Can Carole James win the next election is the question

127 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sat, 2010-11-20 20:30

Roscoe

Ken Burch wrote:

"stakeholders" is a meaningless term.

Meaningless to whom? Maybe these guys can instill some meaning for you. Then again, maybe not.

Quote:

If caucus members think it is tough sorting out the issues they face today, they should see what it is like managing the trade offs in government. He mentioned the disputes over Clayoquot Sound (environmental protection vs logging), Six Mile Ranch (resort development versus agricultural land) and the Nanaimo bingo inquiry (an internal scandal that helped bring down Premier Mike Harcourt) as the kind of far more wrenching issues that faced New Democrats in government....

Then there was the comment from MLA John Horgan on Friday, that some of his colleagues need to consult their textbooks on Politics 101.

He meant simply that they needed to move beyond idealism and activism (where expecting and demanding 100 per cent satisfaction is routine) to the political realm, where compromise, trade offs and accommodating other points of view is all part of winning elections and forming government.

Hmmm, Mr. Horgan must be a babble lurker,lol. "Accomodating other points of view". What a novel idea. We don't need no steeenkin accomodating, we need 'change'. LOL.

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/viewfromtheledge/archiv...

Sat, 2010-11-20 20:33

#103

Brian White

My definition of change is the leader saying something and actually meaning it and actually doing it. The other "stakeholders" have thrown in their lot with the bc libs. The best time to "converse" with them is AFTER you win the election. Thats the only time they are going to listen.

If you want to change course so much, why not call yourselves "the real liberal party of bc"?

James has proved with past u turns that she stands for nothing. She is too cowardly to have her fate decided by the elected mla's themselves.

Why not? They are the only people who actually got elected by ndp voters.

It has to be some shadowey council of "finger in the pie" men to give her her vote of confidence. Well, how do we know that they even voted ndp at last election?

Some of them are in it for the money, some for the power and some for the bc libs.

Another name change suggestion Not Democratic Party. That way you can still keep the provincial ndp name.

The ONLY ndp people you can trust to any extent are the ones that the people of BC elected.

No need for a brains trust. Those that got elected probably have a better instinctive feel for what the voters want.

Put them together for 2 or 3 days.

Let them elect a new leader or let them split into 2 partys.

Sat, 2010-11-20 20:45

#104

melovesproles

Yeah Roscoe, I like how you're all for "accomodating other points of view" when it comes to the Chamber of Commerce but when it's elected NDP MLAs

Quote:
Carol now needs to swing a wide sword at caucus malcontents and exterminate the fleas in the party fur.

If the party is going to take advice from you and Vaughn Palmer and Gary Mason, they might as well ask Gordon Cambell too and see what he thinks. He'd probably concur with you that the Unions are a big problem and have too much influence...

Sat, 2010-11-20 20:47

#105

Roscoe

Brian White wrote:

My definition of change is the leader saying something and actually meaning it and actually doing it. The other "stakeholders" have thrown in their lot with the bc libs. The best time to "converse" with them is AFTER you win the election. Thats the only time they are going to listen.

If you want to change course so much, why not call yourselves "the real liberal party of bc"?

James has proved with past u turns that she stands for nothing. She is too cowardly to have her fate decided by the elected mla's themselves.

Why not? They are the only people who actually got elected by ndp voters.

It has to be some shadowey council of "finger in the pie" men to give her her vote of confidence. Well, how do we know that they even voted ndp at last election?

Some of them are in it for the money, some for the power and some for the bc libs.

Another name change suggestion Not Democratic Party. That way you can still keep the provincial ndp name.

The ONLY ndp people you can trust to any extent are the ones that the people of BC elected.

No need for a brains trust. Those that got elected probably have a better instinctive feel for what the voters want.

Put them together for 2 or 3 days.

Let them elect a new leader or let them split into 2 partys.

The party just held such a vote. Ms. James won. Should we keep on holding votes till the malcontents get the outcome they demand or, should the malcontents be given some sort of rudimentary democracy training so that they can understand the process?

So, Brian, what part of 21 MLAs support Carol and 13 MLAs don't support her do you not understand? MLAs don't get to vote at the council but the riding associations do. The riding assn presidents can vote and did - 84% in favour of Ms. James.

You do not appear to understand that, in order to win an election other than in, say, Myanmar, the candidates should make an attempt to converse with the stakeholders - stakeholders like....voters.

The malcontents should really consider jumping out of the clowncar before it overturns from sheer stoopidity velocity.

Sat, 2010-11-20 20:59

#106

Brian White

Lana Popham a right winger? Gee stockholm, you are a long way from BC in more ways than one.

Simpson just wanted to know what his party policy was! He wanted something real.

and he has been asking in private for months. It must be incredibly demoralizing when a party MLA has to ask what his policy is and gets no answer! I mean really, how much more fucked up can a leadership be?

Come on folks, why would you keep your policy SECRET!!! from your MLAS's?

What are the MLA's then?

Just some tools who get a decent wage and pension for rhyming off whatever you tell them to say?

Some of the others were disgusted that she fired him on her own.

They have procedeures, you know? But along comes the hanging judge, rope draped over her shoulder, grabs the guy and hauls him up in a tree!

She aint got the authority to do that.

But she seems to think she can get away with it.

It should be a wake up signal to NDP voters.

Leader out of control is one of the most dangerous things in politics.

Simpson got expelled because James gave a crappy speech.

It is kinda lame, don't you think?

She could have listened, acknowleged, and hired a better speechwriter.

Stockholm wrote:

gee from some of the comments here - you might actually think that the people who want to replace carole James are on the left of the party - but in fact her biggest critics seem to be people who want the party to move even more to the right and be even friendlier to business - like ex-Liberal Bob Simpson.

Sat, 2010-11-20 21:08

#107

Brian White

Quote:

The party did not hold such a vote. The party controllers held the vote. 21 to 13 seems like the ideal situation for the removal of james and a compromise candidate to be elected. And you seem to forget that the ndp won 35 seats in the election, not 34

21 to 14 is the real result. One MLA was denied his vote by a leader who overstepped her bounds.

21 to 14 is absolute grounds for Games to resign right now. It was not even a leadership contest.

Even without someone to oppose her she failed miserably.

Quote:
So, Brian, what part of 21 MLAs support Carol and 13 MLAs don't support her do you not understand? MLAs don't get to vote at the council but the riding associations do. The riding assn presidents can vote and did - 84% in favour of Ms. James.

You do not appear to understand that, in order to win an election other than in, say, Myanmar, the candidates should make an attempt to converse with the stakeholders - stakeholders like....voters.

Sat, 2010-11-20 21:10

#108

GingerGoodone

Actually Roscoe "we" did not have a vote. Old guard syncophants simply voted to block the membership from voting.

Sat, 2010-11-20 21:26

#109

Roscoe

GingerGoodone wrote:

Actually Roscoe "we" did not have a vote. Old guard syncophants simply voted to block the membership from voting.

OK. Was or was Carol not "duly elected"? Is she serving as party leader due to a fraudulent process? Is she or is she not the "duly elected" leader of the party?

Is there or is there not a process in the constitution of the party to address a) a leadership review and b) an election of a new leader if the incumbent fails to garner sufficient support at said review?

Is this review not scheduled for 2011? 'Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory' should be the slogan on the dissident clowncar of state

Sat, 2010-11-20 22:00

#110

Ribbit

@Brian White - Caucus does not choose the leader of the party. Party members choose the leader of the party. Those with frustrated ambitions, like a certain member from Nanaimo who ran against Carole in the last leadership race, would do well to remember that.

ETA: The people who voted were ordinary party members elected as provincial council delegates to represent the views of their constituency associations. Trying to brush that off as "the party elite" or however you are trying to frame it is grossly unfair.

Sat, 2010-11-20 22:07

#111

Erik Redburn

Let me explain this to you. She was only elected against a weak field several years ago, after the worst defeat in NDP history. (largely because of the same clowns supporting her). Most members (like myself) supported her in the second general election. (she lost the first in 2001) Less in the second, but opposition in ranks was minimal. Despite a record of losing and being an almost non-existent oppostion leader, she has managed to put off what was once a constitutional requirement for a leadership review for years, thanks to more undemocratic manipulation. She avoided a proper OMOV leadership convention this time around by constituency presidents simply refusing to allow it be taken to council. What we saw was nothing resembling a proper leadership challenge, but simply another demonstration of the kind of weak minded thinking driving the NDp into irrelevance. I have no doubt though that they'll blame us "few" malcontents when she loses the next election. Then another rightist will no doubt be nominated to take her place by the backroom establishment.

Sat, 2010-11-20 22:09

#112

GingerGoodone

Ribbit wrote:

@Brian White - Caucus does not choose the leader of the party. Party members choose the leader of the party. Those with frustrated ambitions, like a certain member from Nanaimo who ran against Carole in the last leadership race, would do well to remember that.

ETA: The people who voted were ordinary party members elected as provincial council delegates to represent the views of their constituency associations. Trying to brush that off as "the party elite" or however you are trying to frame it is grossly unfair.

Did they represent the views of their constituents? I would say the level of support was rather higher than they've been polling elsewhere. The point again is that the support of these so-called "ordinary" party members does not translate into support from the general membership, as has been stated several times already. If you've been around the party awhile you should know that those who end up in those positions are often only those who have the spare time and/or income to do so.

Sat, 2010-11-20 22:11

#113

Stockholm

The members of provincial council are chosen by the card carrying members in every riding. It's called representative democracy.

Sat, 2010-11-20 22:33

#114

GingerGoodone

Repeating the same talking points doesn't make them any more persuasive. Representative democracy is in trouble precisely because those who are supposed to place some check on executive power (as the Provincial Council was formed to do) show blind loyalty to it instead.

Here's Tielman again:

"First, 13 members of caucus are unhappy with her decision to personally expel Cariboo North MLA Bob Simpson without consulting them. That caused Norm Macdonald to quit as Caucus Chair last month and Katrine Conroy to quit as Caucus Whip on Friday.

Resolutions dealing with that issue were ruled out of order Saturday."

http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2010/11/bc-ndp-provincial-council-votes-against.htm

Sat, 2010-11-20 22:44

#115

Ribbit

GingerGoodone wrote:

Repeating the same talking points doesn't make them any more persuasive. Representative democracy is in trouble precisely because those who are supposed to place some check on executive power (as the Provincial Council was formed to do) show blind loyalty to it instead.

Here's Tielman again:

"First, 13 members of caucus are unhappy with her decision to personally expel Cariboo North MLA Bob Simpson without consulting them. That caused Norm Macdonald to quit as Caucus Chair last month and Katrine Conroy to quit as Caucus Whip on Friday.

Resolutions dealing with that issue were ruled out of order Saturday."

http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2010/11/bc-ndp-provincial-council-votes-against.htm

Provincial council does not have the power to make decisions about internal caucus matters. That is solely the leader's purview. That's why the motion was ruled out of order, not because of any conspiracy theory to do with party elites running provincial council.

Sat, 2010-11-20 22:49

#116

Brian White

It is called evasion.

Didn't Blair, Thatcher, Major, and Brown quit to avoid the embarassment of having less that 10% of the ELECTED members of the party openly vote against their leadership? Here you have 33% !!!!!!! of the ELECTED ndp mla's voting no confidence in the leader.

That is super high by any standards.

So what will she do now? Sabotage their re-election campaigns? It is going to be hard to do that against the females in the group, isn't it?

I might look in to the provincial council election "process", probably full of holes and double dip opertunities.

If 13 members feel strongly enough to vote no confidence in James, maybe we will have breakaway party with real values soon.

It would be real interesting if the National NDP had to choose which was legitimate, wouldn't it? Revoke their affiliation with James wing.

"Well, James seems to be running the S+M Party right now"

(She STOLE the whip from Katrine Conroy and used it on Simpson after all)

Could we get Mary Walsh to play James in that scene?

Stockholm wrote:

The members of provincial council are chosen by the card carrying members in every riding. It's called representative democracy.

Sat, 2010-11-20 22:57

#117

Brian White

"Soley the leader's perview" Like being party whip too? Did you do a straight arm salute as you wrote that?

Makes me wonder. Slaveish followers.

Ribbit wrote:

Provincial council does not have the power to make decisions about internal caucus matters. That is solely the leader's purview. That's why the motion was ruled out of order, not because of any conspiracy theory to do with party elites running provincial council.

Sat, 2010-11-20 22:57

#118

Stockholm

In the UK, party leaders are elected by the parliamentary caucus or by an electoral collage where MPs have a huge share of the vote. In Canada, we elect leaders either through a delegated convention where delegates are elected by the rank and file or else by a OMOV process. MLAs have a vote that is worth no more than any other individual member. There have been many examples of people being elected leader of a party in Canada despite having almost no support in caucus. For example, when Dalton McGuinty was elected leader of the Ontario Liberals in 1996 - he had the backing of ONE MPP out of 40-odd.

There will be a convention 2011 and if the delegates there decide that a new leader should be chosen - that is what will happen. That is the process - maybe you should just live with it and if you want the NDP to pick a new leader so badly - i suggest you buy a membership and start getting other people to become members and try to elect people to the Nov. 2011 convention who will vote for a new leadership convention. Put your money where your mouth is.

Sat, 2010-11-20 23:02

#119

Stockholm

Brian White wrote:

"Soley the leader's perview" Like being party whip too? Did you do a straight arm salute as you wrote that?

Makes me wonder. Slaveish followers.

You've made it quite clear in the past that you're a Green Party supporter and that you think that Jane Sterk is your idea of "great leadership". - so I really don't understand why you keep writing these poison pen toxic posts about Carole James - if you think she's so bad - you should rejoice - it should create a great opening for your big heroine Jane Sterk! Maybe we will have "Sterk-mania"

Sat, 2010-11-20 23:15

#120

Erik Redburn

Lighten up on the Green bashing Stockholm. I am not and have never been a member of the Green Party...and neither are most the other critics I see here. Don't know about the others, but I do not enjoy being a member of a party where loyalty only cuts one way.

Sat, 2010-11-20 23:23

#121

Stockholm

I was not directing anything at you - but "Brian White" made it very clear all through the 2009 BC election campaign that he was enthusiastic supporter of the BC Green Party and of Jane Sterk and he has been shitting on Carole James and the NDP for years. He will shit on whoever leads the NDP because he is a supporter of another party - so who cares what he thinks? I've had it with someone who is a supporter of another party trying to tell me who represents the "real NDP". People can debate whether the NDP is represented by the caucus or the provincial council or the membership at large - but I know what does NOT represent the NDP - diehard supporters of other parties who have always hated the NDP from the get-go and always will.

Sat, 2010-11-20 23:38

#122

Erik Redburn

I still remember the good times Stock, you still own the coin for 'tories with composters' far as I've been able to find.

But I also recall Brian writing that he too was considering voting for James at one point, just to get Campbell out, till she openly refused to endorse STV, despite the NDP's official support for ProRep. So his suppot for Sterk might be a little bit more ambiguous than that. As you might also remember I too was an anti-STV voter, but in hindsight I may have been wrong about that one as well....

Sat, 2010-11-20 23:40

#123

Erik Redburn

GingerGoodone wrote:

Maybe they should have just counted yellow towels...

BTW, that's kinda cute Ginger.

Sat, 2010-11-20 23:44

#124

GingerGoodone

Why thank you Erik. Maybe I'll just leave on that high note...

Sat, 2010-11-20 23:44

#125

Brian White

I voted for Denise Sovoie, buddy, I am happy to vote ndp IF they have principles. (Replying to stockholm)

You know nothing about the bc ndp and you prove it with every post. Your love for the phrase "NDP leader" is the nearest thing to pure romantic love that I have ever seen!

Makes me sick. BARF BARF

Leaders need EXTRA scrutiny. A party member seeing the vain, self serving stuff that James is doing now needs to stand up for the PARTY and get rid of the rotten core.

Otherwise the whole apple goes bad.

By the way, do you suppose nazi's way back then complained when someone from a different party said something bad about Hitler?

You bet they did. But did it make Hitler a nicer guy?

Not that I noticed.

Sat, 2010-11-20 23:59

#126

GingerGoodone

You may be correct on that one 'Ribbit' but that still doesn't make it right does it. Party leaders in most parliamentary democracies have way too much discretionary power in promoting and firing other caucus members as it is.

And THIS JUST IN:

I have just been confirmed by reliable sources that the vote was carried out by a Show of Hands. Not a secret ballot. Funny how our good friends at Shaw/Global neglcted to mention that little item. (or was it in the fine print?) So even this 'renewed' solidarity in ranks is already looking shakier. Maybe they should have just counted yellow towels...

Sun, 2010-11-21 09:45

#127

Maysie

Perfect timing to close this for length.

Pages

Topic locked