babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
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: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
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?
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?!?
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 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?
- 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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!
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...