BC NDP Leadership Election Part II
Wed, 2011-01-12 19:16
#1
BC NDP Leadership Election Part II
Wed, 2011-01-12 19:25
#2
Since the first thread is at 110 posts I figured I would start another. In the last thread I asked if anyone knew the procedure and since it was very unclear I thought I would look it up myself.
The Constitution only says the broad strokes and the rest is by regulation.
ARTICLE XII — Election of the Provincial Leader
12.01 The Provincial Leader shall be elected through a ballot of all individual members of the Party residing in BC who are in good standing 90 days prior to the date of the election of the Leader. Appropriate regulations for the conduct of the election and of election balloting shall be developed from time to time by the Provincial Executive and all such regulations shall be placed before the Provincial Council for ratification.
The website explains that the rules are being drafted so I guess that is why none of us was sure what they would be. I sincerely hope the committee gets it right.
The leadership election will take place through a one-member, one-vote election process where each member of the NDP will have an opportunity to vote. Members of the BC NDP will be able to vote via telephone or internet during the leadership assembly, or via advance voting.
Individuals must be members of the BC NDP for ninety days prior to the Election Day in order to be eligible to vote in the leadership race.
"Setting the date and location for the leadership election is a key step in the leadership election process," said O'Brien. "Over the coming weeks we will continue to develop a comprehensive set of rules to govern the election, and we will ensure that this leadership election is run in a fair, transparent, and accessible manner."
The Provincial Council ratified the appointment of a five-member leadership rules committee. The committee is comprised of:
Brian Gardiner, former BC NDP Provincial Secretary and former Member of Parliament
Colin Gabelmann, former BC Attorney General
Lorraine Shore, BC NDP Vice President and lawyer
Marianne Alto, BC NDP Vice President and Victoria City Councilor (ex-officio)
Jan O'Brien, Provincial Secretary (ex-officio)
The five-member Leadership Rules Committee is expected to meet as soon as possible.
Thu, 2011-01-13 15:41
#3
Mike Farnworth entered the race today. I didn't know he was gay (assume so since his bio says he lives with partner Doug of 22 years). If so, great that there are two openly gay candidates running for leadership. And with Farnworth being a front-runner, could be the first openly gay Premier in Canada if the BC NDP wins the next election. Sweet!
Thu, 2011-01-13 18:30
#4
Yeah, Farnworth is out of the gate today. He has the support of 2 MLA's - Rob Fleming and Norm Macdonald. Horgan only has the support of 2 MLA's as well. What's up with that? Has Dix got most MLA's lined up behind him?
Fri, 2011-01-14 05:39
#5
http://www.bcndp.ca/files/uploads/2011-Leadership-Nomination_Rules.pdf
People might find these interesting.
Fri, 2011-01-14 11:00
#6
I found them extremely interesting. I guess they intend to at least extract $5,000 out of Dana before they kick his butt out of the race. I guess this will make sure we don't get any flake candidates from the anti-poverty movement and when they get rid of Dana the upper class professionals who run the BC NDP can have their exclusive little party all to themselves
And they have not set the rules for voting. Great on the doorsteps potential candidates can be saying sign up and get a vote, "we don't have a clue about the process and how you will choose after no one gets 50% in the first ballot but sign up now we promise you some kind of vote.
This is called incompetence and reminds me of the last election campaign when this same brain trust lost votes from the previous election.
5. There will be a registration fee of $15,000 from each proposed candidate due at time of filing. This
sum will be exempt from campaign spending limits. If the Provincial Executive fails to approve the
registration of a candidate $10,000 will be refunded.
Rules related to the conduct of the election will be developed at a later date, and approved by the
Provincial Executive and Provincial Council in accordance with Article 12.01 of the Constitution of the
New Democratic Party of British Columbia.
Fri, 2011-01-14 13:25
#7
I found them extremely interesting. I guess they intend to at least extract $5,000 out of Dana before they kick his butt out of the race. I guess this will make sure we don't get any flake candidates from the anti-poverty movement and when they get rid of Dana the upper class professionals who run the BC NDP can have their exclusive little party all to themselves
And they have not set the rules for voting. Great on the doorsteps potential candidates can be saying sign up and get a vote, "we don't have a clue about the process and how you will choose after no one gets 50% in the first ballot but sign up now we promise you some kind of vote.
This is called incompetence and reminds me of the last election campaign when this same brain trust lost votes from the previous election.
5. There will be a registration fee of $15,000 from each proposed candidate due at time of filing. This
sum will be exempt from campaign spending limits. If the Provincial Executive fails to approve the
registration of a candidate $10,000 will be refunded.
Rules related to the conduct of the election will be developed at a later date, and approved by the
Provincial Executive and Provincial Council in accordance with Article 12.01 of the Constitution of the
New Democratic Party of British Columbia.
I would expect the voting process to be clarified reasonably soon; they are probably looking at a couple of options. It can be assumed that there will be a multi-ballot or preferential ballot process similar to the federal NDP leadership process in 2003.
A $5000 "administration" fee does seem a bit excessive if a candidacy is not accepted for whatever reason (criteria for not accepting a candidate should be entirely clear and tranparent).
The following requirement would likely be as or more daunting for a candidate who is not serious; only candidates with support in most of the province need apply:
4. A proposed candidate must be nominated by at least 250 members of the BCNDP who are in good standing no later than January 17, 2011. The group of 250 members shall include a minimum of ten (10) members from each of at least six (6) of the eight (8) regions identified by the BCNDP (See Appendix A). In order to be a member in good standing to nominate a candidate in the leadership election, the Provincial Office must receive paper membership applications no later than 17:00 PST on January 17, 2011. On-line membership applications must be received by the Provincial Office by 23:59 PST on January 17, 2011.
Fri, 2011-01-14 14:09
#8
I actually like the regional requirement because if they have no support outside of the Lower Mainland then the odds of a candidate making a good Premier for the whole province are extremely limited.
The $5,000 default is really a Fuck you Dana move in that classic style where you can't really prove that it was intentional it just appears to be the logical conclusion. It is quite clear the Dana will be rejected since they wouldn't even let him run for a MP's seat.
The $15,000 and potential $5,000 default fine for failing the purity test will definitely insure that no anti-poverty activists or other community activists with limited resources will take part. I guess a leadership race is not the place to have candidates speaking about specific policies that drive their activism in the community it is far better being a horse race between well funded career politicians.
I would not object if I thought it would lead to an election win but frankly these rules just show the party is out of touch with the people I thought a socialist party was supposed to represent. Last election the "chase the middle class vote" strategy caused a pissed off population to stay at home in greater numbers than ever before. After all the people have endured in this province under the Liberals the BC NDP LOST VOTES from 2005 to 2009. Less people thought it was worthwhile voting for the party than in 2005.
Fri, 2011-01-14 15:43
#9
The $5,000 default is really a Fuck you Dana move in that classic style where you can't really prove that it was intentional it just appears to be the logical conclusion. It is quite clear the Dana will be rejected since they wouldn't even let him run for a MP's seat.
Actually, Dana was approved to run as an MP. The problem arose during the campaign when the Youtube videos became public and both Dana and the other guy (what's his name) were pressured by HQ to step down as the videos were becoming too much of a media/campaign distraction.
Dana has already signed up in excess of 1,000 new members x $10 = $10,000 into party coffers. He also has the most "friends" on his leadership FB page at ~1,100.
With Dana, it's best to "let sleeping dogs lie".
If HQ decides to reject Dana's application, there will be a huge hue and cry and the NDP will be attracting negative MSM attention it can ill afford. The 1,000 people signing up new memberships will demand their money back. The party will be called "undemocratic" and "run by eltites". Etc. etc. etc.
Fri, 2011-01-14 16:39
#10
I actually like the regional requirement because if they have no support outside of the Lower Mainland then the odds of a candidate making a good Premier for the whole province are extremely limited.
The $5,000 default is really a Fuck you Dana move in that classic style where you can't really prove that it was intentional it just appears to be the logical conclusion. It is quite clear the Dana will be rejected since they wouldn't even let him run for a MP's seat.
The $15,000 and potential $5,000 default fine for failing the purity test will definitely insure that no anti-poverty activists or other community activists with limited resources will take part. I guess a leadership race is not the place to have candidates speaking about specific policies that drive their activism in the community it is far better being a horse race between well funded career politicians.
I would not object if I thought it would lead to an election win but frankly these rules just show the party is out of touch with the people I thought a socialist party was supposed to represent. Last election the "chase the middle class vote" strategy caused a pissed off population to stay at home in greater numbers than ever before. After all the people have endured in this province under the Liberals the BC NDP LOST VOTES from 2005 to 2009. Less people thought it was worthwhile voting for the party than in 2005.
I didn't say I disliked the regional requirement, it's just that a candidate would have to have some kind of organization to meet it. I don't think it's clear at all that Larsen will be unable to meet all of the stated requirements. If he does meet them and is rejected as a candidate, the Executive will have some explaining to do.
Fri, 2011-01-14 18:25
#11
I expect that Dana will have no problem with any of the rules except the test of suitability. I am sure his machine is well funded just as Marc's used to be. This is serious issue in BC with immense ramifications for the rural areas of the province where believe it or not many left leaning people grow pot to both smoke and provide cash as a mortgage helper. I've heard some NDP'ers sound like hawks on crime prevention and it is certainly a make or break issue for the hundreds of thousands of people in this province who belong to what we used to call the counter culture.
To win the next election in the fall, the NDP needs a broad coalition which means it must be open to diverse opinions and diverse cultures. If the LIberals think they can win they will go early just like Harper did and will pay the same price as Harper did which I think was a negligible one.
Fri, 2011-01-14 19:39
#12
Beating up on Dana Larsen with $5000 registration fee is a fool's errand and a nice microcosm of the thuggish culture within the BC NDP. Assuming that is what it is there for.
Fri, 2011-01-14 19:47
#13
Left Turn
David Shcreck needs to butt out, and stop attacking every NDP leadership candidate whore dares disagree with the NDP Provincial Office. Here's his latest response on the Georgia Straight site to Harry Lali's statement against the NDP leadership contest rules.
Typical Lali! He could have spoken to anyone at provincial office before he declared so as to get an indication of what would be expected. Is Harry saying that he is sitting on a stack of memberships that he hasn't bothered to turn in until the last minute? Rules are needed to protect the party from Harry. How can he believe that he is fit to lead?
[url=http://straight.com/article-368603/vancouver/harry-lali-calls-bc-ndp-lea... Lali calls B.C. NDP leadership contest rules "unreasonable and ridiculous"[/url]
Fri, 2011-01-14 20:24
#14
I agree that the registration fee is unreasonable. Especially the fact that the party will keep $5000 of it as a non-refundable deposit if it decides that a candidate isn't qualified to run. They should explain the reasoning behind that specific point.
That being said, the point of having members join at least 90 days before the leadership election is reasonable. You can't have people with absolutely no commitment to the party's ideals join it. The point of the quick leadership campaign was so that the party could be ready in case the Liberals decided to go with a quick election. I think the vast majority of people within it agreed that that's a reasonable course of action. Besides, what if a bunch of right-wingers joined just to fuck around with the process and elect the worst possible leader? I don't know what he's complaining about with the spreadsheet stuff, it isn't as if Excel is particularly hard to use. An organized campaign would be keeping track of this information as they signed people up! Surely someone on his team knows how to use Excel! I think its ridiculous to say the least to complain about that. It distracts from his more reasonable points and it kind of plays into the meme that Lali is lazy.
Fri, 2011-01-14 20:37
#15
Other sections have similar rules as the non-refundable portion of the fee. I pointed out some time ago that they exist so that parties at least have something to rid themselves of pure mischief candidates. In principle, they can also be used to rid yourselves of candidates like Dana. But the rules exist independent of whether or nor someone like Dana seeks the leadership. They have to be changing beccause OMOVv is still new and we're still figuring out best ways to do it.
And think about it- while the rule could potentialy deter Dana, it didn't. It didnt stop him from declaring. Dana is well versed in NDP constitutions and by-laws across Canada. If this exact rule did not already exist [or something close to it], Dana would know it would be there. Dana knew there would be considerable fees. Since OMOV elections are still relatively new, the rules in each section are in flux still.
And Dana knew he didn't rate as a candidate if he could not raise the fees. If he cant raise the money, he also would not be able to take anything close to a serious run at the leadership. The money comes from the same place as what it takes to draw people into your campaign: organizational capability and savy.
By the way, someone said that Harry Lali seemed to be saying he was sitting on a stack of membership apps he cannot file. I didnt see what Lali actually said. But the idea was awful reminiscent of Moe in the 2000 race claiming he had a few thousand people signed up that he had in his backpocket. Don't remeber the exact words or number, but he definitely said something to that effect.
Fri, 2011-01-14 20:40
#16
That being said, the point of having members join at least 90 days before the leadership election is reasonable. You can't have people with absolutely no commitment to the party's ideals join it. The point of the quick leadership campaign was so that the party could be ready in case the Liberals decided to go with a quick election.
I too have no problem with the 90 day rule. I think that a late May or early June leadership vote would have been great. I personally think that if the NDP had set a date anytime before the fall that the Liberals would be committing suicide if they had dared to pull such a blatantly undemocratic ploy.
The short time frame for signing up members means that the status quo wins. To bad IMO because it would be really nice to see the party win an election instead of going down to four defeats in a row. I had hoped that some of the movers and shakers in the party would get the fact that not only did they not win the last election but less people voted for them than in 2005. The party like the union movement in this province is either growing or it is doomed to oblivion. No one with any power in the party seems to be trying to grow the party they all seem to be trying to control it.
Fri, 2011-01-14 21:17
#17
Pogo
How hard is it to enter 1000 names onto an Excel spreadsheet. A few hours work for anyone doing data entry.
The fees are not a money maker (well maybe the $5000 part). The way I understood it was that this money was to help pay for the party sponsored debates.
Fri, 2011-01-14 21:45
#18
I thought $5000 entrance fee was a bit steep for a party that represents poor people. I do not know what the rule is now in Ireland but when I was there, the supreme court ruled high fees to go up for election to be unconstitutional. (Not leadersip, just ordinary elections) And the leadership is decided by elected representatives (like mla's) so there is no entrance fee at all for that one.
(I guess the partys figured a way round it because there are not a huge number of candidates for election in irish elections).
The fee to enter the leadership race will definitely scare people away. Maybe not scare many candidates away, just people in general.
And is that really such a good idea?
Remember remind with her Jand Stirk millionaire thing? Well, if it is $5000 just to enter, you will need friends with bags of money to get into that race.
Maybe Mulroney will back someone? I certainly do not think that is putting much distance between ndp methods and bc lib methods.
Maybe they are still trying to suck up to big business interests? The old "buy me" thing.
Sat, 2011-01-15 01:05
#19
Other sections have similar rules as the non-refundable portion of the fee. I pointed out some time ago that they exist so that parties at least have something to rid themselves of pure mischief candidates. In principle, they can also be used to rid yourselves of candidates like Dana. But the rules exist independent of whether or nor someone like Dana seeks the leadership. They have to be changing beccause OMOVv is still new and we're still figuring out best ways to do it.
And think about it- while the rule could potentialy deter Dana, it didn't. It didnt stop him from declaring. Dana is well versed in NDP constitutions and by-laws across Canada. If this exact rule did not already exist [or something close to it], Dana would know it would be there. Dana knew there would be considerable fees. Since OMOV elections are still relatively new, the rules in each section are in flux still.
And Dana knew he didn't rate as a candidate if he could not raise the fees. If he cant raise the money, he also would not be able to take anything close to a serious run at the leadership. The money comes from the same place as what it takes to draw people into your campaign: organizational capability and savy.
By the way, someone said that Harry Lali seemed to be saying he was sitting on a stack of membership apps he cannot file. I didnt see what Lali actually said. But the idea was awful reminiscent of Moe in the 2000 race claiming he had a few thousand people signed up that he had in his backpocket. Don't remeber the exact words or number, but he definitely said something to that effect.
The rules were just released a couple of days ago, after all but Farnworth had declared so far. Lali isn't the only candidate questioning the entry fee. Apparently Larsen says it won't deter him from running.
http://www.straight.com/article-368609/vancouver/bc-ndp-leadership-nomin...
Sat, 2011-01-15 01:19
#20
That being said, the point of having members join at least 90 days before the leadership election is reasonable. You can't have people with absolutely no commitment to the party's ideals join it. The point of the quick leadership campaign was so that the party could be ready in case the Liberals decided to go with a quick election.
I too have no problem with the 90 day rule. I think that a late May or early June leadership vote would have been great. I personally think that if the NDP had set a date anytime before the fall that the Liberals would be committing suicide if they had dared to pull such a blatantly undemocratic ploy.
The short time frame for signing up members means that the status quo wins. To bad IMO because it would be really nice to see the party win an election instead of going down to four defeats in a row. I had hoped that some of the movers and shakers in the party would get the fact that not only did they not win the last election but less people voted for them than in 2005. The party like the union movement in this province is either growing or it is doomed to oblivion. No one with any power in the party seems to be trying to grow the party they all seem to be trying to control it.
I have to wonder if the way in which James had to be forced out caused this to be inevitable. The honourable thing to do would have been to step aside immideately or shortly following the 2009 defeat, but she hung on right to the bitter end. Now Campbell resigns and the BC Liberals are in a leadership process, and there is speculation that they could call an election just after they win. So after James quit, the NDP panicked and wanted to rush its leadership process so as to not be caught off guard during a snap vote. Is the establishment within the BCNDP honestly scrambling to be ready, or is it actively using the circumstances to stifle debate? Either way, non-establishment candidates and ideas are at a severe disadvantage.
Does this sound about right?
Sat, 2011-01-15 10:54
#21
The whole rules thing is kinda stupid, isn't it? And it smells pongy. People enter a race and THEN the rules get made up! And maybe by early February the rules will be finalized.
What has the NDP been doing for a decade in opposition? This extraordinary group never even got round to making rules to govern their own conduct in a leadership race! (They weren't sitting in the Ledge because it was mostly closed, they weren't doing outreach to the public because they lost votes, they were not designing a MMP voting system because they didn't design one, what the hell were they doing?
For 10 effing years!
Too busy reading Roberts, I guess.
They are probably using the regional thing to knock out Lali and Larsen or at least to cause them great stess. Simons will be worst hit.
This probably only makes the Larsen and Lali groups stronger and more dedicated.
And if either one gets tossed out sans $5000, it would be a disaster for the ndp.
Tens of thousands of votes will be lost there and then. East indians, old white guys, dopers of all ages and anyone who likes the underdog.
I think the establishment has decided to continue James take no prisioners policy. She kicked out the environmentalist wing (voters) and now just a few environmentalist MLA's remain. Like Popham.
I guess the long term goal is to turn the bcndp into something like the federal liberal party.
A "we are left wing, wink wink, party, but not really".
Who among the James loyalists were plotting to overthrow her way back in November?
Farnworth wants to bury the hatchet now (not sure in who's back), and Horgan has only a couple of MLA backers. Any ideas or do we have to wait till the 17th for a clearer picture?
Sat, 2011-01-15 12:06
#22
If they deny any of the current prospective candidates, I'll burn my NDP membership card the moment it arrives in the mail (whenever that is).
Sat, 2011-01-15 12:31
#23
It does look like the BCNDP ruling clique is fixated on the notion that the left can't ever WIN the argument, but must instead obsess on proving how "safe" and 'responsible'(I.e., how indistinguishable from the BC Liberals)they are.
It's as if they heard The Who sing "meet the new boss-same as the old boss" and thought of that as a helpful suggestion.
The people who are obsessed with making sure that only "respectable" types serve as party leaders wouldn't ever vote NDP anyway. People like that don't HAVE any non-right wing views. Why don't Moe and the rest GET that?
The only chance the NDP has, in BC provincial politics or ANYWHERE else, is to have the guts to say "yes, we WILL be different, and different peoples and different values will matter when we're in power than matter when the current parties in power. And since those people and values WE will include, unlike the other parties, together comprise the majority of the voters and the idea of actually representing that majority...electing an NDP government is a GOOD thing, rather than just a way of turfing the other guys."
Sat, 2011-01-15 13:41
#24
The whole rules thing is kinda stupid, isn't it? And it smells pongy. People enter a race and THEN the rules get made up! And maybe by early February the rules will be finalized.
Or people entered a race before they knew what the rules would be. In any case, the criteria for rejecting a candidate are not entirely clear and transparent.
Farnworth wants to bury the hatchet now (not sure in who's back), and Horgan has only a couple of MLA backers. Any ideas or do we have to wait till the 17th for a clearer picture?
Farnworth also only has a couple of MLAs backing him. It will be interesting to see how many MLAs back Dix when he announces, but apparently Cullen is reconsidering. That's probably why so few MLAs are supporting Horgan and Farnworth at this point.
http://blogs.canoe.ca/eyeonthehill/general/nathan-cullen-and-the-bc-ndp-...
Sat, 2011-01-15 17:07
#25
Left Turn
[url=http://hardlefthook.com/2011/01/15/bc-ndp-leadership-rules-a-blow-agains... NDP Leadership Rules: a blow against party democracy[/url]
The powers that be in the BC NDP have finally released the rules for the 2011 leadership race. These rules seem designed to restrict all but the most well-off from running. Many in the party complained of Carole James' sucking-up to business; now we see the power-brokers in the party taking it a step further. They are trying to wipe out the voice of working class people altogether.
Sat, 2011-01-15 17:20
#26
That being said, the point of having members join at least 90 days before the leadership election is reasonable. You can't have people with absolutely no commitment to the party's ideals join it. The point of the quick leadership campaign was so that the party could be ready in case the Liberals decided to go with a quick election.
I too have no problem with the 90 day rule. I think that a late May or early June leadership vote would have been great. I personally think that if the NDP had set a date anytime before the fall that the Liberals would be committing suicide if they had dared to pull such a blatantly undemocratic ploy.
The short time frame for signing up members means that the status quo wins. To bad IMO because it would be really nice to see the party win an election instead of going down to four defeats in a row. I had hoped that some of the movers and shakers in the party would get the fact that not only did they not win the last election but less people voted for them than in 2005. The party like the union movement in this province is either growing or it is doomed to oblivion. No one with any power in the party seems to be trying to grow the party they all seem to be trying to control it.
I have to wonder if the way in which James had to be forced out caused this to be inevitable. The honourable thing to do would have been to step aside immideately or shortly following the 2009 defeat, but she hung on right to the bitter end. Now Campbell resigns and the BC Liberals are in a leadership process, and there is speculation that they could call an election just after they win. So after James quit, the NDP panicked and wanted to rush its leadership process so as to not be caught off guard during a snap vote. Is the establishment within the BCNDP honestly scrambling to be ready, or is it actively using the circumstances to stifle debate? Either way, non-establishment candidates and ideas are at a severe disadvantage.
Does this sound about right?
Yes, it would've been ideal if the leader resigned then or at least called for a a review of her leadership then. So, I agree that the way she left made this somewhat inevitble.
See, I don't think the Liberals care either way about how they look, so long as they think it'll help them win the election. About the only thing that could deter them would be an NDP leadership race that was currently in progress. Not one that is about to begin soon, which would've been the case had the party decided to wait until summer or fall to have a leadership campaign.
So, yes non-establishment candidates are at a disadvantage. But they always are. I don't think the party panicked. I don't see how waiting any longer would be a whole lot better. Besides, all of the candidates are sounding a somewhat anti-establishment tone right now, even the establishment candidates.
Sat, 2011-01-15 18:43
#27
Interested Observer
but apparently Cullen is reconsidering. That's probably why so few MLAs are supporting Horgan and Farnworth at this point.
http://blogs.canoe.ca/eyeonthehill/general/nathan-cullen-and-the-bc-ndp-...
Sounds like he might enjoy the shorter commute to me: Video
Also, very solid grounded person. Emanates integrity very strongly.
Mon, 2011-01-17 23:56
#28
There's still 3 hours left to sign up for a membership online if you want to have a vote in the upcoming leadership contest.
Tue, 2011-01-18 01:31
#29
but apparently Cullen is reconsidering. That's probably why so few MLAs are supporting Horgan and Farnworth at this point.
http://blogs.canoe.ca/eyeonthehill/general/nathan-cullen-and-the-bc-ndp-...
Sounds like he might enjoy the shorter commute to me: Video
Also, very solid grounded person. Emanates integrity very strongly.
But he won't run.
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Election-Central/2011/01/17/CullenOut/
Tue, 2011-01-18 03:12
#30
That's too bad. So both Nathan Cullen and Peter Julian declined to make the switch. Either would've been both a fresh face to provincial politics and an effective leader, IMO.
I have only been in BC 2 1/2 years and while I'm familiar with BC politics as things stand currently, I am not so well versed in the history. I have taken some time to learn about each candidate, but I am only somewhat familiar with most of them. This is how I would fill out a preferential ballot if voting were today (meanwhile the campaign is only just starting):
(from most preferred to least preferred)
1. Dana Larsen
2. Nicholas Simons
3. John Horgan
4. Harry Lali
5. Adrian Dix
6. Mike Farnworth
Is that the complete list? No one else declared?
Tue, 2011-01-18 11:26
#31
That is the complete list, so far. I heard Adrian on CBC this morning and I liked him a lot. As expected "Homer" Cluff the state media's biggest BC Liberal cheerleader tried to go after him on the economic record and he went right after the Liberal's fiscal record and defended the NDP government. He highlighted the areas I want to see highlighted; a minimum wage increase, Employment Standards enforcement and a full inquiry into the BC Rail corruption. Good opening salvo and thus at this point he has jumped to the top of my list. His only downside was Bruce Ralston was in the room with him. The up side and why I listened closely was the fact that both Libby Davies and Don Davies were in full support and Libby spoke on his behalf.
Tue, 2011-01-18 14:43
#32
He highlighted the areas I want to see highlighted; a minimum wage increase, Employment Standards enforcement and a full inquiry into the BC Rail corruption.
Isn't Farnworth highlighting all 3 of those things? Won't every candidate (except for Dana, maybe) be highlighting those things?
I understand why support from Libby Davies boosts his currency, but kropotkin, before the James ouster you were telling remind this:
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.
I can appreciate that there was context involved in that discussion (ie. that Dix, Farnworth, and Horgan's support of James was for show as much as anything), but how do you reconcile putting Dix at the top of your list? He's the first name you listed in the old boys club, before Moe even. I'm asking because I want to be informed about the leadership race, not to attack.
Tue, 2011-01-18 15:18
#33
Is Dix the forger? I kind of forget. I am not sure how party members feel about forgery but I don't approve of it.
For me, forgery disqualifies a candidate outright. Anyway, being a forger puts him in the lead straight away, doesn't it?
If I had a printing press, I would be wealthy.
I really don't see why the party has to stoop so low.
Maybe, I don't know the context. Maybe it was a "good" forgery?
Best get your explanations in now. They will be needed when the BC Libs attack his character.
Forgery versus drug use? Which is the more criminal thing to do?
I put Larsen above Dix. Forgery is a betrayal of the social contract.
Tue, 2011-01-18 18:44
#34
At this point I'm one-two for Larsen-Simons and no firm opinion on 3 but I liked how Dix was upfront about wealth redistribution and I have a lot of respect for Davies and Robinson. To give Farnworth some credit, I liked what he said about using the carbon tax to fund improvements in transit.
Tue, 2011-01-18 18:53
#35
remind
LOL@ Brian and those who listened to his blatherings about how Carole should be gone. It is very apparent he like most Greens want the NDP gone.
That said, I agree about Dix's changing of the date on the memo, wtf is that?
He won't be getting my vote, and hopefully not anyone's, especially those that I know, votes, and my esteem has gone down for those who are supporting him.
....to be fair though, I won't be voting for any of them. Unless of course Dana wins. ;)
Tue, 2011-01-18 19:14
#36
So wagezombie I try to moderate my views a little so as to not diss all the candidates for not being left enough. So much for that. I think maybe instead I should just rip up my card again since even if I pick one of the six candidates none of whom are exceptional I get attacked. I love babble because I know people often react to my screen name not anything else.
So in light of the comments by Wagezombie I concede all the candidates put forward are not worth a second look.
Tue, 2011-01-18 19:14
#37
Pogo
On CBC Dix said that the date changing was an error and that he takes full ownership of the error. He went on to say that he hopes people will look at his complete record before deciding on his suitability.
Tue, 2011-01-18 19:17
#38
Christy Clark and her family are up to their elbows in the BC Rail scandal and the talking heads in BC including here want to talk about a date on a memo.
Tue, 2011-01-18 19:27
#39
Pogo
My vote so far is:
1 Larsen
2 Horgan
3 Farnsworth
4 Dix
5 Simmons
6 Lali
Remembering back to the Layton vote. I think they tried to immitate a convention and as such made people vote each time instead of using a single ballot. Hope they use one ballot this time.
Tue, 2011-01-18 19:34
#40
Remembering back to the Layton vote. I think they tried to immitate a convention and as such made people vote each time instead of using a single ballot. Hope they use one ballot this time.
I want the opposite. I would like to know the order from the first ballot before I cast my second preference if my first is not a contender. Since there will likely be one or two second choices of about equal weight I want to have the ability to vote based on the results in real time. It should be doable in this day and age although 8 or 10 years ago it was still somewhat problematic.
Tue, 2011-01-18 20:04
#41
remind
kropotkin, wage zombies comments are more than fair and not an attack at all.
Especially in light of how you attacked me for supposedly aligning myself with "the old boys network", in order to dismiss/minimize my correctly noting that getting rid of Carole was an absolute idiotic move and racially and gender based.
So when you come here spouting support for the old boys network, it makes all my former points even more relevant as to those who agitated to get rid of Carole.
By 'former' I mean before the insanity occured when they forced her out and it was still being debated here as being a good thing or not.
Tue, 2011-01-18 20:23
#42
Pogo
Remind, I hope that you let a little more water run under the bridge and then take a look at the choices. I was a big James supporter and would have been excited to see how her style would work in government. However, she could not withstand an attack and that is part of the measure of a leader.
There are too many homeless, too many working poor, too many people on the outside of our society to hold a grudge for too long. (Alternatively we can put the daggers under our cloaks until our opportunity arrives)
Tue, 2011-01-18 20:38
#43
Carole would have led the party to the same result next time as she did last time. I know you don't agree but that to me is the crux of the matter. I supported her prior to the last election loss. After the loss I was disappointed she allowed herself to be talked into to staying on. The NDP lost votes from 2005 to 2009. Less people bothered to come out and vote for the party the last election than the previous election. I don't think that is totally Carole's fault but going into the next election with the same leader and same main players in caucus would not have led to any better result. I don't much like any of the choices and if Carole had not been leader and was running I would be an enthusiastic supporter but she has had her chance and the population of the province did not accept her.
Tue, 2011-01-18 21:01
#44
I didn't mean to bring up old battles and I apologize. I have a negative opinion of Dix, mostly due to the way other BC babblers seem to think about him, and then also from hearing about the memo. I just found it odd kropotkin, since you wouldn't ordinarily be supporting the old boy's club. Are the rest of the candidates really that bad?
I will support whoever the leader is. I am just trying to determine if Dix is the status quo that we were supposedly getting rid of by starting this leadership election.
If he's the status quo, but good enough at it that he's able to win some battles to placate the base, then, that's worth something.
What's the deal with Bruce Ralston?
Tue, 2011-01-18 21:17
#45
I personally don't like Bruce because I see him as Moe's equal in the back rooms and I hate that kind of politics. I reassessed my dislike of Adrian because of Libby's support for him. She knows him very well as they both are East Vancouver politicians. If she believes he will actually work for the right issues then until someone else better jumps into the race I will be leaning heavily his way.
Wed, 2011-01-19 02:14
#46
Looks like some questions are being asked about Dix`s membership lists - story here on the CBC web site:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/01/18/bc-ndp-member...
Wed, 2011-01-19 05:08
#47
Remembering back to the Layton vote. I think they tried to immitate a convention and as such made people vote each time instead of using a single ballot. Hope they use one ballot this time.
Mail-in ballots were preferential. I think people could do either on-line, but I don't remember. It's a moot point because there was only one ballot.
Wed, 2011-01-19 08:03
#48
remind
Remind, I hope that you let a little more water run under the bridge and then take a look at the choices.
There is not enough water in BC to run under the bridge. Apparenbtly, it never crosses white male minds that the rest of us are fucking sick of their believing they are "the ones" and we should just accept it as so. Especially given the mess the world is iin under their watch.
I was a big James supporter and would have been excited to see how her style would work in government. However, she could not withstand an attack and that is part of the measure of a leader.
Absolutely nonsensical. there should have been NO attack, we are NOT the fucking Liberals or Conservatives, and that there was an attack and that some see nothing wrong with it, is a part measures on why I will not be voting BCNDP anytiime in the near future, and perhaps long. It is unforgivable. As well as unacceptable.
There are too many homeless, too many working poor, too many people on the outside of our society to hold a grudge for too long. (Alternatively we can put the daggers under our cloaks until our opportunity arrives)
One would have thought the men in the BCNDP would have thought about all of that before they got rid of the only person who could have won the next election.
This is not a grudge and I find it pretty damn offensive for it to be portrayed as such. It was/is a fundamental breach in progressive politics that should never be accepted or tolerated. I have no daggers either concealed or apparent. And really that attitude of cloak and dagger politics needs to be GONE. Life is not a fucking game to be played so people can stroke their egos and carry on in elementary school behaviours. As you noted too many people are suffering, and I will note; while the fools play power games.
Wed, 2011-01-19 09:23
#49
The political spectrum in NB is not all that wide. Some might even describe NB as a conservative province. NBers got pretty angry with its Liberal government and through them out for a PC Governmentwho promised the moon. Of course, the PC"s promiases have turned out to be a pack og lies. They are looking at slashing the budget and cutting services.
From NB, the fact that BC has an NDP that has the possibility of taking power is inspiring. I would like to hope that all progressives in BC would vote for their local NDP candidates since the alternative of continued Liberal Government is unpalatable.
That being said I'm not living in BC and the circus around the ousting of Carole James seems to be at best a Comedy of Errors. Politics 101 demands that when you oust a leader you hav an heir apparent in mind. What a mess!
Wed, 2011-01-19 11:14
#50
Politics 101 should be democracy in a left party. The machinations after the last election loss could have been avoided if the people including the leader who dreamed up the great election strategy had all resigned and moved on. Instead they sought to immediately retrench and consolidate their power. As an elected MLA I know I would not have stood for the back room players controlling the agenda when I had stood in front of the voters and won their confidence. Instead we got the Moe show and a purge of the most vocal dissenter. When your Caucus Chair resigns because SHE is out of the loop in the censor of a caucus member it highlights the democracy deficit in the party.
Wed, 2011-01-19 11:15
#51
Politics 101 demands that when you oust a leader you hav an heir apparent in mind.
You must be from a conservative province, you seem to have mixed up your political systems. That's Politics 101 for a Monarchy. Healthy democracies rarely have 'heir apparents.' That would run counter to the whole 'messy' complicated conversation that occurs when you bring more people into the process of decision-making.