BC NDP leader Carole James announces her resignation Monday in Victoria
I was asked to explain BC politics to the Toronto Star newspaper's audience in less than 800 words! Here's what I wrote for them.
The Toronto Star
Thursday December 9, 2010
NDP leader the latest casualty in B.C.
By Bill Tieleman
"I am one of those who believe that political hatreds attest the vitality of a State.”
— Amor De Cosmos, British Columbia’s second premier, 1872-74
VANCOUVER — Even in a province known for its political blood sport reputation, British Columbia has been rocked by events over the past six weeks.
New Democratic Party Leader Carole James became the latest casualty on Monday when she announced her resignation and blamed “bullies” in her own caucus for pushing her from office.
But others see James more as the author of her own misfortunes, courting the same fate that befell outgoing B.C. Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell just over a month ago.
That means British Columbia will witness not one but two separate major party leadership campaigns over the next few months, with both replacing longtime leaders who lost the faith of many of their own Members of the Legislative Assembly in the short 18 months since B.C.’s election on May 12, 2009.
Adding to this political hurricane season is the sight of two MLAs being unceremoniously thrown out of their former caucuses — one Liberal, one New Democrat — bringing the count of independent MLAs in the B.C. Legislature to an unprecedented four.
But the word “unprecedented” has worn out here through the fall.
James’ bitter resignation Monday was perhaps even more dramatic than Campbell’s sudden departure announcement on Nov. 3.
Campbell’s polling numbers were gruesome — his personal approval level was just 12 per cent in November, according to an Angus Reid public opinion poll, while his party plunged to only 26 per cent after winning 46 per cent of the vote just 18 months earlier.
Campbell’s fate may be a last warning sign to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, now trailing Tim Hudak’s Conservatives by nine points.
The introduction of a harmonized sales tax by both premiers boosted their opposition, though the B.C. Liberal government’s surprise decision to announce its own HST just weeks after an election where the idea was openly denied proved to be a political suicide note for Campbell.
But James’ fortunes did not soar, despite the Liberals’ gift miscalculation on the new tax.
The successful Fight HST campaign under B.C’s unique direct democracy legislation was led not by James but instead by charismatic former right-wing premier Bill Vander Zalm.
His broad-based citizens’ coalition of 6,500 registered canvassers collected 705,000 signatures in 90 days to force a province-wide vote on the HST. And under extreme pressure, Campbell said that vote would be binding, despite no legislative requirement to do so.
While Vander Zalm celebrated, James languished in the shadows.
And in October when faced with mild public criticism from one of her own MLAs, James overreacted by personally expelling Bob Simpson from the caucus. That prompted the resignation of her caucus chair and later the caucus whip in protest.
By November, polling showed James’ own personal approval at only 25 per cent, despite her party being favoured by 47 per cent of voters — leaving a massive 22 per cent credibility gap.
Worse for James, that 25 per cent support fell below former U.S. president George W. Bush’s 28 per cent approval level at his term’s end and just above ex-president Richard Nixon’s 23 per cent during Watergate.
After seven years of leading the NDP, James had failed to connect with voters in British Columbia. While widely regarded as a decent person, she was also viewed as a bit of a mystery. She attacked Campbell rigorously but had no defining policies of her own.
Campbell’s disintegrating support led to his own caucus revolt and then the surprise news on Nov. 3 that after nine years in power and three majority election wins, he was resigning.
For James, hopes she could still fashion a win against the unpopular Campbell despite her own low personal popularity quickly faded with his announcement.
Fear that the new B.C. Liberal premier would call a snap election after being chosen Feb. 26 of next year led to the final blow — a devastating critique of James released by her most veteran MLA, Jenny Kwan, and supported by 12 other caucus members.
Despite nominating James for leader in 2003, Kwan now said: “At a time when the B.C. Liberal party and the premier’s personal approval rating have fallen to all-time lows, the NDP under her leadership has not been able to capitalize on the B.C. Liberals’ downfall.”
And five days later James’ career as leader had ended as suddenly as Campbell’s, both victims of their own parties’ lack of confidence.
Now the parties will face off with new leaders in a likely 2011 election that will continue B.C.’s spectator sport tradition of political bloodletting.
It’s a cautionary tale for Ontario politicians to make sure they maintain the support of their own caucuses — at all costs.
46 comments:
Nice summary, Bill, but, as usual, you omit some important facts.
You say "And in October when faced with mild public criticism from one of her own MLAs, James overreacted by personally expelling Bob Simpson from the caucus." Is that the Bob Simpson, the former Liberal constituency association president and would-be Liberal candidate in 2001? Is that the Bob Simpson who, according to his former caucus colleagues, relentlessly criticized and undermined Carole James beginning before he was even elected as a New Democrat in 2005? Is that the Bob Simpson who is apparently unable to work collectively as part of any political team so he is now declaring himself as an Independent? We can now see clearly how little commitment he had to the NDP. Gee, what a terrible loss to our party!
Bill, Carole fans will be the ones to continue to fan the flames, because they have proven themselves the ones who are unable to agree to disagree. Personally, I think this is another good article!
I thought you led the article by saying you had been asked to explain, well all you did was give a resatation of the history. That isn't an explaination. Of course that would have taken a tad more time and thought
I find your constant portrayal of Carole James as someone who was autocratic as she "unceremoniously" threw Bob Simpson out of the caucus, as the height of hypocritical. Carole James was a more democratic leader than we have seen in the past two decades, even more so than Mike Harcourt who is regarded by many as the master of consensus building.
You supported, worked for and cheered on Glen Clark as he ran the most undemocratic and unforgiving government many have seen. He would not have allowed Bob Simpson's criticism in private, let alone in public.
Let's called a spade a shovel. This is the same group fighting against Carole and her supporters that fought Mike Harcourt. When they aren't on top and in charge they just can't take it so they will damage the party just to get what they want.
Got a call tonight from HQ asking for input (I'm just a member now; no longer a delegate).
What I said was this: as soon as people who want to keep on fighting Carole's resignation get over themselves, I'm helping out.
When they start acting like grownups, expect my cheque.
Saw Bruce & Mike on Palmer's show tonight; I was impressed by the change in tone from Paul Ramsey (he's still not quite there yet) and by what they said.
Helpful hint: drop the gender requirements for nominations. That is so 1980's.
Good article Bill.
The story was limited to a certain number of words, which he did. I watch Hansard almost daily, when Gordo allowed the house to sit.( He ignored his own fixed sitting schedule when he saw fit) Bob Simpson was a very good forestry critic. Somehow he was shifted to the never ending Aboriginal Affairs critic job.For a party that supposedly had a caucus that actually listened to each other the now ex leader of the NDP seemed to have done a lot of things on her own and without much thought.Her quitting speech was an sad display of " people are picking on me". In my opinion, the article was pretty evenly written and didn't mention the almost rabid comments by some of James inner circle. Good article Bill.
I guess this is one of those "official history" pieces, written by the winning side's principal wordsmith. I expect to see it refered to often in the next few months.
BT, you forgot that CJ had the gall to exclude Labour and include Business.
here's an explanation,the only people that wanted carol james in after losing two elections and well on her way to losing a third with no clear plan or platform not to mention a weak opposition,and muzzling of mla's are people who stand to gain by standing behind her (behind the backroom doors).BCer's have already shut her out for she is a non entity,instead of crying foul to the 13 ghosts,those tears and anger should be directed at the goons that shut down the ledge.
This is a great summary for an Ontario audience who do not have a front row seat and therefor are not privy to each and every bloody blow.
I can already sense the acceptance of what has occured and I believe saner minds and calmer thoughts will prevail.
It was obviously a move that has brought a renewed sense of responsibility to the party and the membership which will propel us a past petty conflict and up to meeting the challenge of governing on behalf of British Columbians.
Keep it up Bill!
Well done, Bill! Good explanation and a "heads up" to those folks in Ontario who keep grumbling that they can't fight the HST like B.C'ers do.
I am glad to see a journalist like yourself writing for The Star and taking questions for The G&M.
You have been a bright, brave,intelligent and smart commentator for the last dozen and more years that I have listened to you on the radio,CBC political panels et al. I have admired the ability of yours to persistently monitor the Basi-Virk business and keep us informed when no-one else in the press dared or bothered to ask questions. Don't forget you were the one doing the hard get started "tinder-rubbing" about the HST on Facebook to protest that slight of hand. Then the blaze broke out when Vanderzalm saw the injustice as well and helped hoist the Fight B.C. flag.
Anyway, you are a real treasure to this province and you should know how much we appreciate your efforts and journalistic excellence.One day soon ,I wouldn't be surprised to see you honoured with an award for your investigative journalistic excellence!
You don't need to publish this unless you like but I just want to say "THANK-YOU" And keep up those historic quotes and references. I get a chuckle before I even start to read your observations!
Bill Tieleman said... 9:55 AM PST
My definition of democracy is letting rank and file members decide who should be the leader of the NDP.
----------------------------
And with that no more needs to be said. Amen
Last month in one of Vaughan Palmer's weekly interview shows there was a video clip of Bob Simpson claiming that he had spent several years trying to teach Carole James how to be a leader.
The arrogance and insensitivity of the guy reeked.
Some loss.
keesmolI have only one comment for Bill and the anti James faction. Will you accept the new Leader..who will obviously be from the James wing of the Party or will you continue to snipe and whine until you get what you want, which is a far left leader who will not talk to the Business community at all. So with Carole as the Leader we were 20 points ahead..now that she is gone we are dead even. You people are a mystery to me.
Anonymous at 12:14 PM PST
“I have only one comment for… [you]… and the…[pro]…James faction. Will you accept the new Leader...who will obviously be from the... [non]…-James wing of the Party or will you continue to snipe and whine until you get what you want?”
I think the answer is obvious, Anonymous at 12:14 PM PST. It is your way or you will whine, snivel and blame – just like the hopeless James did when she FINALLY left the NDP Party (however inappropriately and gracelessly she “left”).
Way to dodge the question Bill...You know Linda's point was entirely clear.
You implied James's firing of Simpson was for one incident of 'mild' criticism.
And you said that even though you KNOW that's not true. Even so, you've repeated it here and elsewhere – in public and in private - along with the entirely irrelevant reference to the past and Mike Harcourt.
That fact is, you’ve put forward the case that bygones ought to be bygones while you are evidently harboring a pretty clear case of residual bitterness and resentment yourself - as your subsequent response to Linda indicates. How come?
I think Ian Reid's comment (first in line on your earlier post) looks more and more like he's called your game and called it with stunning accuracy.
I expect the Star paid you well.
JKing - if Bob Simpson "relentlessly criticized and undermined Carole James" as Linda states and you agree, then why didn't the leader take her case to the full caucus for discipline?
Why didn't she follow the protocol of caucus? And under exactly what rules did she expel Simpson - can you point us to somewhere we can all read them? Or do they not exist?
Why did NDP MLAs react so strongly to her actions? Why did the caucus chair and whip both resign?
Talk about not telling the truth Jking!
You and Linda know perfectly what happened - and you choose to ignore it.
What I said is true - his only public criticism was mild comments about her UBCM speech, after which he was expelled.
Whatever he said or anyone else in caucus said about James was said in private - and has happened to every political leader in human history.
I'm not bitter or resentful - I am responding in kind after trying to take the high road with your and other people's constant whining here.
As I've told you and others constantly, this is a free speech blog - I accept completely people taking shots at me, as you both have done repeatedly in recent days.
But if you expect me to do nothing while you attempt to misinform readers here, think again.
And if you don't like reading what's here, Ian Reid's blog would be no doubt be happy to have one more reader and believer.
Ron1 said..11:24 AM PST
Last month in one of Vaughan Palmer's weekly interview shows there was a video clip of Bob Simpson claiming that he had spent several years trying to teach Carole James how to be a leader.
------------------------------
Guess the old saying is correct, you can't teach old broads new tricks.
Ian Reid ONLY allows true believers post on his site. He regularly deletes comments that do not toe his party line.
I do not agree with all that Bill posts, and I do not expect that he agrees with all my comments. Bill allows an open exchange of ideas. Reid demands that commenters lick his boots.
I am still not holding my breath waiting for Reid to fulfil his "ultimatum" and leave the NDP, now that Kwan and company "won", and James left (whining, snivelling blaming and claiming to be bullied).
I'm disappointed by the way things have been recently handled by all sides personally - but I honestly feel like a huge burden has been lifted off our party. I 'm really looking forward door knocking without hearing "I'd vote for you, but I don't like _____"
It's time we all put away the resentment and focus on the job ahead. BC needs us! Let's not win the moral victory and lose the election - the real people of BC can't take much more Liberal government.
Why don't we all take a look at these important essays by Corky Evans and think about things for a while:
The Big Lie:
http://richardhughes.ca/politics/the-big-lie-corky-evans/
Thoughts about "what's next":
http://richardhughes.ca/politics/corky-evans-thoughts-about-whats-next/
"I am still not holding my breath waiting for Reid to fulfil his "ultimatum" and leave the NDP, now that Kwan and company "won", and James left (whining, snivelling blaming and claiming to be bullied)."
I don't what Reid's future plans are but have you never said anything you regretted in the heat of anger? Besides, what the hell is it you if he stays or goes or is this just about rubbing salt into wounds?
Wether you agree with Reid or not he's done a lot for the party and is entitled to be a little pissed after watching everything he's worked for come crashing down.
It's his blog he can run it anyway he see's fit, just like Bill. If you don't like his comment policy don't post there!
Talk about petty.
Well Bill,
I've got this to say about that.
1. I'm not taking shots - I'm merely referring to what appear to be inconsistencies between what you say and what you advise.
2. I'm not pushing anyone's agenda - and, I noticed you didn't answer my question that other day about whether you were acting as a journalist or playing an active role in this drama. I'm curious about why you're so sensitive on that point.
The fact of the matter is, there is an interesting parallelism between what you apparently are prepared to forgive from Simpson (who is, apparently, now an 'independent' and not an NDP member of caucus at all) at the same time that you bring up something that happened almost a decade ago where it was your ox that was being gored.
There's some truth, and, in my view a fair bit of hypocrisy in that situation too.
And, from what I see, there's a fair amount of bitterness and hostility - and a good deal of being slippery with the truth - coming from all sides of this controversy.
Cheers, as always: Free speech is tough, isn't it?
When you take controversial stands on important public issues it isn't surprising that one would create a few sparks.
I'm new to this blog so please excuse me if I step on toes.
Kevin: in the present context, who really cares if Bill gave a summary or an explanation? In my view, Bill gave an excellent summary based on a prior analysis of the past crisis in the NDP. You can nit pick all you want if it gives you pleasure, but the important point is to put all the non-sense behind us and build the party. The NDP and the province will benefit from that the most. The only ones to benefit from all these patronizing quibbles are the neo-Cons.
Now, let's hear what needs to be done to move on. What about Christie Clark and BC Rail? Is there any traction in that story?
My definition of democracy is letting rank and file members decide who should be the leader of the NDP.
That is not your definition and you've proven that. Why say something that is so obviously at variance with your actions?
Sorry J King - I can't answer all the questions you may ask in a way you want. I am a columnist with strong opinions, not a reporter.
I will say I have talked with people on both sides of the NDP divide and given my views. And I keep my counsel confidential as requested.
But no one who reads this blog or my columns would be surprised at my criticism of NDP leadership - nor should they be surprised that I strongly endorsed Carole James in both elections.
When the 2003 leadership contest was over I let it go. It has absolutely nothing to do with any of my views today.
Hi Bill,
Thanks for your response.
I am quite impress with Mr. Alex Tsakumis, as he does not censor anyone on his blog.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same about you and I would presume that the reason you censor some of your readers is because you do not want to be sued or are concern for your safety.
I am curious as to whether you are concerned of being part of the "Hit List" that Alex refers too on his blog?
If you are concerned for your safety and security, you ought to consider saying it publicly.
Take a look at the rest of the country and not excluding the world, mainly China, and the Nobel Peace Prize Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, who sits in prison for writing the truth about his country's corruption. Is that where we are in B.C. and in Canada? I think so.
Tina Zanetti
Bill, I'm sorry, but this doesn't wash:
"When the 2003 leadership contest was over I let it go..."
I've been reading your blog for years and I don't believe you have let it go.
Furthermore, your 'involvement' with this current mess is something you're apparently not prepared to acknowledge.
At least not directly.
However, there is no 'appearance' of impartiality in these words - "I keep my counsel confidential as requested.".
In fact, to the contrary, your subsequent use of the bully pulpit both here and in the media further tends to call the question on your motives and your friends.
I do believe you 'thought' you were doing the right thing and that your intentions were honorable - sadly, as in most cases, that doesn't matter. Especially in BC politics…
The damage has been done and the people (whom both you and I claim we're fighting for) are going to have another four years of right wing hegemony to thank for it.
I'll do my best as I always have done, to see that doesn't happen but the vast majority of the people I've talked to - many of them women - and a lot of them senior civil servants -are aghast at what's happened here. These people remember the way government worked in the 90s, when there was consultation and discussion and the Cabinet secretariat had some real power and influence. They long for a return to that kind of situation but most of them have given up hope of every seeing it again.
I don't agree with David Schreck's characterization of the gang you seem to have thrown in with as 'anarchists' but I do believe that when principled people decide that rules don't mean anything any longer and that they are justified in sowing chaos and destroying trust and collegiality in return for a poorly articulated and morally vacant ‘idea’ of leadership that something foul is in the air.
And, I’m not in on what seems to be a deliberate effort to subvert a good portion of my own party.
Over to you Bill.
the vast majority of the people I've talked to - many of them women - and a lot of them senior civil servants -are aghast at what's happened here.
No offense, but I think your anecdotal claims here are extremely out of touch with the electorate and regular people. We can be pretty sure that the expulsion of James is not the reason why the NDP has lost their lead. If Angus Reid had polled on Carole James' resignation, most people would have approved, including probably a majority of women. The vast majority of women in this province did not approve of Carole James. Her approval rating amongst all British Columbians was 25%, meaning her support amongst women was likely in the teens at best.
Hmm, no wait, sorry I miscalculated that. Her approval rating amongst women would be above 25% if more women than men supported her in the province, as was likely the case. Male support was more likely in the teens. But nevertheless my point still stands. But we don't know the exact breakdown because Angus Reid never published it, but one thing we can say for sure: given the 25% overall rating a majority of women likely did not approve of Carole James.
No offense taken. However, my so called "anecdotal" observations happen to be buttressed by a simple comparison between the results of Angus Reid's November polling and the firm's December results which were just released.
Among women respondents 53% of women supported the NDP in November. In the December poll that percentage had fallen to 37%.
That appears to be a decline of 16% to me...and, it means that far more women now do not support the NDP than was the case prior to the dismal events of the last month...I'm sure you'll confirm the dates of the polls and cross-reference them with the events under consideration.
I make that to be a significant decline and entirely consistent with my 'anecdotal' observations. Whereas 53% of women preferred the NDP earlier - now 63% of them DO NOT PLAN TO VOTE for the party.
I think my observation that a lot of people to whom I've spoken, many of them women, who are aghast at what's happened to Carole James's leadership would, in political terms, constitute a 'vast majority'
Angus Reid did publish the data. You can find them here (for December):
http://tinyurl.com/32zbxpw
and here (for November):
http://tinyurl.com/2wl288z
I'm not sure what this says about who you think the 'regular people' are Adrian but I certainly don't think your claim about my observations has much credence.
Much as we like to think it isn't so, actions have consequences and when actions are taken without considering ALL the possible consequences there's likely to be problems.
However, my so called "anecdotal" observations
J King, saying some "people I talked to" is anecdotal by definition, and your observations are more of a reflection of the people you seem to associate with rather than the general public, or the NDP base. The stories of rank-and-file activists campaigning for the NDP but getting nowhere because of James' unpopularity are ubiquitous, and I'm amazed at how Jamesists can be so out-of-touch to pretend that this isn't the case. I had a hard time for years finding anyone at all who had confidence in her, and that's reflected in the approval polls, declining NDP membership, donations, and votes in elections.
Among women respondents 53% of women supported the NDP in November. In the December poll that percentage had fallen to 37%.
That appears to be a decline of 16% to me...and, it means that far more women now do not support the NDP than was the case prior to the dismal events of the last month...I'm sure you'll confirm the dates of the polls and cross-reference them with the events under consideration.
Yes, but you haven't proven at all that the decline of female support for the NDP is because of James' ouster and not more due to Campbell's departure. Again, given the fact that the vast majority of British Columbians didn't approve of James, including a majority of women, most British Columbians probably approved of her removal as leader.
As Bill points out in his post, and as Angus Reid says in their Dec. analysis, the shift is due to disenchanted Liberals returning to the fold. The Liberals' retention rate has gone up 20 points since November. Yes, female support for the NDP has significantly declined, but support from respondents with incomes below 50k dropped about as much, as did nearly other demographics.
I think my observation that a lot of people to whom I've spoken, many of them women, who are aghast at what's happened to Carole James's leadership would, in political terms, constitute a 'vast majority'
I think you've got absolutely no basis whatsoever to say that, and to point towards the drop of NDP support in the polls is a complete non sequitur. Why would the "vast majority" of people be appalled at James resigning when the vast majority of British Columbians clearly have not approved of her for ages? If people disapprove of a leader it of course follows that they want to see them go.
Adrian:
You and Bill can spin like tops if that's your style. In fact, you weren't even sufficiently familiar with the Angus Reid poll results to understand that the changes in women's voting preferences were part of the data set.
My anecdotal observations are actually supported by polling data.
Your assumptions, on the other hand, appear to be totally based on wishful thinking.
I think that's all I need to say. Your anecdotal surmises simply aren't credible.
Nice try J King, but I'm not the one spinning like a dreidel here. I'm getting vertigo from just watching you twist around the facts like this. I was well aware of the details of the Angus Reid poll of course, including the misleading decline of female support (just because I didn't raise that specious point doesn't mean that I was not "familiar" with it).
You've said absolutely nothing, nothing I repeat, that disputes the fact that only 25% of people approved of James. Funny how the vast majority of British Columbians could be "aghast" that James was removed when the vast majority of people never even approved of her. And to further demonstrate how mistaken you are, even a majority of New Democrats have been wanting to replace James for over a year, long before the infighting, according to Angus Reid:
"51 per cent of respondents who supported the NDP in the last provincial election said the party should change its leader in the near future."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/08/11/bc-angus-reid-poll-liberals-down.html
Sorry adrian, won't wash...The NDP's approval rate among women was 53% in November and 37% in December.
In the interval between the Polls Carole James was forced out by a small cabal of dissidents.
It's too bad the facts don't support your claims BUT THEY DON'T.
I guess you got a new dreidel this Hanukkah, so spin away!
And really, you should be more careful about how you quote people you're 'trying' to argue with.
This, is what I actually wrote:
...the vast majority of the people I've talked to - many of them women - and a lot of them senior civil servants - are aghast at what's happened here.
Please, go back up the thread and make a note of it.
When you can't support your argument on the basis of either facts or logic the next step is usually to misquote your interlocutor.
Perhaps you should quit while you're only this far in the hole.
Sorry, but there's no point arguing any further with someone who just repeats baseless assertions and ignores anything that undermines their argument, for example the Angus Reid poll I quoted that found that a majority of New Democrats wanted to replace James over a year ago, long before the infighting. Notice how you didn't even address this devastating point to your position (presumably because you can't). And now you're disingenuously denying what you just wrote. You were claiming your out-of-touch anecdotal observations were representative of the public and "would, in political terms, constitute a 'vast majority'" Though to be fair, you're quite right to run away from this position because it's obviously completely baseless and ridiculous.
This is not related to the ongoing (boring) comments about Carole James. Have you seen this Bill?
"BREAKING NEWS/EXCLUSIVE: ‘THE BASI FILES’
36
Some time in early November, after the obvious deal cutting between the B.C. government and co-defendants David Basi and Bob Virk, I received a phone call from someone close to the prosecution and very familiar with the BC Liberal government, who was appalled by what had just transpired." Re: Christie Clark et al see
http://alexgtsakumis.com/2010/12/14/breaking-newsexclusive-the-basi-files/
Re: Your blog. I would suggest that you place new blogs at the top so that readers see the latest blog comment first so they don't have to scroll to the bottom. This gives the advantage of readers seeing what new rather than something that is old and been discounted, perhaps.
Also, you might want to have a "contact me" somewhere so that readers can email you rather than leave comments (like the present one) that are not related to stories.
Otherwise, keep up the great work. I need to say something to not nice to J. King. Just haven't had the chance.
Let's move on....
Adrian.
Not only do you not understand polling numbers, you can't read.
One more time - I never claimed to speak for the vast majority of anything except the people I spoke to.
Here's what I wrote:
...the vast majority of the people I've talked to - many of them women - and a lot of them senior civil servants - are aghast at what's happened here.
(I've put the vital words in bold - get it?)
You can't seem to get that through your thick head so why should I care.
I'll simply ignore whatever useless maundering I see under your anonymous label in the future.
It's simply not worth it to attempt to discuss anything with someone who can't read plain English. Trying to deal politely with someone who's more interesting in slinging mud than actual discussion is pointless.
The NDP is truly in bad shape if folks like you have anything whatever to do with running it.
Alan:
Tsakumis's release of memos that purport to be from Dave Basi is an interesting development - I'd certainly like to see them mentioned somewhere other than on his blog.
By the way, don't hold back on any of the nasty things you might have to say to me - my name is J King and I don't hide behind an alias - just let 'er rip...
You can ask Bill Tieleman for a confirmation of that if you like.
I have removed two posts on this item - one from a reader and my response to it - on the basis that the first linked to another website which contains material I cannot verify and am there unable to vouch for.
J KIng, I was going to comment on the nastiness that goes under the pretense of intellectual debate, but I've lost interest. I've also lost interest with the blaming game regarding Carole James. I think Bill has it right: Carole had a few chances but it was time for her to go.
With respect to one of your points, it is a waste of time to read your claims based on the assertion that: "the vast majority of the people I've talked to - many of them women - and a lot of them senior civil servants..." I am curious about how many people you actually spoke to? How many of those were senior civil servants who are women?
In short, how can anyone evaluate a claim concerning supposed conversations with "a lot of civil servants"? Seems a bit vague. But as I say, I'm bored with all the claims and nastiness. It is possible to make a point without being just plain ugly.
Having said that, we really need to get over James. As many have said before, Jenny was the messenger of bad news and no one likes messengers. Jenny did what she had to do and now its time for a new leader to put the party back together - which the new leader will.
The fact that the NDP and so-called Liberals are tied in recent opinion polls proves nothing, in my humble opinion. The question is do we want more of the same from the Liberals or do we want a change? Inquiring minds want to know about the BC Rail fiasco for a start.
I wasn't going to respond any further J King, but I have to thank you for completely discrediting yourself and showing everyone how intellectually serious you are by having a childish little tantrum like this. Everyone sees how you were pretending that your meaningless, anecdotal observations were not out-of-touch, but somehow backed up by the polls. Yes, I obviously saw you say that most people you talked to agreed with you, I never disputed that of course. But you've been claiming that your anecdotal observations are representative of the public and constitute a "vast majority", as I rightly said:
However, my so called "anecdotal" observations happen to be buttressed by a simple comparison between the results of Angus Reid's November polling and the firm's December results which were just released...
I think my observation that a lot of people to whom I've spoken, many of them women, who are aghast at what's happened to Carole James's leadership would, in political terms, constitute a 'vast majority'
"Would in political terms constitute a 'vast majority'" Saying this (after misinterpreting the polls) means you're not just talking about your own anecdotal evidence, but saying its reflective of how the majority of the overall public feels. If that's not what you meant, you shouldn't have said it.
Trying to deal politely with someone who's more interesting in slinging mud than actual discussion is pointless.
Ha ha, I never made any personal attacks at all, and you are the one taking cheap shots at Tieleman and offering mature and serious commentary like this:
"Not only do you not understand polling numbers, you can't read."
"You can't seem to get that through your thick head so why should I care."
"It's simply not worth it to attempt to discuss anything with someone who can't read plain English."
Yeah, very polite. But thanks for completely discrediting and embarrassing yourself like this. The adults here will have also noticed how throughout this you failed to address any of the facts that totally refuted you, like say the Angus Reid poll that said that most New Democrats wanted to replace James over a year ago (sorry, just screaming "You don't know how to read polls!" is not serious), or how respondents with incomes below 50k dropped at about the same rate as female NDP supporters, showing how the drop of NDP support is not about women but something else, etc.. etc..
I'll simply ignore whatever useless maundering I see under your anonymous label in the future.
my name is J King and I don't hide behind an alias
Um, my name is Adrian. Do you not know what an alias is either? Yikes.
Yikes is right.
Adrian is your first name - it means bugger all.
I made no cheap shots at Tieleman - I simply disagree with him.
And, you still can't read apparently - because you still haven't understood what's happened to female support for the PARTY. A vast majority of women polled (57% is a vast majority in a two party FPTP race) no longer intend to vote NDP.
I take it you saw the Mustel poll results?
Or would you rather I didn't mention that either?
As for nastiness, maybe you could look at what you actually started this little exchange with...
Cheers Adrian Adrian....
You can ask Tieleman about who James King is - because I don't hide behind anything - and you can ask him as well if he considers our debate about what's gone on here as nasty or not.
The fact of the matter is that you can't support your side of this argument with anything other than nastiness because the facts are against you.
I'm sorry that's the case and I wager I've been supporting this party, man and boy, a lot longer than you have.
But it's still a fact - despite you and your side's unwillingness to acknowledge it.
Post a Comment