The old thread reached 100 posts, about 10 hours later than Cueball predicted.
James Trek II - The Wrath of Kwan
Fri, 2010-12-03 03:10
#1
James Trek II - The Wrath of Kwan
Fri, 2010-12-03 03:13
#2
Worth kicking off with this letter, by Corky Evans
I think that the current, and very public, troubles inside the NDP must be hugely confusing to citizens. In order to try to help folks better understand the debacle I am inclined to try and offer some history about how political parties function in times of stress and how mine (and ours) has functioned over the last few weeks.
Leadership, in any Party, is not a right. Every Leader understands that they serve the Party they lead. Power, of course, is addictive and extremely difficult to abandon. This is true in all institutions from the family to a community group to a company to a political party. Power is also isolating. When we have power we have a position of status and we tend to be surrounded by people who support our status and may even benefit from our position by virtue of their wages or their ambition. Surrounded, as we are by such people, we lose contact with the views of the citizenry at large and need the intervention of others, outside our circle, to tell us what is really going on.
Political parties resolve these contradictions, at least in a democracy, in various ways. One of the most straightforward methods available to help a Leader understand what is happening outside their circle is to have some of the elected people they work with simply go and tell them how things look out on the street. These interventions are universally "in confidence" and, to my knowledge, have rarely ever been discussed outside of the circle of people actually involved in the discussion. An MLA who meets with their Leader to suggest that the Leader needs to consider moving on in life has to be tremendously brave. The Leader does not have to agree with them and can make their life difficult in future. Obviously, the discussion works best when the Member is trusted by the Leader so that the Leader can believe that the Member is not acting out of ambition or malice.
The Leader can, of course, decide to accept the advice of the Member or decide the Member is wrong and stay on. Regardless of the outcome, however, we who were not in the meeting never hear about the exchange because it is never in the best interest of the Party to have their internal discussions made public.
In 1986, when I was a candidate and prior to the election, I was asked to sign such a letter to Bob Skelly, suggesting that he resign as Leader. I declined, but others (I believe) signed the letter and (I believe) MLA's delivered it. If such a letter and meeting actually happened, Bob Skelly, as was his right, chose to disregard the letter and the request to step down. I have never seen the letter and do not know who the MLA's were, as it has always been treated as an "in confidence" occurrence. I know none of this to absolutely true because, correctly, none of it has been discussed with me by any of the participants.
Same thing with Mike Harcourt. (I believe) a group of MLA's visited Mike to discuss their wish that he resign in order to make the Nanaimo "bingogate" scandal go away for the good of the Party. He chose to take the advice but, because it was a private meeting, I do not know if such a meeting took place or who went to see him or what they said. I was part of that government and I do not know, and have not asked, what private communications took place prior to Mike's resignation.
Same thing with Glen Clark. I believe MLA's suggested to Glen that he resign. Glen (as was his right) chose to resist the request and then was forced to step down by virtue of actions by the Attorney General. As with both Bob Skelly and Mike Harcourt, private discussions with Glen by MLA's who (may have) asked him to resign remain "in confidence" to this day. I was part of that government and I do not know, and have not asked, what private communications took place prior to Glen's resignation.
For all I know, similar meetings have taken place between Socred MLA's and Bill Bennett Jr.and/or Bill Van derZalm, and Liberal MLA'S and Gordon Wilson, and/or Gordon Campbell. The point being that MLA's of all Parties have always had the right to request of their Leader that they resign or submit to a Leadership review and those discussions have always been, and should always remain, private. The Leader can decide to step down or decide to remain in office. Everyone involved, however, always understands the assumption of "confidence" involved in the process. It is also important to understand that when these kind of private meetings have happened in the past, they are most likely to happen with Members who personally like the Leader. Members who wish to personally replace the Leader or have antipathy for Leader do not attend because their motives would be suspect. These are private meetings to discuss a private issue raised in the best interest of the Party in question, not the personal feelings or ambitions of the people in the meeting.
Precisely in keeping with this historical tradition, a group of New Democrat MLA's came to the conclusion a few weeks back that it was time to hold a Leadership convention.
A small group of those MLA's took a letter signed by the others and themselves, to a private meeting with their Leader. Both the letter and the meeting were private. It was assumed that they would always remain private, because that is the way that it has always been done.
In keeping with historical tradition the Leader had the absolute right to consider their intervention and decide to take their advice or reject it.
For the first time in history (that I know of) Carole James chose to respond in a different, and utterly unpredictable manner. She advised others in her Caucus and staff what had happened and named the MLA's who had come, in confidence, to see her and then proceeded to turn the upcoming Provincial Council meeting into an opportunity to divide the signatories of the letter, and their supporters, from the rest of the Party.
The Provincial Council of the NDP is a wonderful institution. Alone (as far as I know) the NDP understands that democracy inside the Party requires that constituencies have the right to run the Party and oversee it's activities. In spite of the huge financial costs involved the NDP representatives of every constituency in the Province come together a few times a year to debate issues and hear reports from their committees and their Leader and to meet with their MLA's.
I was honored, recently, to have been elected as a delegate to Provincial Council by the constituency of West Kootenay. A meeting of the Provincial Council was scheduled to occur a few days after the meeting between Carole James and the MLA's who had asked her to consider calling for a leadership convention. .
As we walked into the hotel the morning of the Provincial Council meeting, staff members stood in the hallway outside the meeting room and gave yellow scarves to everyone EXCEPT the folks they knew had signed or delivered the letter, and a few of the rest of us they figured might support the 13 signatories. The result was surreal. It was also the most divisive thing I have ever witnessed in our Party. The MLA's who had NOT signed the letter asking Carol to resign were identified, in front of their peers and the Press, as Loyal and Good. Thus, the folks WITHOUT yellow scarves were immediately and publically identified as Disloyal and Bad.
It was awful. It was so unprecedented and unexpected (deriving, as it did, from a respectful and private meeting that everyone involved, except Carole, had intended to remain Private regardless of how she decided to respond) that none of us knew how to react, or feel, or think.
The meeting opened, as they all do, with a reading of the Party's Harassment Policy. If I, or any of us, had had our wits about us, we would have responded by pointing out that the scarves, themselves, constituted Harassment of the worst kind. I am sorry to say that this appropriate response didn't occur to me until some days later.
I think it fair to say that some of the present trauma can be said to have begun with the expulsion of Bob Simpson from the NDP Caucus. To many of the constituency associations in the Province, Bob's expulsion constituted a symbol of the erosion of democratic principles that allow members of the Caucus or the Party to express their thoughts. Thus, constituencies (including the one I had come to represent) had sent in motions urging the reinstatement of Bob Simpson.
The motions urging the Leader to reinstate Bob Simpson were declared unconstitutional. It was determined, by the President, that the Party had no constitutional right to comment on that issue. This change to the agenda was simply wrong. Nobody in that room had wanted to "instruct" the Leader how to do her job. The motion simply said the Leader be "urged" to reinstate Bob Simpson. The Party has the right to "urge" the Leader to do anything they want. We could "urge" the Leader to stand on her head for an hour a day if we wanted, and she has the perfect right to ignore the advice if she sees it as wrong thinking or not in the best interest of herself or her Caucus or her Party. It is certainly unconstitutional for members of Provincial council to "instruct" or "demand" that the Leader take some action. It cannot, however, be unconstitutional to simply give advice. If advice from the members is unwelcome or unacceptable, then what is the Party for except to function as an electoral machine?
I can only guess that the President and the Executive did not want to have the motion concerning Bob Simpson to see the light of day so they declared it Unconstitutional and then voted down a challenge of the Chair, to make their judgment stick.
Yesterday, Jenny Kwan asked publically that her Leader call a Leadership Convention. She suggested that if Carol wants to keep her job that she ask for a mandate to do so in a "one member, one vote" open forum. I cannot imagine (and I have tried) how this difficulty, could be resolved otherwise.
Carole James has done something I never heard of before, which is to publicize and castigate MLA's who, rightly or wrongly, thought they were acting in confidence and in the best interests of their Party. She could have told them they were wrong and stayed in her job. That has been done before in parliamentary democracies, probably hundreds of times. She could have accepted their advice and stepped down as Leader, perhaps while remaining as an MLA. That, too, has happened before, probably hundreds of times. Instead, she chose to do something that I have never heard of before (no doubt there is some historical precedent somewhere, although I don't know about it and I can't imagine that it turned out well) and publicly attacked those who came to her in confidence.
I don't care if Carole wants to keep her job or not. Neither do I think this trouble is "about" Carole personally. I have, as probably every citizen does, thoughts about her leadership skill and style and believe they are irrelevant to the discourse. This is now about the democratization, or not, of how we do politics. It does not appear to be an issue that is limited to the NDP or even to B.C. I have heard similar thoughts about the erosion of democratic process and about the centralized control of political parties of late from members of the B.C. Liberal Party, the Federal Liberal Party, and the Alberta Conservative Party. It could be that this is a moment in our history when the political process is broken and reform and renewal are on the horizon.
As a New Democrat, I am heartsick at the troubles and I fervently wish Carol James had not orchestrated the public division of her Caucus. As a citizen, I am hopeful that the democratic process in Canada is being reborn. As her friend and supporter, I will go where Jenny Kwan goes, come what may.
Corky Evans
Fri, 2010-12-03 08:10
#3
Sad to say, but I know a historical precedent.
And I'm pretty reluctant to get into it. But maybe its useful.
Maybe someone could see that Corky hears about this.
A similar thing happened in the Nova Scotia NDP, the outcome of which was that now Premeir Dexter became the Leader.
Despite his continued popularity, Robert Chisholm resigned as Leader after the dissapointing drubbing of the 1999 election. In the delegated Convention Helen MacDonald was elected Leader. Helen had lost her seat, which was a notch againts her, but obviously not decisive.
There were 2 possible seats for a by-election. The seat in Cape Breton vacated by the former Liberal Premier. But also the only safe NDP seat there was at the time, the Halifax seat opened by the death of the friend of Helen and a lot of us.
During her leadership run Helen had promised to run for a seat in Cape Breton. She was strenuously [but not publicly] urged to run for the safe seat in Halifax. As we all know, this is common for Leaders without seats, and its not like Helens supporters in Cape Breton were going to be deeply disspapointed. She chose to run for the Cape Breton seat, the party of course put everything in, and Helen came in third. This was such a humiliation. She was treated as an instant lame duck by the press [who are not hostile to us]. It was widely assumed she would soon do the right thing. And she got that private visit like Corky talks about, to which she answered very unequivocaly that she was staying, come what may.
A firestorm broke out within the party. This is before the Internet, and before everyone had email, so most of that was on the phone. With Caucus members of course talking among themselves.
Very little word at all got to the press. And absolutely nothing, not even speculation, about particular Caucus members.
Six MLAs [out of 11?] decided that they wanted to go together to meet Helen MacDonald. Before she was formally called by one of them, she got word of their intention. And she outed them. There was no meeting.
I dont remember how long this went on. Couldnt have been more than a few weeks. Council is quarterly and happened to be meeting.
The Council meeting was unforgettable. Traumatic for everyone. But Helen MacDonald maintained she was staying.
Then with no prior word, not long after, she quit.
While there are some similarities in the basic power dynamics, there are a lot of differences in the two cases.
The BC NDP is a pressure cooker even at the best of times compared to the NS NDP. For all the nastiness, whih carried on for another year plus, we could in many ways still carry this on as a family feud more or less out of sight. Thats not possible in BC.
The other similarity of course is the narrative of loyalty and that the Leader has a right to stay until she chooses otherwise. As if those are absolutes, even though everyone knows they are not.
Fri, 2010-12-03 08:11
#4
This weekend Caucus is not going to settle anything, unless the dissidents decide to throw in the towel completely.
And at this point, how likely is that?
What is really happening is that its just another line drawn in the sand. James and company trying to pretend this is it.
It isnt over until one side or the other declares they have lost. It cant go on like this forever, but neither is ready to back down.
Unless the dissidents completely and unequivocaly surrender, it looks like more of them will be booted out of Caucus.
Which then just becomes the next stage of the same stalemate.
Fri, 2010-12-03 08:40
#5
First the James gang, unprecedented in BC, outed the people who don't feel the BC NDP can win the next election with James as Leader.
The James gang is now on a full court press to squash the dissidents
And now the James gang are going to punish them - good luck with that one.
The only people who are going to ultimately be punished will be the party hierarchy. And rightly so.
Fri, 2010-12-03 08:45
#6
Kwan is on right track in wanting NDP leader out
http://www.canada.com/Kwan+right+track+wanting+leader/3922283/story.html
Fri, 2010-12-03 08:48
#7
Jenny Kwan may have struck "fatal blow" on NDP Leader Carole James, Bob Simpson says
http://www.straight.com/article-362174/vancouver/jenny-kwan-may-have-str...
Fri, 2010-12-03 08:52
#8
Island MLA joins chorus seeking NDP leadership convention
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Island+joins+chorus+seeking+leadership...
Fri, 2010-12-03 09:08
#9
It isnt over until one side or the other declares they have lost.
As if that isnt a sticky enough place, its more complicated than that.
On the James side, its over if Carole James quits.
On the dissidents side, it isnt just the MLAs. So even if none of them is willing to leave Caucus, that 'side' has only lost when the really vocal grumbling in the party stops.
[To make that concrete: the kind of grumbling after the election is tolerable; but more than that and out in public means that people have not given up the battle and the stalemate continues.]
In practice, what Carole James is demanding is not only loyalty from MLAs, she is demanding that her whole party stop talking about her being an albatross.
Fri, 2010-12-03 09:09
#10
Which Liberal wrote this article?
Mutiny shows James has lost her clout
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Mutiny+shows+James+lost+clout/3922353/...
Fri, 2010-12-03 09:11
#11
Trevena would prefer a leadership convention
http://www.canada.com/Trevena+would+prefer+leadership+convention/3920872...
Fri, 2010-12-03 09:15
#12
remind
Quite the way to spin that article linked in #8, NR.
Also, quite the spin aboe to say Carole took it puplic, when it was Kwan who wrote the BS press release.
Lost what remaining respect I had for Corky. Though admittedly there was very little left anyway, given his pout, and taking the ball home, after losing the leadership race.
Fri, 2010-12-03 09:17
#13
In 1986, when I was a candidate and prior to the election, I was asked to sign such a letter to Bob Skelly, suggesting that he resign as Leader. I declined, but others (I believe) signed the letter and (I believe) MLA's delivered it. If such a letter and meeting actually happened, Bob Skelly, as was his right, chose to disregard the letter and the request to step down. I have never seen the letter and do not know who the MLA's were, as it has always been treated as an "in confidence" occurrence.
It looks like the guy responsible for that attempted palace coup back in '86 also might be behind this palace coup. Remember Bob Williams?
[b]Williams Denounces James[/b]NDP Eminence Says Kwan Is Bringing Fresh Air To Politics
By Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun December 3, 2010
He stood toward the back of the room at the recent meeting of the New Democratic Party governing council, chatting up the MLAs who'd made a point of not donning the yellow scarves to show their support for the party leader.
Bob Williams. An eminence, albeit a controversial one, for five decades within the NDP, and now literally grey. He'll turn 78 next month, having been first elected to the legislature in 1966 as a firebrand, particularly on issues involving Crown land and resources.
Never having supported James in the first place, he recently announced she had to go.
Not for the first time did he thus become part of a revolt against an NDP leader.
His history in that regard came up Thursday, on the Bill Good show on radio station CKNW. Keith Baldrey from Global TV had brought up Williams' emerging role in the challenge to James.
He'd been a mentor to MLA Jenny Kwan and may well have encouraged her to go public with this week's no-holds-barred attack on James, Baldrey speculated. He also reminded the radio audience how Williams had tried to put the knife into a previous leader, Bob Skelly, on the eve of the 1986 election.
Next thing we knew (I was also on the show, though a bystander on this point) Williams himself was on the line. "I wonder if he [Baldrey] might repeat what he had to say, because I think some of it was incorrect."
There ensued a marvellous exchange in which Williams not only confirmed his role in the revolt against James, he expanded on it.
Williams had called for James' head? "Yes," he said. He'd been part of the effort to force out Skelly? Yes, again. He'd been at the council meeting where the dissidents took on James? Yes, a third time.
He then proceeded to bolster suspicions of his mentoring role, professing to be "overjoyed" with Kwan: "What she is bringing to this whole equation is no more spin, no more secrecy and at last some fresh air in a world of politics.
"And Jenny is right," he continued, scything into James. "The party has been ossified, with a leader that is managed by bureaucrats. She ended up throwing [MLA Bob] Simpson out for a modest statement that she gave a boring speech.
"Damn it, she almost always gives a boring speech. Telling the truth is reason to throw a person out of caucus? That's kind of sick. And doing it just because she and her managers wanted her to look tough and draw a line in the sand. That's nothing less than disgusting in terms of spitting on the democratic process."
Did Williams have a candidate in mind to replace the managed-by-bureaucrats leader and her sick and disgusting ways? "I don't know." What about the rumour that he's counting on party president Moe Sihota to seek the job should James vacate? " No, I don't have any candidate at all."
Still he believes a leadership race is just the ticket: "This is a glorious opportunity for the NDP to fight about what it really cares about and then give people something to vote for in the next election."
Contrast the Williams view of the merits of a leadership revolt with the perspective of one of his co-conspirators in the attempt to oust Bob Skelly. The late Rosemary Brown, who was then an MLA, joined Williams and several others in the attempt to force Skelly to step aside on the eve of the 1986 election. The attempt failed and the NDP went on to lose the election.
Three years later, with the wounds still fresh, Brown wrote about the episode in Being Brown, a memoir. While insisting that the failed coup was not the deciding factor in an election the party would have lost anyway, she did concede that it was both mistaken and damaging.
"Our challenge was weak and futile and in the end may have indeed hurt the fortunes of the party," wrote Brown. "Very rarely does a political party win an election while it is hemorrhaging internally."
Nevertheless, Williams, Kwan and the others would appear to have concluded that another internal hemorrhage is just what the doctor ordered.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Williams+denounces+James/3921397/story....
Fri, 2010-12-03 09:18
#14
NDP's cookie crumbling fast
Carole James should follow Campbell's example
http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/cookie+crumbling+fast/3921101/story.h...
Fri, 2010-12-03 09:31
#15
NDP party loyalists agree with Jenny Kwan
Some New Democrat faithful also want new leader
When the longest-serving NDP MLA demands a change at the helm, people take notice. Jenny Kwan's call for a leadership review is getting attention on local streets.
There are always party loyalists - the faithful who would never waver - and traditionally, the NDP has had its share. We met one of those today, a man who calls himself a "union man." Even he believes Kwan's call for change at the top may be just what the party needs to generate more popular appeal.
He tells us, "You wear out your welcome, and you've got to replace it with something new, because otherwise you'll get mowed down again. That's just natural progress."
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/151839--ndp-party-loyalists-a...
Fri, 2010-12-03 09:43
#16
Cueball
The old thread reached 100 posts, about 10 hours later than Cueball predicted.
I was counting on some regulars who were MIA.
Fri, 2010-12-03 09:47
#17
Does anyone have a list of the 13 MLA that were with Carole at her news conference and the 3 that called in?
Fri, 2010-12-03 09:50
#18
remind
In 1986, when I was a candidate and prior to the election, I was asked to sign such a letter to Bob Skelly, suggesting that he resign as Leader. I declined, but others (I believe) signed the letter and (I believe) MLA's delivered it. If such a letter and meeting actually happened, Bob Skelly, as was his right, chose to disregard the letter and the request to step down. I have never seen the letter and do not know who the MLA's were, as it has always been treated as an "in confidence" occurrence.It looks like the guy responsible for that attempted palace coup back in '86 also might be behind this palace coup. Remember Bob Williams?
[b]Williams Denounces James[/b]NDP Eminence Says Kwan Is Bringing Fresh Air To Politics
By Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun December 3, 2010
He stood toward the back of the room at the recent meeting of the New Democratic Party governing council, chatting up the MLAs who'd made a point of not donning the yellow scarves to show their support for the party leader.
Bob Williams. An eminence, albeit a controversial one, for five decades within the NDP, and now literally grey. He'll turn 78 next month, having been first elected to the legislature in 1966 as a firebrand, particularly on issues involving Crown land and resources.
Never having supported James in the first place, he recently announced she had to go.
Not for the first time did he thus become part of a revolt against an NDP leader.
His history in that regard came up Thursday, on the Bill Good show on radio station CKNW. Keith Baldrey from Global TV had brought up Williams' emerging role in the challenge to James.
He'd been a mentor to MLA Jenny Kwan and may well have encouraged her to go public with this week's no-holds-barred attack on James, Baldrey speculated. He also reminded the radio audience how Williams had tried to put the knife into a previous leader, Bob Skelly, on the eve of the 1986 election.
Next thing we knew (I was also on the show, though a bystander on this point) Williams himself was on the line. "I wonder if he [Baldrey] might repeat what he had to say, because I think some of it was incorrect."
There ensued a marvellous exchange in which Williams not only confirmed his role in the revolt against James, he expanded on it.
Williams had called for James' head? "Yes," he said. He'd been part of the effort to force out Skelly? Yes, again. He'd been at the council meeting where the dissidents took on James? Yes, a third time.
He then proceeded to bolster suspicions of his mentoring role, professing to be "overjoyed" with Kwan: "What she is bringing to this whole equation is no more spin, no more secrecy and at last some fresh air in a world of politics.
"And Jenny is right," he continued, scything into James. "The party has been ossified, with a leader that is managed by bureaucrats. She ended up throwing [MLA Bob] Simpson out for a modest statement that she gave a boring speech.
"Damn it, she almost always gives a boring speech. Telling the truth is reason to throw a person out of caucus? That's kind of sick. And doing it just because she and her managers wanted her to look tough and draw a line in the sand. That's nothing less than disgusting in terms of spitting on the democratic process."
Did Williams have a candidate in mind to replace the managed-by-bureaucrats leader and her sick and disgusting ways? "I don't know." What about the rumour that he's counting on party president Moe Sihota to seek the job should James vacate? " No, I don't have any candidate at all."
Still he believes a leadership race is just the ticket: "This is a glorious opportunity for the NDP to fight about what it really cares about and then give people something to vote for in the next election."
Contrast the Williams view of the merits of a leadership revolt with the perspective of one of his co-conspirators in the attempt to oust Bob Skelly. The late Rosemary Brown, who was then an MLA, joined Williams and several others in the attempt to force Skelly to step aside on the eve of the 1986 election. The attempt failed and the NDP went on to lose the election.
Three years later, with the wounds still fresh, Brown wrote about the episode in Being Brown, a memoir. While insisting that the failed coup was not the deciding factor in an election the party would have lost anyway, she did concede that it was both mistaken and damaging.
"Our challenge was weak and futile and in the end may have indeed hurt the fortunes of the party," wrote Brown. "Very rarely does a political party win an election while it is hemorrhaging internally."
Nevertheless, Williams, Kwan and the others would appear to have concluded that another internal hemorrhage is just what the doctor ordered.
Gag, with a little puke in the back of my throat, goes to figure, eh, stupidity once held and through which he played the role of destroyer, has never been learned from.
Fri, 2010-12-03 09:52
#19
NDP's cookie crumbling fast
Carole James should follow Campbell's example
http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/cookie+crumbling+fast/3921101/story.h...
If you ever wondered what W.A.C. Bennett meant when he said the NDP "couldn't run a peanut stand,"
Would that be the same W.A.C. Bennett that gave the Yanks a sweetheart deal on Columbia River power dams?
"Nothing is freer than free, my friends! Those dams won't cost the taxpayers of B.C. one penny!"
Bennett was right, the dams didn't cost British Columbians one penny. They cost BCers hundreds of millions of dollars.
Fri, 2010-12-03 10:09
#20
Does anyone have a list of the 13 MLA that were with Carole at her news conference and the 3 that called in?
At the bottom of this post is the Youtube video of the news conference and I can make out:
1. Mable Elmore
2. Raj Chouhan
3. Mike Farnworth
4. Adrian Dix
5. Rob Flemming
6. Dawn Black
7. Bruce Ralston
8. Kathy Corrigan
9. Spencer Chandra Herbert
10. Maureen Karagianis
11. Harry Bains
12. Diane Thorne
13. Sue Hammell
BTW, here's the news conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRnA-VOwfqc&feature=player_embedded#!
Fri, 2010-12-03 10:18
#21
Lou Arab
Just wanted to say I like the name of this thread.
Carry on.
Fri, 2010-12-03 10:26
#22
remind
Really? I think it sucks, for a variety of reasons.
Fri, 2010-12-03 10:27
#23
Snert
I think that the current, and very public, troubles inside the NDP must be hugely confusing to citizens.
No, not really. With the Liberal party at a low point and a potential election on the horizon, now is precisely the right time for infighting and drama, isn't it?
Quick aside: Carole James voted AGAINST Proportional Representation??? Seriously????
Fri, 2010-12-03 10:27
#24
3. Mike Farnworth
13. Sue Hammell
Having Farnworth and Hammell onside is pretty significant. They were both first-elected before Kwan did. While they lost their seats in '01, they each has as many years in caucus as Kwan does.
But then I guess so does Harry Lali.
Fri, 2010-12-03 10:45
#25
Only 25% of Liberal Party supporters voted for STV.
Take a wild guess as to which old line party in British Columbia killed STV.
Fri, 2010-12-03 11:41
#26
Catchfire
I guess the Liberals. What do I win?
I also like the name of the thread (obv). Is there room for more Star Trek puns? James' Quirk: The Search for Schlock?
Fri, 2010-12-03 12:02
#27
I see lots of places for classic lines from Star Wars.
Luke. .. I am your father.
[and Lukes response to the startling news]
Guess who is DV, and who is Luke.
Fri, 2010-12-03 12:11
#28
Remind you do realize you are now aligned with Adrian Dix, Moe Sihota, David Schreck, Mike Farnworth and Bruce Ralston. Can you say old boys network? These people are not Carole"s friends and they are not democrats. They will support her but only until they are ready to dump her so one of them can win the leadership. This is not just a game being played out at the one level of Carole versus the dissidents.
I wonder about Elmore being in that camp but like you she may be supporting Carole in solidarity as a fellow non-white woman. Or she may be hoping to make a serious run for the leadership and move up the ranks of the party to cabinet by sticking with the people who control the party levers.
Fri, 2010-12-03 12:15
#29
Speaking of the James Gang is this a Funk #49.
I know I'm dating myself but if they don't change their ways then there will be trouble brewing
Fri, 2010-12-03 12:20
#30
Cueball
Elmore is a hardcore Union activist. She probably hates James, however she is certainly sticking with the leadership in solidarity on principle. I would probably not show up at James's press conference, but I would be hard pressed to support the push to oust James openly, especially since there is supposed to be a leadership convention in 2011.
I can't say anyone is looking really good here. Ultimately James is to blame, since obviously she can't build a consensus in here caucus, or keep them under control, or appease them. Booting Simpson in the manner she did was very heavy handed, and didn't seem to include any process except her decision. So, the accusations seem well founded. This would not be happening to a leader who deserved that leadership.
On the other hand I am not sure the manner that the opposition is using to make this change is the most productive either. Myself, I would probably try and stay out of it.
Fri, 2010-12-03 12:22
#31
Elmore is a hardcore Union activist. She prpbably hates James, however she is certainly sticking with the leadership in solidarity on principle.
I actually think her community activism was what won her the election while her union, peace and GLBT activism won her the nomination. The power of being grounded in her community made the difference in her election. In all of those areas she was a grass roots person not an elitist left wing bureaucrat.
Mable Elmore was elected MLA for Vancouver-Kensington on May 12, 2009. She is currently deputy critic for Children and Family Development and Child Care.
Mable is a community activist who has been working hard on progressive causes for over two decades. She has been a transit operator for 10 years, driving a bus in Metro Vancouver while taking a strong role in her union, the Canadian Auto Workers Local 111, where she is coordinating the “More Buses Now” campaign to improve public bus transit.
Mable is a second generation Filipino-Canadian who has also been active in the peace movement and on immigrant, social justice, women’s and gay, lesbian and transgendered issues.
Fri, 2010-12-03 12:23
#32
Cueball
Well yeah, but isnt there an existing process and an leadership convention scheduled for 2011?
Fri, 2010-12-03 12:30
#33
There is a leadership review scheduled for 2011.
But as noted, that was deliberately scheduled to be empty. If you mean a review, you have it right after an election.
Fall 2011 does not just merely fail that- it is placed where it is least likely to allow a serious challenge to develop.
Fri, 2010-12-03 12:32
#34
A leadership review in 2011 followed by a leadership convention means early 2012 maybe is when the NDP would be ready for the next election.
However the new Premier will not wait that long. The constitution of Canada was not changed by setting a date for elections, just ask Harper. Any fix required is within the jurisdiction of the majority of the Leg. And of course Gordo was forced to step down in the face of overwhelming opposition. Does the NDP really want to try arguing the BC Liberals have the legitimacy and are REQUIRED to govern for their whole term.
That would be as stupid as having some unions pay Moe a stipend to be President of a party that is avowedly not controlled by unions.
Fri, 2010-12-03 12:33
#35
remind
So both Cue and kropotkin are stating that Elmore is a hyprocrit shill, as well as a toady. Nice!
Fri, 2010-12-03 12:36
#36
When the convention adopted that date no one and I mean no one would have predicted both a Liberal win and then a collapse within months to the point where the leader had to resign to save his party from extinction. Failing to adapt to changing circumstances is a sign of very poor political judgement. If the convention had been given this scenario and asked when should there be a review I am sure the date would not be in the middle of the four year semi-fixed election cycle.
Fri, 2010-12-03 12:36
#37
Cueball
I didn't say that. What I said, is that she probably came down on the side of solidarity with the leadership, regardless of her personal feelings. I don't know what her personal feelings really are, but on the point of her being attacked for her Israeli comments, and her history it does not seem to me that she would have a lot in common with James.
There is nothing wrong with acting on the basis of solidarity, simply for the sake of it. She may think its the best strategic choice, regardless of here opinions.
Fri, 2010-12-03 12:37
#38
So both Cue and kropotkin are stating that Elmore is a hyprocrit shill, as well as a toady. Nice!
Remind please show some respect to your allies. Either quote me on that obnoxious piece of vitriol you posted or retract it.
Fri, 2010-12-03 14:00
#39
remind
So both Cue and kropotkin are stating that Elmore is a hyprocrit shill, as well as a toady. Nice!Remind please show some respect to your allies.
This is fucking hilarious putting the onus on me to show respect for alleged "allies".
Respect is a 2 way street.
And "allies" apparently is a cheap word these days. Also, do you not see an issue with your telling me what to do?
Fri, 2010-12-03 14:06
#40
remind
Here ya go kropotkin.....
Remind you do realize you are now aligned with Adrian Dix, Moe Sihota, David Schreck, Mike Farnworth and Bruce Ralston. Can you say old boys network? These people are not Carole"s friends and they are not democrats. They will support her but only until they are ready to dump her so one of them can win the leadership. This is not just a game being played out at the one level of Carole versus the dissidents.I wonder about Elmore being in that camp but like you she may be supporting Carole in solidarity as a fellow non-white woman. Or she may be hoping to make a serious run for the leadership and move up the ranks of the party to cabinet by sticking with the people who control the party levers.
That can translate into nothing else, especially given the fact that she stood beside Carole at the press conference yesterday, and gave her a huge hug when it was all over and Carole was leaving the podium.
If you follow your line of reasoning, which is just worded differently than Cue's, then that means she is being a hyprocrit by supporting James in a very public manner, hug notwithstanding either. As well as an opportunistic toady, by aligning herself with those you consider the old boys network who control the party levers, and who you consider are part of the problem, which thereby renders her union and activist credentials null and void, as she would have to throw them aside, along with her personal values, in order to move herself up the ladder.
In Cue's case, he went further, as he stated that he knows Elmore would have nothing to do with James, given the fact Elmore was "forced" to apologize. First of all, he was speaking for Elmore, and thereby taking her voice (a no no), which then depicts her unfavourabley, as a hyprocrit and toady, given her solid support of James and the huge hug she gave James just yesterday.
In conclusion, this of course would mean, that Elmore too would be under 'their control', as you say James is.
So....as you can see, both of you actually depicted Elmore in a very unfavourable light. And Cue went so far as to take her voice.
[sarcastic aside] btw depicting me as being aligned with those you list, is really also very progressive of you. As is making it seem that perhaps I and Mabel are only aligned with Carole, as she is a woman of colour. Thanks for the mansplaining and manknowing [/sarcastic tone]
Fri, 2010-12-03 14:39
#41
Cueball
In Cue's case, he went further, as he stated that he knows Elmore would have nothing to do with James, given the fact Elmore was "forced" to apologize. First of all, he was speaking for Elmore, and thereby taking her voice (a no no), which then depicts her unfavourabley, as a hyprocrit and toady, given her solid support of James and the huge hug she gave James just yesterday.
In conclusion, this of course would mean, that Elmore too would be under 'their control', as you say James is.
No I didn't say that. What I said was:
Elmore is a hardcore Union activist. She probably hates James, however she is certainly sticking with the leadership in solidarity on principle. I would probably not show up at James's press conference, but I would be hard pressed to support the push to oust James openly, especially since there is supposed to be a leadership convention in 2011.
I never said I know anything about Elmore. I came to some possible conlusions based on their previous history together.
I then went on to clarify, saying:
I didn't say that. What I said, is that she probably came down on the side of solidarity with the leadership, regardless of her personal feelings. I don't know what her personal feelings really are, but on the point of her being attacked for her Israeli comments, and her history it does not seem to me that she would have a lot in common with James.
I certainly didn't call her a "hypocrite". I reasoned that there were plenty of good reasons to come down on the side of party solidarity besides how she feels about James, and that there really are good reasons to stick with James. My point about being a union activist, is that unlike many other kinds of political activists, unionists are generally more aware of issues of solidatiry.
Unionists are expected to back the executive of the union publically, regardless of how they feel about the executive, and there are plenty of good reasons for this, none of which have anything to do with how one personally feels about the leadership.
I concluded by saying:
There is nothing wrong with acting on the basis of solidarity, simply for the sake of it. She may think its the best strategic choice, regardless of her opinions.
There is nothing hypocritical about taking a stand for strategic as opposed to political reasons. You really couldn't have a party of any kind if people just decided to support the party only if one agreed with the party on each and every issue.
Fri, 2010-12-03 14:40
#42
So both Cue and kropotkin are stating that Elmore is a hyprocrit shill, as well as a toady. Nice!Remind please show some respect to your allies.
This is fucking hilarious putting the onus on me to show respect for alleged "allies".
Respect is a 2 way street.
And "allies" apparently is a cheap word these days. Also, do you not see an issue with your telling me what to do?
There's a degree of irony here.
Fri, 2010-12-03 14:51
#43
remind
Sorry Cue, I stand by what I stated, you came back later and stated you meant other but in essence re-iterated what you said before.
To my mind there is no difference between "probably hated" and 'having nothing to do with', only mine is a softened version of yours...and it is a depiction of what YOU believe their former relationship was, or what you believed it should be, not what it actually is and was. Thus you took her voice, as you do not actually KNOW what their former relationship was, nor do you KNOW if she hated James, you inferred everything based upon your internal beliefs. Giving a rider later that you do not actually know means little, as you really stood by your belief that you do know that she is hiding her beliefs because of "solidarity".
Strategic choice = going against her convictions to further herself.
Fri, 2010-12-03 15:00
#44
remind
So both Cue and kropotkin are stating that Elmore is a hyprocrit shill, as well as a toady. Nice!Remind please show some respect to your allies.
This is fucking hilarious putting the onus on me to show respect for alleged "allies".
Respect is a 2 way street.
And "allies" apparently is a cheap word these days. Also, do you not see an issue with your telling me what to do?
There's a degree of irony here.
Really? Please do explain why...
Though given your characterization of Kwan being a crazy, if not a sociopathic alien and James as being a B grade actor that played the role of a fickle womanizer, maybe not.
No...on further thought, I really would like to see why you see irony in this.
Fri, 2010-12-03 15:05
#45
Cueball
No. I never said James was a hypocrite. The only assertion I made about her political views on James was that she "probably hates James". I certainly did not say I "know" anything for a fact. I only made some hypotheticals based on what I know of James and Elmore's politics. And I certainly said nothing about her taking this stand for self-interest.
As to your last point, solidarity is also a conviction.
Fri, 2010-12-03 15:11
#46
remind
-No. I never said James was a hypocrite.
Never said you did, I said you inferred Elmore is. This was done by your depiction of her based upon your internalized vision of her, and actually, their politics, not facts on the ground.
The only assertion I made about her political views on James was that she "probably hates James". I certainly did not say I "know" anything for a fact. I only made some hypotheticals based on what I know of James and Elmore's politics. And I certainly said nothing about her taking this stand for self-interest.
Exactly my point, you made hypotheticals based on your own beliefs, not what you know of either of them. Thus taking Elmore's voice and placing yours there instead.
As to your last point, solidarity is also a conviction.
Solidarity does not include hugs. Nor does hate.
Fri, 2010-12-03 15:23
#47
Cueball
-No. I never said James was a hypocrite.Never said you did, I said you inferred Elmore is. This was done by your depiction of her based upon your internalized vision of her, and actually, their politics, not facts on the ground.
So both Cue and kropotkin are stating that Elmore is a hyprocrit shill, as well as a toady. Nice!
I never said any such thing. Everything else you have said is also what seems to be an intentional effort to misrepresent what I have said.
In fact, I was saying that supporting the party leadership at this time, on the principle of party unity and solidarity is an understandable position, regardless of how one feels about James -- it is a political and strategic choice, and not necessarily a bad one, since the conflict is basically about what is strategically best for the party, at this time.
I certainly didn't say it was immoral or showed a deficit of charachter.
Fri, 2010-12-03 15:33
#48
Remind you do realize you are now aligned with Adrian Dix, Moe Sihota, David Schreck, Mike Farnworth and Bruce Ralston. Can you say old boys network? These people are not Carole"s friends and they are not democrats. They will support her but only until they are ready to dump her so one of them can win the leadership. This is not just a game being played out at the one level of Carole versus the dissidents.
I think this is a over-simplistic analysis of why these people back Carole. I think for people like Dix and Farnworth, backing Carole in this battle is perfectly logitical given their inclination to distance themselves from the more traditional leftist stances.
I too do wonder about Elmore.
Fri, 2010-12-03 16:02
#49
Wow, people are hypothesizing on a message board. Imagine that.
Fri, 2010-12-03 16:03
#50
remind
Well, you can feel that way all you want Cue, but I am not trying to misrepresent anything, you and kropotkin are inferring things about Elmore based upon yourselves and your beliefs of what her behaviour and actions might be.
The history that you both have contempt for James and those who are allegedly controlling her, provide the foundation of a disparaging pictorial of Elmore and her actions for supporting James.
Neither of your historical comments are stand alone to this occasion. They can't be. Nor can your giving hypotheticals of what you believe Elmore is doing, as if they were fact.
Anyhow, I bear no ill regard towards you about it, I just wish you would stop infering others, especially women, would act and believe as you do.
Fri, 2010-12-03 16:12
#51
When the convention adopted that date no one and I mean no one would have predicted both a Liberal win and then a collapse within months to the point where the leader had to resign to save his party from extinction. Failing to adapt to changing circumstances is a sign of very poor political judgement. If the convention had been given this scenario and asked when should there be a review I am sure the date would not be in the middle of the four year semi-fixed election cycle.
Convention did not adopt that date prior to the election (and did not exactly adopt that date at all except in the timing of the next Convention). The constitution wasn't changed until the last Convention, otherwise there would have been no way to prevent one then.
11.03 At every Convention that is not a Leadership Convention a secret ballot vote will be held among
Convention delegates to determine whether or not a leadership election should be called. If 50% plus
one delegate supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one
year of the Convention vote. This Section may be waived by Provincial Executive when there is a
general provincial election that would not allow sufficient time to comply with the time frame set out.