fracture in two. There is no rabbit out of a hat, there is no magic tricks that can be pulled off here. You can not force a caucus to be unified.

NorthReport

I just love all the comments by some people here, see above, some of whom are not even members of the NDP, and who would like nothing better than to see the NDP crushed.

Carole James has now been leader for 7 years without a leadership review. It's now time for that to take place, and sooner rather than later. I think it was Bill Tieleman who suggested having the leadership review in early March right after the Liberal leadership race is over. Works for me. 

ghoris

In a previous thread, I posted this:

Quote:

Assuming those MLAs listed (plus Bob Simpson) oppose Carole James' continued leadership, this morning's vote doesn't really resolve much.  Carole and her supporters will point to the ringing endorsement she received from Provincial Council, the governing body of the party between conventions. Her detractors will point to the fact that at least 40% of the caucus has lost confidence in her leadership, which makes her position untenable.
My own personal view is that the leader derives her mandate from the party membership as a whole, not from the caucus.  If Carole has the support of the rank-and-file membership, then the caucus should fall into line and respect the views of the members.  The problem is I'm not sure that a provincial council vote is tantamount to an endorsement by the membership or carries the same kind of weight.  Unfortunately, I don't think this situation will be resolved with anything less than a leadership review vote (preferably OMOV). Carole may find herself in the unfortunate position (a la Joe Clark in 1983) of having to call for a leadership contest (or at least a review) in order to quell dissent.

Carole's options are starting to become more limited.

scott scott's picture

Just in case there is a misconception that this is purely a caucus revolt, without the support of the membership, AFAIK most of the caucus, both for and against James, have the support of thier ridings.

from the Trail Daily Times (Kootenay-West)

Quote:
The executive of the Kootenay West NDP association had unanimously called for a leadership convention to be held, a position endorsed by the local membership at their annual general meeting earlier this month.

But the provincial council rejected a motion calling for a leadership convention, with 84 per cent opposed.

"I think it is time to find someone else to take a crack at it," said Steelworker 9705 president Rick Georgetti, a member of the local NDP executive and long-time party stalwart.

 

wage zombie

I hadn't really considered that they could fracture in two, ie., two political parties.  Is that really a possibility?  That might not be so bad if they could work out an electoral coalition.

West Coast Greeny

Suppose Carole really is stubborn as a mule and all 13 dissidents are  are ejected from caucus. The new legislature now has:

47 Liberals

21 New Democrats and

17(!) Independents

17 Independents, who, I might add, are going to be next to impossible for the NDP to remove.  

 

Suppose these people don't come back. Even if this sizable group decides not to form a third party (and with the huge political vacuum in BC, there's going to be a temptation to do that) James and the NDP are still probably going to have to make gains on two fronts to win a majority next election, unless they can reduce the Liberals (and any other political party that might be running) to under 25 seats. 

puppet-13

March for a leadership review would be a further disaster.  March for a leadership race would be great!  If it is just a review do you want the media to pick away at the leadership "scab" for four long months??  Who's supporting James and who isn't?  Is Moe's job on the line if Carole loses?  There are a million questions, rumours, specualtions etc. that will be posed now that this rift is out in the open. The bell has been rung!!

puppet-13

wage zombie wrote:

I hadn't really considered that they could fracture in two, ie., two political parties.  Is that really a possibility?  That might not be so bad if they could work out an electoral coalition.

 

 

Wow!! let's split the left vote shall we.  Ask the Socreds and Liberals how that worked out for them.

wage zombie

What part of ELECTORAL COALITION do you not understand?

jrootham

The part where it actually succeeds.

Please cite a successful electoral coalition.

 

puppet-13

wage zombie wrote:

What part of ELECTORAL COALITION do you not understand?

 

I understand All of it!! You are suggesting that a coaltion just for electral puposes be formed. Who would the leader be?  Carole James?  LOL  People in BC vote for a party and a premier (as much as I may have just hurt many MLAs feelings) But I guess you are right. Having two parties on the left won't split the vote!! Those two parties will manage to scoop up all the swing voters they need to form what? A coaltion party?  Yes that's a well thought out plan!

puppet-13

West Coast Greeny wrote:

Suppose Carole really is stubborn as a mule and all 13 dissidents are  are ejected from caucus. The new legislature now has:

47 Liberals

21 New Democrats and

17(!) Independents

17 Independents, who, I might add, are going to be next to impossible for the NDP to remove.  

 

 

 

And here is where the real danger lies.  This is where the Party is standing at the edge of a very big cliff.

We know where the 13 stand on CJ.  BUT we do nor know where all the other 21 stand on CJ!!  How many of the other 21 are pondering their careers, incomes, and desires (to do good) and wondering whether they should Join the 13.  If its 3, the Ndp could be removed from Opposition.

An Independent Party, Loosely tied together by a single noble cause such as Electoral Reform could then request that the Liberal recognize them as the Official Opposition. Won't happen?  Of courses not!! We would never go down to 2 seats!!  Mulroney couldn't wipe out the PC party!  Socreds are  an institution, nothing could bring them down!

wage zombie

I think there should be a leadership race, and have said so.  I don't want to derail the discussion about Kwan's statement by talking about electoral coalitions around the world.  I don't know of any that have been successful--but then I don't know of any that have been unsuccessful either, other than Elizabeth May's attempt to get a seat.

What I'm saying is that if MLA's and ridings across the board either strongly support or strongly oppose James' leadership, and she refuses a leadership race, and there is a fracture, then it might not be so bad if they could work out an electoral coalition.

By this, I mean, not run against each other.  And for Liberal seats, it would mean the local riding association choosing which party to support.  It would mean the party recognises that there are 2 discrete factions, and that differences cannot be reconciled.  And then putting a process in place for local ridings to decide.

The odds of this happening are slim.  Seeing as how the BC NDP leadership has been a) unable to come up with new solutions and b) relinquish control, it's hard to imagine a novel strategy like this getting much support.

But, there would be quite a few advantages to a scenario like this.  It allows for just as many seats or more because there wouldn't be vote splitting.  It allows either party to advocate for regional interests.  It allows for two progressive party leaders getting speaking time in the media.  It would bring more people on board for proportional representation.  And it allows for Carole James to not have her leadership repeatedly questioned, if she's refusing to have a leadership race.

I'm just thinking about any possible options, and "what leadership problem?" doesn't really seem like one of them.  I just suggested it as something to think about because this electoral coalition would be novel in that it would be one party splitting into two, which I think is rare.  And, the split would be for tactical reasons rather than ideological differences.

West Coast Greeny

Well, if 4 New Democrat MPs join the 13, they could just remove James as caucus leader. That would be a little more direct.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am betting that this thread hits 100 by noon tomorrow!

puppet-13

wage zombie wrote:

I think there should be a leadership race, and have said so.  I don't want to derail the discussion about Kwan's statement by talking about electoral coalitions around the world.  I don't know of any that have been successful--but then I don't know of any that have been unsuccessful either, other than Elizabeth May's attempt to get a seat.

What I'm saying is that if MLA's and ridings across the board either strongly support or strongly oppose James' leadership, and she refuses a leadership race, and there is a fracture, then it might not be so bad if they could work out an electoral coalition.

By this, I mean, not run against each other.  And for Liberal seats, it would mean the local riding association choosing which party to support.  It would mean the party recognises that there are 2 discrete factions, and that differences cannot be reconciled.  And then putting a process in place for local ridings to decide.

The odds of this happening are slim.  Seeing as how the BC NDP leadership has been a) unable to come up with new solutions and b) relinquish control, it's hard to imagine a novel strategy like this getting much support.

But, there would be quite a few advantages to a scenario like this.  It allows for just as many seats or more because there wouldn't be vote splitting.  It allows either party to advocate for regional interests.  It allows for two progressive party leaders getting speaking time in the media.  It would bring more people on board for proportional representation.  And it allows for Carole James to not have her leadership repeatedly questioned, if she's refusing to have a leadership race.

I'm just thinking about any possible options, and "what leadership problem?" doesn't really seem like one of them.  I just suggested it as something to think about because this electoral coalition would be novel in that it would be one party splitting into two, which I think is rare.  And, the split would be for tactical reasons rather than ideological differences.

 

Unless you put forth a "leader" then you are accepting that the liberals will win.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Ok. I'll do it! If I must. How does one become "leader"?

wage zombie

puppet-13 wrote:

Unless you put forth a "leader" then you are accepting that the liberals will win.

I can't tell if that's an ultimatum or a threat.

Cueball Cueball's picture

First order of business will be not hiring my nephew to do the image makeover for the party... I will do that myself.

puppet-13

wage zombie wrote:

puppet-13 wrote:

Unless you put forth a "leader" then you are accepting that the liberals will win.

I can't tell if that's an ultimatum or a threat.

 

It's reality.

wage zombie

If it's a statement about what will happen in the future, then it's not reality.  Sorry buddy.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

puppet-13: Hi friend. I'd say your posts so far on this board--which you seem to know an awful lot about--could be characterized as aggressive, incendiary and not particularly constructive. This thread is a perfect example of that, starting with the first paragraph of post #3. Please dial down your hostile rhetoric and try to enter this discussion in good faith. Otherwise, you'll be asked not to participate. Consider this a warning. Thanks.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

It seems to me that the people who are paying Moe's salary should ask him to resign for the good of the party.  Cool

NorthReport

The BC Liberals will definiely be crying in their beer tonite - Keith Baldrey basically confirmed it with his analysis.  Laughing

NorthReport

Here is Jenny's, the person who actually nominated Carole 7 years ago, actual press release, instead of all the usual absurd comments that are constantly being made in the media

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/bc-101201-kwan-james-release.pdf

NorthReport

Centrist thanks for starting this thread, and I agree with Cueball about ther number of posts we will see here.

I actually like the timing aspect, as it is essential this matter be brought to a head, and that we do have a leadership review in March at the latest. And to do that, someone had to act now. 7 long years in the wilderness with no leadership review is too much. Jenny has shown courage here and is doing the right on behalf of the entire BC NDP.

Centrist

While I agree that Carole should leave, I have previously stated that we should wait and see until at least who the Libs select as leader first. Jenny's move today was completely wrong and it has the potential to vaporize the political capital the NDP now has with the public.

Even Baldrey on Global News tonight stated that all the Libs have to do now is point out the fact that if the NDP isn't seen as a cohesive party, how can the NDP then be seen as a gov't in waiting? The optics on that Global news story were terrible.

And long time party stalwart David Schreck now chimes in:

 

Quote:
December 1, 2010

Kwan Blows Up NDP

Who gave Jenny Kwan the right to blow up the NDP? It is Jenny and the unlucky 13 that have eroded democratic principles by ignoring the 84% vote of support James got at the party's November 20th provincial council meeting by continuing to call for her leader's head.

She claims that under James there "has been a steady erosion of our democratic principles". Let's take a closer look at that claim. It is Jenny and the unlucky 13 who ignore the party's constitution which calls for a mandatory leadership review at the 2011 convention. They act as if they can't beat James in that vote and want to force her out through scorched earth tactics that will leave a party no sensible person would want to lead.

In her media release Kwan wrote: "The BC NDP needs to have a leadership race in order to revitalize itself and to unify the party." Most New Democrats believe James has revitalized the party, going from 2 to 35 MLAs and taking the party to the record highs in the polls. Irreparable damage has been done to the NDP by Kwan and her sidekicks. Donations will dry up and memberships will lapse as members sink into despair over the destruction of their party when they thought they were on the eve of seeing James elected premier. New Democrats are known for harbouring bitterness for decades after leadership battles; some still haven't gotten over the Barrett-Berger fight let alone the damage done in the aftermath of Glen Clark.

The BC Liberals must not believe their luck; just when all seemed lost, 13 NDP MLAs have virtually guaranteed another decade of power for whoever wins the BC Liberal leadership vote on February 26th. The next election will see a dramatically reduced and ineffective NDP, unable to finance the kind of campaign a reinvigorated government party will mount. If a third party were to find the kind of campaign-leader that Gordon Wilson proved to be in 1991, the political landscape could fundamentally change. Of course, a successful change requires more than a campaigner; it takes a leader and party that can work together and appeal to voters across the province. It would take a miracle for the NDP to reinvent itself and fill the political vacuum created by its gang of 13.

http://www.strategicthoughts.com/

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Gee... someone calls for a leadership convention after 7 years of not winning an election, and some other guy pops out of the woodwork to scream that saying such is tantamount to "blowing up" the party, because it creates the impression that the party is not cohesive politically. Who is really "blowing up" the party, the person calling for a convention (a pretty normal thing after 7 years of being unelected) or the person having a temper tantrum about making the party look bad?

"Donations will dry up!"

"Memberships will lapse!"

"A tidal wave will strike Vancouver and wipe out all the party records! The sky is falling The sky is falling!"

I mean seriously a single letter and the party is doomed. If that is really the case then there is definitely something wrong. Indeed this guy might have a point, but freaking out like that does nothing for the cause of making the party look cohesive.

James should accept the challenge of a convention gladly and end all questions about her leadership.

jas

Where may I profess my love for Jenny Kwan?

 

West Coast Greeny

Centrist wrote:

While I agree that Carole should leave, I have previously stated that we should wait and see until at least who the Libs select as leader first. Jenny's move today was completely wrong and it has the potential to vaporize the political capital the NDP now has with the public.

Even Baldrey on Global News tonight stated that all the Libs have to do now is point out the fact that if the NDP isn't seen as a cohesive party, how can the NDP then be seen as a gov't in waiting? The optics on that Global news story were terrible.

And long time party stalwart David Schreck now chimes in:

 

Quote:
December 1, 2010

Kwan Blows Up NDP

Who gave Jenny Kwan the right to blow up the NDP? It is Jenny and the unlucky 13 that have eroded democratic principles by ignoring the 84% vote of support James got at the party's November 20th provincial council meeting by continuing to call for her leader's head.

She claims that under James there "has been a steady erosion of our democratic principles". Let's take a closer look at that claim. It is Jenny and the unlucky 13 who ignore the party's constitution which calls for a mandatory leadership review at the 2011 convention. They act as if they can't beat James in that vote and want to force her out through scorched earth tactics that will leave a party no sensible person would want to lead.

In her media release Kwan wrote: "The BC NDP needs to have a leadership race in order to revitalize itself and to unify the party." Most New Democrats believe James has revitalized the party, going from 2 to 35 MLAs and taking the party to the record highs in the polls. Irreparable damage has been done to the NDP by Kwan and her sidekicks. Donations will dry up and memberships will lapse as members sink into despair over the destruction of their party when they thought they were on the eve of seeing James elected premier. New Democrats are known for harbouring bitterness for decades after leadership battles; some still haven't gotten over the Barrett-Berger fight let alone the damage done in the aftermath of Glen Clark.

The BC Liberals must not believe their luck; just when all seemed lost, 13 NDP MLAs have virtually guaranteed another decade of power for whoever wins the BC Liberal leadership vote on February 26th. The next election will see a dramatically reduced and ineffective NDP, unable to finance the kind of campaign a reinvigorated government party will mount. If a third party were to find the kind of campaign-leader that Gordon Wilson proved to be in 1991, the political landscape could fundamentally change. Of course, a successful change requires more than a campaigner; it takes a leader and party that can work together and appeal to voters across the province. It would take a miracle for the NDP to reinvent itself and fill the political vacuum created by its gang of 13.

http://www.strategicthoughts.com/

 

I don't know if Schreck noticed, but memberships have already started lapsing and donations are already drying up. Now is the perfect time to call a leadership convention, it guarantees a unified NDP caucus before the new Liberal leader decides to call a general election. 

That said, I'm not sure if Kwan is the ideal leader for the BCNDP either. (Yeah, now I'm not sounding constructive at all)

Vansterdam Kid

Centrist wrote:

While I agree that Carole should leave, I have previously stated that we should wait and see until at least who the Libs select as leader first. Jenny's move today was completely wrong and it has the potential to vaporize the political capital the NDP now has with the public.

Even Baldrey on Global News tonight stated that all the Libs have to do now is point out the fact that if the NDP isn't seen as a cohesive party, how can the NDP then be seen as a gov't in waiting? The optics on that Global news story were terrible.

And long time party stalwart David Schreck now chimes in:

 

Quote:
December 1, 2010

Kwan Blows Up NDP

It's amazing that David Shreck still doesn't allow comments on his blog but....

Would you like a bucket of cold water, Centrist?

I agree with you that we should let the Liberals select their leader first but... Who cares if the "optics" of this looks bad now? They will look worse if Carole James holds onto an untenable leadership position, especially if the Liberals call a surprise spring or summer election with a new leader that is seen as significant change from the previous Liberal government. I think the fact that the longest serving NDP MLA, in terms of getting re-elected, who did an invaluable service to the party by being half of the opposition for most of the 37th BC Legislature, has said this so eloquently is far more damaging for the "optics" of James stubborn and continued hold on even putting this issue to the members of the party.

There are legitimate questions about the "84%" number that keeps getting thrown around, as if it actually resembles the percentage of NDP members or people who would buy an NDP membership if they believed in the party, who actually support James. And in any case so what if the Liberals point to this episode in campaign ads? It'll be extremely irrelevant if the NDP is led by a new leader.

The Liberals kept screeching about the Reform/Alliance and their characters in the 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections.... all the good it did them. If the NDP deals with this issue through an actual leadership review where actual party members get a say we will either learn that the party membership really does support James or it does not. If something as trivial as actually having this vote would destroy the party, then perhaps, as Cueball said, the party isn't worth saving. I mean honestly, are people's feewings (no typo) and political positions so precious that they couldn't move on from an open and democratic vote?!?

Policywonk

West Coast Greeny wrote:

Centrist wrote:

While I agree that Carole should leave, I have previously stated that we should wait and see until at least who the Libs select as leader first. Jenny's move today was completely wrong and it has the potential to vaporize the political capital the NDP now has with the public.

Even Baldrey on Global News tonight stated that all the Libs have to do now is point out the fact that if the NDP isn't seen as a cohesive party, how can the NDP then be seen as a gov't in waiting? The optics on that Global news story were terrible.

And long time party stalwart David Schreck now chimes in:

 

Quote:
December 1, 2010

Kwan Blows Up NDP

Who gave Jenny Kwan the right to blow up the NDP? It is Jenny and the unlucky 13 that have eroded democratic principles by ignoring the 84% vote of support James got at the party's November 20th provincial council meeting by continuing to call for her leader's head.

She claims that under James there "has been a steady erosion of our democratic principles". Let's take a closer look at that claim. It is Jenny and the unlucky 13 who ignore the party's constitution which calls for a mandatory leadership review at the 2011 convention. They act as if they can't beat James in that vote and want to force her out through scorched earth tactics that will leave a party no sensible person would want to lead.

In her media release Kwan wrote: "The BC NDP needs to have a leadership race in order to revitalize itself and to unify the party." Most New Democrats believe James has revitalized the party, going from 2 to 35 MLAs and taking the party to the record highs in the polls. Irreparable damage has been done to the NDP by Kwan and her sidekicks. Donations will dry up and memberships will lapse as members sink into despair over the destruction of their party when they thought they were on the eve of seeing James elected premier. New Democrats are known for harbouring bitterness for decades after leadership battles; some still haven't gotten over the Barrett-Berger fight let alone the damage done in the aftermath of Glen Clark.

The BC Liberals must not believe their luck; just when all seemed lost, 13 NDP MLAs have virtually guaranteed another decade of power for whoever wins the BC Liberal leadership vote on February 26th. The next election will see a dramatically reduced and ineffective NDP, unable to finance the kind of campaign a reinvigorated government party will mount. If a third party were to find the kind of campaign-leader that Gordon Wilson proved to be in 1991, the political landscape could fundamentally change. Of course, a successful change requires more than a campaigner; it takes a leader and party that can work together and appeal to voters across the province. It would take a miracle for the NDP to reinvent itself and fill the political vacuum created by its gang of 13.

http://www.strategicthoughts.com/

 

I don't know if Schreck noticed, but memberships have already started lapsing and donations are already drying up. Now is the perfect time to call a leadership convention, it guarantees a unified NDP caucus before the new Liberal leader decides to call a general election. 

That said, I'm not sure if Kwan is the ideal leader for the BCNDP either. (Yeah, now I'm not sounding constructive at all)

She said in an interview on CBC today that she didn't want the job.

Cueball Cueball's picture

That is all settled. I am taking over from James. I just need to know when to make my scheduled appearance to grasp the brass ring.

Vansterdam Kid

I prefer a different Ontarian. Stockhom.... ;-)

Cueball Cueball's picture

Too bad! it has already been decided. Wait until you get a taste of my centralized stifling of debate. You will be begging for James.

Vansterdam Kid

Will you at least promise never to take a position on controversial issues? Controversial issues are defined by those where the right believes in one thing and the left believes in another. If you can make it look like you are trying to "build consensus" between two positions that are mutually exclusive, while ignoring the principle of "build[ing] consensus" inside the party, then I just might think that you've been tricking us all along. After all Carole James became NDP leader in 2003 and you joined babble in 2003. Coincidence? .... Maybe.

[Edit: Oops, ment to say babble not party]

 

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

There will certainly be no debate about anything like that.

West Coast Greeny

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

I prefer a different Ontarian. Stockhom.... ;-)

I thought we wanted a better listener...

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I already have a Cueball sign in front of my house. Leather jackets for all!

I rarely get invested in electoral politics, but I cannot for the life of me understand how the BC NDP is managing to screw up an electoral victory that couldn't possibly, ever, at all, be more perfectly gift wrapped. It's mind boggling.

NorthReport

The BC NDP are screwing up nothing. The Liberals would have picked a new leader with someone like Christy Clark who would have blown Carole James out of the water. Thank goodness this is happening. The fact that Baldrey was making such a big issue of it is a clear indication that the Liberals are now worried. The Liberals ace in the hole has been Carole James. Now the BC Liberals may lose that ace.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Well, okay. But you put Mable Elmore on that letterhead and I will knock the fuck out of Vancouver's doors. I'd probably do the same for Jenny Kwan.

Stockholm

This all reminds me so much of the palace coup against Stockwell Day as leader of the Canadian Alliance back in 2001 when all the rebels in their caucus formed the Democratic Reform caucus etc... and now Jenny Kwan is playing the role of Deborah Grey!!

At this point, I think the only way the BC NDP can get any "catharsis" is to have a leadership race and get the poison out of the system. I tend to like Bill Tieleman's idea of moving up the leadership review to march and then if people vote for a review have the leadership vote soon after. Or failing that, james can run again for her own job against other people.

I still find the criticism of her a bit incoherent. I read Kwan's whole letter and it seems to go back and forth between attacking Carol James for being too dictatorial and centralizing and undemocratic and imposing her views on the party - and then attacking her for being too weak and not being willing to state a position on any controversial issues etc.. which one is it??? can she be too weak and too strong at the same time?

JKR

Kwan has just made James' position as leader untenable. With such strong division within the NDP's caucus, James can no longer be seen as a credible Premier-in-waiting. James will now have to call for a full blown leadership convention. And after having been leader during such a monumental implosion, James has virtually no chance of winning a leadership contest. So Kwan has effectively ended James' tenure as leader of the BC NDP.

Whatever has been happening behind closed doors, it better warrant having a palace coup over. Before this internal implosion, the NDP was a shoe in for taking over power next election. After this fiasco, the NDP's chances are diminished.

It will be very interesting to see what kind of behind-the-scene stories come out to explain the division in caucus ranks.

What, if anything, did James do to cause such a strong mutiny in the ranks?

West Coast Greeny

Stockholm wrote:

This all reminds me so much of the palace coup against Stockwell Day as leader of the Canadian Alliance back in 2001 when all the rebels in their caucus formed the Democratic Reform caucus etc... and now Jenny Kwan is playing the role of Deborah Grey!!

At this point, I think the only way the BC NDP can get any "catharsis" is to have a leadership race and get the poison out of the system. I tend to like Bill Tieleman's idea of moving up the leadership review to march and then if people vote for a review have the leadership vote soon after. Or failing that, james can run again for her own job against other people.

I still find the criticism of her a bit incoherent. I read Kwan's whole letter and it seems to go back and forth between attacking Carol James for being too dictatorial and centralizing and undemocratic and imposing her views on the party - and then attacking her for being too weak and not being willing to state a position on any controversial issues etc.. which one is it??? can she be too weak and too strong at the same time?

- She's unwilling to take strong, clear stands on tough issues

- She governs top-down

No contradiction.

Vansterdam Kid

WCG, you took the words right out of my mouth.

As to the governing top down, sometimes (we must acknowledge), the leader will do this. It's the point of being leader. But when the leader does this and makes a series of poor decisions they must account for their poor decisions. Being leader of the party isn't a lifetime appointment, she's neither dear nor glorious leader, so she and her supporters must stop acting like it and pretending that her victory at the next election would've been assured had everyone just shut up.

JKR wrote:

What, if anything, did James do to cause such a strong mutiny in the ranks?

Are you serious? Have you not been paying attention? Or do you gloss your eyes over when you read any post critical of Carole James? I'm confused by this assertion.

JKR

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

Are you serious? Have you not been paying attention? Or do you gloss your eyes over when you read any post critical of Carole James? I'm confused by this assertion.

I agree that James leadership has been flawed but I have yet to hear how her leadership has been so horrible to justify such a huge schism/implosion within the NDP's caucus. Just a few weeks ago James and the NDP were riding high and everyone thought it almost a foregone conclusion that the NDP was on its way to governing the province. All that is in doubt now mainly because the NDP's caucus has fractured. We've reached the point where people are actually talking about the possibility that the NDP caucus could split into two!

In her statement Kwan stated:

Quote:

Because all NDP MLAs are bound by the principles of caucus confidentiality, it has been very difficult for us to tell our story.

Eventually, the story will have to get out concerning why the NDP's caucus has self-destructed with power almost certainly in its grasp. NDP members deserve to hear why NDP MLA's have decided to mutiny and circumvent the NDP's process of determining its leadership.

The impression being left by Kwan is that James has completely overridden the NDP's caucus to the point that they have had to find a way to overthrow her.

I'd like to hear James side of this. What caucus decisions did James ignore and/or circumvent?

But in any case the NDP's bakers dozen have likely ended James' leadership.

This situation bears a remarkable resemblance to the June 2010 change in Australia's Labor Party that saw Julia Gillard replace Kevin Rudd. There the Labor  caucus voted out Rudd and replaced him with Gillard. NDP MLA's must have been aware of what happened in Australia and it must have crossed their minds that the same could happen here too.

It should be noted that Gillard was hampered in Australia's August election by claims that she unfairly replaced Rudd. Hopefully that claim will stick to the person who will now likely replace James.

One major difference between Australia and BC is that in Australia caucuses have the ability to unilaterally depose their leaders by a simple vote of confidence within caucus. In BC this mechanism doesn't exist. Maybe it should? Maybe we should have some rule changes? As it is, the lack of a proper process to deal with caucus schisms has come back to harm the NDP.

KenS

I think its worth noting that when parties no longer have full confidence in the leader, it ALWAYS gets messy, and there is rarely any good solution. Both sides act is if the other would just do the right thing, all would be as it should.

And all the tools are on the side of the leader staying put. He or she can stay right to the very bitter end if they want. [Scorched earth.] On the side of the critics: the more intransigent the leader and the more she stands on her instiutional and morally based rights irregardless, the more the critics will stop at nothing. [Scorched earth.]

It really boils down to when the leader chooses to accept that his or her position is untenable [no matter howm much no one has a right to do this to me]. If Joe Clark called for that leadership review [rather than its timing being constitutionaly determined] then he is the only leader I can think of who picked the time when it was inevitable but not yet really nasty. [And of course there are many who left when it was pretty much known they would if they did not win the coming election.]

[Then there is Mike Harcourt, who went when he didnt have to.]

Most leaders wait until they are well past the untenable point, and often dont pull the plug until just before it has become so bad that soon people will not be waiting for them to pick the moment.

Pages

Topic locked