Can Carole James win the next election is the question

No, the real question is: who other than Carole James can win the next election?

Huh?

Given some circumstances (i.e.: better advisors and campaign strategy than last election), I believe the NDP, with Carole James as leader can and will win the next election. As a provincial council delegate, my executive has discussed the leadership question and supports Carole and the constitutional leadership process. And I agree with the direction my executive has given me.

But I do like the question raised by Remind.... "Who other than Carole James can win the next election?"  

I've been reading and hearing from those upset with Carole as well as some who wonder out loud if she can win. The dissenters have yet to toss out a name that they would support in her place. 

Here's the challenge to those proposing a leadership change.... put forth a name.

These aren't US-style elections. Only some phony majority of voters in Campbell's riding ever voted for him specifically. In Canada we vote for the party and individual members of parliament and not premiers or even PMs as per American-style presidential or senate races.

Go Carole!

remind wrote:

No, the real question is: who other than Carole James can win the next election?

Bill Vander Zalm.

Great - any of them actually want the job?

Any of them actually willing to say so publicly?

Who cares.

Basically all the 'loyalists' demanding that the 'rebels' who criticize James put up names have the process all mixed up. If there actually is a leadership convention called for once the Provincial Council meets, interested parties will come out of the woodwork and declare their interest. It isn't up to peons like myself to anoint leaders. I could create some anonymous page like the one that attempted to recruit Guy Gentner but it wouldn't make a difference in my continued disapproval of Carole James. She, and her leadership team, have earned that status through their own incompetence.

Besides, unlike the self-absorbed pundits and "opinion leaders" in this province (or any place really) I don't pretend to have some magical insight into who should run. It's all idle speculation as the process of running creates a lot of insight into who would actually make a good leader. If once people step up they actually turn out to be worse than James and if she actually manages to articulate some sort of a vision on relevant issues then I for one will begin to "approve" of her leadership.

As to Tielman's article, I think the third option is best. That's unless her and her backers are correct that most (as in a strong majority of - meaning at least 60-70%, but it should really be over 80% to quell all rumblings) people in the NDP really do support her leadership. Frankly though, I find that highly unlikely.

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

Basically all the 'loyalists' demanding that the 'rebels' who criticize James put up names have the process all mixed up. If there actually is a leadership convention called for once the Provincial Council meets, interested parties will come out of the woodwork and declare their interest. It isn't up to peons like myself to anoint leaders. I could create some anonymous page like the one that attempted to recruit Guy Gentner but it wouldn't make a difference in my continued disapproval of Carole James.

Exactly. The fact that people within the NDP are openly calling for a leadership review speaks volumes. Often party loyalists will put up a public front to show unity even though privately they have no confidence in their leader because they understand how much energy a leadership review costs (see Dwain Lingenfelter in Saskatchewan). Something is seriously wrong.

Maybe there is no better candidate than Carole, who knows. The only way to determine this would be to have a leadership review, and if she wants to keep her job as leader, she can let her name stand and let the chips fall where they may.

Either way, the BCNDP has a serious problem, and burying your head in the sand is not going to make it go away. Fix it so that you are so strong and united that you cannot help but win the next provincial election.

Can Carole James win the next election?  The answer is it's possible, but not very likely.   

A more important question is whether the NDP could/would DO anything to reverse the damage the Liberals have done to BC, if they won under the present leadership(?)

And the answer is no. 

Mugging party leaders is what the federal Liberals do when it looked like Dion was about to actually oppose a Tory government as leader of the official opposition.

Carole James is no quitter. NDPers are not quitters as a general rule. And the NDP doesn't orchestrate coups against their own people like so many back-stabbing Liberals.

The world can never have enough meaningless internet petitions

yep, let's be stupid and level the playing field for the BC Liberals, thereby insuring then get back in..

North Report, don't call babblers "losers". 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The same people like Shreck are saying the same thing they have been for three elections.  The last two elections were winnable and the last election was a travesty with Carole and her team running a piss poor campaign and handing Campbell his majority.  If this group of losers had won an election in the last decade then I would be alright with them continuing to run the party.  But they are not winners they keep getting their asses kicked by Howe street.  Time for a new brain trust since Shreck and Moe and the rest of the old guard don't appear to be able to win anything except stacking NDP meetings.

Nobody, I mean nobody, thought the 2005 election was winnable for the NDP.

The fact it became winnable is testament to the campaign Carole James ran.

The party went from two seats to thirty-three.  Not good enough?? Really?

Lou Arab wrote:

Nobody, I mean nobody, thought the 2005 election was winnable for the NDP.

The fact it became winnable is testament to the campaign Carole James ran.

The party went from two seats to thirty-three.  Not good enough?? Really?

From the perspective of going from 2 seats to 33 you are right. But Campbell slashed and burned everywhere after 2001, there were mass protests, lying about BC Rail, etc. etc. By 2002 the political ground began to shift.

The NDP was even leading in the polls in 2004 - at one point by a huge margin of 45% to 33% in July, 2004. Newly minted 2001 Lib and Green voters flocked back to their natural NDP default option in 2005. The NDP just retained their 42% vote in 2009.

I'm of the opinion that it was more anger at the Libs and the anti-Gordo sentiment than any pro-Carole sentiment as well as the NDP regaining its natural voting base. Going from a stable 42% to winning seems to be another huge step altogether.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

the electorate of BC is voting less and less with every election.  Larger part of a smaller pie doesn't tell me the party is connecting with anyone just that more lefties are still holding their noses and voting.  Don't worry the left will still vote for the NDP in the next election it is just that no one else will.  Don't you get it that if you don't attract new voters you are going nowhere. 

Even that's not true.

According to wikipedia, the following number of people voted in elections since 1991:

1991 - 1,462,467
1996 - 1,582,704
2001 - 1,591,306
2005 - 1,762,450
2009 - 1,640,542

And as for 'the cabal' being great strategists - I'm sure some of them are good, and some of them are bad.  I don't believe for a minute however, that the people running the campaigns will be all that much different if Carole isn't leader.

The fact is Carole has been leader for two of the most successful campaigns (measured in percentage AND raw vote totals) for the BC NDP.  The party's share of the vote (and raw vote) has climbed in both campaigns.  Has it been enough to win - no.  Could anyone else have done better - I really doubt it.

That's not true, Lou.

For starters, BC's population has exploded in the last twenty years from 3,282,061 in 1991 to 4,113,487 in 2006 (this trend hasn't stopped or slowed very much in the last four years). Yet despite the province growing by at least 25%, the absolute number of voters has only increased by 12%, including an over 100K drop between 2005 and 2009. Had the NDP retained the absolute number of voters they received in 2005 they would've only been 20K behind the Liberals, which considering the NDP's more 'efficient' vote, would've probably led to a win. To be fair to the BC NDP, voter turnout has been decreasing throughout Canada, but this is a pretty lame defence. 

In any case, as I've said many times Carole James was the correct leader for 2005. And had she proved to be an effective parliamentarian I would've thought the same for 2009. That said no viable alternatives had shown up significantly before 2009, so there was no point in getting rid of her then. The fact that she, and her team, have handled this crisis of leadership so poorly simply re-enforces my view that they all need to go.

It's worth remembering that most parties, after taking the kind of beating the NDP took in 2001 never recover - think Sask PCs, Federal PCs, BC Social Credit - all had to rebrand and wait a few cycles before they were even competitive.  Given the rise of the Green Party vote in 2001, it's a miracle the NDP survived the next election with any seats at all.  Carole James (and Joy MacPhail for her amazing work in the legislature) deserve a lot of credit.

As for the 'but the population exploded' argument.  Sure, the population got bigger.  But so too did the NDP vote.  Carole James found more votes, and a higher percentage than most previous NDP leaders.  You can't ignore that.  She has been growing the NDP vote, when it counts, at election time.

Yes, expanding the vote among those who don't vote is an important part of political strategy these days - I don't disagree.  But I don't for a minute believe that anyone else among the NDP would have (or will do) better.

The NDP vote has grown over Carole's leadership.  It's moving in the right direction.  If she lost a bunch of seats last time, I might agree she needs to go.  But it's remarkable how well the party has done over her tenure.

I can't believe that energy spent trying to trigger a leadership war wouldn't be better spent gearing up for the election, or working on recall campaigns.

Remarkable? Here the Liberals are approaching the depths of late 90's NDP government popularity and the NDP is still stuck within the margin of error of what they had gotten last election. Yeah, they'd win the election if it were held today, but it isn't something to jump up with joy about. It's remarkable they're not winning over anyone new. It's remarkable they're not going to inspire the electorate to increase in size nor have they. It's remarkable the party itself has shrunk to an amazingly small size for an alleged mass party (in the polisci sense) that, unlike in many provinces such as Alberta or Ontario, is a "governing party" that is either official opposition or government. This is important because it will need its base to defend it when it wins and the "business community" begins its inevitable assault on the "socialist hordes." This last thing is why I'm certain that an NDP win would be a one term thing. Considering the lack of vision and sustainable progressive policy its put forward, other than relying on the coattails of a former Socred Premier's opposition to the current Premier, its clear it wouldn't leave much of an impact on the province, let alone clean up after the Liberals mess should they loose the election after next. I mean shouldn't the NDP be formulating a progressive vision for the province? It's a progressive party. It's remarkable that all of this is happening, has happened and will happen despite the extreme unpopularity of the current government. One would think this is the perfect time to descredit the government's ideology too.

As for the growth of the party's vote, we can debate the numbers till the cows come home. The fact remains the NDP vote increased by about 95K between 1991 and 2009. The Province's population increased by about 10 times that. Are we to be impressed that they managed to only convince 10% of new British Columbians to have voted for them? It's remarkable alright. In pathetic sort of way.

As for the energy being used by this debate, it's perfectly placed. Leadership campaigns bring in new members and more money to the party. The BC NDP might have less than 10K members, which is remarkable considering how unpopular the government is. Remarkable in a pathetic sense mind you. Yes some people will be displeased by a leadership campaign, but if everyone involved is truly opposed to this government and wants to articulate a progressive alternative they will rally around whatever the outcome is. Despite me wanting to replace James, should she win a resounding vote of confidence I'll have no option but to assume that her team is the alternative to this government and I will hope (despite my misgivings) that they actually begin to formulate an alternative vision to this government beyond vapid platitudes. Besides, the election can't legally be held until May 2013 so there's plenty of time to gear up for an election after a leadership contest.

As for your point about recall campaigns, I realize hardcore partisans of all stripes think they're a perfectly fair way to re-fight the last election to a more desirable outcome. But you people need to give your heads a shake and think of the public good. The targets are as high and hard to achieve as they are because recall campaigns aren't meant to be launched lightly. Nor are they actually supposed to be a means of re-fighting the last election. The point is to recall ethically challenged MLA's. The only time one would've worked would've been to recall a Liberal MLA during the height of NDP unpopularity for writing letters to the editor praising himself under fake names. He resigned before the campaign could be certified as successful, but nonetheless, even when the NDP government was unpopular and Liberal activists tried to recall vulnerable members who were barely re-elected in 1996 they failed miserably. Individual NDP activists can involve themselves in whatever they want. The party has even encouraged it. But it also realizes that they shouldn't be directing actual party resources to supporting recall campaigns. That sort of a strategy would backfire and turn BC into a California of the north where government can never do anything because of endless referenda and recall campaigns. Carole James commented on this sort of populism and warned against it. I agree with her completely.

There's another side effect of the drop in turn out, a drop in supporter intensity. In the US the Democrats were expected to be slaughtered because of the "intensity gap." Some polls even had them down by as many as fifteen points, which would've probably meant the Republicans would've gained something like 100 house seats and 11 senate seats. That being said, those progressive voters who were on the fence between not voting and voting probably realized the alternative was far worse so they held their nose and voted Democrat. That said, it probably had a huge effect on their get out the vote and fundraising operations, which meant that the Democrats losses were far worse then they would've been had they actually been appealing to their base.

The same could be said for the last BC election. Most progressives were very demoralized by the 2005-2009 period. Yes the Liberals stopped the biggest cuts, but they didn't reverse any of the damage they did and the NDP didn't do anything effective to push them to reverse that damage or highlight the way that damage affected the average British Columbian. Instead the NDP focused on "civility" and forging a "new tone" in the legislature. Frankly it seemed as if a three person opposition was just as effective as a 33 person one. Look, obviously had the opposition pursued a strategy of being a bunch of shrill crazies who scream murder anytime a Liberal cabinet minister stood up that wouldn't have been sensible either. But it appeared as if the party was getting smacked around by the Liberals while the government got away with murder. Admittedly most of the NDP caucus were rookies, which can explain their performance. But there were very few decent communicators among them.

So, as this relates to the American example, many progressive leaning people probably didn't even bother voting (reflected in the lowered turnout), donating to the party or volunteering for it. That said it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to simply show up and vote, even if one isn't enamoured with the alternative. That combined with some misteps on Gordo's behalf and the fact that everyone assumed the Liberals were going to win (for almost a few years before the election) led to a closer result than expected.

I completely agree Aristotleded. And your last point is especially important. The quicker this gets dealt with the quicker the party can move on and focus on rebuilding its infrastructure, winning new supporters and maybe even avenging the 2001 election in style. There will always be people who are displeased with the route the party is taking, whether it be stylistically, ideologically or many other reasons. But regardless of ones ideology or position on Carole James leadership, everyone can agree that the quicker and fairer this is dealt with the better. Now I realize that the loyalists are going to try to do everything they can to quash a leadership review. If they don't have a strong majority infavour of Carole James' leadership then they're making a grave mistake, because this will only strengthen the hand of the rebels and allow the discontent to simmer further.

Thats just it.  IF she was so confident then it would be the smart thing to do politically, shoring up her so-far untested mandate.  

*redundant post*

Someone above mentioned the fact that, with Carole as leader, the NDP in 2009 managed to get a greater share of the vote than at any time since Bob Skelly in 1986. Bear in mind, though, that despite that vote share, he only ever fought that one election. Carole, meanwhile, has had two elections, and we're arguing that she should lead the party into a third? Accepting that her performance in 2005 was great, and the result better than any pundit I'm aware of ever predicted, what in the 2009 result suggests that Carole's leadership should not be reviewed?

Setting aside all the opinions expressed on here, all the entrenched ideological positions, all the complaints about the party executive(s) of the past decade, there is one truth that none of us should ignore. As a democratic party, and as the alternative to the Campbell government which has ruled directly from the Premier's office with no regard at all for democracy, Carole's continued leadership can, nay must, be subject to the will of the memberhip.