In an interview with the CBC today NDP MP says that he is not prepared to announce whether he will run for the leadership of the NDP so quickly because it’s a 15-20 year commitment and that it the thought process leading up to his decision would take more than 24 hours.
Mr Cullen’s name has been bandied about for years regarding leadership aspirations and succession in the party. I can’t imagine he is just starting to think about it now.
Even more shocking is that he thinks it’s a 15-20 year commitment.
Enter the race now and run for leadership( fight off the leap manifesto) for the next 2 years
Win and fight for the next year in the run up to the 2019 election ( So far 2+1 =3)
After reading the column in the Toronto Star relating Cheri DiNovo rant on her own party ( She’s right, leadership blew the last election and has to look in the mirror) I was taken for a loop at the following paragraph ” Although she applauds Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for accepting Syrian refugees, ending airstrikes in the Middle East, and legalizing marijuana, she nevertheless warns that the new administration “will be an austerity government, with better hair.”
Last time I looked the air strikes were still happening, the refugees (were always accepted) haven’t got here yet and Marijuana has not been legalized.
But if you’d been sleeping or hiding under a rock and read the Toronto Star you would have thought it all fait accompli.
The pot law alone will take time to change, let alone require the house to be in session.
There is a total vacuum at the top of the BC Conservative Party.
The Leader, Dan Brooks, is AWOL. No media presence. No visits to Party members. No profile.
Only two news releases in the past six months.
Almost every director elected to the Party board last November, including the president, resigned only weeks into their mandate.
There is no fundraising, no money, no momentum. What’s up?
Here’s maybe a clue as to why Brooks has walked away from the Party.
One year from now, in November of 2016, he’s scheduled to be in BC Supreme Court along with his former leadership campaign manager, Barry Sikora. Sikora is listed on the Party website as a regional director from Surrey.
In the 2014 BC Conservative leadership campaign, two anonymous smear letters against Brook’s leadership rival, Rick Peterson, were sent out to all 4,000 members of the BC Conservative Party across the province.
Following a Vancouver Police Department investigation and an internal Party report, Peterson filed a defamation claim against Brooks, Sikora and Sikora’s printing company, Classic Impressions Inc., alleging that the three parties were responsible for the production and dissemination of the anonymous letters, which attacked Peterson’s personal, political and professional reputation.
A November 2016 court date before a judge and 12-member jury is locked into place. Sources tell me that Kristy Fredericks, elected Party president in November of last year, abruptly resigned her post weeks after assuming her duties, along with every member of the board that she brought with her on the “Dan Brooks youth slate” at the November AGM, when she learned about the extent of the allegations.
Nothing has been proven yet, and it is only in court that the full details will be released.
It could get ugly. How ugly? Check out the current political defamation case playing out right now in BC Supreme Court, involving former Liberal MP Blair Wilson, who claims that anonymous claims against him amounted to “character assassination” . Here’s the link:
And here’s a quote from that story – bold italics are mine:
“The named defendants in the case include Bill Lougheed, former MLA Judi Tyabji, political strategist Mark Marissen, who is the former husband of Premier Christy Clark and political blogger Steve Janke, who published an anonymous letter detailing allegations against Wilson and forwarded to Elections Canada. Tyabji, who had conversations with Lougheed and O’Connor and was allegedly motivated by an ambition to remove Wilson from his MP’s job, was in court Wednesday representing herself.”
Sound familiar? I’m no legal expert, but part of this Blair Wilson case seems very similar to charges currently levied against Brooks and Sikora.
It’s clear to me that the fortunes of the BC Conservative Party under Dan Brooks’ leadership are on hold until this gets cleared up. If Brooks or his campaign manager were found to have a role in the anonymous smear letters against Peterson, it’s lights out for the Party in 2017.
And maybe this is why the Party Leader has decided to hide under a rock, hoping this all blows over.
If you are part of the so called parliamentary caucus and your reading this, do the right thing and ensure that Michelle Rempel becomes interim leader.
If you are a volunteer or party member persuade or turn the screws to your “parliamentary caucus rep” to get behind Michelle.
If you just said what’s a parliamentary caucus rep. its your newly elected Conservative MP or sitting Conservative Senator.
SHE is young ( younger than Trudeau in fact) and that will ensure the new electorate will take notice.
SHE is highly energetic and will hit the ground running. The party can’t afford to sit around and wait to get things going,it gotta happen now and that includes fundraising and area that Michelle will be of great help.
SHE has sharp elbows and will not be afraid to hold the new government accountable.
SHE is a team builder and more than ever we need that skill now.
Did I mention she is a female? That will send an amazing message to another part of the electorate that needs to hear our message.
Michelle is the right choice, Make her the interim leader now and without delay.
This was the election that was the referendum on Stephen Harper.
It was dubbed as the Anybody but Harper campaign.
It ended badly for Mr.Harper we know that now.
The Conservatives, on the other hand will live another day.
The NDP might not be so fortunate.
Before the election was dubbed the “Anybody but Harper Campaign” the discussion centered around whether the left could exist as two bodies and defeat the Conservatives without splitting the vote.
That was put to the test in this election and from where I sat and watched only one survived.
As soon as Tom Mulcair said the NDP stood for balanced budgets they became Harper lite.
Justin Trudeau and the Liberals pounced and said they would run deficits creating a clear choice in the voting public’s mind. Would they vote for Harper and the Conservatives ( Which the NDP was now lumped) or would they vote for Liberal deficits and spending.
While the voters where mulling that over, Thomas Mulcair put what I think was the final nail in his and the NDP coffin.
It wasn’t the niqab ( although that didn’t help him ).
At the September 28 debate Thomes Mulcair shot him and his party squarely in the foot.
Mulcair invoked the death of Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
Trudeau made a passionate defense of his father as would I of mine.
Trudeau took full control from that moment on and made the voters choice easy, a compassionate party with a left leaning economic vision versus two balanced budget parties that were mean.
In my mind the election was over that night.
At the same time the Trudeau Liberals swallowed up the NDP and gave those progressive voters a home they could win on.
And win they did.
Next election the economy will still be the topic ( It always is) but the NDP wont have much to say in the outcome.
It will be tax and spend of the Liberals versus the Conservatives fiscal economic planning.
The Conservatives will have a new leader who will have gotten the message from last night.
There will be no Anybody But Harper Campaign. The fight will be for those new voters who came out this time.
The NDP? There is no longer room for them, they had their chance.
How cool would it be to have one of those brand spanking new lawn signs on your front lawn just in time for the good weather!
It can be yours for a mere $6.30.
The good guys ( the would be the Notranslinktax guys) don’t have the resources that the yes folks do.
You can help.
As I said above “each lawn sign costs about $6.30 when the cost of the plastic, the wire frame and the taxes are included. And we need lots of them – can you help us buy a few lawn signs? Just click here to buy lawns signs using our secure online form.
Only $63.00 will buy us 10 signs – think of the impact that ten signs will make in your neighborhood or along your commute home. Help us buy 10 .”
In a little less than a year another federal election will have happened and the results will have been sliced and diced well before now.
I can almost guarantee the topic once again will be the lousy over all voter turnout .
At some point during the election someone in the media will be shocked at the size of the advance turnout suggesting that change is in the air. ( It’s convenient for people to vote at advanced polls rather than just one certain day, when will the pundits figure that out?)
This theory will once again be kneecapped after election day itself when the pundits will be once again gob-smacked by the low overall turnout.
Why aren’t people voting they will cry? What can we do about it ?
Nothing of course until they address the flaws in the political nomination process.
Perception is everything because in the eyes of the public not only is the process flawed but it might even be corrupt.
It’s a simple process really.
It start’s with a questionnaire the prospective candidate fills out.
It is then sent on to a committee for review. They look to make sure everything is answered etc.
It is either approved or rejected,sent back to redo and then an interview is arranged.
The candidate is interviewed and then ultimate approval is given.
Should be simple enough.
But it’s not.
During the nomination process the prospective candidate has to sell more memberships than the other potential candidates and get them out to vote.
The end result is that people are disgusted and want no part of the process including voting on voting day.
To get people involved where they care,volunteer and vote at the ballot box all parties must stop appointing candidates.
They must evaluate potential candidates early in the process and remove them then not mere days before the vote. At present I believe the parties wait to the last-minute to allow input of extra membership money from the soon to be disposed of candidate.
If they opt to remove them closer to the big day than provide a reason publicly. The candidate should not be in politics if they can’t handle rejection and the reviewers should not be reviewers if they don’t have the moxie to toss a candidate and say why.
Above all the process should be open,accountable and transparent.
Right now it’s not and it’s disgusting, don’t you think?