Senior BC Caucus Member Jenny Kwan Issues Statement
December 1, 2010 - 5:37pm
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.
In a previous thread, I posted this:
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."
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!!!
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:
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...
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
What part of ELECTORAL COALITION do you not understand?
The part where it actually succeeds.
Please cite a successful electoral coalition.
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!
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!
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.
Well, if 4 New Democrat MPs join the 13, they could just remove James as caucus leader. That would be a little more direct.
I am betting that this thread hits 100 by noon tomorrow!
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.
Ok. I'll do it! If I must. How does one become "leader"?
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.
First order of business will be not hiring my nephew to do the image makeover for the party... I will do that myself.
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.
If it's a statement about what will happen in the future, then it's not reality. Sorry buddy.
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.
It seems to me that the people who are paying Moe's salary should ask him to resign for the good of the party.
The BC Liberals will definiely be crying in their beer tonite - Keith Baldrey basically confirmed it with his analysis.
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
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.
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:
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/
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.
Where may I profess my love for Jenny Kwan?
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:
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)
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:
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?!?
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:
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.
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.
I prefer a different Ontarian. Stockhom.... ;-)
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.
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]
There will certainly be no debate about anything like that.
I prefer a different Ontarian. Stockhom.... ;-)
I thought we wanted a better listener...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
I don't know where people are getting this idea. I admit I am not living there right now, but I really don't think people would have gone NDP simply because of the HST. The Liberals just need to find a reasonable replacement, tweak the HST thing, and they're back in black.
I think the timing is appropriate. When else is this going to happen? The Liberals could pull a surprise election once they've reconsolidated, and the NDP needs to be ready. It seems to me it has to happen now, which is probably why there is this sense of urgency. But I agree the actual vote should wait until after the Liberals have gone through theirs.
Carole should have won the last election and she will lose again if the election comes within the next year. The nasty neo-cons who call themselves Liberal are already talking about raising the minimum wage and other nice goodies.
If the BC LIberals retain their traditional base of voters the NDP loses. So far they have attracted few new members under Carole and it is difficult to see where they have room to grow within the existing voter pool. The voters didn't like Carole last time after eight years of neo-con hell, what did she leave on the table last election that she will be able to use in the next one to change the outcome?
The moment Carole resigns I will be selling memberships again to try to renew the party. I am not going to work to elect the cabal but I will work to regain the party from them.
David Schreck is one of the people who knifed Harcourt in the back and he is still a divisive unhealthy force within the party.
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 remember Stockwell sucked as a leader and it was in their interest to get rid of him.
Even if you think its an overstatement to say that the last election was the NDP's to lose.... the best you can come up with in defenses for the campaign Carole led is some combination of "it wasnt the slam dunk people think, there were the newly refreshed worries about the economy" blah, blah. You cant point to anything that they did.
So there is really no basis at all for thinking its going to be different next time... least of all when the BCLibs are dumping their biggest obstacles.
I was on the BC NDP Executive during Bennett's last days. Bob Skelly was our leader and we were waiting out the time until he defeated Bill Bennett at the polls. Then Bennett stepped aside and Bill Vandersalm stepped up. Vandersalm came in and we were totally unprepared. Later we also saw how Glen Clark was able to take victory out of what seemed to be certain defeat. I think the view of many members want to know, are we ready to fight Gordon Campbell's replacement.
How about these: the carbon tax, the Port Mann Bridge, the MLA pay raise, opposition to pro-rep. These are issues where the James gang went against party policy and alienated core supporters. For many of these people flip-flops on thses issues were a violation of important principles.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
I think that James left a lot of votes on the table at the debate. When Campbell arrogantly dismissed her business acumen and the reporters came for a quote after the debate she was almost nonchalant about it. She should have leaped on it, made it the story of the day. Not just that Campbell has a poor opinion of her, but that he is a bully by nature and that if people vote Liberal they will be voting for a government of one.
How about these: the carbon tax, the Port Mann Bridge, the MLA pay raise, opposition to pro-rep. These are issues where the James gang went against party policy and alienated core supporters.
Remind me of what "OFFICIAL PARTY POLICY" there ever was to support Gordon Campbell's Greenwash Tax?Incidentally, its notable that many of the anti-James dissidents are from remote ridings in the interior where opposition to the carbon tax was the main reason they even got elected.
James has taken strong stands on various issues - its just that some people disagree with those stands and in some cases the disagreements reflect genuine splits between different stakeholders in the NDP in various issues. For example, Carol James was adamantly in favour of the Tsawassen Land Claims Treaty and so were all the First Nations advocates. Some people thought the treaty should be scrapped to save some little corner of land from development. She laid down the law and people on the other side didn't like it. Imagine if she had taken the other position and committed the NDP to blocking all land claims treaties if anyone had the slightest objection? - then we never would have heard the end of it from the other side.
These conflicts between FN interests and people wanting to preserve lands and between people for and against building a bridge are not going to go away just because the party gets a new leader. That person is going to have to make some decisions that will upset one faction or another. I just hope that the day after the next NDP leader takes office - new plots don't start being hatched immediately by anyone who is upset that the new leader didn't give them 100% of what they wanted.
Cueball wrote last night in this thread:
I am betting that this thread hits 100 by noon tomorrow!
Remind me of what "OFFICIAL PARTY POLICY" there ever was to support Gordon Campbell's Greenwash Tax?Incidentally, its notable that many of the anti-James dissidents are from remote ridings in the interior where opposition to the carbon tax was the main reason they even got elected.
I know this is not likely to have been reported in the papers at the centre of your universe but it is a fact in BC whether you like it or not.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/06/12/bc-ndp-libs-c...
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.
[...and]
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.
Two things, as others have said, it's not altogether clear that the next election would be the NDP's for the taking. Especially with the Liberals choosing a new leader.
As to the NDP's "process", the "process" (used in all Canadian party's) is ridiculous. Who are these people that are in provincial council? Why aren't their processes as codified as other electoral institutions like Elections Canada? If they make their own rules how can we believe in their legitimacy? If they're unwilling to hold reviews that are easy to attend and that consult the entire membership then yes I think the MLA's have more legitimacy than the provincial council and should be making decisions about party leadership. You have what, maybe .0001 percent of the population voting for those people, you have a lot more people voting for the MLA's. I honestly think the MLA's should have a significant say in who the leader is. It's like that in most other Westminster systems.
As to Australia, it looked like Rudd was going to loose to Abbott. If Labor hadn't replaced Rudd with Gillard they would've lost that election. The only reason Labor did as poorly as they did (because Gillard was doing well until the leaks started) is because of the sore losers with a score to settle. I'm not saying the same thing won't happen here if James is deposed, but as others have indicated, leadership elections are messy regardless of.
I think that James left a lot of votes on the table at the debate. When Campbell arrogantly dismissed her business acumen and the reporters came for a quote after the debate she was almost nonchalant about it. She should have leaped on it, made it the story of the day. Not just that Campbell has a poor opinion of her, but that he is a bully by nature and that if people vote Liberal they will be voting for a government of one.
Not to mention the fact that Campbell had little business experience himself. I don't recall the exact details, but according to wikipedia, he had about 5 years of private sector experience. Though, my reading of that experience indicates that he would've had close cooperation with the public sector seeing as he worked in the development sector. As such most of his working life was spent in the public sector, so it's pretty hypocritical of him to bash her for not having enough "business experience." Yet, there she was with that John Kerry like smile on her face. It was absolutely ridiculous. Yet now that her position as opposition leader is on the line she fights like it matters. That is absolutely pathetic.
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.
Interesting comment. Care to elaborate on what you mean?
It seems Carole still isn't going to back down, calling an emergency meeting with caucus and the executive this weekend. Unbelievable. We really are going to see a purge here.
To be fair, that's probably the appropriate thing to do. Wouldn't you want to get everyone together to get all cards out on the table and come to a decision?
James will be making a statement at 1pm PST
Yet, there she was with that John Kerry like smile on her face. It was absolutely ridiculous. Yet now that her position as opposition leader is on the line she fights like it matters. That is absolutely pathetic.
My thoughts as well. Imagine in six to eight months when the new Premier drops the writ and Carole faces of against them. I sure that the, "I am the consensus builder the Province needs" line is bound to impress people who have never voted NDP in the past. I feel sorry for Carole since she seems like a good woman but she has chosen to listen to the wrong advisors and it cost us the last election and it will cost us the next if she doesn't do the right thing and step down in an orderly fashion. Her resignation triggers a leadership convention and for the good of the party she should resign.
I often wonder whose team Schreck is on? He reminds me of another dinosaur Union Jack Munro, a bully boy with a pulpit that they use to shill for Howe Street. People like them are always telling progressives they can't have everything so they should take the incremental steps and rejoice. Then he personally leads the fight [powered by business dollars] to defeat proportional representation in the Province because it was not the ideal he thought we should have. Hypocrisy is the norm with the cabal.
A carbon tax was in the platform until just weeks before the election. In fact the policy was still on the website even after James announced the “Axe the Tax” campaign. 4 years of policy was reversed without any input from the membership.
For years a carbon tax had been called for by most environmental groups. When Campbell adopted a carbon tax of course it was supported by these same groups with the caveat that the rate was set too low. When the NDP opposed the tax of course the environmental groups criticised the NDP position. For them it was a question of standing on principle and maintaining a consistent position. For their pains the Environmental groups were attacked by the NDP for some supposed disloyalty. This spat between the NDP and environmental groups, who should have been natural allies, dominated the first 10 days or so of the election.
This is an example of a back room, unilateral reversal of policy that the James gang has been criticised for. It is also an example of very poor political instincts, another criticism of James.
Opposition to a Yes vote on the referendum on STV, which was held concurrently with the election, is an example of a variation between the supporters of the party and the current leadership. Support for pro-rep, specifically MMP, has been party policy for years, yet James announced that she voted against STV in the first referendum. Party insider and prominent James gang supporter David Schreck LED THE NO CAMPAIGN in the second referendum. Meanwhile NDP voters voted Yes (narrowly) to the referendum.
Sadly, for the NDP, a lot of the same people who support a carbon tax, also support pro rep. The same green swing voters that the NDP needs to win, and who will either vote Green or stay home if the NDP has nothing for them (or attacks them).
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
To be fair, that's probably the appropriate thing to do. Wouldn't you want to get everyone together to get all cards out on the table and come to a decision?
Yes, but it sounds more like a purge is coming since she's basically admitted that the MLA's will be "held accountable for their behaviour" (her words, not mine). Considering her history of dealing with this matter she, and her supporters, probably feel they can't back down now. Other than the Alliance-DRC split, I honestly can't think of a saga like this within an opposition party. And as Pogo said, we all know how well that turned out for Stockwell Day. Is Carole James the NDP version of Stockwell Day?
If they kick out Jenny the only question is how many other MLA's will walk with her.
In my opinion the award for the dumbest political move in politics in Canada is Moe's stipend. I can just imagine when caucus heard that. The party has spent four elections implicitly saying that their ties with labour are exaggerated and the BC Fed does not control the party. That message has always been a hard sell and few voters believed it despite the fact there is some truth to it. I am sure the news of his stipend was greeted with great glee and laughter in the boardrooms of Howe Street.
Is it? This is at best an overgeneralization, or at worst “I don’t really know what is going on the ground in BC, so I will just make thing up”.
The carbon tax was most vigorously opposed in the north east, home of BC’s oil and gas industry, also heavy consumers of fuels.
By contrast, Kootenay-West, Katrine Conroy’s riding (dissident NDP), has a strong environmental component, and although not universal, there is support for a tax on carbon. Support or opposition to a specific policy is not black and white in any riding.
Most party supporters are prepared to maintain their support, even if there are some specific policies that you don’t agree with. But what do you do if long standing policies, voted on by the membership, are summarily reversed as soon as the writ is dropped? Its frakking nuts!
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Hey folks, has anyone read this interview with Bob Simpson?
Sadly, for the NDP, a lot of the same people who support a carbon tax, also support pro rep. The same green swing voters that the NDP needs to win, and who will either vote Green or stay home if the NDP has nothing for them (or attacks them).
I guess that would explain the great "surge" in support for the Green Party in the '09 election. They managed to go from 8.6% in 2005 to 8.3% in 2009 - I guess they really capitalized on all that pro-carbon tax sentiment!
happier days
Once again overgeneralization and lack of on the ground knowledge has tripped you up.
Referring to Kootenay-West, one of the "remote ridings in the interior where opposition to the carbon tax was the main reason they even got elected." as you say, the NDP vote went down and the Green vote went up between 2005 and 2009. The numbers seem to indicate that many dippers simply stayed home. This is one of the trends that the dissident MLAs are tying to reverse.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
The only question now is does James bring the party down with her? If she boots Kwan, it's obvious other MLAs will join the exodus fromt the party, my MLA Simons has been pretty clear. And honestly, I'd bet money they'll keep their seats. People are sick of the Liberals and James, a left of centre party that isn't the NDP has a rare window of opportunity here.
Does James now have ANY chance of surviving as leader?
Also, someone mentioned the possibility of a snap election once the new Liberal leader is chosen....wouldn't the fixed election dates law actually prevent that?
At the end of the day James is toast. But that "end of the day" could well be another year. It looks like James is drawing another line in the sand, she has the support of the majority of caucus, and she also has the recent 84% support from provincial council.
According to James, the dissidents are not only a threat to her leadership (unlike Bob Simpson) but "the party as a whole". And the dissidents will be faced down at an emergency meeting.
"Every MLA will be held accountable for their behaviour," she said. "It is time to get on with the job we need to do."
The meeting will be held in the next few days and will include the caucus of NDP MLAs and members of the party's executive, James said. It's still to be decided whether the meeting will include labour leaders, she said.
Discussion and debate are always welcome in the party, James said, adding the current crisis isn't about that. "This is about whether this caucus can show we're ready to govern in British Columbia."
The division in the NDP is a serious threat to the party, she said.
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Election-Central/2010/12/02/JamesEmergen...
A snap election is also possible. The Lib leadership date is February 26 and the next fixed election date is May 12, 2013. The new Lib leader may wish to seek an immediate new mandate and, if that's the case, the Libs need only reconvene the legislature and amend the relevent statute to move up the election date to, say, May 12, 2011.
OTOH, I have not read the legislation but, according to a BC political columnist, that fixed date of May 12, 2013 is the "last election date" possible. IOW, an earlier election date won't contravene the relevant statute.
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.
Interesting comment. Care to elaborate on what you mean?
I mistakenly omitted the word "not." The sentance should have read:
"Hopefully that claim will not stick to the person who will now likely replace James."
All this infighting has left the NDP in a vulnerable position. It is of vital importance that the NDP get beyond this infighting ASAP. If the NDP divides into two factions, a "right-wing-James" faction and a "left-wing-Kwan" faction, the party's chances at long-term success will be damaged.
After the events of the past week, James tenure as leader has now become untenable and she will have to resign. More importantly, both sides of this divide will have to let bygones be bygones and come together in order to replace the BC Liberals. Hopefully a consensus choice as leader will be made that satisfies both sides of the NDP's schism.
In the case of Australia's Labor Party, the party's schism resurfaced in their election and caused Labor to lose a lot of their support, especially in Kevin Rudd's state of Queensland.
The worst thing the BC NDP could do now is elect Kwan or anyone else who has led the movement to depose James. That would just divide the party even more and leave the new leader vulnerable to being framed as a "back stabber" as Julia Gillard was in Australia. In order to heal, a consensus candidate will have to be chosen as new leader. Hopefully James will resign as gracefully as Rudd did as Prime Minister and Labor leader in Australia. As things have turned out, Rudd is currently Australia's Minister of Foreign Affairs in Julia Gillard's Labor government. Hopefully such a "happily ever after" ending will happen to the NDP too.
As to the NDP's "process", the "process" (used in all Canadian party's) is ridiculous. Who are these people that are in provincial council?
It would probably be a good idea for parties to switch to the system used in places like the UK and Australia where the caucus can get rid of leaders who they do not support. That could be coupled with leadership reviews after every election.
And Centrist, that is the crux of the issue. What the James gang's strategy will be is to avoid a leadership review at all costs, until it is too late to have one. And they are BSing people that the recent Provincial Council meeting had some kind of a mandate to vote on Carole's leadership which is an outright lie. Let's be very clear: the James gang caused this problem with their stupid, stupid yellow scarves. How freakin' dumb can you be.
There is only only way now that the BC NDP are going to win the next election, which, if they are wise, they should be able to do. And the only wise course of action is for Carole to submit herself to a Leadership review right away, and if she gets 75%-90% support she keeps the Leader's role, and if not, she can still decide whether to contest the leadership race or not. But Carole and her supporters have run away from, and played a lot of games with, this Leadership review issue, and it is now going to be stopped, once and for all. Anyway my hunch is that the party grassroots, and the voting public of BC will not support her. It's too bad in many ways, as she is a nice person but that is the reality of today's politics in BC.
A snap election is also possible. The Lib leadership date is February 26 and the next fixed election date is May 12, 2013. The new Lib leader may wish to seek an immediate new mandate and, if that's the case, the Libs need only reconvene the legislature and amend the relevent statute to move up the election date to, say, May 12, 2011.
OTOH, I have not read the legislation but, according to a BC political columnist, that fixed date of May 12, 2013 is the "last election date" possible. IOW, an earlier election date won't contravene the relevant statute.
I think Harper proved that a new Liberal Premier could contravene a fixed-date election law by going to the Lieutenant Governor and having him call an election. That would leave the NDP fighting an election represented by James, a damaged lame-duck leader.
Christy Clark must be salivating at the prospect of this happening in the Spring.
From the looks of how things are shaping up, Carole will be staying and I suspect that several MLAs will leave caucus and form an independent NDP caucus:
Carole James, faced with open calls for her resignation from members of her caucus, has convened an emergency meeting with both her MLAs and the party's top brass where she promised the rebellion involving one-third of her caucus will be put down.
"Every MLA will be held accountable for their behaviour," she told a news conference on Thursday.
Ms. James would not say what will happen if the 13 known dissident MLAs won't recant, but party insiders say she is prepared to dump caucus members who will not agree to support her.
"They have to discuss the terms of what it will take for people to stop fighting and come out united," one source said. "Accountability is code for, you are in or you are out."
Caucus chair Kathy Corrigan said MLAs will face repercussions if they don't show up, and she promised "decisions will be made" to deal with those who won't support the leader. "This is a group of people who are not supporting the democratic process the party has in place. This is an affront to the party."
"It is time to say enough of this kind of behaviour," Ms. James said. "It's not about being best friends around the caucus table. It's about making sure we have a common direction and a common vision and a common goal."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/james-call...
I think that in BC NDP rules there has to be a provincial council election within 90 days of a leadership race so probably 7 years without a contest helped some council members grow some pretty long teeth.
So perhaps the leader endorsement was more about the current council survival and not James at all?
Kwans press release was just excellent.
I think James should resign or be fired immediately. The last thing they need is her doing her Kaptain Bligh routine if the bc libs call a snap election. (Bligh got stuck on a tiny boat with his loyalists but unlike James, he had a good sense of direction)
The NDP needs to call a leadership contest right now. What happens in a contest?
Well, people get fired up, and people discuss politics, and people renew memberships. And sleeper activists get awakened.
It would do wonders for party morale. (Not necessarly party members, but people who might come back to the polling booths if they actually knew what the NDP represented nowadays (provincially).
Wouldn't it be super if the NDP embraced technology?
Every NDP member has a vote. Why not figure out a way of making the vote by bank card or something like that? A 5 or 10 buck transaction (that can be traced), goes into NDP coffers as the votes get counted?
And that is just my suggestion. Probably other ways too.
You may jump back in horror but really it is a lot cheaper and a lot more all embracing than sending a bunch of people to some place in Vancouver to cast their votes.
Speaking of democracy, when is Carole James going to face a leadership review? Don't most leader's actually, you know, face those?
@ Brian, that voting online via donations and your membership card thing is a great idea. Most people outside of the Lower Mainland don't have time to go to some convention in Vancouver. Hell, even many people living in the city don't have time for that. If there was a way of ensuring that the process couldn't be unfairly manipulated, it ought to be embraced.
I think that in BC NDP rules there has to be a provincial council election within 90 days of a leadership race so probably 7 years without a contest helped some council members grow some pretty long teeth.
That is just wrong in so many ways. Provincial council is not elected at one event or one time. Instead it membership is delegated from a number of bodies:
Provincial Constituency reps (chosen at constituency AGMs)
Provincial Executive (chosen at Provincial Convention as well as a few dedicated positions)
Caucus Representatives (chosen by Caucus)
YND, Labour, and Women's representatives
All of these groups operate on their own timelines which are not altered by leadership changes.
I think that in BC NDP rules there has to be a provincial council election within 90 days of a leadership race so probably 7 years without a contest helped some council members grow some pretty long teeth.
That is just wrong in so many ways. Provincial council is not elected at one event or one time. Instead it membership is delegated from a number of bodies:
Provincial Constituency reps (chosen at constituency AGMs)
Provincial Executive (chosen at Provincial Convention as well as a few dedicated positions)
Caucus Representatives (chosen by Caucus)
YND, Labour, and Women's representatives
All of these groups operate on their own timelines which are not altered by leadership changes.
And all of this information is available in the Party Constitution, which is available on the Party website.
Speaking of democracy, when is Carole James going to face a leadership review? Don't most leader's actually, you know, face those?
Next fall, unless it gets moved up.
A snap election is also possible. The Lib leadership date is February 26 and the next fixed election date is May 12, 2013. The new Lib leader may wish to seek an immediate new mandate and, if that's the case, the Libs need only reconvene the legislature and amend the relevent statute to move up the election date to, say, May 12, 2011.
OTOH, I have not read the legislation but, according to a BC political columnist, that fixed date of May 12, 2013 is the "last election date" possible. IOW, an earlier election date won't contravene the relevant statute.
I think Harper proved that a new Liberal Premier could contravene a fixed-date election law by going to the Lieutenant Governor and having him call an election. That would leave the NDP fighting an election represented by James, a damaged lame-duck leader.
Christy Clark must be salivating at the prospect of this happening in the Spring.
Why would they contravene the law when they have a majority and can just change it? Of course they will look like total opportunists either way.
And Centrist, that is the crux of the issue. What the James gang's strategy will be is to avoid a leadership review at all costs, until it is too late to have one. And they are BSing people that the recent Provincial Council meeting had some kind of a mandate to vote on Carole's leadership which is an outright lie. Let's be very clear: the James gang caused this problem with their stupid, stupid yellow scarves. How freakin' dumb can you be.
It's a good thing the President or a caucus loyalist isn't called Younger.
Do people really believe that other James gang MLAs are not considering jumping ship as well. All it will take is for 2 or 3 more defections and their will not even be a leadership review - we'll go straight to leadership contest.
This BS caucus meeting sounds like more of the same - another witch hunt by the James gang. It will only backfire on them.
"15.02 Subject only to the authority of the Convention and the provisions of this Constitution, the Provincial
Council shall be the governing body of the Party between Conventions.
15.03 It shall be a specific responsibility of the Provincial Council to amplify, extend and add to policy
decisions enunciated by the Convention and that such amplifications or extensions not be inconsistent
with existing Convention policy."
The basic problem in the provincial ndp is in the quote above from their constitution. All power to set all agendas rests with the provincial council. MLA's are just tools who can only say and do what they are told to say and do.
I have not the time to study the election rules. There are probably a bunch of moral hazards among them. Presumably a "slate" put forward by a well organized sub grouping can take over the party by becoming the majority of the executive.
And it seems that only the ndp members who can afford to travel have a vote. What about NDP members in care homes? Where is their right to vote?
"b) Election of Executive
The Provincial Executive, except for the Leader, shall be elected at a provincial Convention. All
votes, where required, shall be a secret ballot of accredited delegates present during the time set aside
for balloting, in the following manner:
11
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
The President and Treasurer each shall be elected on a separate ballot.
The Labour Vice President elected by Labour delegates at Labour Caucus at Convention.
Six Vice-Presidents, elected on a single ballot.
Four Members at Large, elected on a single ballot.
Two Regional Representatives shall be nominated at Convention from each of the eight regions
defined by Provincial Council. Only accredited delegates to the Provincial Convention are eligible to
participate in the nomination of representatives from their region. The candidates nominated at the
regional meeting will be designated on the ballot, which will be open to other candidates from the
region."
I got it wrong on the 90 day provincial council election thingy, sorry. Trying to read too much stuff.
I think that in BC NDP rules there has to be a provincial council election within 90 days of a leadership race so probably 7 years without a contest helped some council members grow some pretty long teeth.
That is just wrong in so many ways. Provincial council is not elected at one event or one time. Instead it membership is delegated from a number of bodies:
Provincial Constituency reps (chosen at constituency AGMs)
Provincial Executive (chosen at Provincial Convention as well as a few dedicated positions)
Caucus Representatives (chosen by Caucus)
YND, Labour, and Women's representatives
All of these groups operate on their own timelines which are not altered by leadership changes.
A snap election is also possible. The Lib leadership date is February 26 and the next fixed election date is May 12, 2013. The new Lib leader may wish to seek an immediate new mandate and, if that's the case, the Libs need only reconvene the legislature and amend the relevent statute to move up the election date to, say, May 12, 2011.
OTOH, I have not read the legislation but, according to a BC political columnist, that fixed date of May 12, 2013 is the "last election date" possible. IOW, an earlier election date won't contravene the relevant statute.
I think Harper proved that a new Liberal Premier could contravene a fixed-date election law by going to the Lieutenant Governor and having him call an election. That would leave the NDP fighting an election represented by James, a damaged lame-duck leader.
Christy Clark must be salivating at the prospect of this happening in the Spring.
Why would they contravene the law when they have a majority and can just change it? Of course they will look like total opportunists either way.
Because the fixed elections law was their major reward to those members of the old federal Reform Party voting bloc who threw their support to the Campbell Liberals in 2001. Also, they wouldn't be likely to repeal the law because it was done specifically as payback to the NDP for winning the 1996 election by delaying it until the last possible moment. The Campbell Liberals believed they were simply entitled to come to power in 1995, no matter what.
From the looks of how things are shaping up, Carole will be staying and I suspect that several MLAs will leave caucus and form an independent NDP caucus:
Carole James, faced with open calls for her resignation from members of her caucus, has convened an emergency meeting with both her MLAs and the party's top brass where she promised the rebellion involving one-third of her caucus will be put down.
"Every MLA will be held accountable for their behaviour," she told a news conference on Thursday.
Ms. James would not say what will happen if the 13 known dissident MLAs won't recant, but party insiders say she is prepared to dump caucus members who will not agree to support her.
"They have to discuss the terms of what it will take for people to stop fighting and come out united," one source said. "Accountability is code for, you are in or you are out."
Caucus chair Kathy Corrigan said MLAs will face repercussions if they don't show up, and she promised "decisions will be made" to deal with those who won't support the leader. "This is a group of people who are not supporting the democratic process the party has in place. This is an affront to the party."
"It is time to say enough of this kind of behaviour," Ms. James said. "It's not about being best friends around the caucus table. It's about making sure we have a common direction and a common vision and a common goal."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/james-call...
I can't believe this. I honestly can't fucking believe this. One month ago we were talking about seeing the Liberals reduced to a rump caucus of about 10. Now I don't see how the NDP can win the next election. This is BEYOND Stockwell Day-level incompetence. I don't care who these MLA's are, if you've pissed off 40% of them, you've done something wrong.
At least Moe gets to keep his salary.
Since when had a party leader faced this level of open rebellion and decided fuck it, we're going to stay on anyways? That news confrence today made me think they graduated from the Bill O'Reilley school of political posturing.
The "loyalists" keep throwing around the word Democracy, and the fact that the rebels need to respect the "democratic will" of the party, but their version of democracy seems almost North Korean. I was joking when I referred to James as neither dear nor glorious leader, but I'm starting to wonder if her supporters are that deluded to believe she is really supported by 84% of the party. I wonder if those who support Carole James actually believe that the Provincial Council vote represents 84% of the membership of the party? Let alone 84% of the NDP voter base? If they do they've got to be some of the most politically brain dead people around. Either that or they need to share what they've been smoking.
I mean honestly, reading Centrists link made me think that they're going give the rebels a spanking at the meeting if they don't show up and recite a loyalty pledge or something. Kathy Corrigan's comments were almost Monty Python-esque in their absurdity. If the "loyalists" want a sure fire way to encourage more descension, this is it.
As far as the election date legislation is concerned the Liberals will change it in a flash if it means more power for them.
No, Van. It's not a spanking. It's not funny. She's kicking them out, she's ejecting them. She's going to remove 40% of her caucus.
The only precedent there has ever been in Canada, EVER, for something like this is the DRC-Alliance split, and even THAT only involved 20% of the caucus.
To reiterate, James has two options: Call a convention, or send the party back into the wilderness.
Gallows humour, because it's so fucking ridiculous.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/james-calls-emergency-caucus-to-deal-with-revolt/article1822129/
I've noticed something. At this press conference, Carole had 13 MLAs stand behind her in support, another 3 were contacted by phone. Obviously Carole was trying to show as much strength as possible. Interesting thing is, not every single non-dissident was behind her: To do the math.
34 MLAs left
16 MLAs openly support Carole
13 MLAs openly oppose Carole (not including Bob Simpson), leaving
5 MLAs undecided
Mathematically speaking, she could be taken down ... by a majority of one.
Carole is just digging her own political grave with those strong arm tactics. If Keith Baldry, Bill Good and Vaughn Palmer are her strongest advocates now she's in more trouble than she and her backers can admit.
Here's something for those who think the 84% support in Council translates into support from members.
http://www.straight.com/article-362145/vancouver/mla-jenny-kwan-says-ndp...
Comments (29) 
Should Carole James resign as leader of the B.C. NDP? 84% (480) Yes 16% (91) NoWhat a flippin' clown this moron is. The BC Liberals sure seem, to have a lot of pimps in the mainstream press. Yup, that's our leader Carole James who he is supporting who would rather destroy the BC NDP that accept the fact the jig is up.
Give it up Carole, your best before date has expired.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/gary_mason...
Wouldn't it have been better to wait a year for the scheduled leadership review?
Is the rush to depose James ASAP worth all of this?
Why the rush?
Wouldn't it be better to follow the prescribed format and wait till the fall of 2011 for the leadership review and possible subsequent leadership convention?
We've been waiting 7 fuckin' years for a leadership review, and the only reason James is still leader is that she has manipulated things to avoid one for that long.
And no, we need one asap, so that right after the Liberals decide who their leader is, we can decide who will replace James.
The reason being that the Liberals may well change the legislation and call an election immediatley following their vote in Febrauary for their new Leader.
Only if the Liberals avoid calling an early election and if the leadership review didn't get delayed, again.
The wikipedia entries for carole james and Jenny kwan tell a story. James story ends with the 2005 election! and has no outside links!!!
(Just like her leadership and trigger happy provincial council) and Kwan's has links to todays developments! (Perhaps outside links on Caroles page are censored?)
If people really cared, and if James was a leader worth caring about,
do you REALLY think her wikipedia entry would end with her 2005 election result?
I have edited entrys in wikipedia. But the NDP top brass cannot get round to updating James entry. WOW
Edited to add. Wikipedia has a history and discussion tab so you can see how often people edit James wikipedia entry. Check them out and you will see the leader that nobody cares about.
James was never in a position to manipulate the process by herself. THE NDP as an organization set the Fall of 2011 as the date of the leadership review.
If people feel that James has wrongly avoided a leadership review for 7 years they should have spoken up sooner before the date for the leadership review was set for the fall of 2011. Once it was set for the fall of 2011, people should have abided by it.
The entire NDP caucus and upper echelon are collectively responsible this fiasco. The fact that this could have occurred says a lot about the NDP.
Whatever happens, a review must take place to insure the NDP's apparent deep seated disfunctionality is repaired.
And no, we need one asap, so that right after the Liberals decide who their leader is, we can decide who will replace James.
The reason being that the Liberals may well change the legislation and call an election immediatley following their vote in Febrauary for their new Leader.
The fear of losing the next election is not worth jettisoning ones morals and ethics.
The setting of the leadership review was democratically agreed upon using the rules the NDP has established for itself. Changing rules midstream out of the fear of losing the next election is not the ethical thing to do.
That being said, I hope James resigns for the sake of the party.
If all the NDP's MLA's all stick to their guns, this could get ugly.
The MLA's who put the party first and compromise will be the true winners here.
[The mother who is willing to give up the baby, is the baby's mother - Judgment of Solomon]
The NDP 'as an organization' has only done what Jame's big union backers (Sinclair mostly) wanted all along, which is unilaterally remove the established standard of post-election (losing) reviews before bringing it back in years later in response to calls for a full convention in 2009. A mere 'review' is not enough, it's too easily stage managed. As Jenny said we must have a full leadership convention, which alone allows for OMOV. The BC Liberals could also call for an election Before the scheduled review, despite their BS promise for set election dates, which the James gang and their NDp friendly media cheerleaders might be hoping for too. There are layers and layers behind this, which is why the old nineties crew is running so scared.
***
Former MLA Corky Evans has written this letter and given us permission to share it: _ _ _
I think that the current, and very public, troubles inside the NDP must be hugely confusing to citizens. In order to try to help folks better understand the debacle I am inclined to try and offer some history about how political parties function in times of stress and how mine (and ours) has functioned over the last few weeks.
Leadership, in any Party, is not a right. Every Leader understands that they serve the Party they lead. Power, of course, is addictive and extremely difficult to abandon. This is true in all institutions from the family to a community group to a company to a political party. Power is also isolating. When we have power we have a position of status and we tend to be surrounded by people who support our status and may even benefit from our position by virtue of their wages or their ambition. Surrounded, as we are by such people, we lose contact with the views of the citizenry at large and need the intervention of others, outside our circle, to tell us what is really going on.
Political parties resolve these contradictions, at least in a democracy, in various ways. One of the most straightforward methods available to help a Leader understand what is happening outside their circle is to have some of the elected people they work with simply go and tell them how things look out on the street. These interventions are universally "in confidence" and, to my knowledge, have rarely ever been discussed outside of the circle of people actually involved in the discussion. An MLA who meets with their Leader to suggest that the Leader needs to consider moving on in life has to be tremendously brave. The Leader does not have to agree with them and can make their life difficult in future. Obviously, the discussion works best when the Member is trusted by the Leader so that the Leader can believe that the Member is not acting out of ambition or malice.
The Leader can, of course, decide to accept the advice of the Member or decide the Member is wrong and stay on. Regardless of the outcome, however, we who were not in the meeting never hear about the exchange because it is never in the best interest of the Party to have their internal discussions made public.
In 1986, when I was a candidate and prior to the election, I was asked to sign such a letter to Bob Skelly, suggesting that he resign as Leader. I declined, but others (I believe) signed the letter and (I believe) MLA's delivered it. If such a letter and meeting actually happened, Bob Skelly, as was his right, chose to disregard the letter and the request to step down. I have never seen the letter and do not know who the MLA's were, as it has always been treated as an "in confidence" occurrence. I know none of this to absolutely true because, correctly, none of it has been discussed with me by any of the participants.
Same thing with Mike Harcourt. (I believe) a group of MLA's visited Mike to discuss their wish that he resign in order to make the Nanaimo "bingogate" scandal go away for the good of the Party. He chose to take the advice but, because it was a private meeting, I do not know if such a meeting took place or who went to see him or what they said. I was part of that government and I do not know, and have not asked, what private communications took place prior to Mike's resignation.
Same thing with Glen Clark. I believe MLA's suggested to Glen that he resign. Glen (as was his right) chose to resist the request and then was forced to step down by virtue of actions by the Attorney General. As with both Bob Skelly and Mike Harcourt, private discussions with Glen by MLA's who (may have) asked him to resign remain "in confidence" to this day. I was part of that government and I do not know, and have not asked, what private communications took place prior to Glen's resignation.
For all I know, similar meetings have taken place between Socred MLA's and Bill Bennett Jr.and/or Bill Van derZalm, and Liberal MLA'S and Gordon Wilson, and/or Gordon Campbell. The point being that MLA's of all Parties have always had the right to request of their Leader that they resign or submit to a Leadership review and those discussions have always been, and should always remain, private. The Leader can decide to step down or decide to remain in office. Everyone involved, however, always understands the assumption of "confidence" involved in the process. It is also important to understand that when these kind of private meetings have happened in the past, they are most likely to happen with Members who personally like the Leader. Members who wish to personally replace the Leader or have antipathy for Leader do not attend because their motives would be suspect. These are private meetings to discuss a private issue raised in the best interest of the Party in question, not the personal feelings or ambitions of the people in the meeting.
Precisely in keeping with this historical tradition, a group of New Democrat MLA's came to the conclusion a few weeks back that it was time to hold a Leadership convention.
A small group of those MLA's took a letter signed by the others and themselves, to a private meeting with their Leader. Both the letter and the meeting were private. It was assumed that they would always remain private, because that is the way that it has always been done.
In keeping with historical tradition the Leader had the absolute right to consider their intervention and decide to take their advice or reject it.
For the first time in history (that I know of) Carole James chose to respond in a different, and utterly unpredictable manner. She advised others in her Caucus and staff what had happened and named the MLA's who had come, in confidence, to see her and then proceeded to turn the upcoming Provincial Council meeting into an opportunity to divide the signatories of the letter, and their supporters, from the rest of the Party.
The Provincial Council of the NDP is a wonderful institution. Alone (as far as I know) the NDP understands that democracy inside the Party requires that constituencies have the right to run the Party and oversee it's activities. In spite of the huge financial costs involved the NDP representatives of every constituency in the Province come together a few times a year to debate issues and hear reports from their committees and their Leader and to meet with their MLA's.
I was honored, recently, to have been elected as a delegate to Provincial Council by the constituency of West Kootenay. A meeting of the Provincial Council was scheduled to occur a few days after the meeting between Carole James and the MLA's who had asked her to consider calling for a leadership convention. .
As we walked into the hotel the morning of the Provincial Council meeting, staff members stood in the hallway outside the meeting room and gave yellow scarves to everyone EXCEPT the folks they knew had signed or delivered the letter, and a few of the rest of us they figured might support the 13 signatories. The result was surreal. It was also the most divisive thing I have ever witnessed in our Party. The MLA's who had NOT signed the letter asking Carol to resign were identified, in front of their peers and the Press, as Loyal and Good. Thus, the folks WITHOUT yellow scarves were immediately and publically identified as Disloyal and Bad.
It was awful. It was so unprecedented and unexpected (deriving, as it did, from a respectful and private meeting that everyone involved, except Carole, had intended to remain Private regardless of how she decided to respond) that none of us knew how to react, or feel, or think.
The meeting opened, as they all do, with a reading of the Party's Harassment Policy. If I, or any of us, had had our wits about us, we would have responded by pointing out that the scarves, themselves, constituted Harassment of the worst kind. I am sorry to say that this appropriate response didn't occur to me until some days later.
I think it fair to say that some of the present trauma can be said to have begun with the expulsion of Bob Simpson from the NDP Caucus. To many of the constituency associations in the Province, Bob's expulsion constituted a symbol of the erosion of democratic principles that allow members of the Caucus or the Party to express their thoughts. Thus, constituencies (including the one I had come to represent) had sent in motions urging the reinstatement of Bob Simpson.
The motions urging the Leader to reinstate Bob Simpson were declared unconstitutional. It was determined, by the President, that the Party had no constitutional right to comment on that issue. This change to the agenda was simply wrong. Nobody in that room had wanted to "instruct" the Leader how to do her job. The motion simply said the Leader be "urged" to reinstate Bob Simpson. The Party has the right to "urge" the Leader to do anything they want. We could "urge" the Leader to stand on her head for an hour a day if we wanted, and she has the perfect right to ignore the advice if she sees it as wrong thinking or not in the best interest of herself or her Caucus or her Party. It is certainly unconstitutional for members of Provincial council to "instruct" or "demand" that the Leader take some action. It cannot, however, be unconstitutional to simply give advice. If advice from the members is unwelcome or unacceptable, then what is the Party for except to function as an electoral machine?
I can only guess that the President and the Executive did not want to have the motion concerning Bob Simpson to see the light of day so they declared it Unconstitutional and then voted down a challenge of the Chair, to make their judgment stick.
Yesterday, Jenny Kwan asked publically that her Leader call a Leadership Convention. She suggested that if Carol wants to keep her job that she ask for a mandate to do so in a "one member, one vote" open forum. I cannot imagine (and I have tried) how this difficulty, could be resolved otherwise.
Carole James has done something I never heard of before, which is to publicize and castigate MLA's who, rightly or wrongly, thought they were acting in confidence and in the best interests of their Party. She could have told them they were wrong and stayed in her job. That has been done before in parliamentary democracies, probably hundreds of times. She could have accepted their advice and stepped down as Leader, perhaps while remaining as an MLA. That, too, has happened before, probably hundreds of times. Instead, she chose to do something that I have never heard of before (no doubt there is some historical precedent somewhere, although I don't know about it and I can't imagine that it turned out well) and publicly attacked those who came to her in confidence.
I don't care if Carole wants to keep her job or not. Neither do I think this trouble is "about" Carole personally. I have, as probably every citizen does, thoughts about her leadership skill and style and believe they are irrelevant to the discourse. This is now about the democratization, or not, of how we do politics. It does not appear to be an issue that is limited to the NDP or even to B.C. I have heard similar thoughts about the erosion of democratic process and about the centralized control of political parties of late from members of the B.C. Liberal Party, the Federal Liberal Party, and the Alberta Conservative Party. It could be that this is a moment in our history when the political process is broken and reform and renewal are on the horizon.
As a New Democrat, I am heartsick at the troubles and I fervently wish Carol James had not orchestrated the public division of her Caucus. As a citizen, I am hopeful that the democratic process in Canada is being reborn. As her friend and supporter, I will go where Jenny Kwan goes, come what may.
Corky Evans
Sad to say, but I know a historical precedent.
And I'm pretty reluctant to get into it. But maybe its useful. But I'll do it in the succesor thread.
Thanks Ken, closing.
Advertising
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate