Senior BC Caucus Member Jenny Kwan Issues Statement

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
jas

JKR wrote:

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.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

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. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Stockholm wrote:

This all reminds me so much of the palace coup against Stockwell Day as leader of the Canadian Alliance back in 2001 when all the rebels in their caucus formed the Democratic Reform caucus etc...

And remember Stockwell sucked as a leader and it was in their interest to get rid of him.

KenS

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.

scott scott's picture

KenS wrote:
Even if you think its an overstatement to say that the last election was the NDP's to lose....You cant point to anything that they did.

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.

Pogo Pogo's picture

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.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

KenS wrote:
Even if you think its an overstatement to say that the last election was the NDP's to lose....You cant point to anything that they did.

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.

Stockholm

scott wrote:

 

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.

Caissa

Cueball wrote last night in this thread:

 

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

Wink 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Stockholm wrote:

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...

Vansterdam Kid

JRK wrote:

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.

Vansterdam Kid

Pogo wrote:

KenS wrote:
Even if you think its an overstatement to say that the last election was the NDP's to lose....You cant point to anything that they did.

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.

wage zombie

JKR wrote:

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?

West Coast Greeny

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.

 

jas

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?

scott scott's picture

James will be making a statement at 1pm PST

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

 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.  

scott scott's picture

Stockholm wrote:
Remind me of what "OFFICIAL PARTY POLICY" there ever was to support Gordon Campbell's Greenwash Tax?

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.

Vansterdam Kid

jas wrote:

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?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

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. 

scott scott's picture

Stockholm wrote:
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.

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”. Wink

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.

Vansterdam Kid
Stockholm

scott wrote:

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!

scott scott's picture


happier days

scott scott's picture

Stockholm wrote:
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!

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.

 

melovesproles

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.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

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?

Centrist

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.

Quote:
The New Democratic Party will hold an emergency caucus meeting to talk about the behaviour of NDP MLAs, leader Carole James said today.

"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/JamesEmergency/

 

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.

 

JKR

wage zombie wrote:

JKR wrote:

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.

 

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

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.

 

NorthReport

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. 

JKR

Centrist wrote:

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.

Centrist

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:

Quote:
The Leader of the B.C. New Democratic Party has laid the groundwork for expelling dissident members of her caucus this weekend.

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...

 

Vansterdam Kid

Speaking of democracy, when is Carole James going to face a leadership review? Don't most leader's actually, you know, face those?

Brian White

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.

Vansterdam Kid

@ 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.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Brian White wrote:

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.

Policywonk

Pogo wrote:

Brian White wrote:

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.

Policywonk

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

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.

Policywonk

JKR wrote:

Centrist wrote:

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.

Policywonk

NorthReport wrote:

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.

NorthReport

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.

Brian White

"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.

Pogo wrote:

Brian White wrote:

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.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Policywonk wrote:

JKR wrote:

Centrist wrote:

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.

West Coast Greeny

Centrist wrote:

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:

Quote:
The Leader of the B.C. New Democratic Party has laid the groundwork for expelling dissident members of her caucus this weekend.

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...

 


Good fucking God. You know what happens here guys?
1) Up to 13 MPs are kicked out of caucus.
2) Caucus rebellion ends, since all the dissidents have been ejected
3) Carole remains on as leader
4) Liberals call snap election after their new leader is elected, before Carole's leadership review.
5) NDP wind up fighting a two-front war with all of the problems that are going to come with it.
-- Reduced memberships
-- Reduced funding
-- A smaller party apparatus
-- A smaller party
-- Vote splitting on the left in at least the ridings with all these new independent-NDPs, maybe more if things get really out of hand and we see a third party.

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.

Vansterdam Kid

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. Surprised

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.

NorthReport

As far as the election date legislation is concerned the Liberals will change it in a flash if it means more power for them.

West Coast Greeny

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.

Vansterdam Kid

Gallows humour, because it's so fucking ridiculous.

West Coast Greeny

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.

 

Erik Redburn

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 Comments (29)

Should Carole James resign as leader of the B.C. NDP?
84% (480)
Yes
16% (91)
No

Pages

Topic locked