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?
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.
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?
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.
In an effort to make himself even less relevant than he was yesterday Justin Trudeau released his list of reforms from the 90’s that include such items as gender parity in cabinet and bilingual judges.
So much for work for merit.
This comes from a guy who promised open accountable nominations and has delivered anything but.
His team leads the league in newly nominated candidates walking away.
At the same time Tom Mulcair was telling a business lunch that he will cut small business taxes.
This election will be between the Stephen Harper led Conservatives and the Tom Mulcair NDP.
Trudeau wont be a factor, he proved today he’s not up to the task.
To those of us who are old enough to remember; the title of this blog piece is a line from a famous song by the Guess Who.
To those of us old enough to vote that line may well be the ballot box question during the Canadian federal election in October of 2015.
As of right now the cops and the military need guns to protect the people from the bad guys.
Add to that the farmers need guns because they are to far away from the cops and the military to get quick help and you have a formula for a another Conservative party of Canada win.
Everybody always says it’s the economy stupid and this will be no different.
After all if everybody is safe and sound and buying guns won’t the economy just hum along.
What do you think the ballot box question will be?
As if we need another reason to Vote NO in the upcoming transit referendum, rumors are filtering down that if people vote NO in the upcoming referendum the government will step away and do nothing about the transit problem affecting the Lower mainland.
Nothing could be further than the truth unless you think the BC Liberal government is prepared to walk away from a number of seats they hold in the area.
A NO vote will force the government to act before the 2017 election and perhaps rewrite legislation so that they can reorganize the Translink board and get this whole thing done right.
A NO vote will wrap the whole issue like an Albatross around the governments neck and force them to act.
Don’t let the Yes side convince you other wise.
Any organization that tosses their so called top guy aside and keeps him around at a salary of $35,000 per month needs reorganizing. If you weren’t convinced of that before that happened it’s a no brainer now.
So Vote NO and tell your government to get the job done right!
They say its only $258 and that you won’t even notice it.
They say it’s necessary to fund the transit system that will be left in dire straights if this referendum does not pass.
It’s a load of crap.
After all can’t you think of a better use for YOUR $258 ?
Vote No it’s the right thing to do !
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.
Cue the upcoming nomination battle in Surrey-Newton an Electoral district in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
Two so-called wily political adversaries selling memberships by using prepaid visa cards.
Obviously against the rules.
Or parties appoint candidates and disqualify others at the last-minute leaving their own appointed candidate looking like a wounded duck.
Or people cheat.
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?