What will the party do next? How will it get ready for the election expected early next year?
Or will it?
What will the party do next? How will it get ready for the election expected early next year?
Or will it?
There is lots of talk among the general population about how they want the election process to be open, transparent and accountable.
People want there politicians to vote their ( constituents ) wishes and open the process to them so that they can see it at work.
Seems to have gone on deaf ears here in BC Liberal Surrey and the nomination process.
If rumors are true the recent nomination ( acclimation) of Stephanie Cadieux was an appointment, Marvin Hunt is being moved to another riding to run under an acclimation and tonight or soon newcomer and Sukh Dhaliwal crony, Puneet Sanhar, will be introduced/acclaimed in another riding.
The latter event apparently because Sukh was to be acclaimed but changed his mind in case he lost.
Given that these are fairly safe BC Liberal seats I am sure there would have been great nomination clashes should the process have been open.
Whatever happened to attracting good people to run in a nomination process and winning on their own merits?
This could be one of several factors in play by the time the election rolls around and they could conceivably lose these seats.
With the recent announcement by Dan Brooks of his intention to re-seek the the leadership of the BC Conservative Party, my readers have asked me a number of questions . They deserve answers.
One reader asked : Since Brooks quit and then announced his intention to run again, will he have to pay the $5000 entry fee? ( Why wouldn’t he, he quit the job causing the party to incur the cost of the leadership convention in the first place. )
Another reader asked: Since Brooks quit citing the lawsuit as one of the main reasons for stepping away does this mean the lawsuit is behind him and if it’s not will he quit again if it doesn’t go his way? ( I have no idea except to say that the whole thing is supposedly set for trial in November of 2016 and if things do not go his way quitting again would really leave the party in a lurch? Oh right. That’s happened once before.)
Another reader asked : If Brooks was implying that a settlement of his lawsuit was near, would he be so quick to give away his negotiating position in that lawsuit by announcing that the law suit didn’t bother him anymore and by extrapolation would he be so quick to give away the party’s in the event he was successful in the leadership race should he have to negotiate on their behalf for any reason? ( Who knows, you would have to ask Dan?)
A further reader asked : There are emails being sent out that contain Brooks endorsements. Does this mean Brooks has been vetted and given the green light? ( I don’t know, I don’t sit on the board.I have no have no idea where he got his email list. )
Finally a reader asked : The emails that have been sent out by the Brooks group ( including a news release) don’t give me an opportunity to unsubscribe. Doesn’t this violate Canada’s anti-spam legislation? ( I don’t know I am not a lawyer but the fines for breaching this are huge)
So it seems the Brooks candidacy has more questions than answers at this point from both the BC Conservative board and Dan Brooks.
I would imagine the answers will be forth coming soon.
Or maybe not.
I believe I am eminently qualified to render an opinion regarding this weeks latest Twitter gaffe by BC Liberal newly nominated candidate Randy Rinaldo.
Having been through the media gauntlet over the same issue in the 2013 provincial election and erring by firing them I can relate to the intensity of which the mainstream media will confront Campaign staff, managers , directors and candidates.
They play gotcha when a tweet or internet posting is discovered and then come at you to fire the candidate.
I erred and played their game and we fired a few candidates that we shouldn’t have.
What we should have done then and what Rich Coleman ( He was the spokesperson) did right was keep the candidate in place and let the voters decide whether tweeting is a serious enough offense to cast their candidate ( Rinaldo) aside.
Make no mistake about it.
This is a winnable seat for the BC Liberals. They only lost last time by 743 votes.
It took the courage of Coleman’s Conviction ( and the party’s) to stand by their candidate.
I applaud them for that.
We will see next year whether the voters agree.
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)
Total = 4 years, a far cry from 15-20 ( I can only imagine what his first budget might look like if he somehow won)
So I give up, where do the other 11-16 years come from?
Can anybody tell me?
It seems everybody has an opinion as to whether Brad Wall should run and also why Conservatives want to draft him to run.
I am a Conservative who has lived and networked in most places in Canada ( including Regina) and I will tell you unequivocally why people like me want him to run.
It has nothing to do with keeping the party united ( although he would do that with ease). I have spoken to many Conservatives and none of them have raised this as an issue no matter who wins.
We want him to run because Brad Wall would make a great Prime Minister!
He has proven time and time again he is a great leader who knows how to win elections because he listens to people.
He is a fighter who sticks up for his province as he would no doubt do for the country when he becomes Prime Minister.
Encouraging Brad Wall to run for the leadership is simply the right thing to do!
I mean heck even Warren Kinsella likes him.
Why wouldn’t we?
Most likely fearing the byelections that the Premier called moments ago and that have been discussed as recently as last week in the mainstream media , BC Conservative Leader resigned his position yesterday.
Brooks resignation follows his thumping in the previous provincial election, several resignations on the provincial board, lack of funds raised by his team and most notably the recent lawsuit launched against him and certain member’s of his leadership contest team for smear letters written against candidate Rick Peterson.
The allegations have yet to be proven in court and come up for trial in November of 2016.
The board in the announcement of his resignation applauds Brooks for staying on at least until the Party`s February AGM.
There are a lot of us who think he should leave now and the harder the door hits him in the rear on the way out the better.
The party is not dead. Brooks resignation opens the doors for some exciting candidates to step forward.
I have heard a lot of chatter about new leaders in the last 24 hours.
It will be an interesting to see who steps up.
That discussion is for another day.
Today is for Dan Brooks.
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.
Good luck with that.
Leadership races are always interesting no matter what party you belong to. They present themselves as a time for renewal and a time to attract new people into the process that maybe haven’t been involved before or awhile.
Additionally, the goal should (and must be) to attract the best and the brightest to get involved not only to lead the party from backbenches, or no benches, but to also attract the best and brightest people into a leadership role in their community.
To get the best and brightest fundraising should be in place as should a good set of policies. Then a leadership race can begin with the best person hopefully chosen as Leader.
It seems common sense, but then nothing should ever be taken for grant, and so I also say that a leaders job is to undertake to increase fundraising, further develop policy, and no matter what the party standing is in the house, hold the current government accountable.
If the party has seats in the house ,questions should be asked, and scrums should be held, with the media ensuring that all the people are represented. Should the party not be in the house, they can hold the government accountable by press releases, social media releases,radio interviews, or even traveling to the House and arranging media meetings outside house when a relevant issue arises etc.
The success of this all revolves around leadership, and that means as I said earlier, having the right leader and the right policies in place to get the job done. This is easier said than done.
A recent review the the BC Conservative constitution ( provincial party) shows this:
Section 11.02 The Leader can only be removed from office by resignation, death, incapacitation, or the
vote of sixty percent (60%) of the Party Members in good standing who vote in a
universal mail-in ballot.
Another way of saying this is that once a leader is elected he or she only needs 40 % of the current members to vote in favor of his or her leadership role to stay in the job. That seems to me to be setting the bar awfully low. It means that a leader would only have to get a few people to vote to save his or her job especially if the party or it’s members is disillusioned.
The question to ask my readers is what do you think the correct percentage is in order to attract talent and correct mistakes in the leadership process?
Back in 1991 a book was written by Georgette Gagnon and Dan Rath.
It was called Not Without Cause and was about Then Ontario Premier David Peterson.
Premier Peterson called an election he had no need to and was soundly thrashed by Bob Rae and the NDP.
Jim Prentice of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta should have taken a few minutes and read it.
He might have avoided the thrashing he and his party have taken tonight at the polls.
In fact he probably won’t even be the official opposition.
There was no need to drop the writ, he could have waited a year.
Instead Prentice and his team made a litany of mistakes they could never recover from.
Add to that a leader of the NDP who resonated with the people and it was all over but the crying.
And Crying there will be throughout all of Alberta if the NDP governs the way the NDP usually does. ( Rae days, Tax hikes etc.)
Contrary to what some of the pundits (idiots) on TV were saying this had nothing to do with the Harper government.
This result was strictly a black line through the provincial PC Dynasty.
Jim Prentice presided over that.
Perhaps he should look in the mirror.
What do you think?