wow ......

You are so smart Mr David an you explain me this what i read about You ........
"He won election in 1991 by half a percentage point (less than 500 votes) but lost his seat in the 1996 BC election, by more than 10 per cent of the vote, to Katherine Anne Whittred. Afterwards, Schreck failed to win a councillor's seat for the District of North Vancouver and declared he would not again run in a political election. His term as MLA was his only successful bid after tries in the 1983, 1986, and 1991 provincial elections and the 1984 federal election."
and here is the link i get this from.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Schreck

sems to me you are out of tuch :)
Don't wory about NDP .NDP will do much beter with out Ms James belive me :))

krzysztof danel

mutineer

Good handle, I can feel the warmth from here after your unity speech.

I see the David schreck is all over the media

But I can't see why. All he does is bash the NDP. If I were a visitor and you told me Schreck supported the NDP, I would say, "you say so..."

D K D

You obviously have no idea where Schreck ran - in North Vancouver, where voters amuse themselves by imagining they're progressive and go downtown to slum it on the DTES, but wouldn't dream of voting in a truly progressive candidate with ideas on education, the social contract or public finance that might be at odds with whatever the Fraser Institution is currently peddling these days.

Schreck was considered too doctrinaire for North Van. Who the hell are you all gonna put up against the drunk driver that you all might even remotely be satisfied with, that even has a hope of doing half as well in that white-bread municipality of privilege?

You clowns are about to find out just how hard it is to get traction in this province made scared by an uncritical and unthinking media.

Now get back to work. There are some sinks in Banfield that need your attention, Kris.

Shreck is wrong this time

One of the first things that I did on hearing the news was to contact my local membership chairman to ensure that my membership was up to date. Shreck is wrong.

Missing the point

People seem to be missing the point in the article. There remains a small group of individuals who refused to follow the rules of caucus and of the party. I think that fits the loose definition of anarchist. They won, they overruled the majority decisions of the party and the caucus, so how do you now get them to agree to "paint between the lines". You have Harry Lali now making statements to the effect that having "won" rules no longer apply to caucus, that sounds like an anarchist to me. Unless some discipline can be restored to this group, they and the party can not succeed.

Hold your nose?

The last few elections I have had to hold my nose while voting NDP.

Many others simply stayed at home!

Whatever happens now is long overdue, and will most likely be an improvement.

There has been a division for ages on various issues, and it is only good if candidates finally get to state their personal belief.

We saw what total obedience to the leader did for the liberals.

Perhaps watching that dilemma caused this group of dissidents to realize that being "yes-men" is not the answer?

Gordo screwed up and so did Carole, why the snit when the NDP cleans house?

What a dangerous precedent. Good article, Mr. Schrek

I absolutely agree with this article. We have now set a dangerous precedent in the party of Rule by the tyranny of the Minority.

We have absolutely set the precedent that a small group of people can Bully and Blackmail their way into getting what they what. Nice to read this article as well as the Vancouver Sun editorial today showing this reason.

It's all well for you Coup supporters to ask the rest of to calm down and get over it, but our faith in the party is completely shaken. Every party member I am close to is disgusted.

I'm not sure I want to be a part of an organization whereby you can blackmail and bully your way into getting what you want and destroying the party in the process.

sign up for membership

I may even consider an NDP membership for the first time, and I bet there are many others like me out there. All you party people are out of touch with who actually does the voting here. Just wait and see what an inspirational leader that can convey a sense of action, yet maintain a social concience, will do. No matter for which party.

Stan Lee & Jack Kirby would be proud

Schreck angry at MLAs who sent confidential letter to leader! Leader had every right to show letter to rest of caucus and not give yellow scarf!! Schreck angry Carole James called out on high-handed authouritarian shennanigans!!

SHRECK SMAHSH!!! ARRRGH!!

the only hope is....

PS: The only thing that is keeping a huge number of party members from quitting the party is that the front runners to become next leader: John Horgan and Mike Farnworth, were both loyal to Carole James and showed dignity and loyalty during this whole mess.

Assasins in our midst

Everyone beating their chests over Carole James' lack of leadership can take a break. She' gone. And the NDP party has to rebuild instead of focusing on the Liberals.

The 13 MLAs with Jenny Kwan fronting them, (many of the others were too gutless to state their own greviences), are responsible for this mess.

Jenny Kwan is an assassin - toward James and the NDP.

motorcycleguy

So who's the inspirational leader?

The NDP under CJ had 47%, let's see what your "inspirational" leader gets.

madelaine

You're bang on, the mutineers should throw Jenny's head out of the camp first.

But they won't.

Still Not Much Has Happened Here I...

"Jenny Kwan and fellow dissidents may celebrate, but history will show the harm they've done to BC." David Schreck.

More than a little extreme hysteria for sure.

Now, these kinds of events, and Jame's is not the first leader to ever get dumped in this country or province, are always difficult to sort out in their conclusions at the time. The waters are frequently as muddy after as they were before... as they still are in this case, in my view.

So remain a Little calm David, though I do understand your injured feelings, such as the "serious" Left itself has long and frequently had to endure in the NDP and this society at large. And nobody has had, or still, to endure more humiliation in Canadian politics than has the Left.

The times are changing is all, and the political sensibilities of the "mass" along with them... so suck it up boy. The winds of change really are setting up to blow.

The reality is, the NDP was in serious trouble before Carole "dumped herself" with her own arrogant actions. (Carole always seemed, to me, to find it easier to get "tough" with her NDP caucus and rank and file, than with the business ruling class. Which was her real undoing, more than any action of "Anarchists".)

But, in any case, Carole is irrelevant already. It is more those of you, especially the "Anarchists" :-) left behind, that I am interested in.

Again, as I've said here before, Frank is actually right in one small respect. (And I don't think any of us is confused about Frank's status quo serving politics.) But don't read too much into this Carole event. As of yet, what has occurred is but a small "cosmetic" change in the NDP... a face has been pulled, and another will doubtless be set up in its "vanguards" place, to "lead" the Party.

The essential character of the NDP is still unchanged, and the same essential "business friendly" people are still in charge at the top, and running the show, determining the policies and priorities. It is this which really has to change, for a decisive win. (Frank knows it, and I know it.)

From the perspective of "the Anarchist rabble" being blamed for this deed however, how 'err inaccurately a characterization or conclusion, I think there is a need to be less preoccupied with the next election than there is these policy/programme and leadership at the top issues. The fact is THEY, the Business Friendly Gang (BFG) still largely control how the next election will shape up and be fought.

And another failed election, such as Carole would in all likelihood have lost anyway, while it would certainly extend the potential for damage on the part of Ruling Class Right, would not likely be the end of life as we know it. Indeed, it might even better prepare the ground for a future NDP win, beyond this next one, when the Party is better prepared to actually "do something" as opposed to warm seats.

continued next post...

Not Much Has Happened Here II...

from previous post...

But, if the "Business Friendly Gang" (BFG) succeed at diverting your attention from "getting the politics right" here , as they are attempting to do, so that the Party is properly girded for the ideas battle that is going to have to be waged, the momentum secured around this small defeat of the BFG will have been lost.

We, the Left and, I suggest, The People are in a relatively long term struggle here to change the current Rightist/ Neocon Business Friendly development model, and to return society in the direction of a sane social and economic development direction. In a direction that serves the working class and broader peoples interest, as opposed to the ruling class privileged one.

So focus on getting the politics and the economics correct, and the leadership of the Party issue long term. These guys still at the top currently control the next election show anyway... they are the self-fancied "Leaders", so tell them to get off their asses and actually lead.

But win or lose, in my view, which I concede is an "outsider" view, IF the NDP is going to have any real value to society, the working class and the broader citizen interest in the future, and I am unconvinced still that it does, it still has to get the politics and the policies right. That is, it needs, at the least, to be seen, and to actually be less "business friendly", and more truly friendly to the lives of the increasingly hard-pressed working class citizenry.

It's this, or a split potential has always long existed within the NDP anyway, between left and right... and it is they, the centrists, that really control that still, and called the shots on. That is, unless you are happy always kissing their ass, simply to maintain a "united" party for its own sake. Which decisions around, you will have to make for yourselves.

Besides, there are other alternatives that NDPers uncomfortable with the party's line of development may need to consider.

THE LEFT SHOOTS THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT, AGAIN!

A completely negative headline!

As much as I may be left-leaning and sympathize with progressive causes, the 'left' always shoots itself in the foot in the end. It seems that the many different Leftist ideologues cannot compromise and form a common cause to have strength in numbers. The righties, neocons and free-marketeers can find common cause to unite around, plus they have so much money. In reality, the whole political equation is always unequal.

Please

The old guard, doing things their old way, can't win elections in BC. I am a supporter of the progressive left, but not of secret deals where labour pays the NDP presidents' salary? Why does he need a salary? Who was consulted? And where is the NDP these days on any issue that matters to BC? It's time for the old guard to bow out graciously and be grateful you won't experience the indignity of another election loss. What would yet another four years of the Liberals do to BC? Stop being divisive, and realize that Jenny Kwan has far more grassroots support than Carole ever did, and that kind of matters here in the grass.

Ridiculous!

Jenny Quan and the other social democrats who ousted James are about as anarchist as Gordon Campbell! Please check out the Anarchist FAQ
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ if you want to know what anarchists are.

Carol James had her time

Carol James did a lot of hard work in rebuilding the party in the seven years she's been leader. But this is modern politics, let alone the 'blood sport' of BC politics. There are two lost elections and to my mind, the biggest weakness has been the absence of Opposition response to many Liberal actions.

Thanks for all your service to BC, Carol. Sorry you left on such ugly terms.

The fear I have is if the NDP does pull it together and get elected, they will blow it again by unrolling an expensive list of leftie pet projects. I recall Glen Clark's rise to the top job. Within three months I had the feeling that his government didn't give a damn about anyone who did not have a union membership card in their pocket. A friend who is born and raised here remarked after two to three months it was the most cynical government he had ever witnessed.

The secret to many long-lived governments in other provinces has been gradual change.

And please, don't focus on expensive 'economic development' projects that provide union jobs (i.e. fast ferries)!!

Execute the Ring Leaders

Gosh I miss the old days when plotters and conspirators would be swiftly tried, executed, and their heads put on display as a grim lesson to others.

That's what should have happened, metaphorically, in this case.

Instead, the new leader will have to pursue appeasement at every turn ... and sleep with one eye open and a hand on his sword.

Carol

Some posters on here talk as if Carol had just been crucified by some members of her party. Listen, Carol got herself into this mess by her own actions or lack there of. All through Canadian history leaders of all political partys had to fall on their sword for the betterment of the party though I can't remember a time when it was such a soap opera. Get over yourself and get on with rebuilding your Party with a strong policy towards the future of BC.

re Frank

James had 42.06% of the popular vote. Only 50.99% of eligible voters voted. That is about 21% of the voters in this province. Not much interest sparked, less than the last election. Every single one of Campbells supporters got out and voted because they stood to directly benefit. If everyone who was dead against the Liberal policies had some level of confidence in James, Campbell would have been easily defeated. You are still not paying attention to the average pissed off resident of BC.

enough

enough of the name-calling mr schreck. let's all move along shall we

motorcycleguy

The other 50% don't vote because of apathy and busy lives.

There's stats on who non-voters are available on the web for both the USA and Canada. I've posted them before. Apathy and just being too busy or feeling that 1 vote doesn't matter sums up pretty much all of the non-voters in both countries.

CJ got 42% last election and was polling at 47% last month.

motorcycleguy

Besides, answer the question, who's the "inspirational leader"?

BC DEMOCRACY

IF YOU WANT SOMETHING BAD ENUFF YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR IT.

NOT EVERYONE HAS THE STOMACH TO DO WHAT JENNY DID BUT SOMETIMES IT HAS TO DONE.

WE HAD TO DO IT IN OUR STRATA PLAN ONCE AND I SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT. IT HAD TO BE CLEANED UP.

MOST PEOPLE IN BC CAVE WHEN THEIR RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED. HST, GAS HIKES, 15%TAX BREAK RETRACTED, GANG WAREFARE, HOMELESSNESS RATES UP, CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES UP, NO JOBS, NO NATURAL RESOURCES FLOWING, TAX BREAKS TO RICH AND ON AND ON.

IT IS A BREATH OF FRESH AIR WHEN YOU SEE A PERSON OR 13 PERSONS STAND UP TO THE BIG GUNS AND SAY ENUFF IS A ENUFF. AND I GUESS THE REST CAME TO THEIR SENSES FINALLY.

THIS HAS HAPPENED TWICE NOW. BCL AND NOW NDP.

YOU GOTTA LOVE IT. OUT WITH THE OLD AND IN WITH THE NEW (HOPEFULLY OR WAY WE GO AGAIN)

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN NOT SEE THE GOOD THIS WILL BRING (WE HAVE ALREADY PAST THE BAD)... THEN ASK SANTA ON YOUR XMAS WISH LIST FOR A NEW BRAIN AND A NEW SELF CONSCIENCE.

BC DEMOCRACY

GO AWAY

It's time Schreck and the James faction went away. I've been a party member for over 35 years and have done everything from door knocking to fundraising and have even sat on Provincial Council but for the past seven years I have sat quietly by while James underperformed. I'm sick of her "I'm the victim" and outraged by the yellow scarves incident - like a bunch of high school girls in the 60s deciding who is part of the in crowd and who is not. To my mind James and her gang were the bullies. And what a disgraceful resignation statement!! Please go away immediately. Schreck has been irrevelant for years if not decades.

Frank poll results

October Angus Reid poll shows NDP at 49%, but Carole James at only 27% in spite of Liberal fall. Identity of inspirational leader is a big question that I have not formulated an opinion on yet....but I bet there is one out there. I also bet the 13% polled that support the Greens and the 6% that support "other" are looking for the same leader. As a matter of fact, I even bet a portion of the liberal and conservative percentage would consider options. We would all welcome the chance to vote someone in rather that vote them out.

nominally speaking

I nominate Arthur Manuel for leader
http://www.politics.ubc.ca/index.php?id=6821

Nice try at "The Blame Game"

Sorry, Kid, you lose. When you and your little mob installed Chairman Moe in a paid position with a chain firmly attached to Jim Sinclair and the BC Fed, THAT was the beginning of the end. The drive to DIVERSIFY the party's focus and become centrist positioned ended with a slamming of the door to progressive political vision. Just think, with a bit of DIVERSITY, you could have been a viable alternative to "The Gordo Giveaway Gang". But no, you CHOSE to remain the party of Big Labour.
You cooked it, you eat it.

Anarchists?

Hyperbolic name calling by (some of) James' supporters, in public, are what looks bad.

David knows full well that Jenny and 3 others had talked to Carole, in private, weeks before the public blow up.

She had the opportunity to do the right thing at that time. And once again, she waffled and dithered until she forced it out into the open.

And it started because Bob Simpson said her speech was boring. Bob was right. It was boring. And so was her leadership.

Time for a leader that people don't put on "mute" when they hear him/her on the media.

Time for a leader that people pay attention to.

motorcycleguy

And Bospade wants that 27% (that supported Carole) to leave which by my count would leave you guys with 22%.

Hey, I hope a new home for us 27% does open up and we can each have our own parties.

As for BC Liberal and Green voters being happy that a centrist like James is gone so they can join with the more left-wing, more militant NDP that is being celebrated here... well I don't see the logic in that thought.

Bospade

YOU go away. The only reason you showed up here for the first time is to gloat which shows the kind of person you are.

Go do your little Lord of the Flies happy dance somewhere else.

David Schreck = Stupid and blind..

David Schreck, you are totally not in tune with either the wishes of the general BC NDP membership, or the general population of BC... and neither was/is Carole James. The so-called bakers dozen, who you mistakenly call "anarchists" *are* in tune with the membership and the BC voters in general - 'that' is why they pushed for a proper leadership race.

One thing is for sure, if anyone but either one of the so-called bakers dozen who have some insight into what BC voters want, or one of the Federal BC NDP MPs, become leader, then and only then could it be said that the Liberals have been handed a 'gift'.

Jenny Kwan did NOT hand the Liberals a gift.. not holding a leadership vote, and staying with Carole James would indeed have been a true "gift' to the Liberals - any Liberal candidate for leader will tell you that.

Just how stupid and blind can you be David?

coyote

I actually agree with your post, the honesty was refreshing, you guys on the Left hate those of us who are closer to the centre and you want us out so you can "renew" and build a brand that you agree with and which excludes us.

Since 27% of the NDP's 49% were CJ supporters its too bad we don't have proportional representation which would allow us to simply go our separate ways.

ahem...

"If you can't be magnanimous now, there's no hope for the left in this province."

Well, precisely, zalm. The name calling goes on and on...the same echoes that were heard in back rooms in Skelly times, Harcourt times, Clark times...You won, Kwan et al. Now start leading, will you?

It is an old psychological

It is an old psychological gimmick in propaganda that,as in this case, people who are screaming that the party is breaking up and destroyed, are working to destroy it, so that they can later claim that they were right, and how clever they were in predicting it.

The NDP could have lost the present leader for a thousand of non political reasons, like illness ,or accidents. What then? Would the present screaming idiocy and crocodile tears still go on and on, or would the screamers get their act together and start on rebuilding?

What are ambulance attendants do at a major traffic accident, run around frantically waving their arms, or get to work on saving lives ?

The same applies here. CJ's resignation, for whatever reasons, is past history and that's all.

Now get the lead out and start rebuilding.

Ed Deak.

Fiat Lux

"people who are screaming that the party is breaking up and destroyed, are working to destroy it, so that they can later claim that they were right, and how clever they were in predicting it."

Which describes exactly what your side did.

I guess dissent and democracy are no longer in vogue when you guys get what you want eh?

dragons to hunt

David, stop wringing your hands. All is well; remember that the ground must be dug up before new seeds can grow.
Do a good service for journalism and go in search of the MSM who are the real dragons,hiding their heads in the sand about things that have gone so wrong since Christmas 2003.

Frank....What " my side" ? I

Frank....What " my side" ? I was trying to work with CJ, have all the written evidence submitted to the NDP's offical"sunrise" list, and have only been reporting an analysis of the events, because I happen to have many years of experience in the field.

When it became obvious that her position was untenable, that's all what I said and I was right.

Perhaps you should try to look at things objectively , instead of endless personal attacks, very typical for people who have nothing to say.

The only "side" I support is the wiping out of the present criminal economic theory destroying the world.

Ed Deak.

Fiat Lux

Oh so you were a "let's all come together and rally around Carole" guy were you? I missed that.

And you guys are the kings when it comes to personal attacks.

DAVID

The anarchists did't win; the folks who pinned the tail on CJ were folks who were tired of loosing elections

Time to stop bitching and get to work.

Lead, follow or get out of the way...

losers become winners

The "Anarchists" have won?
Must mean that they'll continue to destroy the party.
Anyone who disagrees will become the new "selfish" the new
"bullies" the new puerile who "need to grow up."

Think of what the so-called dissidents have had to endure these
last months.

And after only one day post-James they are blamed for destroying
the party forever.

This name-calling is bringing the sour grapes into the spotlight.

Lawrence

"Lead, follow or get out of the way..."

I've chosen none of the above.

Frank....You obviously have

Frank....You obviously have hard time to read and to understand what was said.

"Working with Carole" doesn't mean anything else. Neither have I ever worked against her and have all the evidence.

Can you absorb these simple facts?

When a meteorologist reports weather patterns he, or she, doesn't take sides and there's no point in laying blame.

Hard stuff isn't it ?

Now, let's hear what you can come up with next ?

Ed Deak.

Fiat Lux

What?

Go back and read your own posts about how you talked to Carole and "knew" she didn't mean anything she said.

How you supported Simpson, and how you cheered Carole's resignation.

I guess the groupthink is settling in, I can only imagine what you'll convince yourselves of next.

Frank....I sure admire you

Frank....I sure admire you imagination.

All the very best, Ed Deak.

Sorry about the typo, should

Sorry about the typo, should be "your imagination"

ED

on and on

Frank, take a pill and chill

Fiat Lux

Me too, what can I say, its a gift.

borg

Don't be such a fascist, enjoy the dissent.

let me be frank

Hold on I'll get on my yellow scarf.

that last was funny...

Frank, thanks.

"...the folks who pinned the tail on CJ were folks who were tired of loosing elections." How nice for you. I will tell you what I am tired of: I am tired of being out of a job. I am tired of watching the food bank line-ups grow and grow. I am tired of the cold, wet, and hungry homeless people on our streets. I am tired of the fact that a few well-fed people can distract from the issues that I and thousands of others are facing by spouting bullshit about 'dissent' and'democracy'. Those honourable concepts have been preverted and abased, in my opinion, by those who cannot see the bigger picture.

Frank centrist vs left

Who is saying a more inspiriational leader would be more left, right, center, up or down? Balance is a big word, a good leader would be able to do that and reduce voter apathy at the same time. Remember we are talking about the electorate (the people who watch TV and read the MSM)not the NDP brass. The problem James lacked a sufficient sense of presence in the real world, and did not convey the importance of issues (like the energy policy and related environmental issues) with the amount she did have.

Let's hope someone with

Let's hope someone with ability to lead (vision, charisma, respect for others, lack of baggage from past mistakes, etc.) can quickly be identified and put in place.

get a life

Frank says: "Lead, follow or get out of the way..
I've chosen none of the above."

Good for you, now please get a life!
Your whining is irritating

motorcycleguy

Its kinda obvious to me the next leader won't be from the centre. Which is fine, I expect that I have to compromise and wait my turn.

But having my leader forced out in a mutiny after years of enduring constant attacks on her and people calling her names like harpy, shrill, pathetic and so on I've kinda lost my will to compromise with such people as Seth and CanadianLatitude and alive and others.

So I see nothing wrong with calling myself a loyal Dipper as I attack your side for the next 5 or 10 years.

As you guys would say, nothing wrong with dissent, unity is for fascists.

alive

[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

Frank

Settle down big guy. From one fascist to another be quiet, people are going to catch on to our act.

borg

I'm starting to like you

A Party Greatly Divided

Is hardly a political party that stands a chance in the next election but the 13 are happy because the trusted NDP leader is out of the race along with untrustworty Campbell.
One thing the Liberals do is stand behind their leader no matter the cost, even Simpson can confess to that as surely Campbell left Simpson speechless when he was an Liberal MLA.

ungracious exit

In her vitriolic exit news conferences, Carol James showed she didn't have what it takes to be leader. Instead of actually bowing out gracefully "for the good of the party", she left dropping grenades on the bridges that could lead to unity. She sounded petty and bitter without any acknowledgment that she may have contributed to the breakdown. Nor did she give any credit for honourable intent to the dissidents (no matter how much she disagreed with their positions). All signs of someone with too fragile an ego.
I hate to say it, but Gordo did a better job of leaving.

I'm optimistic the party can rebuild and be better without her.

What are voters looking for

After the Liberal rein, someone voters can trust. Trust just dosen't happen it takes time to establish as Carol James well knows because it is something I continually hear about James from even those who are not into her leadership, James is someone you can trust.

Anarchists and Being Frank with Frank...

"Jenny Quan and the other social democrats who ousted James are about as anarchist as Gordon Campbell!" Anarcho

Good one, anarcho. Reading here, you know that a lot of these folks, including Schreck, don't even know an anarchist from a toadstool. It's good you provided them with some reference material. :-) lol

"I actually agree with your post, the honesty was refreshing, you guys on the Left hate those of us who are closer to the centre and you want us out so you can "renew" and build a brand that you agree with and which excludes us." Frank.

"Hate?" Now that's a little strong Frank. We, at least most of us, don't hate you. :-)

Think you Centrists, who are really pretty much right of centre in practise, are harmful to the creation of a truly progressive "people friendly" movement, countering the political and economic crimes of the "business friendly" cabal? Which is the real question.

You bet.

I think you guys and gals, which includes Moe and Glen, past tense Carole, and obviously at least a goodly number of the Provincial Exec of the NDP, AND not least, a lot of the current trade union leadership crowd, are in fact the main obstacles to the organizing of a working class fightback against this extreme right wing capitalism period. What y'all seem to really want to do is, get in bed with them, through the Liberal Party back door. :-) No pun intended.

But hate ya? Nah. We just want to defeat y'all, wherever you are, in the sense of isolate you from leadership and exerting control over the political and economic policy direction of the NDP and the Trade Unions. (Though perhaps, in the interests of "unity", you could be left alone in a few minor posts. :-) Know what I mean?)

After that, in this still hypothetical univers, it's up to you centre to centre-right whether you go or stay. If you promised to behave, I'd hope you stay actually. :-) lol (From the Globe story on Carole this morning.) Though my expectation is that you would all choose to join Dosanjh and Rae in the Liberal Party... which it seems is where y'all have really wanted to be anyway, for a long time now.

Peace, Frank. You know this is real politics as well as I do. So does Zalm, for all his whining here. Afterall, you've had the Left on that same short end of the stick now, ever since the Cold War and McCarthyism.

It's just a different time, Frank, and the tide is turning again. That's life.

This is one of those fights Frank, you know that, which just has to be fought. :-)

coyote

Except for the part about calling me a right-winger (and you've known me for 7 years), I agree with pretty much everything you said. And yes, I liked Dosanjh, Clark, Harcourt and Skelly which puts me way to the Right of you.

There's just no way you and I can be in the same party unless one of is a "token" I guess.

Fact is, I have to figure out where to go unless I want to continue to be a barrier to your new uber left-wing party.

The Liberals and NDP are both in flux and who knows where they'll both end up. If the Libs move left there'll be a vacuum on the right. If the NDP moves left there'll be a vacuum in the centre.

If the Libs move left enough I could become a BC Liberal if they'd take me, wouldn't that be fun around here?

A thought.

Truth is nobody won! Nobody would have won if things had stayed the same! Schreck is as guilty as anyone of engaging in an irrational debate with hyperbole and name calling. His political analysis is seriously flawed. If you are bitter take some time but name calling will only make it worse. If you are gloating, then don't as there is nothing to gloat about. The victory wasn't yesterday, it will be 2013. The jury was and is still out on that one.

Some people believe the NDP snatched defeat from the jaws of victory but that victory was not "in the bag" by any stretch. That was the problem and I dare anyone to tell me that there were no better performers in the legislature than James. If you talk to the swing voter rather than the loyal ND, you get a different picture.

So cool the exaggerations and the rhetoric because whatever your goals, you won't reach them that way. And, that goes double for you David.

Frank re sides

I think you are missing a big point...there are a lot of people not on any side and cannot be counted as one of "you guys".... other than being on the side very opposed to Campbell policies. That is the problem, though I voted NDP, there is a potential for many more to do so in the future. James has failed to inspire a significant portion of the apathetic, non voting (to date) electorate to side with the NDP. I think that is a valid remark. The chance to slow down the disastrous policies put in place by Campbell has been missed twice now. Time for action. At the very least time for someone to catch the attention of "us guys" and actively raise awareness of these policies amongst all "those guys" who are currently not doing anything.

ungracious exit my ass

There was nothing wrong with the way Carole James announced her intentions - and nothing wrong with what she said. Unless you have a problem with the truth.

As the democratically elected leader of a party polling at, remind me, was that 47%, she had every right to expect that the people who wanted her out would either put up or shut up.

But that's not what happened - the Proto Maoist gang of 13 instead threatened to take their 'fight' to the streets and that's what they did. The people who have destroyed the NDP - and that's exactly what they've done - are the ones who:

a)didn't play by the rules, and;

b)didn't have the courage of their convictions to resign and exit stage left (or right as the case may be) - they simply moved their little protest into higher gear and started smashing furniture.

Carole James simply told it like it was - sorry if the picture isn't very flattering.

This is what she said:
"But I have to tell you that the alternative of having 13 people walk away, and our party spending time and energy trying to rebuild those ridings, trying to bring back those individuals, and spending another three months divided...isn't an alternative either."

That's not ungracious and it's certainly not bitter - but it's the truth and it's about time people admitted it.

Carole James stepped down to save a party that - given the character of the Maoist 13 - probably isn't worth the trouble. As for the three months of chaos – she was way too optimistic about that.

Jerry,

Just so I’m clear, what you’re actually saying is that you want things to get a hell of a lot worse so we can find a consensus about making them better – I think you and VivianLea need to talk – my reading of the tea leaves tells me things are pretty bad already and all the politicians can do is fight about scarves and who said what when.

My conclusion? We’re royally fucked – depending upon this bunch to save the day isn’t going to work.

Can you find a nice piece of land out in the boondocks where I can build a cabin?

her exit was just fine. she had every right to be even angrier.

I agree, Carole James just told the truth. She was forced out by bullies who used blackmail and threats. Why should she lie about that? Would you feel good and be smiling if someone came into your workplace, held a gun to your head and said "quit, or else".

Carole told it like it was.

Yup. So did all the others. They were elected by their constituents just like she was and they took direction from their constituents but they should have quietly resigned. So now an angry group of loyal Carole supporters is doing everything they accused the "Maoist 13" of doing. Maoist 13! Holy crap where did that come from?? Maybe some of you guys should light a large dobie and inhale....deeply.

I seem to recall David

I seem to recall David saying a few years ago that the NDP should have a single vote for each member. which is what Jenny was asking for last week. So who was right Jenny or David?

The Centrist Establishment Within James's NDP

Carole James said:

"Over the last two months, we’ve seen some members of our caucus decide to use their time and energy in-fighting instead of working on behalf of British Columbians," she claimed. "I and many others have made efforts to try and resolve this issue. We’ve reached out; we’ve tried to get people back to work."

And Charlie Smith responded in a article in The Straight:

That if "the dissenting MLAs weren't working on behalf of British Columbians, then why was one of her critics, Jenny Kwan, out at a public forum on the weekend dealing with aboriginal women's concerns about the missing women inquiry?"

....And why was Lana Popham and Michael Sather Michael Sather, "the only ones who expressed a serious interest in saving farmland that will be paved over by the South Fraser Perimeter Road?"

Smith goes on:

"It's absurd for James to suggest that Kwan, Popham, Sather, and other dissenters were not working for British Columbians. But I digress.

"In her resignation speech, James neglected to mention, of course, that her personal approval rating was nearly as low as Gordon Campbell's.

Nor did she acknowledge that she never consulted with the membership after the 2009 loss before brazenly declaring that she would lead the party into the 2013 election.

James maintained today that she has "always believed that more is accomplished by working together than continuing the old divides".

The reality is that those MLAs who privately approached her with concerns about her leadership were hung out to dry in public and in full view of the media in the infamous yellow-scarf affair. That's hardly a sign of "working together"."

The Centrist Establishment Within James's NDP contd.

Charlie Smith continues:

"Narcissism and politics go hand in hand. But the degree to which James seems incapable of seeing the world through the dissenters' eyes is astonishing.

Meanwhile, her loyalists in caucus—Mike Farnworth, Bruce Ralston, John Horgan, and others—have had a free ride under James to swing the party to the right.

They have been cheered along by three mainstream-media journalists: Gary Mason, Keith Baldrey, and Vaughn Palmer.

I have trouble recalling if James, Farnworth, Ralston, or Horgan ever came under criticism from the Mason-Baldrey-Palmer troika. Contrast that with the vicious denunciations they dished out against the dissenters within caucus.

On CKNW Radio today, Palmer called them a bunch of "lightweights". Mason previously suggested the move to oust James was rooted, in part, in sexism. And Baldrey claimed on Global TV over the weekend that the dissenters couldn't even function as a caucus, even though most are veteran politicians who've worked together for years.

These establishment commentators all heartily approved of James's centrist approach, even if it ran against the grain of the party's history of standing up to the establishment.

I'm left wondering if James paid far more attention to what mainstream-media journalists were saying than what members of her own caucus might have thought. If so, it's no wonder that some MLAs launched a putsch against her leadership."

GWest re cabin

You won't find a place of solitude that is free from bottom draining of alpine lakes, strung out with powerlines, cordoned off by penstock clearcuts or has a river that has not been diverted.....with more places getting closer to EAO approval every day....this is not an exaggeration and irreversible once built....this is but one example of an issue that has lacked passion in speeches by James. No passion no votes.......and then, no cabin.

Unbelievable!

Now our "anarchists" have morphed into "Maoists". Gosh, when will the hyperbole end? I haven't seen this much high-blown sectarian babble since my university days 40 years ago when we anarchists had to take on the Bainsites - (CPC-ML)

Since there is this much hostility with the right wing of the NDP, I fully understand the existence of a sectarian attitude toward the Green Party, something that has had me scratching my head in wonder for years.

Maybe you all should do a little growing up. If someone like myself from the very farthest of the far left can be non-sectarian and discuss politics with other lefties without resorting to a lot of hostility, surely you "reasonable and moderate" folks ought to be able to!

The Rest of Your Life....

First, in my last post of this auspicious day, I urge everyone to read Lynn's post directly above me here.

Then, Frank, "There's just no way you and I can be in the same party unless one of is a "token" I guess."

Read Frank's post immediately above as well, from which this quote was taken. For Frank is being really honest here, in my view, for the very first time over the course of this discussion. (Maybe the last 7 years.) This post utterly defines the issue at the root of the differences here, between he and I, the caucus I am less sure of, and I think within the NDP membership... that of in which direction, continuing to the Right and more "business friendly", or back to more traditional defending and serving the "people's interest".

Frank, and the establishment of the NDP, for Carole was not expressing her own vision in her advocacy of a Blairist, more "business friendly" direction for the NDP, implacably want this direction to continue. And as Frank says, otherwise he will more than likely have to join his mentor Dosanjh, and jump over to the Liberals.

Something deep rooted in the psyche, even schizophrenic contradictions of the NDP is happening here folks. And these contradictions have to be worked out and fought out before the NDP can really move forward in any seriously meaningful way... and that may have to result in a split of sorts. Face the grim facts.

You've got at least half the Party that really wants to serve the ruling class "business friendly" interest. Frank being one of them. The other half, at least I presume, though it may actually be more than half, wants to serve the folks of which Vivianleadoubt speaks... working class folks going through increasingly difficult times.

Are these two sides really reconcilable?

I don't think so. Somebody has to go, like in any bad marriage... before both can get on with their lives.

Wake up and smell the coffee, folks. This is perhaps, on the one hand, your worst nightmare. On the other, it could be really just the beginning of a whole new adventure and world of possibilities... the rest of your life.

Oh, and do celebrate this day. You have indeed had a wee victory. Depending upon your point of view, of course. :-)lol

Love and nighty-night. I have horses and a barn cat to feed.

From David to David...

... I have to say this article was a short, steaming load.

For starters, those who objected to James leadership came from all across the political spectrum, so to dismiss them as "anarchists" is a symptom of being a sore loser, is grossly inaccurate, not to mention hyperbolic. No one has a divine right to leadership. And if you quash any attempts to have a formal OMOV leadership review process (as has been done in the BC NDP for the last seven plus years) you should expect people to rebel.

Second, maybe you have noticed, but NDP membership numbers and donations were already down to historical minimums. Your friend Moe Sihota himself has admitted this. It seems that there will be more people drifting to the party than drifting away from it. I for one must confess something, I let my membership lapse. I stopped donating too, after watching the terrible (from both a political and a policy standpoint) campaign in 2009. I've rejoined and I'm going to start making regular donations of time and money too.

Third, most leaders who aren't doing well don't go quietly. Stockwell Day, Joe Clark, Gordon Wilson, Mike Harcourt, John Turner, etc, etc. Their parties still won the next election (or the election after that). Your hyperbolic predictions of doom and gloom will be proven wrong.

Back to the roots

Now that Ms James has resigned the party must return to the fundamentals of policy. Social justice and egalitarianism...front and foremost...the pandering to the corporate sector should end and it they don't want to play...then nationalise the industry and keep the profit in the province instead of sending it out in the form of dividends to foreign shareholders...

she's real fine my 409

I get it.

Give it a rest already Schreck

It is because of attitudes and approaches by folks like James and you, Schreck, that the NDP here has become basically irrelevant, and has lost significant support of unions.

People here don't vote FOR the NDP, they're voting AGAINST Campbell's Liberals. You guys are just to bitter and myopic to see that. The advances in the polls by the NDP more likely have to do with dissatisfaction with the Liberals than as support for the NDP.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see anything wrong with those folks who stood by James' side--even though I, for one (among many apparently)--realized she had to go. However, how James left, and how some of her supporters 'supported' her (by slagging and attempting to intimidate others) is as inappropriate as it is inexcusable.

The good news? Well, James' will now join you on the sidelines.

Face it: you old guard were put out to pasture for good reason...and, honestly, given your tactics: good riddance.

Maybe now someone will step into the NDP leadership that I can vote FOR...

Pity the NDP Didn't Support the Cirizens' Assembly

If the NDP had supported the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation that we adopt a proportional representation system in 2005 or 2009, then the NDP would be in much better shape to weather their current troubles, rather than facing the possibility of annihilation. Under STV or other forms of PR, the two wings of the NDP would each continue to be able to elect candidates they support and the overall representation of NDP-supporting voters would not decrease. Unfortunately, under our current Single Member Plurality voting system, which Schreck supports, NDP-supporting voters might well find themselves in the next election without a candidate they can support and will likely suffer disproportionate under-representation when the votes are counted. As a strong opponent of PR (in fact, as a key leader of the official opponent group), Schreck must shoulder significant responsibility if NDP supporters are unable to elect their fair share of progressive candidates in the next provincial election. I hope that the next leader of the NDP will make a clear commitment to implementing PR if ever elected again.

Oh I think I can find a cabin somewhere

In fact, I spent last weekend in Tofino and returned, ignorant, for the most part, to this sodden spectacle of a party more concerned with eating its own than attacking the Liberals.

The fact is, like it or lump it, you can't make any real changes in this province without the power of a majority in the legislature...

If you honestly believe attaining power is more probable now than it was two months ago then I obviously won't disabuse you of that idea anytime soon; and, I'd suggest, you're not going to convince me of the reciprocal of that proposition either.

As for the Maoist reference - I've just read a book about the Gang of four and political manipulation - I think it was entirely apt....

Have a look at Jenny Kwan's manifesto one more time and tell me specifically and precisely exactly what she's complaining about.

You want to make a case for what you've done Ms Kwan, I'm open to persuasion, but that list of tortured 'feelings' and unrealized 'hopes' just doesn't do it for me.

She was a member of an OPPOSITION PARTY - not a cabinet minister in a government with real power.

There IS A DIFFERENCE. A gang or four - or thirteen - or whatever - who can't manage to operate within the democratic rules of the party they all belong to and practice the necessary self-discipline to earn the chance to submit their record to the people of the province for their judgment - is going to have a tough time of it whenever the next election comes round.

Anarchists?

Not a good time to attack the Baker's Dozens, after listening to the most disgraceful and divisive resignation speech.
High road vs. low road. Bad choice.

David Shreck is Absolutely Right

I remember back around 1995 or 1996 and the backroom powers that be in the NDP had decided Mike Harcourt had to fall on the sword and resign over the BingoGate scandal. It was all done with little fuss. The NDP won an election shortly after.

Not so this time. Those "Bulls in the China Shop", otherwise known as the "Baker's Dozen", blundered their way through a huge public spectacle and made the NDP look like a bunch of school kids fighting behind the backstop.

Now that the amateur tactics of these MLAs have been exposed, the public is not going to be inclined to think that the NDP is ready to govern.

As much as I agree that Carole James was not an effective leader, the extremely poor judgement shown by these 13 should disqualify them from any chance at the leader's job.

I agree

When you start a knife fight don't be surprised if there's some blood on the furniture afterwards.

The Maoist 13 were playing for keeps remember?

I think the suggestion that James took the low road is a little rich don't you? In fact, she resigned for the good of what's left of the party.. "Some degree of ignominy always attends a situation of this kind.. Treachery and falsehood are vices so dangerous, so dreadful, and, at the same time, such as may so easily, and, upon many occasions, so safely be indulged, that we are more jealous of them than of almost any other." (Adam Smith).

There is never disgrace in telling it like it is - especially in politics where truth and honesty are always at a premium.

Thanks coyote

I think you should make up a sign of all the people you guys don't want in the NDP.

Centrists, Metis, shrill women, school board trustees, social workers, the whole 9 yards.

It would make it much easier when you're trying to drum up support, the rest of us would know not to bother you.

coyote

By the way, if the NDP can't keep the centre-left on board your chances of ever winning an election in BC are about the same as Chris Delaney's, but with less potential.

motorcycleguy

I appreciate what you had to say to me there.

x4estworker

There is no comparison between the way Harcourt's made his exit and the way James made hers. Harcourt did his with class and he had every right to be bitter.

lynn

If you are still checking this section let me say that you nailed it and did it solidly. I for one thought that Palmer's endorsement of James' leadership would surely be the kiss of death and it was. These liberal mouthpieces get their noses out of joint every time they find out that they are not as influential as the think and that they are only legends in their own minds.

It suits their agenda not to check their facts. Most times their written opinions suit a particular point of view that they formed long ago - facts be damned.

Now we will be treated to all kinds of fear mongering about socialists and unionists. It seems rather odd that suddenly Moe paid buy a union (no problem with that) give Carol bad advice which she takes and it is a conflict between the left and moderates.

Heavens if we all listen to the likes of Mason, Palmer and Baldrey we might as well all drink the laced Koolaid. After all didn't they give us Campbell, give him a cushy ride all this time and now they want to determine who the next NDP leader is? What a crock!

I'm afraid of anarchists!

Anarchists -- scary, scary. Does David Schreck have a clue what anarchism is?

Meanwhile, back in the real world... It may be unfortunate, but in order to win office, a party leader needs political charisma, and regardless of whatever good qualities she may have, Carole James definitely doesn't have that one. With her at the helm, the NDP was almost certainly headed for another defeat. She should have stepped down immediately after the last election, but seemed to think she had a divine mandate to lead the party for as long as she chose to.

If Christy Clark is the next premier, the NDP is going to have a tough time. But if they choose a leader of their own who has the royal jelly, at least they'll have a fighting chance. So all in all, the party is now in better shape than it was a couple of days ago.

Moe

Who cares, he was paid by the NDP and the money came from unions. What was it? $70,000? That's about 1/100th of what corporations give to the Liberals.

It was just an excuse to attack Carole.

The New Modern, Reformed Rules

The NP will need to re-jig their leadership election procedures in advance of the convention...

May I suggest 84%+1 of the membership vote to be elected,

and 16%+1 of the membership and/or 40% of caucus to be de-elected

@skywalker

"Maoist 13! Holy crap where did that come from?? Maybe some of you guys should light a large dobie and inhale....deeply."

I haven't heard anyone call them Maoists, but I should kindly just remind you that Jeffrey J said yesterday on this website that the whole ousting of Carole James by the 13 rebels was, and I quote:

"thousands of savvy activists" engaging in "a massive populist uprising."

I actually spat out my food when I read that. 13 people is somehow thousands. And a letter placed on the desk of Carole James somehow turns into a "massive uprising".

Odd comments are coming from all sides.

VivianLeaDoubt

"Now start leading, will you?"

What?

Bospade

"I've been a party member for over 35 years and have done everything from door knocking to fundraising and have even sat on Provincial Council but for the past seven years I have sat quietly by while James underperformed."

I very much doubt you are who you say you are. If you were sitting "on the sidelines" in 2003, that means you've been no part of the group that tried to resurrect the NDP after its disastrous 1996 experiment with 'five year plans'.

Ordinarily I'd say that qualifies you for a healthy measure of my disrespect, but in this cse, I think you're actually a BC Fiberal plant sent over to register by the PAB to see what shit you can stir up. Nobody else who truly had a leftist worldview would make such an elementary mistke.

Besides, your bovver boots and the Surete tattoo gave you away. Like Frank said, "GO AWAY."

Anarchists

Well said David Shreck. If the anarchists had a coherent platform and a credible leader they would have looked better. However, they distinguished themselves only by the viciousness of their attack. Now we have no leader. Look at all the vitriol above - more interest in kicking family members in the teeth than in going out and bringing home the bacon. Maybe we can recover, but they have done more harm than they know.

End the name calling

We would all be better off if we could accept that people can disagree with each other even if everyone has the best of intentions.

Let's not call each other names and demonize people we disagree with.

Jerry Munro, you’re not making sense.

”But, if the "Business Friendly Gang" (BFG) succeed at diverting your attention from "getting the politics right" here , as they are attempting to do, so that the Party is properly girded for the ideas battle that is going to have to be waged, the momentum secured around this small defeat of the BFG will have been lost.”

Business friendly gang? You mean like Ed Deak? He’s a businessman, or at least, he’s trying to stay in business. So is Dave, the Tamil migrant who does our church’s printing; he started his own printing business after three years of working for Kinkos, among others. So is my local Iranian deli proprietor, who, besides making available zatar and other delicacies and staples that I occasionally buy, may charge a slightly higher price than Walmart which I am happy to pay, if only so I don’t have to challenge the suk-mentality of the throngs that swarm Stupidstore looking for the best deal on a 96-pack of toilet paper. I buy from my friends as often as possible, because I have the privilege and the money to do so. Who do you buy your toilet paper from?

Who you calling ‘business-friendly’, you independantiste lout? I shouldn’t have to remind you that the very unions you now excoriate as “lost in the wilderness” were set up to protect ordinary workers that you claim to speak for from the predations of rapacious capitalists, who are nothing like ordinary businessmen and women. If they don’t speak for you now, perhaps you should have a look at who’s changed more - them or you? They may have fat and comfy behinds in fat and comfy chairs, but they fought hard against Catalyst trying to reduce their tax bill at the expense of the municipalities - read, ordinary workers and business people who would have had to make up the difference in town services and funding.

If nothing else, you should have an ugly on at incorporated big business - that truly is the enemy of all progressives everywhere. I suspect that’s who you meant. But you didn’t say that - you excoriated everyone who is the least bit different than yourself. I swear, you must not get into town much - there’s close on 4 million people in this province who are quite unlike you in their thinking, although they may admire your poetic attitude and robust language.

Politics is the art of the possible (Rab Butler)

It is im-possible to do anything unless you have been elected, and damn near im-possible to do anything unless you have a majority. (You may prefer Galbraith who said “Politics is not the art of the possible, but merely the choice between the disastrous and the unpalatable”; or Mao - “Politics is merely war without blooshed”)

So what have you done to get progressives into a majority? How exactly do you think you’re going to get people interested in “getting the politics and economics correct” when most of us don’t even have a grasp of the various ways in which we’re being shafted? When we’re too busy scratching away at our “six bux sux” low-wage jobs in unsafe workplaces to devote any energy to thought when we get home? I don’t blame people in this kind of situation who just want to sit in front of their soma-set when they get home - I merely respect those much more who actually get out of their chairs after a disillusioning day like that to go out and give some more to their society.

I’m being rhetorical - you’re not the least bit interested in politics. I’ve never known you right from your Coyote days to be anything but disdainful of the whole process. Well, I’m certainly glad you get to keep your hands and your morals clean while you pass by on the other side in your pure, white Pharisee robes. You’re a philosopher, trying to awaken in us a view that we’ve not thought of before. But you insist on doing it in a political arena, which is chock-full of different points of view, compromises, arguments, evidence, statistics and exceptions. It isn’t working. All it’s doing is building walls around us. You and Frank really, truly, aren’t that far apart in how you live your lives. But to listen to you talk about “want to defeat y’all”.... Man, if you really beleive that, you’re so far left, I can’t even see you from the last bend in the east road out of Lower Bumfuck.

Listen, we’ve a King Herod to get rid of, he’s surrounded by Roman legions, and you’re out there looking for a Jesus figure in white robes who talks in obscure parables that won’t have any meaning for decades. We need a Barabbas, not a Jesus, someone to fight against the greater evil that ordinary people might have a chance at life today! Stop being obstreperous simply for the sake of being so, and listen for once.

But don’t sully the name of progressive leftists by building walls around us any more. It’s disgraceful. And it’s not Coyote.

Skywalker

Re: a thought

Nice words, I actually do agree.

Now, you lead. You've obviously got the vision, although I can't quite make out what it is, yet.

And I'm not holding a knife. But I am watching carefully.

There are businesses and

There are businesses and businesses, as there's an occasional glass of wine, or beer, and alcoholism by the bottle.

The same goes for "investment"

What our "business friendly" friends don't seem realize is what Galbraith said 50 years ago: "The purpose of competition is to eliminate competition"

We can see the progress of Soviet style collectivization into the hands of a multinational corporate mafia, using deregulated money creation as weapons of conquest, now controlling the world's food supplies by killing tens of millions every year by starvation, and controlling all political parties and governments.

And this is called "democracy" and "free enterprise"?

Ed Deak.

alcm and zalm

alcm, it was GWest who called them "the Maoist 13". How could you have missed that. As for Zalm, who said I wanted to lead. I'd prefer to follow someone who knows how to lead. As for your knife, it needs sharpening.

It also occured to me...

..that I have never seen David Schreck attack the Campbell liberals on their worst day as viciously as he attacked the 13 MLA's. I wonder why?

Skywalker

I've never seen CanadianLatitude or Seth attack the Liberals to the degree they attack Carole James.

I wonder why?

A bit overblown David

This isn't the first time the NDP has gone through something like this and it won't be the last.

Nor will it be the last time the right-wing party in BC will shoot a leader be they nominally Liberal or Socred.

I suppose you'd rather that the cracks in the NDP were kept papered over going into the next election, whenever it might take place, regardless of the internal problems.

Both you and I are old enough to remember the Barrett-Berger battles that cost the NDP the 1969 election, emininently winnable had the party even been close to united behind the leader of the time, Tom Berger.

If that's not enough we can both remember poor Bob Skelly who went into an election with a seriously divided party and the NDP got their collective heads handed to them as a result.

It happens to the "other" side too. Vander Zalm manipulated the rules in the Social Credit Party to paper over divisions over his leadership and we all know what happened to the Socreds in the next election.

More recently the federal Liberals went into an election divided over the leadership of Stephane Dion and lost an election they likely ought to have won.

See a pattern here?

Quite a number of these "anarchists" are doing nothing more than listening to their constituents who, by and large, are not the least bit impressed by the leadership qualities Ms James displayed while leader, particularly since the 2009 election after which she, and the party, became practically invisible.

An election, incidentally, which left many of us wondering just who was writing up the platform on the fly and which envelope they were scratching it out on. It was the worst NDP campaign in BC I can remember by far.

That invisiblity alone was an indication of some bad cracks opening up in the caucus and the party which Ms James was unable or unwilling to overcome.

No one, not the "anarchists", not party members or those of us who have drifted away doubts the work Ms James put into rebuilding the legistlative party after she became leader in 2003. Nor does anyone doubt her sincerity or her motivations on the Opposition benches or the Government benches.

Her time, though, had passed. For everyone in leadership there comes a time to move on. I wish it had happened more gracefully and that Ms James didn't need to be cornerned to do it but I've not seen flying pigs recently, either.

In the end Ms James was done in by the distance between the grassroots of the party which are the constituency assoications, as we both know, and Ms James and/or her advisors.

Thank you, Carole for all your work on our behalf. Now it's time to move on. You've done tremendous work and we're all grateful for that.

It's time for you to get over your hurt feelings, too, David and move on. Both you and I know that this is part of the blood sport called BC Politics. We've both been around too long and seen to much to hold onto hurt feelings when there's other work to be done.

NDP Liberals and The Left I...

"If you are still checking this section let me say that you nailed it and did it solidly. I for one thought that Palmer's endorsement of James' leadership would surely be the kiss of death and it was. These liberal mouthpieces get their noses out of joint every time they find out that they are not as influential as the think and that they are only legends in their own minds." Skywalker.

True.

As for the critique of Frank, of myself and my views... I do believe, that while it is my view that much of the current leadership of the NDP and trade union movement needs to be gone "from their leadership positions", and I hold to that, I would only add, OR change their politics more in line with the "working class friendly" times need. Rather than being so obsessively "business friendly".

Business, if nothing else, has proved historically entirely capable of looking after itself quite well, thank you very much. (With subsidies as taxes and low wages from the working class, of course. And bailouts as not infrequently needed.)

That said, I also said, while I think "some" Liberal Party types in NDP clothing need to perhaps reassess their more proper political place, I also indicated that I would just as soon, they stayed in the NDP. For a number of important reasons. :-) Which we won't get into right here. Just not as the majority leadership of the NDP or the trade union movement. (Which is just my personal view.)

So, it is necessary to be accurate when criticizing... Frank and Zalm being frequently distortive. But most folks get that I think.

As for Zalm thinking I see myself as Jesus in White Robes, let me just say, though I admire him in many regards, in many others he is simply full of shit. If he thinks I could successfully pass myself off as Jesus, he clearly doesn't know me. :-) And those that do will now be laughing their asses off. (I see you!)

Though Zalm, I think I likely understand the gritty and grim realities of politics as much as you do. :-) It hasn't been a walk in the park for anyone on the Serious Left of Canadian politics for a very, very long time now. Not since the McCarthy and Cold War days, which are still with us in many ways. And what would make you think that such as I don't understand that perfect solutions like the perfect society will not drop down out of God's Heaven fully formed? But will have to be built of dint of struggle and hard work? :-)

continued next post...

NDP Liberals and The Left II...

from previous post...

And we really are still just at the beginning of this "shifting political winds" period. Much is still unclear. Thee and me both will still have to wait a bit and see what falls out of this shaken tree the neocons have planted. :-) Because there is a level at which the mass of folks do have to indicate, on their own, what they are prepared and not prepared to do. I understand that too.

I in no way see myself as The Sacrificial Lamb. Been there and done that.

But I am prepared to do whatever proves to be necessary AND possible... with that not being entirely clear to me yet either, as much as likely anyone. Though I will NOT, at my age (72 today. :-) waste my time. What's left of it and my good health is too, too precious.

See... I really do not know as much as you clearly think you do.

All the best on your 72nd,

All the best on your 72nd, Jerry.....I remember well those good, youthful days, so, enjoy them while they last.

Ed Deak

I agree, Skywalker

Skywalker said:

"There is no comparison between the way Harcourt's made his exit and the way James made hers. Harcourt did his with class and he had every right to be bitter."

I agree with you and would add one more point.

Harcourt was given the "bum's rush" by the backroom NDP power brokers at the very first opportunity. He had very little direct involvement with the BingoGate affair and should not have been hung out to dry over it. He was doing a pretty good job as Premier.

James, on the other hand, hung on for far too long and should have been persuaded to resign after the last election.

So where were the NDP backroom Machiavellis when we really needed them? Much better some quiet backroom coup than the juvenile and very public slugfest we just witnessed.

There's a good reason to

There's a good reason to believe that the backroom Machiavellis, known as the SEIC, (Steely Eyed Inner Core) by disgruntled NDP-ers, have been the cause of this whole mess, by misleading their victim.

The question is, how to get rid of them, before they do more damage ?

Ed Deak.

alcm - it was me - I make NO apologies

It was precisely that kind of thing I had in mind when I decided to call the gang the Maoist 13...Nothing but vague generalities, emotional nonsense and a complete lack of empirical evidence for their little campaign of destruction.

How would anyone respond to Kwan's stream of consciousness in a rational way? She "feels" bad because opposition politics isn't turning around all the things she 'really' cares about?

C'mon, give me a break.

Still, happy birthday Jerry - may you see many more, tight cinches and loose reins my friend.

But, I still wish you'd answer the question I posed though: Do you really think the only way to institute positive change for the people who really need it is by totally destroying the society and the system we have today?

I know it ain't perfect, but, as Ed says, revolutions and wars aren't very pretty either.

Cheers.

Ed Deak

A lot easier said than done. This is the NDP's "Old Boys and Girls Network" we are talking about here. They run the party and ask the grassroots for input when it is convenient for them. As much as the NDP pretends to be egalitarian, it really isn't.

You just don't "get rid of them".

Skywalker

Thanks, Skywalker, but all credit for that quoted section goes to Charlie Smith, whose astute analysis of recent events I thought was worth posting here....because he clears up some of the false assumptions about the 13 MLA's. This was no off the cuff, whim of a move by Jenny and the other MLA's - think of the years of involved - and that they must have afforded Ms. James many chances to invigorate the party and articulate and bring the critical issues to the fore. But nothing ever changed.

What they did was courageous - and not 'distasteful and vulgar' as VivianLea has called it. Dissent and democratic principles are important in changing policy, otherwise any kind of addressing of dire community issues become almost impossible if policies made in Victoria make them increasingly harder to address.

I agree, Skywalker, it's funny and ironical stuff watching Baldry, Palmer, and Mason making such a tragedy of this all, and suddenly feigning so much concern for the future of the NDP.....all according to script of course.

Ed makes a good point about the SEIC above as well.....it's always a good idea to follow the puppet's strings back to the puppeteer.

To those saying Shreck is wrong

To those saying Shreck is wrong, I point you to a paragraph from an opinion piece written in the Tyee Oct 8, 2010 and quoting Bob Simpson:

Riddle me this - what kind of member of a political party, and MLA at that, does not mention their leader in a speach in FOUR YEARS!!!

The only mistake Carole made was in not being quick enough to execise the rot. How can a leader have the support of the public when the party's own MLA's never mention her? How often did you hear "Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals"?

Carole's farewell speach was articulate and to the point - when will the NDP stop being their own worst enemy? The problem was never Carole, the problem was members of the party who put their own personal agendas above getting elected. By Simpson's own words he, and others like him, put personal interests ahead of party interests.

Carole James - the female Mike Harcourt of the NDP.

Me.

Pootle

The NDP under James attracted a lot of drek. This obsession with distancing themselves from the New Democrat origins left them open to every opportunist from the Green movement to the soft or left leaning liberals. There are a few others who should never have been given the nod to run for the NDP. I have argued that Bob Simpson should not have been fired by her for his actions. There should have been a caucus consultation and a vote. It might have produced less of a firestorm.

Be that as it may the issue for Carole is a lot deeper and the firing was only the tip of the iceberg. People will cut a strong leader a lot more slack than a weak one.

There are similarities between Harcourt and James but the manner of exiting is not one of them.

Much the same was said about Joan Smallwood

when she came out publicly against Harcourt.

And after Harcourt left, Clark was premier.

The whining and name calling by Schreck is as distasteful as was James' parting sermon.

Which leads me to believe he was part of Carole's inner circle, which created the problems that party members, such as myself, saw as a result of Carole's leadership (or lack thereof).

It's over David. Move on. Be relevant for a change.

Schreck's ignorance re political theory

According to Schreck the anarchists in the NDP won. Anarchists subscribe to the view that we can organize our social life without the coercion of the state or capitalist exploitation. I would like him to identify which of the 13 are in fact anarchists so I can vigorously defend them.
Secondly he speaks as if parliamentary democracy was democracy tout court but, for many, parliamentary democracy as a form of representative democracy is not democratic at all, given that it is a form of government in which citizens and political parties elect leaders to make all their decisions for them rather than being involved in that decision making themselves. This might better be described as as oligarchy with a democratic facade. Since the oligarchy that controlled the NDP under James increasingly reached out to the business community and turned its back on working people we can say that the James era NDP was led by an oligarchy that aspired to serve a business plutocracy, much as have the Liberals. I can only conclude then that Schreck is behaving like a poor sport because the attempt by the leaders of the NDP to politically represent the business plutocracy that rules our economy has run into a speed bump. What a shame.

Total Destruction I...

"All the best on your 72nd, Jerry" Ed Deak.

Thank you Ed.... and GWest.

Though the problem with responding to your charge GWest, is that I don't actually recall advocating, "...totally destroying the society and the system we have today?"

Though to be entirely honest, I guess my attitude much depends on what aspects of current society we are talking about. And I tried to make that clear further back in this NDP comment series, where Ed asked me how I thought a non-Party democratic and electoral system would work. (I will attempt to find my response to this query of Ed's.)

But basically, without getting too elaborate here, on the limited time I have, I think society has to make concrete moves away from the capitalist economic system and from its hierarchical Party System model.

1.)I think particularly that the corporate sector of capitalism needs to be moved on and "democratized" with all good dispatch. Ownership and control over same passing to the effected workers, unions and communities in which they function... NOT The State per se.

2.) I have a somewhat different attitude toward "small business"... a clear definition of which has to depend on the number of an enterprises workers, its criticalness to a community's economic base etc. But in general, truly small mom and pop business is not much different than tradesmen workers in many cases, or individual farmers. It is merely necessary to control them, and ensure the "equal" labour rights of their workers... pro-actively.

3.) I favour taking steps to move the democratic system away from the current Party system, which has been and largely remains an instrument for controlling the working class and taking the major initiatives and control out of the hands of this working class/community level population. (And like I say, I have spelt a model of this out.)

4.) I favour there being absolutely no data, policy or otherwise secrets held back from the working class population. They must be privy to all the books of everyone, and the decisions of such "executive branches" as will continue to be needed. All power must truly flow from this bottom societal level. In short I advocates sanctioned wikileaks across the whole of society.

continued next post...

Total Destruction II...

from previous post...

5.) I have no serious problems with the current agricultural/farming model... though I do favour supporting it, AND as appropriate "material assistance" to farmers and collective farmer interests who might "wish" to organize various kinds of "co-ops", building on and further democratizing the present ones, including marketing, wholesale and retail co-ops. All fully "democratized" to include the "workers" in these co-ops.

Current "corporate farms", like the Douglas Lake Cattle Co. near Merrit should be "democratized" along with the rest of the corporate sector. My view.

As for the "total destruction" you say I advocate, I'm sorry, but I don't see it. Though I am sure, the current ruling class might see it as "total destruction"... the end of their world.

But then, screw them. :-)

My hope would be, through these steps, to begin a "people controlled" process, that will lead in its good time to a quite different society result than this one.

But then, as I say, I suspect there will be other inputs to the model that actually arises. :-)

Power To The People... Seriously.

I'm off to take a birthday boy ride on Chinook, my soon to be 6 year old bay and white Paint, in the deep snow. Think I'll do it bareback... too cold on the fingies to saddle him up. :-)

For the sake...

... of your own enlightenment, David:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Also, though I support the NDP -- in the abstract, at least -- having a partisan (sub-partisan, even) hack writing personal invectives against factions in his own party is a threat to the Tyee's credibility.

Clearly, the Tyee makes no bones about its laudable agenda, but this is a bit much.

@Jerry Munro

I have a question, and I don't in any way mean this to be disrespectful....but there are Communist parties in Canada and BC - the CPC and the CPC-ML. I'm curious based on your views about why you don't support them?

I'm just honestly curious why a certain far left segment of society would support the NDP rather than those parties who you may have more in common with?

Again, no disrespect, I'm just curious.

Curious...

And no disrespect taken. :-)

I was at one time a member of the Communist Party of Canada, but came to some fundamental disagreements with them... many years ago now.

The disagreements fundamentally involved issues of democracy, support for the USSR at the time, opposition to the then invasion of Czechoslovakia by the USSR, and a growing realization on my part that really, the USSR was behaving more and more like a capitalist imperialist power. Which the CPC still continued to support.

Later borne out with their invasion of Afghanistan and the USSR's outright movement into a capitalist society. China later followed.

There were also problems with the CPC in particular... a top down view of what was called "democratic centralism", which actually all Parties known to me adhere to, including the NDP. Which we saw an example of play out in the events around Carole's leadership, in the form of her and the Prov. Execs insistance on unquestioning support for leadership and the Party line.

But to cut to the chase, I evolved into what "might" be more or less described as a kind of "libertarian communist", opposed in principle to vanguard parties all, and the role of the State under both capitalism, and its (the State's) predominance even in socialist-communist culture and ideology.

But really, I am my own kind of radical, neither really a communist fish or an NDP fowl. :-) I more simply, while trying to be a realist, want a more truly democratic society for the working class to which I belong, extended to the economy and its institutions/enterprises, (in the form of worker/community ownership and management of especially large scale enterprise) AND I advocate for an end to the Party system (which I expect to be a more evolutionary thing), and in this latter's place, an electoral/democratic system rooted in communities and citizen/working class control... directly, of politicians, not through the intervention of State bureaucracies or Parties etc.

Towards which ends, while I am NOT a member or even really a supporter of the NDP, I see it "potentially" playing a positive role in helping to achieve.

I hope I have answered your major questions. If you have any others

the power of the people

" In short I advocates sanctioned wikileaks across the whole of society."

Now that should stir some controversy ;-)...as we see today with the wikileaks response, 'the people' are electric in themselves.

Happy Birthday, Jerry.

I was thinking about making a donation again...

...then I saw Schreck's post on his site called "Put up or Shut up! That is soooo welcoming, I'm not sure now.

Thanks for that Jerry

I DO basically see you as supporting a complete 'destruction' of the current system...that's certainly the impression I get when I read you from time to time...

And, on principle, I don't much disagree that such a radical rooting out of what's ailing us would be a simple and antiseptic approach...

My problem stems from the observation that that kind of radical surgery frequently (and on historical evidence) leaves the patient severely handicapped - if not dead.

Add to that what seems to me to be a problem of displacement. Let me explain what I mean by that.

The destruction of the corporate capitalist system would, I'd argue, displace a lot of nominally innocent people - especially young people - who haven't really had a kick at the can as yet.

Much like wars 'displace' the younger generation by turning them into cannon fodder I see your kind of proposal - coming as it does from someone of a certain age - as being more than a little unfair to those actors who have hardly begun their time on stage.

I don't see how we can all retreat to the boondocks and raise a few chickens: shutting down or totally re-aligning the means of production is going to hurt a lot of people. May even starve a bunch of them .

I'd hope we can find a less radical method of fixing things - albeit piecemeal - before we choose to smash them and start over.

And, even if we did take your route, I don't see any particular assurance that the result, in the end, would turn out all that differently.

So, I guess I'll opt for pragmatism...leavened with a strong dose of ‘oh what the hell!’

Another "bright" idea

"I was thinking about making a donation again...

...then I saw Schreck's post on his site called "Put up or Shut up! That is soooo welcoming, I'm not sure now."

Well, that's just so coy of you, Skywalker. Cheer on the suicide bombers, and then refuse to come in and help pick up the pieces.

Exactly who do you think is going to want to come in and pick up the pieces with the likes of you standing around in the wings, scowling at everyone who approaches to see if they have the right morals, job or cast of poverty?

Can't you see that you're not helping by just laying out in all directions with a baseball bat?

Jerry Munro

"Though Zalm, I think I likely understand the gritty and grim realities of politics as much as you do. :-)"

Much better, I'll wager, with 23 more years on me. Many more happy returns to you, too. Watching my father, now 80, rage against the dying of the light as strokes and dementia chop bits out of his vitality and damage his spirit, reminds one yet again of the briefness of life, and the importance of making that last pilgrimage to Stratford-upon-Avon before it's too late and you can't go, because you can't remember who The Bard was or why you have his books on your shelf. This, the man who taught me the meaning of socialism, not the definition.

If you have the choice, Jerry, go late, and go like a firework.

Meanwhile, I've got to go unplug my toilet now so I can take a shit - it feels like it's been building since late last week...

[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

That's all I dropped in to say... for now.

A brighter idea

I just went over to Schreck's website to see what skywalker was blathering on about, and saw the offending post, which I fear would only impoverish the NDP further, judging from the relatively small number of dissenters who are likely to put their money where their mouth is.

But I did see the December 7th post just below it, and that one is striking in its apocalyptic future. Despite the rhetorical whinge about Harry Lali, Schreck notes that the interim leader and the NDP Provincial Council will have a remarkably difficult decision to make, and can't win no matter how they make it.

Y'all should go over to http://www.strategicthoughts.com/ to get the unedited version, but for those who think Schreck and Cheney were evil twins separated at birth, let me give you the argument as I see it:

NDP leader needed "real soon now" for the February session of the Ledge. Someone has to lead the charge against the Fiberals. Do you pick some sacrificial lamb a la Dosanjh/Rita Johnston/Kim Campbell to lead the whole session through May as a lame duck, knowing full well that they will be susceptible to attacks by the Fiberals that will be hard to counter? Remember, an interim leader cannot be a leadership candidate by the NDP constitution, so that shrinks the number of candidates available. The advantage is that new members can be signed up and still meet the 90-day waiting period before the convention, but only if they act fast.

Or do you rush the selection of a new leader by special convention in February, so that the new leader can have a proper mandate to lead the party in the Ledge and in the followup election? Then you risk the hostage-takers who started this whole process in the first place whinging about how this new mandate isn't representative of a "renewed" party at all?

This next six months isn't going to be pretty at all. Despite their best intentions, the hijackers have made their bid for power at the worst time possible for the NDP. And completely shafted all progressives in the bargain, whether they agree with them or not.

Zalm

"Can't you see that you're not helping by just laying out in all directions with a baseball bat?"

Seems to me that I have not called anyone names. I just called it like I see it. Now I guess the old Carole crowd will just have to lick their wounds a while and get over it just like a lot of us had to the first four years of Carole when we had great hopes but the reality never quite matched with the expectation we had for new leader.

I still think David is taking this too personally for a "political analyst" as he calls himself. It makes me wonder if he was in line for a job that no longer is possible now that Carole is gone.

I'm still hopeful and will give it till after Christmas and then try again. As for your "Exactly who do you think is going to want to come in and pick up the pieces with the likes of you standing around in the wings, scowling at everyone who approaches to see...." . Sounds like something you would do, you know, wonder if they were the ones who criticized Carole.

The tent should really get bigger.

False assumptions based on 'all or nothing' faulty thinking

" judging from the relatively small number of dissenters who are likely to put their money where their mouth is."

How exactly have you determined this?

I've donated monthly to the NDP for years and years, even in times when I was not a member, because I've always thought the other side had all the Big Money interests filling their piggy banks.

I donated under Carole James, even when I was really disappointed in the direction she was taking the party....just because I knew the massive money machine the Left is up against....although there were many times I felt like withdrawing the donation, and knew a number of people who did (can't blame them).

I'm not at all special in this, quite ordinary in fact, you will find us so-called dissenters, the ones who believe the party has lost its way....we aren't the distasteful, disgusting, Maoists we are being painted as by those who support Carole.

You all sound like you've been trained by the PAB smear artists....which actually wouldn't surprise me.

And another thing, just as that selfish, destructive Jenny Kwan, last week-end was working " at a public forum on the weekend dealing with aboriginal women's concerns about the missing women inquiry" (as Charlie Smith revealed), many of us also manage to do the same while standing up for what we believe in. They are not exclusive of one another. We're re not a bunch of dilettantes, as some of you would love to characterize us, most of us have been working hard for a long time - 'pre' the progressive movement, long before Ms. James cock-a-doodled-dooed that she, apparently, was 'the only one' working for BC....

Normally, I wouldn't even bother mentioning donations or anything, they should be kept as personal stuff, only I wish some of you would cut the crap.

Alternate reality...

Skywalker, is there a hole in your hippocampus? You don't "recall" calling anyone names? Not even in your reply to Pootle scarcely a day before...

"The NDP under James attracted a lot of drek."

Now we know what you really think of us. If that's what you call "calling lit like I see it" then you're as blind as the hermits in the monastery who wrote the Reductionist's Bible: A Guide To Oversimplifying Absolutely Everything

Yes, you are standing around scowling at everyone. Your attitude needs an adjustment - mebbe ask Santa to bring you a new one for Christmas, and then put your ego on a diet so there's some room for it.

Read my lips - this isn't about Carole James. Go back to the top and read what Schreck said. I don't see him upset at Carole getting the boot - I seem him upset at the travesty of process that led to the destruction of the NDP as a current political force.

So quit describing this as a bunch of Carole James supporters whining - that's not what it was about at all. It's about the subversion of a democratic process by a minority issue. That's all. Done is done, and your revisionist histories don't hold any water.

See (the new) you Boxing Day.

Lynn

" judging from the relatively small number of dissenters who are likely to put their money where their mouth is."

"How exactly have you determined this?"

How have I determined who is likely to do what they say they're going to do, and support the party with hard cash? Well, by my count on the three relevant threads this week, exactly 7 people have said they've done that. Compare that to the thousands and thousands of ordinary people that the dissenters claimed were disenfranchised by the last seven years of NDP misrepresentation, including some dozens of new commenters here.

Pretty sorry state of affairs, isn't it?

Have you forgotten what you yourself wrote over on the "Carole James Resigns" thread, that the dissenters' constituencies were begging them to kick the NDP in the teeth and turn the part hard left, and that it was the right thing to do, and anyway, it was only "party insiders" who had sold the party for a mess of corporate pottage?

"Many thanks to Jenny and to the 12 MLA's who had the courage to take a stand....who listened to what their constituents were expressing and represented us instead of the interests of the party insiders whose hands have been on the controls for far too long now."

Sounds like pretty proud words for a party with seven publicly-declared new or renewed members, doesn't it?

Don't you think if new members by the thousands were streaming into the party, that the NDP website Latest Headlines would say so? "New members signing up in renewed NDP!" I'd think that would be trumpeted from the rooftops, and even the MSM couldn't miss commenting on that. I haven't read any MSM today, but nobody's drawn my attention to that headline either.

Let me save you the journey - the NDP website wants you to know the most important thing in the party today is that "The BC Liberals should shelve 'Supermininistry' New Democrats say...."

Now, suppose you show me the proof of thousands of new and former members renewing their memberships in "the new, more ethical, and true-to-its-roots NDP"

PAB????

That is so unlike you, Lynn. The strain must be wearing on you. You must know I lose more brain cells from a bottle of wine than the PAB can put in a room for a Monday morning staff meeting. And my ethics may be heavily mortgaged, but they're still mine, which is far more than I can say about the Fiberal caucus. And GWest could run the whole province better than either gang from a ten-minute phone conversation in his bathroom in the morning before going to work at his real job.

And Frank? Trained by PAB? Bwaaahahahahaaaaaa! More like, PAB eagerly combing Frank's repartee for wittier replies than their standard fare: "I know you are, but what am I?"

If you want to insult us and other realists like JimC and alcm, call us.... oh, I don't know.... intellectuals. That'll make it seem so much more proletarian when you line us up against the wall to have us shot.

zalm

"Well, by my count on the three relevant threads this week, exactly 7 people have said they've done that. Compare that to the thousands and thousands of ordinary people that the dissenters claimed were disenfranchised by the last seven years of NDP misrepresentation, including some dozens of new commenters here."

Very scientific way you have of counting, zalm. LOL ( Not to mention these are very early days. )

And don't put words in my mouth. I said this:

"Many thanks to Jenny and to the 12 MLA's who had the courage to take a stand....who listened to what their constituents were expressing and represented us instead of the interests of the party insiders whose hands have been on the controls for far too long now."

And YOU said I said this:

"that the dissenters' constituencies were begging them to kick the NDP in the teeth and turn the part hard left, and that it was the right thing to do, and anyway, it was only "party insiders" who had sold the party for a mess of corporate pottage?"

Where did I say "kick in the teeth" ?

Where did I say they were 'begging'?

Where did I say they wanted to turn the party 'hard left'? (Though I don't think that's a bad idea. But that's just me.)

Then you wrote:

"That'll make it seem so much more proletarian when you line us up against the wall to have us shot."

Find where I ever said that, please.

Or where anyone else did for tha tmatter?

That's the first time I've heard that level of violence ratcheted up from anyone on any thread on this topic. But here it is, the first mention of it, coming from your sweet lips, zalm.

How ironic, eh?

In fairness Lynn...did you miss?

This:

"Carole James was no better than Premier Campbell."

and this:
"What a load of hogwash. Calling the thirteen honest, true democrats - "Bullies". And the corrupt Main Stream Media backing her up. All "THE DEMOCRATS" wanted was an ordinary leadership convention, after Carole James failed to deliver, as usual. Her abysmal failure to assail the policies of "the Evil One" or "the Corruptor", was absolutely unforgivable."

"If Carole James had one OUNCE of HONESTY, even one SLIVER of INTEGRITY she would have..."

But wait, there's more:

This one's meant to be ironic - the target is really Schreck:

"Let's see here...Jenny Kwan has a little round bomb hidden in her satchel. She does not believe in elected government or the rule of law, despite being a legal advisor and an MLA."

And more:
"This piece by Mr. Schreck is wildly overblown--the key now is for James's supporters to suck it up and move on, not to brood uselessly over what's come to pass. This change could be the best thing that has happened to the NDP in a while."

And this:

"But I can't see why. All he does is bash the NDP. If I were a visitor and you told me Schreck supported the NDP, I would say, "you say so...""

There's lots more - but I'm too tired to bother - now, have a look at the first thing zalm wrote - it was mostly addressed to David Schreck and it was pretty sensible - not all that different from what Screck himself wrote.

I don't think you've parsed these messages at all well lynn.

Which is, as zalm says, so unlike you.

zalm's not the one selling vitriol - he's just characterizing the characters who seem more than happy to spray it around.

And, as always, cheers and best wishes.

lynn

Oh, you never said you'd line me up against the wall and have me shot. I'm just parsing history for you - Ten Days that Shook The World and all that.... But you did accuse me of training under PAB, which I'm quite sure was supposed to be insulting.

I get it. You don't like my intellectual arguments, you don't like my "scientific" abilities (counting to seven), you don't like my parsing your texts and attitude because it comes across as more brutal than you see yourself... I'm parsing history for you because I figure it won't be long before you don't like me sharing the planet with your new-found friends.

But you never said a word about "early days" before - all any of us ever got was the impression that the masses of great unwashed were so happy to lose their chains that they would spring into action right away. And seven did!

So tell us, how long is it going to take before the great masses of the unwashed spring into action? Weeks? months? When they get a new leader and see if it's someone they like? The only party of the left is dying and it needs action NOW. If you dissenters don't take action NOW, then the old guard will be left in place, and will take action. And I KNOW you dissenters won't be happy with that. Like a dog to its vomit, hijackers return to their roots. That's why I'm sincerely hoping that dull-as-ditchwater Farnworth doesn't run, or if so, doesn't get the nod. You clowns need to select your own leader and then tell us what's so great about him or her.

But you actually have to DO SOMETHING beside sit here and bitch and complain about our attitude after you kicked down our sand-castle. Now get moving.

zalm

I actually agree with a lot of the arguments you make on The Tyee....many of them well-made, just not this one.

Once again, you state only 'seven" sprung into action across BC...and you arrived at that quite incredible assumption by counting people on three Tyee threads. There is a whole world out here, zalm.....

Two ships just sailed by my house.

So there are only two ships presently at sail in the world?

(There is lot of hostility towards the dissenters and yet you never address the issue that Carole was approached privately, and she could have kept it all private. She could refused their request or she could have decided to have a leadership convention and perhaps she would have won it....

She chose to do none of those things.

Instead, she chose (either by her own decision or on 'the advice' of her handlers) to out all of the MLA's who came to her in confidence. As Corky Evans stated this has never been done in his memory....in any political party.)

So why would someone do that?

Talk about kicking down sandcastles!

Many of us, have been active for a long time and have 'DOING SOMETHING' for quite some time.

As for 'doing something' -

It seems to suit Carole and her supporters to portray themselves as the only ones who have been working actively to change things.....

If it helps you all sleep at night, so be it...

But

It is far, far from the truth....

But lately the truth doesn't seem to much matter.

@lynn - re truth

I agree with you when you say that lately the truth doesn't seem to matter much...although I come at this from another angle, as you know.

As I've said here, and elsewhere, I don't see myself as a 'Carole' supporter per se.

I am a supporter of rules - and parties, if they're meant to be taken seriously, have to govern themselves and their behaviour by those rules. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the BCLiberals ARE and have been such a disaster in government - they don't care about the RULES and they don't care about their promises and they've ignored the first and broken the second with impunity.

My problem with the 13 and with Ms Kwan is that they've taken, the way I see it, to behaving in pretty much the same fashion as the BC Liberals. They've made a mockery of the procedures by which the party agreed to be governed and, in fairness, the testimony of Corky Evans (much as I like him) simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

My understanding - and it comes from provincial council - is that the letter from the group led by Ms Kwan contained an ultimatum and was not simply a letter of advice and concern which the leader could simply 'ignore'. As such, (and taken on its face) it could not have done anything but 'explode' and, that's exactly what it did. You won’t get an affirmation of that from Corky – he hasn’t even seen the letter, as he clearly states in his comment.

In this province the New Democratic Party has far more obstacles to overcome than whatever party happens to lead the right wing/corporate party does. If you've looked at the poll results from Angus Reid that I posted for you on another thread you'll have seen what a cataclysm that poll reveals in terms of the support for the party from women in this province.

That's also an inconvenient bit of truth.

In the end, I simply find the whole matter makes it difficult for me to sleep - and not because 13 people chose to throw their leader (and presumably their friend - in the case of Jenny Kwan) under the train - but because I really fear they've thrown the whole province under the train - a BC Liberal train...

Carole James will survive - the real question now will be how First Nations kids, kids in care, kids in poverty, old folks, sick people, people on minimum wage and families will survive...that's what keeps me awake at night and that's what will keep me fighting for the party despite our elected representatives clear incompetence in these matters.

I supported a leadership review in 2011 and, in the short term I have every confidence that the party would have been better off without this current controversy than it is now….the problem is, we don’t just have to convince traditional NDP voters to come out and work and vote for the party all over the province – we also have to convince enough NON TRADITIONAL people to cast their vote against the Liberals – and there’s the rub…

Listen, you brought this one up

"(There is lot of hostility towards the dissenters and yet you never address the issue that Carole was approached privately, and she could have kept it all private. She could refused their request or she could have decided to have a leadership convention and perhaps she would have won it...."

I don't know how you know that. All there is, is one side of that story, and if that came from Jenny Kwan, then I've got some stories about here to tell you from my experience of her.

She was a young COPE councillor when she began - 22 years old I think, shrill and know-nothing, but Tim Louis and others got her settled, when she decided to jump to provincial politics, in my own riding of Mt. Pleasant. Yet again, more training, more noisy bumph coming out of the office on Commercial Drive, more ineffective representation, but not a problem, as the party was pretty deep in talent at that time.

Then 2001 hit, and so did all the issues. Skytrain through my neighbourhood, cuts to neighbourhood houses and women's shelters that we supported, (let me look through my old mail), changes in funding for cities and transit.... it hit everyone hard, so we fought back. It was pretty apparent that the Fiberals weren't going anywhere with our causes, and Jenny and Joy had a hard time picking issues and assembling the speeches and questions out of what the party researchers were giving them - that much we knew; so we fed them mail, factsheets and messaging on our issues.

We got thanks from Joy, and from Hansard I could tell that once in a while our issues got some play - probably because they were common to other organizations or groups that also made the same pitch.

From Jenny? Nothing. She was snowed by the workload, the pressure and the scary f3eeling of facing up 75 nasty-looking faces on the other side of the house each day.

The party and Joy McPhail carried her. They had to - there was no choice, and you don't throw away resources. Eventually she learned and gained confidence, or so it seemed. But she was never effective, at least for me, and after 2005 I got gerrymandered out of her riding into Fairview.

So it's a real surprise to hear her as the "grand old dame of BC politics" being quoted with authority in the absence of another side to the story. I get the sense someone doesn't want this fight to continue, but it's not Jenny. She's got her point of view and she's sticking to it.

So I'm not going to address anything about Carole being approached privately unless I hear it from another trustworthy source.

New NDP memberships

All that needs to be said is "money talks, bullshit walks." Even Skywalker is backing out now, as he's not sure who he wants to have running for leader of the party, so now he wants to sit back and wait for something to happen.

That's our natural instinct. We'll do it tomorrow. And tomorrow becomes next year, and the NDP winds up broke and unable to properly fund another campaign. So they go to the only dependable source of funds they know - unions - and people land on them with both feet.... for what? Seeking funding for the only reasonable alternative to an oligarchy when those with the most at stake won't get off their asses and do something?

That's why I've been so tickled to see the recall action. I don't care that it's Vander Zalm leading it - it's all 'sand in the gears'. You can call me guilty as charged too - I've not signed up to be a campaigner, but I beg leave to continue my other volunteer work, which you may gather, is more extensive than the apartment dwellers across the street who seem to have time to party every night...

If you really think a House-full of Independents could make it work - hold the Fiberals to account effectively, stop some of their more nefarious schemes in their tracks, etc. Please... tell me how.

What I KNOW won't work is yet another left-wing party. That's been the death-knell of every progressive movement in history - another progressive movement with what it claims is a better idea.

I think being progressive is hard work. that's why not too many people undertake it. By contrast, it's a lot easier to be greedy and selfish - if you can avoid looking at all the homeless people around you in the morning, you're pretty much OK. After that, the Fiberals will drive them away from your banks and coffee shops with legislation.

I'm not going to let entropy win, and I know you won't either.

James should put on a game face while she still can

The NDP "dissidents" are keeping quiet because, despite the heavy-handed tactics used against them, they are too principled to launch an all-out smear campaign on one of their own. Anarchy is the love of the love of chaos for chaos' sake. James completely violated and totally violated the fundamental democratic principles of the party by:
a) condoning Moe Sihota's secret union kickback to the tune of $75 000 per year
b) kicking Bob Simpson to the curb for daring to question said kickback
c) choosing to respond to further questions about Bob's removal with the deliberately staged yellow scarf affair, which Corky Evans termed the "most politically devisive thing" he had ever seen.
At some point hopefully, the truth will out. Until then, maybe Carole James should tactfully revise her little "walk in the snow" as Jean Cretien put it :.?

X4estworker

It really doesn't matter what Harcourt may or may not have had to "do with it". He was outsted by a fifth columnist - who, after virtually destroying the NDP, found his reward with Jimmy Patison.

Wouldn't be surprised if this was "déjà vu all over again".

X4estworker

This NDP "Old Boys and Girls Network" may well work themselves out their cozy positions. The fact of the matter is, the NDP is suffering for funds, because the average citizen isn't feeling as generous as times past, and the unions are losing (or are about to lose)memberships. Without funds, the party cannot function. So what are the "old boys and girls" going to do about this that will be different than what Carole was attempting to do - namely court business?

reply

"If you really think a House-full of Independents could make it work - hold the Fiberals to account effectively, stop some of their more nefarious schemes in their tracks, etc. Please... tell me how."

zalm, I've never...ever.... said that. I've already expressed elsewhere and many times on The Tyee that I have a number of reservations about this - mainly that power corrupts - and it corrupts individuals as easily as it does parties. What we need to work on is a system that addresses that abuse of power. ( This is where I disagree with G West - I think it was Ms. James and her handlers who were looking more and more like the Fiberals, in their arrogant, undemocratic authoritarianism. Their refusal to consider the dissenting view - What is democracy if it no longer allows for dissent?)

My view of Jenny, too, is quite different than yours zalm. I have researched hansard fairly deeply over the years, waded in it, in fact.... and while Joy was quite magnificent, Jenny, too held her own and was both astute and courageous in her arguments.

With so little time and so little funding, both of them always answered their mail, often in a way that told you they had read your letter carefully and with genuine concern.

I'm afraid I find your portrait of Jenny both nasty and spiteful. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I have found her to be a real trooper over the years, who has always remained true to her values.

She continues to answer all of our correspondence with both heart and integrity.

Last Christmas she sent my elderly mother a Christmas card her daughter had made, and remembered a very important birthday my mother had this year with a special greeting.

Unlike your assessment of her, I know her as one of the great debaters at SFU...and you only have to check hansard to find more evidence of that. Joy has a degree from the London School of Economics and was indeed wonderful at having to be familiar with so many ministries. Her financial acumen came in handy at tracking and following where the Fiberals were 're-locating' the money as they tried to disguise its path from public view.

But Jenny was equally adept at the issues she took on. She was both intelligent and gutsy....and not afraid in the least to confront and take on the regressive policies of Gordon Campbell. Hansard is evidence of that. Thank you Dave Barrett.

stellabloo: Great comment. As you say: "At some point, hopefully the truth will out."

For good or ill

It depends on the spin.

The BC NDP might be portrayed as a vibrant party bursting with diverse views.

The NDP'S fUTURE:-

The ndp's future is so bright you have to wear shades to see it but first you have to pull the cork from your butt,remove your stick self from the mud and the blinders from your eyes.This is for all those die hard Carole James fans and there chicken little sky is falling mentality."Get over it!"James did need to go a long time ago and now she's gone so lets move on.I am a positive person and i believe positive thinking can and will move mountains.I am an ndp long time supporter and today a new member of the ndp party because i can see a new progressive future in the aftermath of the James demise.The latest 50/50 vote in the polls is great news.All we need is a good leader with honest and open minded supporters and we will have a new healed and progressive party that we can all believe in and move forward with.The back stabbing has got to stop by those who are doing it and you know who you are and you know where that hole in the wall is that the carpenter made:"IT'S CALLED A DOOR" My glass is half full and my shades are on.

Y'know lynn, with respect

You know I respect your opinions and your witness...I simply can't see, on the basis of everything I know about the past, how the NDP will ever win another election in this province if it remains divided between two factions in the way it is now.

As I've said, I have no problem with a leadership review and, also as you know, I've had plenty of problems with Carole James's leadership...but, everything I've learned from life, from education and from experience tells me that successful organizations are disciplined and that they follow rules which are agreed to and accepted in advance.

For every so-called progressive newcomer in the party there are three or even four old-timers (many of them women) who have been working all out for generations for this party and its future. There has to be a better way to integrate these groups - they exist, in my experience, in a ratio of approximately 3 or even 4 to 1 with the old-timers (so called) outnumbering the progressives by that ratio.

We can be romantic about these things, or we can be pragmatic. In my view, and I've tried to express it as well as I can, when pragmatism fails electability is not enhanced.

I think that the preliminary polling tends to support my conclusions more than it does yours.

I'm not happy about that - but I'm not surprised either.

One thing does bother me though.

I have been, frankly, shocked and saddened by the kind of personal attacks which have been directed at me (not by you I hasten to add) simply because I've expressed an opinion which happens to run counter to the beliefs of others - people who, heretofore, I'd always tended to respect as being open to different points of view and willing to consider contrary opinions.

If the new supporters who hope to re-invigorate and re-animate the party under some unknown new leader start out with such a jaundiced attitude toward their fellow citizens on the left then I think we're not only not going to win the next election but I think we're going to destroy what's left of the party today.

You'll say, of course, that I've attacked Jenny Kwan and her actions - and it's true I have. I pointedly asked her, and her supporters, to articulate the precise nature of her complaints about Carole James's leadership. I want specifics, chapter and verse and I don't think that's too much to ask before I accept Jenny Kwan's verdict on the current leader's record.

That request is still open.

It has not been responded to - either by Ms Kwan or by one of her biggest supporters - Bill Tieleman.

I'm not likely to 'get over it' until I see some actual evidence that the disease this coup was addressing was really worse than the remedy it has imposed on my party and my province.

I need something more than 'feelings' and vague generalities if I'm going to join this revolution.

I hope you don't think that's unfair.