It sounds like the only moron in the whole business is...

...Gary Mason. Comments like "moron's with influence may just as well apply to him and if all he can discover is some notion of a "union drenched agenda" he has missed the substance by looking for the superficial. If the inability to do a bit of research and find out about the people he labels is any indication then much of what he writes is rubbish. Now I would think that on this issue David Schreck' opinion matters almost as much. He's already stated his position by describing anyone who doesn't agree with him or Carole by labels and on the CBC debating with Joan Sawicki he bombed. Even the solution he proposes risks everything for the sake of one person's ego. If that is leadership then a lot of murderous tyrants in history showed, by this definition, leadership?

I think Andrew makes a very good point here. Thanks.

A note on younger James supporters in caucus

I was thinking about a few (and there are only a few) of the younger caucus members who have stayed silent or have supported James.

Unlike these few, the great majority of young people are calling for renewal, and for more open politics.

So what is up with Rob Fleming, Michelle Mungall, and Spencer Herbert?

And then it dawned on me. They are all essentially life-long politicians with virtually no experience outside the political realm. What lessons they must have learned!

And then I realized that the big-time James supporters like Mike Farnworth and Adrian Dix basically share the same background (started young in political offices).

Does anyone find it interesting that all the life-long politico-types appear to be in the James Gang, and appear also to have no problem with top-down in-out follow-the-leader politics?

Of these names, I was most disappointed with Rob Fleming. But I guess the time he got in trouble back in university for impersonating an election official should have been a sign...

As an old NDP-er I find this

As an old NDP-er I find this very distressing. There are so many issues they could be getting into right now. The Basi-Virk 6 million bribe to have them shut up about the corruption in the B.C. Rail scandal. The terrible mess that public transit is in due to pouring billions into Gateway, the unaffordability of B.C. Ferries since Campbell privatized while paying the CEO a million bucks a year. Subsidizing the oil sands, the criminal cuts to Arts funding, the dessimation of value added forest products industries. Instead, they appear to be squabbling spoiled brats. They do not look like a party that can lead a province right now. Could Kwan not have found a less dirty- laundry- in- public way to get a leadership convention? Since she could not, she does not look like someone who has the brains and leadership qualities to run a party.The Liberals must have smirks all over their faces.

CJ has been warned long ago,

CJ has been warned long ago, including by myself, that the signs of discontent have been growing for years.She ignored wide open areas of government corruption. Among other things, I've warned her of the price fixing of beef prices by certain corporations, wrecking ranching, etc, etc.

She's done nothing, ignored all the signs and warnings, that were poking her in the eyes and ears, and just kept on going her merry way in the midst of growing discontent.

Much of it evident on this very blog, for years

The NDP's late high polling numbers were a fluke, caused by the government's corruption and would have disappeared under a new leader making rosy promises. They meant nothing.

The continuation of a leadership has to be earned and not forced, because leaders are not supposed to be dictators, but partners.

When a large percentage of the caucus expresses dissatisfaction with the leadership and the leader ignores it, until it boils to the surface, the leader has no right to throw tantrums, because it was poor leadership that caused it.

Any leader with any intelligence and goodwill could have solved this whole problem very easily, ages ago, but not by going around like some fascist dictator demanding submission.

When does a leader in any democratic movement and area has the right to be served like a boss ?

Ed Deak.

Unite or check the Want Ads

So the group of 13 espouse democratic principles yet do not abide by the democratic processes the NDP convention last year and Provincial Council last month, made.

They can't hide behind that.

They have put personal greivences ahead of the Party. Either they unite behind Carole James, or they should leave.

And CJ? Right now she's looking like a Premier-in-waiting. She's been more than a consultative leader, she's also decisive and tough, which you have to be every day on the job as Premier.

I really encourage the dissidents to think the big picture. I want them to be part of our future.

It's about forming government. It's about good progressive policies legislated into law. It's about a better future for BC.

If they can't hack it, then maybe they're not cut out to be in Government and should look for a new job.

Well done, Andrew and The Tyee

Nice research that reveals the MSM's often false and reckless assumptions about the thirteen MLA's and the complexity of the issue itself. Enjoyed reading all of the insightful comments above as well.

From watching the debate in the legislature over the years I am not in the least surprised that they are the ones who spoke up...or that they are a diverse group.

If Corky Evans was still an MLA, I'm sure he'd be standing among them.

As for the principled, independent and critical thinking being displayed by the thirteen....

Isn't that precisely what the best kind of democracy is based on?

Spot on...

"A "leader" is not a "boss" and leadership doesn't mean unquestioned dictatorship.

Anybody, especially any so called "leader" who demands unquestioned submission and loyalty is a bloody fool, because it leads to unhappiness, incompetence and disasters." wrote Fait Lux.

Always good to read you, Ed. You're spot on.

Straw Man With a Twist

Interesting. Use the comments of a hack like Gary Mason as a set up for an oblique but spirited defense of the 13 saints who comprise the Kwan Gang. Some might even call it a whitewash ... but we would be accused of being ethnically insensitive if we did so.

I particularly enjoyed the phrase "Kwan and her colleague Joy MacPhail" ... which suggests that they were somehow equal. A more accurate phrase would have been "Kwan and her boss, Joy MacPhail".

If push comes to shove I do

If push comes to shove I do expect others to support the 13 who so far has done the serious work of outing Ms.Dithers. All NDP members and supporters don't have to dance to the tune of the person claiming to be leader. If they were all there to spout only support, why have any MLA's except the leader , if all members are supposed to do what she wants them to do. There is lots of talent in the ranks and a few who wish to rise to higher positions. They are usually the ones standing closest to El Supremo . Take the pension and run Carole

Madelaine – You write propaganda

Get yourself to a coffee shop, public market, or community center and start talking to people about their impressions of Carole James. People might say that she looks like a caring and responsible person, but the majority will tell you that she does not project the image of being an effective premier. If she cannot get elected, it is irrelevant as to if she could be an effective premier.

You ask the dissidents to think of the “big picture.” However, they are.... and that is why they have taken action.

It is Carole James and her supporters in caucus are who are not listening to their constituents.

Anyways, I am still wondering if your post was done “tongue in cheek”… If it was, sorry for not getting the sarcasm.

Carole James

Carole James failed to inform the entire caucus that Sihota was being paid by the BCFed.
That's a lie by omission.
CJ was presented with the Kwan letter days before the provincial council meeting. She claimed to have seen it only after that meeting, after Kwan held a press conference and made the letter public.
That was a lie.
Her response to dissent? Hollow threats and yellow scarfs. It's time for her to exit, quietly.

The Fundamental Question

For all those long-time loyal New Democrats it is time to ask the fundamental question in all this. There has been dissension at different times in almost every caucus in the past. That is nothing new. Who let the genie out of the bottle on this one? What triggered its escape? If you honestly answer that question then a solution becomes very clear

Thirteen plus

Prudent MLAs, and others, will wait till Sunday, the iceberg will
begin to roll, some might bail, others hang on. Balance will be
found.

Whatever happens (Carole James providing probably the most predictable outcome), many, many people of all kinds want the
disgraced Liberals held to account. Most understand this requires
simple, arithmetic unity of some kind.

The so-called dissident NDP MLAs are being punished for interrupting Ms. James at her homework, because she feels they are hers to punish. They need distance from their erstwhile leader so
that A) she can get back to her homework (what her supporters
want) and B) so they can represent their constituents concerns
(which is to vigorously prosecute the Liberal record.)

The arithmetic of the Assembly will show them how to take the
Liberals to task. This may include, since arithmetic is numbers and
not personalities or partisan politics, the sum of more than one party. It's almost guaranteed that, all things considered, many voters are going to switch allegiance next time around (whenever
that comes.)

It might be the best thing for a new party of the left to split off
the NDP. Stop the scrapping. Co-operate where it counts: at the
vote count in the Legislature.

Many, not just NDPers and disaffected Liberals, are casting about
for a new place to park their votes. The potential for a multi-party
Assembly is growing, perhaps without even a general election.

Minority government tends more to legislate issue by issue (instead
of purely by ideal, or deceit like the hitherto majority Liberals.)

As Always An Excellent Article Andrew & The Tyee...

I like the idea of being democratic. It's time to stop bickering and get on with the job at hand and if that means that if CJ has to go so be it, the NDP need to form the next government in BC. Minority or whatever we cannot as a people endure more from the BC Liberals. We as a group of poeople who live in a democratic society have to insist on much better from our government, I mean is not that the supposed norm?. I used to think so until recent events within the party I've supported and been with for over 25 years. I believe in growth, personal fulfillment and devlopment and that change is just a part of life. That is why I firmly stand behind JK for not only her courage but by being honest. Thank You JK!

If TheTyee commenters

Were the only voters/caucus members/party members I would be happy with the results of the next few days. In fact CBC comments seems to me to lean heavily toward Carol bowing out.
But something worries me:
Where do the people who support Carol James continuing on such a similar path to the Liberal leadership come from?

Have faith.

Winston Churchill said that of all the forms of government democracy is the worst - but it is the only one that works.

When enough people become frustrated they finally do something about it. B.C. is finally becoming democratic and starting to overthrow the cult leaders?

The 13 MLA's are normal human beings.

And like the rest of us are susceptible to even the suggestion that Carole is not good enough to be our leader.

I recall seeing a theatrical event many years ago where a plant in the audience was asked to, on cue, begin arguing with the actors, who themselves were arguing. The result was that one or two innocent bystanders ended up arguing as well and yet the argument was totally manufactured to draw the audience in to make a point.

The BCNDP are a group of progressive individuals and are part of a social movement that believe fairness in society is necessary. But we are also only human and we are affected by the constant attempts to draw us in to a dispute, whether or not the arguments are warranted.

The BC Liberals, under Gordon Campbell, have become Masters of Spin. I would suggest that the NDP 13 have been sucked into that vortex of dissent. Let's not be fooled, by this not so subtle attempt to create a tempest in a teacup, when what all NDP'ers & Progressives share is a strong desire to depose Campbell and his cronies and put forward instead a strong and caring alternative for the BC public to vote for in 2013 or hopefully sooner.

I've never had a response

from the Leader's office and I work in every single election, and she knows it!

shepsil ~ The BCNDP are a

shepsil ~ The BCNDP are a group of progressive individuals and are part of a social movement that believe fairness in society is necessary ... what all NDP'ers & Progressives share is a strong desire to depose Campbell and his cronies and put forward instead a strong and caring alternative for the BC public to vote for in 2013 or hopefully sooner.

Really? I have no evidence, looking over the last 40 years, suggesting the BCNDP has done anything when in government to advance representative democracy for the people.

Free vote in the House?
Proportional Representation?
Fair electoral districts?
Curtail corporate control over politics?

Sure they have done some good things, but zip to safeguard democracy that I recall.

And I assure you now that there is no 'strong and caring' Party alternative available. And there never will be until enough progressive individuals control the House and entrench some fundamental rules to ensure representation of the people.

I am not holding my breath.

Vote for a progressive independent.

What Can We Expect?

Tomorrow's NDP Love Fest will most likely be a heavy bargaining session. Both the dissidents & supporters have been 'outed' and both groups will need to come out with something to show.

I presume the 'supporters' bottom line is 'no immediate leadership vote' and the dissidents' bottom line is 'no more expulsions'.

They will come out with some sort of saw-off between these two extreme positions.

I get a chuckle over those respondents deeply offended by lack of personal service from the leader's office. I think they really want a personal saviour rather than a party leader.

Good work by Andrew MacLeod

although we didn't need Gary Mason here other than to demonstrate his depth of understanding on the subject is minimal.

It is interesting to consider whether the dissident 13 are good MLAs, male or female, radical or centrist, friendly souls or anything else, but one thing they have in common is unwillingness to follow the established rules of their party.

The NDP has a process to consider and achieve leadership change but James' opponents have been unsuccessful in using it or in having the process changed. So, they ignore it and take the effort to the public at the moment when they can have the maximum leverage and can inflict maximum harm if they don't have their way. It is a cynical and nasty strategy in politics, equivalent to an army's scorched earth policy.

Where were these people when the policies were put in place to provide the method of reviewing leadership? Were they claiming oppression of the broad membership by a tight group of party elders or brokers when the process was put in place? It seems instead that it wasn't until they were unhappy with the results of the process that the issue with James went critical.

A party cannot manage itself as a broad coalition of interests unless some are willing to compromise and accept that major party decisions are dictated by the majority. If they can't live with that, they must leave the coalition and restrict their associations to people with duplicate mindsets.

Not being an NDP member, I don't know how democratic their organization is but, from early days, the party has universally claimed it to be that. The dissidents now want us to believe that NDP processes for internal decision making are anti-democratic and therefore not credible and best ignored.

But, what goes around comes around. The next time a minority group emerges in conflict with the party's broad decisions, new dissidents will insist that only they hold the key to truth and correct behavior.

That is what James meant by talking about immaturity. The behavior of the her foes is usually associated with selfish children who have not learned to look beyond their own interests.

Norman....When people get

Norman....When people get into a long distance bus, they expect to get to their destinations safe and sound. But when they see obvious signs that there's something wrong with the driver, don't you think they have the right to intervene and do something?

Have you known any major political party, at least in Canadian history, where just about half of the caucus openly questioned the leadership?

I know, the official number is 14, but it is possible, and I have this from a reliable source, the real number is 18 or 20, but some are reluctant to come out for the reasons of party solidarity, etc.

In my 54 years as a BC voter I've never seen anything like it. What can people say about a leader, who expels a member from a caucus because he wrote about half dozen words that her speech was a bit flat and didn't say much.

Can this be considered a personal attack? And what right has the leader to expel anybody without caucus approval, resulting in 2 resignations from important positions ? Doesn't this show some problems?

Could it be that there's something wrong with a leader who demands absolute rights and unquestioned loyalty to him, or herself, regardless of his or her actions?

There's a limit to everything, and when the revolution is of this size, there must be something wrong with the person who caused it.

Ed Deak.

The courage of dissent

Quote: "That is what James meant by talking about immaturity. The behavior of the her foes is usually associated with selfish children who have not learned to look beyond their own interests."

By the same token, James could be called controlling, parental and authoritarian.

Quote: "But, what goes around comes around. The next time a minority group emerges in conflict with the party's broad decisions, new dissidents will insist that only they hold the key to truth and correct behavior."

Do not confuse dissent with disloyalty.

Democracy is meaningless without dissent.

"The behavior of the her foes

..is usually associated with selfish children who have not learned to look beyond their own interests."
That is the kind of BS which has turned me against the James gang ever since they schmoozed by the leadership question at their last meeting. These are extraordinary times - if Campbell hadn't been forced to step down (hurrah!!!), precipitating an election, many of us would have kept silent in the hope that she would have gone in 2011.
And yes, we are looking after our own interests and I for one don't feel a damn bit guilty about.

Ed, the most dangerous

Ed, the most dangerous enemies of British Columbia now are BC Liberals who sell, rent or give away our childrens' legacy. They've been doing it for a decade and before long, there will be little left to preserve.

I blame the NDP collectively for having been a week opposition. Tyee contributors like Andrew MacLeod and Will McMartin have demonstrated how the facts surrounding bad government speak for themselves when cogently assembled and presented. Many citizen journalists have contributed in the last 18 months to ending Gordon Campbell's career. While the Liberals were coming apart, the Opposition should have been polishing its new agenda for government, exhibiting a team of solid front-bench people ready to manage government with dedication to the public interest. Instead they give us internecine bickering so severe the party has split.

I don't think this genie goes back in the bottle. James is finished because she has had years to ready a team for government and, as the opportunity presents itself, there is no team, just two grumbling groups of antagonists. A new leader must be selected to try putting Humpty Dumpty together again.

This foolish revolt will achieve a new leader, a new leader of the opposition for the next decade.

What really matters

is how we are governed.

And what the three stooges (Carole, Jim and Moe) offer is more of the same. Liberal lite, a watered down neo-liberalism with a higher minimum wage.

The proof is in the pudding and pouring over hansard proposes precisely this. We barely opposed anything and when we did we just wanted to trim around the edges.

Heck we even whipped a vote for a business deal masquarading as a treaty that the UN deemed illegal, all with a female Metis so called leader.

These are people trying to wrap themselves up in the party’s rules as dictated by Provincial Council yet they should all be tossed out of the party for violating the most fundamental tenents of the party’s constitution.

We are not a neo liberal party we are the NDP and we used to be proud.

We need accountability and the people of BC need a government by, for and of the people.

The three stooges guarantee us government for the same crowd that buried the Liberals. And they will bury us too. Remember it was two seats we were left with after the last time we did this.

Its time for real change we can believe in not another Obama hopey, changey thingy.

People have learned the lessons and when you look down south to see the result what do you see?

You see a “democratic” party that has abandoned the people and gave rise to an extreme right wing reactionary populism that will run over any hope of good government in the future.

So if that is what we want, fill your boots and grab your yellow scarf.

Meanwhile the rest of us will do the hard work of trying to restore democracy and return power to the people where it rightly belongs.

Lovely Timing

Just that, actually. Lovely timing. Hand yet a third election to the Liberals. In BC, the choice is always between the corrupt and stupid Right or the incompetent, divisive Left. Jesus wept.

But on another subject away from the NDP's stupidly-timed bickering, and for which there is no entry on the current Tyee, and so I'm using this as a sally point to introduce the subject, has anyone heard of UK Uncut? Check this most interesting story out; this may be quite useful here in Canada too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/04/uk-uncut-protest-topshop-vodafone

As a

As a voter that belongs to no political party, and never will, I find that anyone that comes to the defence of Carole James as a competent leader as laughable at best. She has prevailed over two losing election campaigns in a row. The first may have been excusable considering the starting point, but the last was inexcusable. She had no platform to speak of other than state that the BC Liberal Party was evil.

Since the election of May 12, 2009, she has continued to be nothing more than a vacuous source of verbiage. The HST was the biggest thing to come along in many a day, and the best she could muster is to play second fiddle to Bill Vander Zalm, Chris Delaney and Bill Tieleman. Even today, as she tries to use whatever she can to remain as the leader of the BC NDP, she continues to spout generalities on every issue under the sun while saying nothing.

It is great to hear that she is upset about child poverty, the plight of the homeless and sundry other problems facing many of us. Unfortunately, the remedies to all of these situations have not been forthcoming from Ms. James. Rhetoric just doesn't cut it anymore.

The only thing a party in opposition can do is audition to become the ruling party in the next election, and under Carole James, her audition would not have even warrented a callback.

So much for Mason

What a breath of fresh air to see a truly perceptive analysis of the "13". I know some of them personally, and I know that they are not out on some selfish power trip. They are truly anguished about the party and about the role they have been forced into... yes, indeed, the yellow scarf debacle and the firing of Bob Simpson have forced them into this position. How could Norm MacDonald and Katrine Conroy, for example, have stayed in their positions and still been able to look at themselves in a mirror. And, as to "selfish", how can giving up tens of thousands of dollars of remuneration be considered selfish.
As to David Schrek, this article has him stating that he "can't understand", and is "puzzled" by the positions taken by MacDonald, Conroy and Austin. Well, David, perhaps you should try to understand before you comment so vociferously.
Gary Mason has things so wrong in his analysis of this situation that he should not be allowed near a word processor.

Norman Farrell, Blame Gamer

Those that have plenty to say, but nothing to do, are the problem with politics in this province.

Norman Farrell said:

"I blame the NDP collectively for having been a week opposition."

I actively support my political choices and once one gets sincerely involved in electing honest individuals and parties, politics changes for you and is never the same again. Norman, making comments like the above, just displays your complete lack of understanding of how politics is really working in this province.

Pot shots like you just took at the BCNDP are nothing but destructive and counterproductive to getting rid of the BC Liberals.

Tangler, I have not read all

the comments, but you need to understand something. History is our greatest asset and teacher. Ed Deak is history. He is like that walking war veteran at a remembrance day ceremony. Would you disrespect their stories? As many others have posted here,

I'm with Ed Deak on this one. You, Tangler need to grow up, shut up and listen...

Change

I go back a long ways, and wonder what Dave Barrett would have had to say about Accenture taking over 1/3 of BC Hydro, BC Rail , or any number of issues/giveaways that have taken place over the past 9 years. I for one think that Carole has been a bit too quiet about issues. This has to change. If that means a new leader, then get it done.

crh.....I started

crh.....I started researching why history keeps on repeating itself, when I was standing by an operating table, as an 18 year old orderly, holding the legs of about 100 victims, not heroes, as were being amputated and reamputated, because their wounds wouldn't heal on account of starvation and lack of nourishment.

Nobody will ever see me marching and glorifying war.

History repeats itself because of human gullibility and stupidity in following the same crooked leaders and religious and ideological priesthoods into self destruction

In short: "Faith conquers all, especially logical thought."

Will humanity ever grow up and use their brains?

I don't know, but have spent a lifetime in working towards it and sincerely hope so.

Ed Deak.

Samuidave's choices...

"I will take Ed Deak's compassionate wisdom over intelligence, ignorance or stupidity every day of the year.

For me, E.D. just isn't a harsh enough critic about the Party system and its inherent flaws, which prevent it in today's time of having a snowball's chance in hell of representing the people.

Enjoy the totalitarian state, Tangler; it sounds like you and madelaine are both big Party supporters." said samuidave.

And indeed, where have I heard all these voices demanding "Party loyalty" over all other considerations before?

Oh, I remember. :-) It was called "democratic centralism" at the time, pretty much in practise flowing from the top down, and everyone clicking their heels in obedience to "party leaders".

I agree with samuidave that the "party system" is part of the problem that facilitates status quo and privileged class rule of the economy and the State. I have previously thought there "could", theoretically, be a temporary role for a Party in kicking off and assisting the "transformation" process that needs to occur within current capitalist societies. I had even thought it "might" facilitate the legal structure for the break=up of the current party system to one based on "independent candidates" representing "communities", as opposed to Parties. Likewise, facilitating democratization of the economy. Always recognizing that this was a risk, that would ever be a danger.

And because of its fairly unique founding history starting out as a farm and labour party, rooted in prairie populism and the co-operative movement of the time, I have tended to think the NDP "might" be shaped into a useful vehicle in this regard of assisting the democratizing, "transformation" process. (Needed more now than it has at any time since the 1930s.)

I am no longer optimistic that this will come to pass however, that "a Party", any Party, is capable of seeing beyond its own and the careerist interest pf those within it.

But, even if I be proved wrong, and something magical does happen within the NDP, such as I don't expect at this point and with this leadership crew, I will NOT vote in this next election. And I urge a mass rejection (already at about half of the electorate), through non-participation in this bullshit minority participation and interest serving electoral process. It is time to walk away from it, seek each other out, and begin the organizing process of building an alternative "democratic structure" that challenges the status quo undemocratic State and economic system.

This is not good enough. It, the democratic process at the levels of the State AND the economy needs to be transformed, to a higher, more democratic, next stage level of development.

Out of seven MLAs commented

Out of seven MLAs commented on by Schreck, he said good things about five:

Norm MacDonald: "He seems like a really decent guy. It's a real loss to see him in this group of people."

Katrine Conroy:"I'm puzzled as to why someone with that background would not respect the council and the constitution,"

Robin Austin, Skeena: "He seems to be a strong critic, capable in question period,"

Nicholas Simons:t Schreck, who had no criticism of him, said, "He just has a hate on for Carole for reasons I just can't understand."

Leonard Krog, Nanaimo: "Deep roots in the party."

Schreck's confusion might be resolved if he would listen to what the general public is saying rather than parroting the party line.
The main common factor among all the dissidents is that they are choosing to speak for their constituents rather than try to BS them for the sake of NDP unity. This has the advantage of demonstrating their sincerity and courage, as it is obvious what kind of abuse they are taking from James loyalists and the MSM- who are all spouting similar rhetoric.

It is interesting that Palmer, Baldrey, Mason and other right wing flacks have exactly the same position as James and her supporters.

I'll ask one more time:

With labour paying Sihota and backing James fiercely, how can James' leadership be seen as moderate? Are union leaders now considered "centrist" or "right wing?"

Jerry.....Being hard liner

Jerry.....Being hard liner individualists, interested in and having worked all our lives toward the highest degree of self sufficiency, we don't like the party system any more than you do.

My question is: How would a system, based on the election of individuals, work ?

This is a genuine question, strictly from the practical and not from any theoretical, ideological, or philosophical points. Sick and tired of theories and faith based pipe dreams.

Has anybody ever come up with realistic , practical solutions? I've never seen any in all my years of research. Only wishful thinking.

I'm a, now non participating member, as long as CJ is the leader, of the NDP, as potentially the least offensive and hopefully the most likely organization that could bring great changes and, what could approach real democracy, to people, and even become the spark for a widespread awakening of human potentials.

There are important movements in the background to make the NDP the real choice and solution and, I have to say this very modestly, I try to be part of it.

Now, what are the bets for today's meeting?

Will it be another forcibly induced yellow scarves hysteria by browbeating the participants into obedience to the great leader, or the beginning of her departure with whatever dignity she has left ?

Ed Deak.

Jerry and Sam

The average membership in the NDP is about 120 per constituency. Assuming even 2/3rds support for James, it would take only about 50 new members on average to change the balance of power and elect council reps, party officials and so on.

If there are not 50 to 60 people out of a population of 25-50,000 willing to get involved then no strategy nor new system will work for the public interest. There are at least ten times that number presently watching and complaining about the present farce - if just a few signed up the party could be made more responsive!
Fantasizing about some great utopian scheme or structure which will magically make people get involved won't get us far. Alternate voting systems won't change the fact the public is generally pathetically uninformed; but do have the potential to be easily diddled by anyone with a bunch of money and a manipulative mind - I figured out in about five minutes how STV could be used by the rich and unscrupulous!

Real democracy requires massive public participation. As long as most people are more interested in the latest "American Idol" than in having some influence over the future, there is no way we will succeed in changing anything significant.

One way or another, we don't have a lot of time before we will be changed radically by economic and particularly by natural forces beyond our control. The powers that be aren't nearly as omniscient nor omnipotent as many believe, and a new generation is taking over which grew up in the age of disco, has little motivation nor competence, and which is not capable of maintaining the social structures we have come to know. Just look at what the MBAs are doing to our health care system and you can see what I mean. Many of the problems there were already serious before the Liberals got in, as the NDP respected self interested geeks with degrees rather than the people working in the system. In Quesnel, our system began going down the slippery slope in 1995 when the "Reengineering" experts were allowed to wreck the nursing management structure - with a stated philosophy of "If it ain't broke, break it!" - which drove the best and most experienced nurse managers out of the system and onto stress leave, early retirement or whatever alternative there was to being ground down by arrogant bureaucrats!

Yellow scarves

It is trivials that are the hobgoblins of my small mind.
Here is the trivial that is bothering me;
If Evan's letter is accurate about the use of the yellow scarves to indicate who are the 'full patch' members of the NDP caucus, then James, or James and her would be mandarins came up with that stunt, and if the NDP were to win the right to govern our province, these are the people who would make up the Premier's Office.

Under he hucksters who currently have government in BC, the Premier's Office has enriched itself hugely, and seems to run everything. I have read or heard nothing from NDP, especially NDP leadership, about changing the powers of the Premier's Office were NDP to become government.

(Yellow scarves? Sheesh! Does somebody have some unresolved school jacket issues to work out?)

There is no one leader with all the attributes it takes to lead

The time for talking is over, from my observation the NDP is in as much of a pickle as the Libs, imagine that. At such a crucial time why is this happening? Kind of reminds me of having a grand opening at your store, accept you forgot to stock it with goods.

The NDP has had how long to position itself? Then we find out about back room deals and that CJ decides to get an attitude with her own caucus, too bad she didn't act so formidable as the opposition against the Libs agenda.

When are we going to have a leader who leads for the whole province as a single identity rather than only certain members/organizations of our society.

@ Nimmo

"I get a chuckle over those respondents deeply offended by lack of personal service from the leader's office. I think they really want a personal saviour rather than a party leader."

You are missing the point. Whether deliberately or really, I don't know. The point is not that we are deeply offended by the lack of personal service from the leader's office. The point is that if members and supporters can't even expect the courtesy of a response when corresponding with the leader (after being invited to on the website), how on earth do you expect voters in the general public to react to the same treatment? It's rude and arrogant. Not very smart when you're struggling to get support and such a simple action to take. She is asking people to support her and the message is "BC NDP - where everyone matters". Huh? Didn't your Momma ever teach you any manners? How hard is it to write an auto-response? After all, even Colin Hansen's office responds (albeit just to say thanks for writing) when you email his office.

shepsil

The BCNDP may have been a group of progressive individuals and did believe that fairness in society is necessary, but no longer. The CCF was started by free enterprise types, farmers, who were being abused by large government and large companies, read into that as Ontario and CPR. The free enterprise types believed in cooperation between small producers to gain economies of scale and to protect each other.

The BCNDP anti-James 13 mainly represent the areas outside of the lower mainland, the areas of farmers, forestry workers and small business people, the basis of the original CCF/NDP. James seems to be supported by government workers and construction union bosses.

Dissidents?

Well, obviously they are dissidents, that is not the problem. Dissent, debate and disagreement can be healthy and can stimulate positive change. The important factor is that dissent, to be healthy and positive must be undertaken with thought, intelligence and maturity. I see very little of these qualities exhibited by this group.

Norman....It wasn't the

Norman....It wasn't the dissidents who started all this, but CJ, out of the blue, and without any logical reasons.

The whole half dozen words by Bob, that CJ's speech was flat, should have been laughed off by any rational person.

It was her hysterical, unilateral action of firing Bob without caucus approval that caused the resignations and what's followed.

That was topped by the yellow scarves idiocy and Sihota's secret salary, allegedly paid by a special interest sector, not for the job of presidency, but to a special person, which, if true, is unacceptable, but CJ went along .

A leader is supposed to earn the position and not to demand unquestioned submission to his, or her, orders.

Ed Deak.

james is toast

if you have to resort to violence, you have already lost.

that about says it for james and her gang.

that means if she is not overwhelmingly supported by the membership, she cannot continue as leader.

that kwan and the others have crossed james line in the sand means james will not get that support.

she used violence by bullying her supporters to dump bob simpson, and now she has lost.

the only chance i see for the ndp is to change leadership, then set new policies and new direction.

the unions used to support the ndp, now it looks like they run the ndp.

the new ndp will have to come clean on the sahota/union deal, and step away from all involvement.

if the unions balk, tell them to form their own party, and see how far they get with 'sahota for premier' as their slogan.

they will have to show they embrace discussion and openness, and show they have ideas on how to govern, not just to bitch.

or they can stay with carole, and the same executive that has got them into this mess.

they should be shoveling dirt on the grave of the liberal party, yet have somehow slipped into the hole and are in peril of pulling it all down on themselves.

waiting to see which way they go.

Except expulsion of Simpson was a reaction, not a beginning

James move was not out of the blue nor without logical reasons. Simpson enjoys and deserves a maverick's reputation.

Regardless, events prove that a campaign of disloyal action has been and is underway and not simply against the leader. Dissidents reject the leadership review methodology established in convention and they reject the Provincial Council's constitutional authority.

The minority group wants to reshape the party by ultimatum and threat because they can not do that by the established means.

NDP is cook with Carole James at the helm......

Haw she is going to win BC when she is afraid to let her own party members to vote for Her ????
In my opinion when she stay ....Campbell is safe to run for 2 term to lead Liberals.
Carole is permanent looser
Krzysztof Danel

Norman, you speak of a

Norman, you speak of a 'strategy of destruction' by the 13 MLA's that you keep referring to as disloyal - then, what kind of strategy of destruction is the following, initiated by the leader herself? And why would a leader supposedly interested in party unity take this divisive course of action?

Corky wrote:

"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 did, from a respectful and private meeting that everyone involved, except Carol, had intended to remain Private regardless of how she decided to respond) that none of us knew how to react, or feel, or think. "

It is not the 13 MLA's that have been disloyal, it is Ms. James and her inner sanctum that have betrayed the democratic process through a series of undemocratic, self-serving actions. The real concern here, as Corky highlights, is 'the erosion of the democratic process'.

Isn't that erosion of the democratic process precisely what so many of us have had enough of already in this province?

My thanks go to the 13 MLA's who are bravely, and I mean bravely, taking a stand in that regard.

The emergency meeting has

The emergency meeting has been canceled

Very interesting !

Ed Deak.

The best pundit in BC's MSM says:

"James won the support of 84 per cent of the council.
But in a dumb move, her supporters handed out yellow scarves for people to wear to show support for James.
Thirteen MLAs didn't take them and were identified publicly as dissidents. They said they felt bullied.
If the ploy was dumb, so was the MLAs' decision not to take the scarves. This isn't grade school. Wear the scarf and sort out the issues later.
The anti-James campaign continued . . ."

- Paul Willcocks at the blog 'Paying Attention'

BTW, Corky is a hypocrite to complain about 'erosion of the democratic process' after praising the Provincial Council but immediately rejecting its decision. Apparently, he only respects decisions that are acceptable to him.

I wrote that and more here:

http://northerninsights.blogspot.com/2010/12/holding-breath-and-turning-blue.html

"Alternate voting systems won't change the fact

..the public is generally pathetically uninformed"

Surely you are not suggesting that the public could have made worse decisions for the future of this province than the current corrupt neolib/neocon system has done?

The public was against the giveaway of BC Rail (you will remember that Campbell had to lie about it to get elected) and Hydro (to a criminal offspring of Enron). They were against salmon killing fish farms, dead set against run of river projects (now over 500 of them, all privately owned, all destructive) The public would never have agreed to the sale of the BC Ferries for literally pennies on the dollar had they seen this report which has been available since 1999.

Sorry to actually take issue with you on this Stewart, as I know the accepted method here often entails patting one another gently behind the ears with inflated pig bladders while crooning 'Hallellooya' in a soothing voice and praying for the miracle of illumination, but I think you have sufficient intelligence to consider the idea that BCers can use their common sense. Despite the BS we have to endure from the rich man's media.
As detailed above, public opinion was way ahead of the illegitimate liberal party on every issue of public importance. Not surprising when you remember that they don't represent us - they represent the 'people' who paid two thirds of their last election bill - corporate donations. So, had we had government by direct democracy aka referenda, we would already be way further ahead financially. Just imagine if we had direct democracy AND political education. Well, the internet if providing a lot of education so democracy can't be that far behind. The important thing to remember here is that our resources are very finite while the amount of credit dreamed up to exploit them is virtually limitless. Hope you have a wheelbarrow to cart your money around in about oh... 30 years. And a vegetable garden to grow something to eat.
Enough babbling: Uninformed as we may be, we would do a lot better job of making our own decisions than some foreign corporations which now finance the government currently sitting on us.
In Switzerland, by law, matters concerning treaties (paying attention?), constitutional change and large expenditures *must* be voted on. Anything else which the populous feels strongly about can also be voted on. 50,000 signatures for local issues and 100,000 for national issues are needed on a petition to trigger a binding referendum. They don't need 700,000 signatures and almost impossible conditions to instigate a non-binding vote like we do.
Many countries use referenda to allow their people to decide their own future.

With respect but ...

...here is the dumbest thing I have read yet.

"If the ploy was dumb, so was the MLAs' decision not to take the scarves. This isn't grade school. Wear the scarf and sort out the issues later."

This is how you endorse a dumb ploy, you go along with it. I personally think it is time to ridicule silly like the latest on Schreck's latest. He wants Carole to fire all 13 because he's curious how they will function and who will lead them. If this is the kind of advice Carole follows, she might do well to fire her advisors. Heaven she could not do anything that is worse than listen to this kind of crap.

This isn't grade school. Wear the scarf

No, it isn't grade school because in grade school when someone told you to wear the scarf they did it for reasons which made sense.

Looks like the emergency meeting is cancelled for now:

"Time is being given for private discussions to ensure that the clear direction set by our leader and our party is followed: to unite and offer British Columbians a positive progressive alternative in the next election,"

Translation: the Freedom Faction didn't cave so they may have to drag this out for weeks, even if it means losing the next election to placate Carole. Maybe if the leadership of the party is so moribund that they don't recognize a shipwreck when they are on one, then it is time for a new party of the left.

True colours

Quote:

"If the ploy was dumb, so was the MLAs' decision not to take the scarves. This isn't grade school. Wear the scarf and sort out the issues later."

The ploy was dumb. Agree.

This isn't grade school. Agree.

(If James as leader allowed her 'supporters' to do this, this is highly revealing (and not in a good way) by itself.)

So, if you are going to give out dumb scarves why give out dumb yellow scarves that are only in the leader's interest instead of ones (in orange, the party colour) that at least would have reflected the need for a united party? Why were Ms. James's interests put symbolically above those of the party?

Good for the MLA's that refused to be bullied.

We've had enough of bullies in this province.

Norman Farrell wrote:

"BTW, Corky is a hypocrite to complain about 'erosion of the democratic process' after praising the Provincial Council but immediately rejecting its decision. Apparently, he only respects decisions that are acceptable to him."

Sorry, Norman.... no cigar. Both here and on your blog, you 'somehow' left out the reasons why Corky rejected their decision.

Mr. Evans explains this rather eloquently right here in fact:

"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 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?"

The chair was challenged

and the council voted to uphold the chair. The constitutional mechanisms are being followed by one side and disrespected by the other side.

However, who is right and who is wrong doesn't much matter after fatal blows are struck. BC Liberals benefit through these developments and progressive British Columbians are the collective losers.

There's absolutely no way to

There's absolutely no way to predict whether the Libs will benefit from all this.

If the NDP can come up with communicators who know their business and a new new leader who has something to say, this whole affair can be turned into a winner.

The biggest problem of the NDP have always been the total lack of communications talents.

Ed Deak.

Reality bites eh!

There is a wonderful opportunity to turn this into a positive. Everyone has expelled their testosterone, now lets get down to fixing the issues, instead of expelling MLA's.

I would hope those that consider themselves to be party elder statesmen step back from the brink.... Folks like David Shreck have done enough public damage. Time to zip it!

Lets take a week to reach some compromise. Lets take a look at a possible leadership race. Lets either give Carole a real mandate or someone else.

I think the people of this province have already reached some conclusions. Its up to our leadership to recognize at least the outlines of those conclusions.

When reality knocks on your door you had better answer it, otherwise it will come through the window and right at you.

If folks like Norman Farrell are really members of this party they should grow up and stop damaging this party.

Moments ago Liberal leadership candidate told Sean Leslie that the NDP will regroup under either James or another leader and present a formidable opponent next election.

Elder statesmen like Shreck and BC NDP Executive ought to listen to Abbott, because he is right. Unless the insiders want to really take us down.

Who in their right mind?

If the NDP is propelled into an imminent Leadership race by James' possible resignation, then they'll be beating the bushes big time for a narcissist possessing a healthy dose of masochism.

How the liberals ruined BC Ferries and the Island economy

from the times colonist Dec 4:
"Communities face "a negative feedback loop," the report notes. Fewer summer visits, for example, hurt the viability of seasonal businesses like restaurants or galleries. If they close, jobs are lost and people are forced to leave the islands. When that happens, year-round businesses lose customers and make their own cuts. Families leave and communities are left with a higher proportion of seniors. Volunteer fire departments and schools flounder. The decline feeds on itself.Communities face "a negative feedback loop," the report notes. Fewer summer visits, for example, hurt the viability of seasonal businesses like restaurants or galleries. If they close, jobs are lost and people are forced to leave the islands. When that happens, year-round businesses lose customers and make their own cuts. Families leave and communities are left with a higher proportion of seniors. Volunteer fire departments and schools flounder. The decline feeds on itself."

All courtesy of the Liberal party mangling a perfectly good public utility. They may have had other things in mind but what they created was a Franken-company shrouded in secrecy which was used to raise ferry rates and lower services with the result that fewer people travel on them. Same fuel costs, same maintenance; less passengers. Good article.

Is there an upside?

Could the NDP to make a killing on this publicity by now having a leadership convention and inviting people to join the party in order to make their voice heard. Does their constitution allows that?

3 things

shepsil ~ I actively support my political choices and once one gets sincerely involved in electing honest individuals and parties

Here is a critical misunderstanding with your thinking, shepsil. There is no such thing as an honest entity like a party, or company, etc. Only people can be honest.

Stewart Mackenzie ~ Fantasizing about some great utopian scheme or structure which will magically make people get involved won't get us far. Alternate voting systems won't change the fact the public is generally pathetically uninformed; but do have the potential to be easily diddled by anyone with a bunch of money and a manipulative mind

The public is more mis-informed than uninformed, I would state. A large reason for that is government has allowed itself to be whored out to big business. And both government and business thrive on propaganda -- getting a message out which advances their mutual interests, while making the public believe what the see and hear and read must be the truth because it sounds true.

One example: 'vote for a contending Party candidate or you are wasting you vote because anyone else has no influence in government'.

What is omitted in this rhetoric is that 'wasted', from the eyes of the propagadist, means you are not supporting the corporatocracy or the Party.

And, as with most propaganda, it is the information one fills in on one's own that gives it teeth. This 'wasted vote' idea allows the 'contemplative public' to presume that the party candidate wields real influence on behalf of the district over the government at large. But that is impossible when the Party has a single voice for all, and the candidate cannot even vote freely in the House as the constituents' voice.

Voting for a progressive independent accountable to the district voters is not a radical concept. It is just good sense, though not common. Only when the House is filled with enough socially aware people can changes be made outside the Party objective.

Fiat lux ~ we don't like the party system any more than you do.

My question is: How would a system, based on the election of individuals, work ?

How about direct democracy of the elected MLAs to choose a Speaker of the House and Premier; and all matters brought forward as private member bills; all bills voted on freely and openly; and through discourse and consensus building, groups are formed to head the various areas of government.

And the first order of the day is to bring PMBs that entrench democratic principles to ward off money politics so democracy can breath.

How would a system, based on the election of individuals, work ?

It wouldn't.

That's the whole point. Electing a bunch of independent 'individuals' has always failed in the past - and in the past the societies where they tried to make this kind of system work were homogeneous, primarily undifferentiated functionally, small and not terribly complex.

Even in that context the idea always disintegrated into a dictatorship or a monarchic entity of some sort.

It would be an even more complete disaster in this modern highly differentiated and fractured culture.

What we need are things which bring individuals together to share common desires, aspirations and beliefs - we must not pretend the democracy is anything but a means of achieving some kind of agreement among diverse and often disagreeable people.

We don't need to atomize society any more than it is already.

Anyone who thinks consultative, cooperative and consensus systems of government can work should spend a little time in Nunavut.

Even in that tiny society it isn't working - here it would be a complete disaster.

I go with G. on this point.

I go with G. on this point. In all my years of studies and reading, I've never known of a large community, like a country, being governed by individuals in any form of cooperation.

It has always been by religions that appointed the "chosen", and in recent history by dictators, or forms of democracies appointed by ideologies, which are nothing more than pseudo religions.

The biggest problem is that people love dictators, or if you like "strong leaders", because they are too lazy to think for themselves and want to have somebody to tell them what to do.

This is how democracies destroy themselves.
Ask the vast majority young people today what they think of the political situation ? I do it all the time. They have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about, neither are they interested to find out, as they clatter on their texting gimmicks: "All I want is a good job....."

Then they're surprised when they're enslaved, if even realize what is happening to them.

Ed Deak.

a chance to let the light in

Norman Farrell wrote:

Quote:"the constitutional mechanisms are being followed by one side and disrespected by the other side."

The real disrespect I would think is coming from those who decided to change the goalposts as to what denotes unconstitutional...basically making any dissenting view irrelevant...and the democratic process meaningless.

Again, haven't we had enough in BC of having the goalposts changed to facilitate self-interest?

Quote:

"However, who is right and who is wrong doesn't much matter after fatal blows are struck. BC Liberals benefit through these developments and progressive British Columbians are the collective losers."

Disagree.

This doesn't mean the BC Liberals benefit at all.

The wonderful irony is that for a party fueled by PR the cruel and regressive policies of the BC Liberals have effectively and efficiently branded their own party (much to their own surprise) as both ugly and perverse. The worst in BC history. No one wants to admit they support them or be one of them...and working people, who have felt the cruel sting of this government for far too long now have had enough of them. Too many people across this province have been hurt in too many ways. Few are fooled anymore. Listen to the chatter in the grocery line-up - over and over again I hear:" This government has to go....we're losing everything that matters in this province."

Progressives just have to be what they say they are.....

"To thine own self be true" - an oldie but a goodie.

The NDP Leadership Fiasco

Politicians should respect the people.

After nerly 40 years of voting NDP, I have had enough. I am embarassed that adults who are supposedly representing me in the legislature have stooped to wearing or not wearing yellow scraves and engaging in popularity contests instead of doing the people's business. Carol James, the last election was yours to lose and you did not bring up issues improtant to British Columbians like poverty, climate change and the shredded social contract. No, you sank to the level of the outgoing premier and argued about the price of a case of beer!

These misguided public squabbles have only served to alienate most people and disgusted any youth who may have been politically engaged. What example are poltiicians giving to young people? Adults discuss differences and attempt to come to some agreement. Adults in any workplace get the job done, despite differences. We try to find common ground with each other. If I acted like this at my workplace, I would be fired. So how is it that politicnas are not required to act like adults and do their jobs?

If the situation of hundreds of thousands of us wasn't so dire: threats of job loss, loss of home, deteriorating educational services, cliamte change, I would laugh. But this foolishness is no laughing matter. Grow up all of you on all sides of the house and do the people's business instead of disrespecting our democratic system.

G. Harwood - Vancouver

Sam:

"And both government and business thrive on propaganda -- getting a message out which advances their mutual interests, while making the public believe what the see and hear and read must be the truth because it sounds true."

Then why don't you or I believe the propaganda? This isn't a rhetorical question - I know I have been asking questions authorities couldn't answer since I could talk, and I've always had a good instinct for BS, as well as training in BS recognition by experts.

A friend once said to me that what puzzled him about humanity throughout history is why we keep falling for the BS and lies fed to us by the powers that be.

I have known for years it is easier to gather a crowd of followers who want someone to do their thinking, than to motivate even a couple of people to think for themselves. All it takes is a lack of ethics and a good line, like "I am God's living messenger on earth" and at least a few will believe it, and thus become far better apostles than the originator as they actually believe the BS!

Even if only one in a thousand buys the story, one has only to approach 12000 to have as many disciples as Jesus!

If I could have one wish granted it would be for people to be less gullible, the crooks and bandits who manipulate them aren't going to get more ethical.

I wish more people read from sites like this rather than checking out online casinos or porn sites, and watched the news instead of "Survivor", but the truth is out there and all any of us can do is try and spread a bit of light in the darkness.

"Too lazy to think for themselves..."

But over 700,000 of them went to the trouble of signing a petition against an unpopular tax. More people than voted for the liberal party.
I think it's incredibly arrogant to label the electorate as 'too ignorant to run their own affairs.'
They don't vote in elections because they are smart enough or cynical enough to realize that the 'representative democracy' game is rigged against them. You people yourselves have said that once in power there is only one leader. This whole NDP debacle is about democracy and not giving people a vote.

Give them a vote on the HST and then tell me they are too stupid. Give them a vote on private power or public power and then tell me they are too stupid. Give them a vote on just about any major issue and they will make the right decision nine times out of ten. You people here who think you are smarter than everybody else in BC - you know, us common BCers - are starting to look like as big a fraud as the monied press. Short sighted, stupid, mouldering Lilliputians! Except for two or three regular posters here you all want change but without having to actually change anything (there there, dear). The system is the one thing which must be changed to change anything else.
Give people no voice and you condemn them to ever higher levels of exploitation and stupidity (figure it out yourself, Sherlock), but give them a vote, give them a voice and watch them get together to discuss things other than hockey games. Watch them come to the right conclusion time after time on what is best for them and how they can grow and prosper. The technology is already here, the access to information is here, the smart people are here. And you would deny it all and watch our province wither and die. It must have been somewhere else where the whole damn shootin match both federally and provincially was sold for personal benefits by the most powerful persons in their respective governments. You people are sad.

A real optimist

PeteL sees this NDP implosion as a "wonderful opportunity" for a positive outcome. I'm sure every BC Liberal agrees. They were in big trouble.

PeteL adds, "If folks like Norman Farrell are really members of this party they should grow up and stop damaging this party."

Well, I'm not an NDP member nor have I ever been one and am unlikely to stop being a critic. However, I do agree that NDP members are damaging the party's interests. Unfortunately, the effect is to damage the interests of every progressive citizen in the province. We need an end to policies of the BC Liberals and I wish the Opposition MLA's had kept their eyes on that goal.

So how's that working out for you guys?

You guys are carrying on like this Party system works, like it is serving the people, and as though it is not on a destructive course towards global fascism.

BC had elected independents until 1903; evidently it worked just fine for 32 years. That is until Party politics and its money from back east invaded the political arena, and dominating the landscape since.

As soon as you take people out of the equation, accountability gets blurred at best and lost at worst. I do not propose something seeking uniform consensus; it is a matter of seeking direct democracy in the House after discourse. There is no dissent because there is no Party line to be kept. There are simply real people accountable to their voters in the district. They seek direction from the constituents, leading by following.

Atomizing society is thinking a Party serves all. How much more singular are you hoping for? A dictatorship?

Bringing people together is only going to work when there is a connection uniting us. A cursory glance at things proves people in BC are largely disconnected in all ways from politics. Why? I suggest it is because it does not respond to the diversity across the province. There is no connection because what you say, and your vote once cast in favour of money politics marketed as a Party, are meaningless to the Party machine operating government.

Ed Deak ~ I go with G. on this point. In all my years of studies and reading, I've never known of a large community, like a country, being governed by individuals in any form of cooperation.

And doesn't that stand to reason, Ed? Countries are designed and operated by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Of course, whenever something else is brought forth, the power regime nips it in the bud.

But I think we both know the psychology of groupthink and its downside, the perversion of conscionable behaviour, will likely always be risked so that we get the buzz of its upside felt in things like waving silk flags en masse, national pride, owning the podium, or cheering for the team.

You know, Ed Deak, those essentially meaningless things we do, thinking they are noble or rooted in some idyllic ground of humanitarian harmony, but used against us so we will send our children off to murder strangers, or have our families torn apart as they chase the dollars into all corners of the country looking for the good life.

Stewart MacKenzie ~ Then why don't you or I believe the propaganda?

I only wish I was immune from it and as confident as you are in thinking I don't get ensnared in its web. For 23 years I have cognitively tried my best to understand how it works; I always look for its employment; I naturally carry a healthy dose of skepticism about all things politic and relating to power; and I read on a broad range of topics, particularly political-historical, for different pov regarding governance.

Potential leaders

I am a reader of all the blogs, a ndp voter who believes that a new ndp leader is esential. would like to see a similar article about a group of capable hopefully engaging potential leaders, get the jump on the msm again andrew

Driftwood

"Give people no voice and you condemn them to ever higher levels of exploitation and stupidity, but give them a vote, give them a voice and watch them get together to discuss things other than hockey games."

All that would make sense if people didn't already have the vote. But they do, they could have used it to vote for anyone they wanted. They could have used it to vote for samuidave's independent MLAs or anyone else.

They could have used it to vote for new political and electoral systems, whatever they wanted. They didn't, so this is all there is.

Looks Like the BC Fed Stepped In To Stop the Caucus Meeting

From former Vancouver Province provincial political affairs columnist Brian Kieran:

"Information from my sources is that the BC Federation of Labour got to decide whether or not NDP leader Carole James and her caucus would proceed with their emergency meeting."

"The union bosses calling the shots? Isn’t that just a tad troubling for all those regular righteous folks who think the NDP is a party governed by democratic principles?"

http://briankieran.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-early-ndp-leadership-review-being.html

I'm sure these facts will eventually be further leaked but the optics of same ain't that great. So much for CJ trying to distance the NDP from big labour. Not that I have anything against organized labour.

Yours is the commonly held perception, Frank

All that would make sense if people didn't already have the vote. But they do, they could have used it to vote for anyone they wanted. They could have used it to vote for samuidave's independent MLAs or anyone else.

They could have used it to vote for new political and electoral systems, whatever they wanted. They didn't, so this is all there is."

The reality is that despite the optics of a free vote, money politics has polluted the collective mind through incessant propaganda this past century. Thus we have had our consent manufactured and we dismiss, and will even loudly object, considering options which buck the 'well-known truths'.

The vote is free but we do not freely use it. We have been blinded to what is available to us as a viable option and which is far more likely in our collective interests.

Every election we could change the political landscape significantly in our favour, but we opt to vote away change in favour of a supporting the only real choices, a Party voice -- a voice owned and controlled by the plutocrats.

Compounding this are people whom I take mean well but do zero to stop this rhetoric by reiterating it as wisdom or a tried truth. Too bad it works against a representative democracy for the people.

Or maybe everyone is 'on to' the propaganda and has decided this is serving their needs despite what I think. Although, with all the mis-information out there and so few having any real opportunity to dissect this long-standing mess, I see the political offering more like when a Father offers his young son a nickel or a dime. The kid opts for the big nickel every time. To the mis-informed opinion, the bigger coin must be worth more.

And it is important to note the Father makes sure his kid doesn't see the dollar on the floor, free for the taking, by repeatedly distracting him with the need to choose either the nickel or dime.

Consequences

These days, many people have Condo's and have a voice at the AGM's to elect a board etc.
There are usually monthly meetings, where next to nobody attend, because they just want the elected leaders to look after their interest and not be bothered.

Much the same goes for political parties: Leaders are elected and they are supposed to carry out the policies that was agreed on.

Uproar happens only when those leaders fail to achieve what they were entrusted to do.

The average citizen is not concerned about the finer details of protocol, they simply get to the point where they feel betrayed and want to replace the culprit.

In the provincial Liberal party, the bagmen had the poweer to oust Gordo, while in the NDP, there are no powerbrokers to call the tune.

The result is this present public discussion that of course the media will twist to their advantage.

The provincial NDP needs to examine its reason for existence, maybe they can grasp that there is no need for a liberal lite party, but a strong need for a party that caters to the working people?

Stewart and Ed, and The Party System I....

Addressing the issues and perspectives you two folks have on this proposal around moving to an alternative democratic system, from that of the current Party system. Which viewpoints I treat entirely seriously and with the greatest respect.

For actually, regardless of how I may seem to you, I am fundamentally a realist, if of a revolutionary/transformational perspective. And were I convinced that the masses of my fellow citizens were turning to the Party system for a solution to the problems of their current lives, and that there was no realistic alternative, I would feel compelled to move into the Party system with them. (Indeed, if I ever sence that my analysis is being proven wrong, despite my own abhorance of the Party System, that is what I would still do.)

And I appreciate how difficult it is to be within one overwhelming systemic way of doing things and to imagine any other... Like what it must have been like from within Greco-Roman slavery and its norms, and then even to imagine the Feudalist System that would rise to supercede it. Let alone to foresee the ensuing fight that would occur within subsequent Feudalism to limit the rights and powers of Kings, who viewed themselves as "God's Choice on Earth".

But the masses of people are not moving into Parties. Indeed, just over my lifetime, the participation rates in Parties has just about collapsed. And ever poorly representative even in their heyday, they are now entirely divorced from the working class masses lives. Not only this, the broader reality even is, working class non-participation rates in the electoral system is at half the population and, in my view, likely to continue to decline... This, as any "real" alternatives within the Party system, even within the One Big Party of Capitalism, diminish and they all continue to meld into an extreme Right to Centre love fest.

So, frankly, my observational conclusions of the current socio-political reality is that the Party System is already in steep decline and the ruling class controlled system of democracy is being abandoned... Right now, still, in favour of everyone looking for "individualistic" solutions I grant, to the deepening socio-economic problems of their lives. But I think this can only be temporary, for this kind of narrow individualism leads into the blind alley of powerlessness in the final analysis... And this will be discovered, and a casting about for solidarity begin, in my view. (And this "narrow individualism" is the to be expected way in which ruling class "individualist ideology" still manifests its hold on the working class psyche... even those it hurts the most.)

My view is that the Party System is part of the way in which the ruling class "system of control", in fact, exercises itself over the working class and its various strata... including the labour movement. Indeed, especially Labour. (Who controls the working class, controls society/the economy.)

continued next post...

Stewart and Ed... And The Party System II...

from previous post...

Which says to me, that an "entire community representative system", based on "individuals responsible directly to their communities rather than Parties" needs to be evolved. A complex subject, the mechanics of which will not in the end be decided by any one person such as myself, for sure. It is the more likely to become the product of a collective/community process, and some trial and error fine tuning over time.

But basically, over time, how I see it (and samuidave has many good ideas and suggestions of his own, in my view), is communities/ridings likely being broken down into sectoral interests including Unions, Small Business, NGOs such as Environmental/Recreation/ Women's and other groups, perhaps other Community Groups. Each of these sectoral Representative groups meeting to advance a candidate to the upcoming provincial or national election, for the riding... Following which the community/riding as a whole would vote for one or the other of these candidates. (My suggestion being, that less than a 50% + 1 turnout of the eligible electorate would result in a voided vote and no representation for that community. Which would "encourage" the community, if it wants representation, to turn out to vote.)

At the provincial or national level, those elected community/riding reps would, from amongst themselves advance a list of a few or several candidates to a general election, from which "the people" would select their premier or prime minister. (He/she then being directly elected by and responsible to "the people" who elected him/her rather than "the party" as now, or even parliament as would be then.)

Now that is the rough of how I see a non-party system working. And I appreciate that there would be many other inputs to it.

You will notice that while I have included a "Small Business" input, along with a Labour one, that there is no "Corporate Sector." That is because, in my view, there would be NO "private corporate sector". The "commanding heights of the economy", at the very least, would be subject to a separate system of "democratized ownership and direction", by a system of Labour and Community representation. (This latter which might include local government, environmental interests etc.) :-) Otherwise, this "private corporate sector" would continue to be able to buy off and corrupt ANY system of Representative democracy as may arise. Which, of course, is how my "revolutionary" or "social transformation" perspective comes into it. :-) lol

Oh.. and there would still doubtless need to be actually "workable" systems of Recall in place. :-) I suspect some degrees of corruption are likely to ever be with us. :-)And the power must reside with "the people" to "root it out" quickly.

resignation anyone?

perhaps around 11pm monday? that is the buzz

James just quit!

The scramble begins!

No Frank

"They could have used it to vote for new political and electoral systems, whatever they wanted. They didn't, so this is all there is."

Maybe we got different ballots Frank. On mine there was one confusing question about proportional representation. If there was one about having a vote on important issues I must have blinked because I didn't see it.

Yeah! Now is the time for all good men and women

To join the NDP, take part in the leadership debate, contribute to the party, win the next election and kick the Liberal Ass all the way down to Mexico! Yeehah!!!

James takes a bow

It wasn't hurting James as much as it was costing the party and it is what a good leader would do. Who ever is going to be picked for the next leader make sure you have the full support of the 13 or you to could being bowing out to.
If you want a healthy opposition don't give the party in power a majority this way it all works out while waiting on a Liberal press to get the news out.
Who is going to be the next leader of the NDP? Start picking and steal the Liberal thunder because before you know it there will be an early spring election to see who stands out.

Driftwood

Strange because I recall there being a party called the BC Refederation party. Mike Summers used to hang out on the Tyee and he was quite clear that if his party was elected the population would have got referendums on every major issue.

If that's what you wanted the option was there.

So is there going to be a leadership convention?

Please say that there will be a leadership convention instead of some panel picking a new leader. Think of the money which would pour in. Think of all the publicity to publicize platforms and bash the the crop of crooks now at the trough. Think of how the monied press will have a field day if there isn't a democratic vote.
Don't screw it up now!

James Resigns...

Sehr interessant, nicht wahr?

It has the corporate media whining all over James, who was clearly their preference for the NDP... even though they would have still basically ignored or slandered her. But this! This makes the entire hierarchical model of great man/woman leadership tremble...

Even though I am not a "party person", I think this was a useful... even perhaps, portentous even overall.

Eat your heart out, Frank. :-) Even you "winners" lose sometimes.

Thank you Carole

For all the hard work and all the fighting for the common people in this province. I voted for you in two elections but didn't think you would win the next one. Please stay with us as you have all kinds of experience which will be invaluable in the next election and in parliament. Many thanks and best wishes for the future.

coyote

Its only a battle that my side lost, the war isn't over.

Frank,

What are you fighting for? Let's join ranks and defeat the common enemy!

Who are these thirteen dissidents

We'll she's finally done it, resigned that is. A very telling part of her resignation speech was how she stressed she will only stay on until an interim leader is chosen, she's pissed! And I don't blame her . . . if the desire of these dissidents was to oust her and choose another leader in advance of what will almost surely now be an early election call for the Liberals what do these thirteen propose we do now? These "morons" have sealed their fate and the fate of the BC NDP as it concerns winning the next election(s) or for that matter being considered a credible opposition.

Bottom line though is . . . . if Carole James had of stepped down much earlier when her polling numbers and party insiders comments indicated clearly that she should, most of this could have been settled quietly and without the rancor that now exists. We would still stand as a formidable opposition, even if we lost the next election and the BC NDP party would have remained a cohesive and strong component of a fair and just life here in BC. Now where do we go?

Jeff Laurie

All is not lost jwlaurie!

Now is the time to close ranks, invite new members and hold a leadership convention. Don't for an instant think that those MLAs; some of who have been working together for years, are going to start feuding here. Let's move on, have a leadership convention, air all our views and may the best man/woman win! This is about more than the NDP. This is about saving the future of our province for the next inhabitants - even 20 years down the road the place could be a smouldering ruin, a bag full of tree stumps and empty mines after the corporations have gone taking all our money with them. Now is the time for all good people to put aside personal differences and come to the aid of their party. Mark my words, the NDP will WIN the next election!

The 13

The 13 have my support. Ms James does not.

Driftwood

I heard the attacks on James. It wasn't just CJ that was attacked it was all of us that supported her and voted for her.

I know I spent most of the last decade online defending her and the NDP from attacks from both the Left and the Right.

As CJ said herself, the bullies won, she's gone and so I imagine are a lot of her supporters.

I don't know if the party will stay moving in the same direction CJ had it moving or whether it'll go back to the past or do something else. I'll wait and see who the new leader is (meaning from which faction) and whether any new party springs up before I decide what to do.

At the moment I have no desire to be part of the NDP forevermore, maybe tomorrow I'll feel differently.

"As CJ said herself, the bullies won,

Politics is bullying, unfortunately for us!

membership

i think all the 'malcontents, dissidents and whiners,' like myself should take this opportunity to renew our vows and perhaps even make a bit of a contribution.
after quitting a while back, i just renewed my membership after the announcement.

Driftwood Over Frank Anyday...

"I think it's incredibly arrogant to label the electorate as 'too ignorant to run their own affairs.'
They don't vote in elections because they are smart enough or cynical enough to realize that the 'representative democracy' game is rigged against them." Driftwood.

And the elitists all, in the party system, are arrogant folks by at least tradition, if not instinct, and actually seriously contemptuous of "The People", if they are nothing else at all. It is there, in the very "vanguardist" concept itself.

Like Frank, and surprisingly...

Apparently we love dictators even. As if we've ever seriously had a choice.

But like the evil of Parties, better a dictator, however short-lived before it is inevitably corrupted, that works for you for a time than against you.

Then there is Frank.

"I know I spent most of the last decade online defending her and the NDP from attacks from both the Left and the Right." Frank.

Ahhhh, Frank, ever hewing to the respectable, status quo, stuck in the mud and going nowhere centre. Right now, anything is better than this.

Anyway, it's a small victory for "the good guys and gals", CJs being forced to join me out here in the political wilderness, :-) but you take what you can get... sometimes. Perhaps I can turn her head around on our commiserating with the "burning bush" wilderness walks. After her head and social worker instincts have clearly been corrupted by the Sihotat/Clark Gang's "business friendly" indeology... and send her back cleansed and radicalized into the fray. :-)

Down With The Party System!

Until then, better one that is more, rather than less democratic, AND that actually is as much as fancies itself allied with, rather than working against, The People. Until it too is finally, like the Benevolent Dictator, corrupted as well.

You must be kidding!

You people NOW want to close ranks.

There are those of us who've been supporting, canvassing and making contributions in many ways for most of our lifetimes.

The people who've just knocked the buggy off the rails didn't even have the decency to pull the curtains and do their dirty work privately and in the dark.

As I wrote a couple of places yesterday - smart grown up people don't have their blood feuds in public where the spectacle attracts the attention of the dogs in the Liberal party and the weasels in the press.

Now, you boys and girls can clean up the mess - I'm gonna sit back and watch for a while...the adults need to go on strike.

Keep Your Eye On The Prize... re GWest, The Schemer...

"Now, you boys and girls can clean up the mess - I'm gonna sit back and watch for a while...the adults need to go on strike." GWest.

Now, that's the thing about these "centrists". Unless they outright have it all their way, they always want you to otherwise be kissing their ass. (It's always "the Left" that is expected to give ground. Never these assholes.)

Don't do it, is my advice. They are still in control of the Party. It is only Carole that is gone. Until you have control of the Party, it all still depends on them; the Sihota, Clark et al gang or clique.

Go after control of the Party and its controlling levels. Let this election go, if you absolutely have to. Clean this ideological and policy direction situation up, then worry about "winning" this or that election. The foundation first has to be firm and on solid ground, before you commence to construct the rest of the structure. And don't even be tempted to attempt a shortcut, 'cause these elitist serving dips want you to fail, and will stand by and let you do so.

Secure your gains, if you can, before you launch the next stage assault.

But make no mistake, they have encouraged Carole to step aside for a putpose... their purpose. They are still in control of the majority of the caucus... and, I assume, the Provincial Exec..(Though there may be some abandoning of their ship commence too. In Party politics, everyone wants to be aligned with or use the perceived winners.)

In any case, until your people are clearly in there, be careful about allowing yourselves to be prematurely pushed into "precipitous" assumptions which you are in no position yet to backup.

Carole's removal is a tactical move on "their" part. Don't think you have won any big "strategic" victory just yet. A victory, yes. But a relatively minor one, in the grand scheme of things. Control of The Party is the prize... and they still have that.

Lighten up Jerry,

Where's your magnanimity in victory? You're the one who set this up as a war, not the rest of us. You've been shooting your mouth off about how corrupt the system is, and now without so much as a breath of a change, you're the biggest supporter the system has when only the leader has changed, and that not even yet!

Go back and read over your last few posts. You're gloating, and over much more than the "in your face disgrace" of the "harpy".

I know not one of us progressives is happy about this state of affairs. I already told you that it matter not a whit who the leader is as long as progressives stand behind them, no matter their differences, to prevent a greater evil. Well, you clearly didn't buy that, and now 'we're the crybabies'???

You owe GW and Frank an apology. For years, they've put sense in your maunderings, taking the kernel of truth in them and addressing that. I think you should cut them a bit of slack, and change your tune a bit.

If I didn't know better, I'd swear you'd been drinking....

Frank, GWest & the rest

...who sought to keep this wayyy-too-battle from getting out of hand, my hat's off to you for keeping at it in the face of unreasonable provocation and "blind and naked ignorance, delivering brawling judgments over all things, all day long".

This was a valuable argument to have, at least with some who clearly have been thinking about this, and have made some telling points; but it was just at exactly the wrong time.

Let's give it til the new year and see what shakes out. Let the dissidents get their joy out, and we'll see what the party truly stands for. If the rules have been defenestrated along with the leader, at least we'll know to be prepared for another four years of Fiberal mis-rule.

And who knows? The right candidate may come along who can say the right things to give voice to all progressives everywhere. I kind of doubt that's possible, but perhaps if enough of us can make enough allowances...