How typical of this COPE lite group. They can't accept they lost so they have to make excuses and blame somebody else. But these are weird and extreme commments that are highly offensive. The NDP abuses women? Arre you saying that anyone who didn't vote for Raj Sihota abuses women? So mucch for democracy. Quit your sniveling Maya.

I wonder if Maya felt the same way when she endorsed and worked for Nils Jensen in the NDP Leadership race. Why is it that when Maya supported a man over a strong woman like Carole James it's fine? Hyprocite?

I am not the soft and cudley type but this stuff makes me want to weep.

TYPICAL, I don't know if mommy didn't hug you enough or kids stole your lunch money in school but you need some treatment!

Was Maya's comments tinted with some anger and emotion? Yes. It sounds like a good friend of hers lost a nomination battle.

So what do you do?

A: Wow Maya, I understand a good friend of yours lost and you are upset by the outcome. Democracy prevailed and Shane Simpson had the most support and I believe he earned it. But you raise a good point that there is a real lack of women candidates for the NDP and we need to work together as a party to solve it. How can I help?

B: Do Nothing.

C: Take all of her comments and push them down the slippery slope. Suggest that she is saying the NDP abuses women, call her undemocratic, and tell her to quit sniveling.

For the life of my I can't understand why women don't run for nominations and when they do they are subjected to this kind of crap.

(this is where I start throwing things around the room)

TYPICAL...you should remove your head from your ass...give it a shake and remember why you got involved in the party and politics.

Is this why?

Is this the culmination of your acitivism?

Is this the bright lite you saw that got you involved?

If it is you are trash...and no friend of mine!

SAD SAD SAD

Nobody has to suggest that Maya is saying that the NDP abuses women. SHE is saying this.

These comments that she has made are not that flattering, true, and they do make her look like a bit of an idiot. But she has nobody to blame but herself for making these stupid statements to begin with. Why is it that SOME people always have to find someone else to blame?

Suckitup,

Welcome to the trash pile.

SAD SAD SAD

I am sure more women will be nominated. In two ridings strong women ran and lost. In Vancouver Hastings Raj would have beena great candidate and I expect MLA. She would have had my vote in that riding if I were a resident.

The Guy who won will also be a good MLA. It looks like the Raj team did not do as well in signing up members in the riding. Raj had as good a group of high profile campaigners as Shane had. In this nomination it was not a case of the woman candidate having fewer or inferior resources.

In Cariboo South the head of the Women's centre would also have been a good MLA. I do not know much about her campaign and what help she received other than additional finacial resources the party provides. Again this person would have been out organized.

Charlie Wyse is a legend in Williams Lake. He has served on city council for eons. He was always socially progressive and fiscally conservative and will prove to be a real challenge for Walt Cobb.

Charlie will be able to bring along much of the non traditional NDP vote that David Zirnhelt brought when he was MLA. The decision in Cariboo South was not between a woman or a man. It was between well known Charlie and a much lesser known woman.

Had I been a resident of the Cariboo, I would have voted for Charlie.

As a non-New Democrat, this stuff is fascinating.

No question that at that meeting, NDP'ers elected the next MLA. With that at stake, full credit to someone who has been at it for 6 months shaking hands and kissing babies.

What is really surprising is that all in, for a guaranteed trip to Victoria, the candidates for nomination combined could only come up with 820 supporters.

And following the nomination, people are teeing off on all candidates, themselves, their associates and their supposed friends.

It sucks to lose. No question about it. I have been on both ends, and losing is infinitely worse.

But what the BC NDP is going through is remarkable. At least the federal Liberals know how to knife each other and (for the most part) keep their troubles inside the tent, then move ahead together to get elected.

I doubt that this will be possible for the NDP at this point. Not even their pathological hatred of Campbell will be able to overcome their deep distrust of each other. And clearly, their leader isn't strong enough or have the depth of support within the party to put a stop to it.

There will clearly be a blood-letting post-election. It will be interesting to see which side prevails in this mess.

Net-net: Serious bad news for Carole James as she must spend time and energy on fixing this mess.

Nobody has responded to Maya's point. This is not about one nomination race, it's happening all over the province. Is Typical saying that there is not a problem, because that's what it sounds like he's saying. Nobody prominent in the party has shown leadership on this issue. Good for Maya for raising the issue, even if it makes people uncomfortable.

What's pathological trashman is how you guys comes out of the woodwork when you think you smell something. Like you said, the Liberals hide everything and then don't tell the truth about it. I think I hear Gordo calling you back to work!

OMG, I can not believe the infighting on the left... This is truly madness.

Does the NDP (and the Liberals) have a systemic problem with the underepsentation of women? Yes

Is this a reason for the left to adopt some sort bizzare canabalistic campaign of insanity? No.

Why do women not get selected? Because we have a winner takes all electoral system - only one person can run for the NDP in each riding. It is easy to slough off the debate about the systemic problem when you have 79 individual races for nomination and menkeep winning one by one.

We either need to regulate the nomination process of parties or change the electoral system - or do both.

The answer is to adopt STV, gender balanced slates from major parties will be a de facto expectation of the public once we have STV. This will not because it is a mandate of STV, but because it is a political cultural expectation of the public of BC and there is no excuse not to gender balance with STV.

The low numbers of women running in winable ridings for the NDP is going to loss the NDP a few percentage points across BC, enough to drop the NDP to the low 20s in seats come May 18th.

Hey Truth, I never said the Liberals hide everything--I simply said they don't air their laundry in public on websites.

And the last time I looked, neither the Manitoba nor Saskatchewan NDP do either.

They, like the federal Liberals are in government. My only point was that when you are wasting resources fixing internal problems (see the federal Conservatives) generally speaking your eye is off the ball and you lose elections.

No need to get so defensive Truth. The Truth that does hurt is that divided parties don't win elections--no matter what the political stripe.

Don't be surprised by NDP infighting, it's not news, always happens and always will. It would be interesting to see how other parties could survive, tolerating the wide range of opinions that make up the NDP. I suspect the other parties would not survive.

Discussion is always exciting and though Maya used less than diplomatic language to describe the situation she is right about the signs.

Still the NDP has policy and some funds available to assist women and minority groups to run as a candidate. It is does seem that the policy and or funds are inadequate in having women and minorities succeed in getting the nomination.

One more riding to comment on, Judy Darcy lost in Vancouver Fairview. This is another case of a strong woman with access to the best campaigners and funds losing again to someone that out organised her team. This was not a case of a man having systemic advantage.

I accept that there may always be infighting in the NDP.

But looking back to 1991 and 96, there was a cohesive message coming from a tight team.

2001--not exactly.

2005--yet to be determined, but not off to a great start with deep divides post nominating meetings.

That's true 1991 to 1996 were great, I miss Mike.

You make your point clearer Trashman. We agree that infighting makes a divided party.

But this is not about the Party. It is about a group of organizers, in Vancouver, who have just gotten beyond themselves in many ways. To say that it is "almost abusive" when a woman does not win a nomination is proving the point. A nomination meeting is a democratic process and they appear to be going well around the rest of the Province. It is unfortunate and of concern that more women are not being nominated, we all want more women to be nominated and be in elected seats. Joy and Jenny are prime examples of what women can do when women are in those seats. Is there any way of determing what it going on and why it has been so difficult? Don't know, but to make such a statement, in a public forum, where the statement becomes news, is a mistake.

We do not have the time to work this out before May 17, we must put our energies into fighting the Liberals and from we read today, the Business Council of BC as they will be continuing with the Liberal propoganda campaign telling us all what a wonderful job the Liberals have done, what a wonderful place this is to live and how the Liberals deserve the credit for the upturn in the economy. Ever hear of Globalization Gordo?

But to keep this on topic, once this election is over, it will be encumbent on all of us, to sit down and really analyze why more women are not being nominated when they agree to run. There may be no answer, and every party, if they care, will struggle with this issue, but we sure won't move the cause forward when such statements are made.

I made the same comment on a previous thread that only one woman (Charley Beresford) had defeated a male candidate to win the nomination.

Unlike Maya though, I really don't know what to make of it. The fact of the matter is that many women are supporting male candidates (even when there is a woman in the race) and many men are supporting women candidates.

So, I'd be very hesistant to say that the inability of women to win nominations over men has to be because of sexism.

Not just the party, but political science professors and others need to analyze the NDP nomination results and try to come up with reasons for what is going on.

This wasn't the case for the NDP federally in B.C. A number of women defeated male candidates to win nominations then, and that was only a year ago. So, it doesn't really make much sense to me for people to become sexist when they weren't then.

It will be interesting to see if, in the nominations ahead there is pressure placed on the constituency, or by the members themselves, to nominate female candidates. There are still 46 nominations to come. (Or 45 depending on what is going on in Delta North)

Yeah, we should just wait until the nominations are all over and the seats are filled up for the next 10-15 years and quietly discuss the problem. That'll really fix it.

Well, I suppose whining about sexism in the NDP is a lot more effective. If the problem is a lack of women running for nominations, a lack of resources, whatever, I doubt there is much that can be done in the next couple of months. There already are candidate training schools and the like.

The obvious strategy for women running for NDP nominations is to start making the lack of women candidates part of their pitch "we need more women, so vote for me". How that will play, I have no idea.

Jesus, you're all bloody mad.

Any New Democrat who doesn't think the situation of underepresentation of women this election is not at a crisis point does not deserve to call themselves progressive, and if they aren't working to do something about it, they don't belong in this party.

Mind, all of you who strive, and get some sort of charge out of taking our small internal bickerings public, don't belong in it, either.

Why not something like the U.S Emily's List? And please y'all - cool the rhetoric and the forget the idea you have naming rights over the term "progressive."

Perhaps there is a different vehicle for a meaningful discussion regarding getting more women involved in politics. I would hope that discussion would go beyond the view that is being put forth by some of the contributors to this thread that in Vancouver-Hastings all considerations beyond the candidate's gender needed to be put aside.

First, Emily, thank you. I'm sick of others telling me what isn't progressive. Identification through non-definition is a slippery slope. So, cool it, and let us decide for ourselves whether we're 'progressive' or not.

Secondly, the reason so many women are supporting male over female candidates is because they're looking for something more than someone they simply identify with as a member of a group. There's a multiplicity of concern that is coming through in the nomination battles; many women may consider education for their children to be more important than VIA Rail, or the Safe Streets legislation or whatever. I'm not analyzing campaigns here, but pointing out that the members of the NDP are sophisticated voters who have primary and secondary issues. Anyone who asks why women aren't supporting female candidates should take a step back and ask why a woman just *should* support female candidates? Its a bit of an assumption to believe a woman has a natural constituant within her gender. I know I demand a bit more than a strong female before I decide who to vote for. There are things called issues, values, and 'the future', and I want my vote to go to someone (anyone!) who shares them with me.

There may be a problem, but we aren't going to solve it by being reactionary. We have a convention coming up this year: if you see a problem, amend the constitution! In the mean time, no-one should be concerned: the left is more than ready to take back the leg, and we'll do it united.

Raj impressed a lot of people in this race and was an excellent candidate. She should be encouraged to run again - and not be ripped apart in public. And the party should be looking for opportunities to build the profile of women like Raj (and others who ran for nominations) so that they will have a better chance of winning next time. With federal nominations coming up there is an opportunity to change the process.

This is not about Raj (or any other women for that fact). Raj was/is an excellent candidate, she should be encouraged to run again. This thread was started by discussing the group of organizers she had around her and that they are not the phenoms they try to portray. It was made worse by making a statement that was outrageous. With such a such a strong woman leading us, how can we not look and move ahead.

I'm pretty sure Canada, if not specifically B.C, already has things like Emily's List.

Like I said, I really don't know what is going on. I predicted a number of women would win this past weekend, and they all lost.

All potential candidates should be encouraged to ensure that they have a balance of community service and activism in their chosen party long before they decide to throw their hat in the ring. If Raj wants to run again she should find that balance.

Like I said, I understand the concern of the lack of women candidates. Vaughn Palmer discussed this on his segment on CKNW just after 7AM hour, so it's definitely making it into the mainstream media. Carol James is clearly going to get asked further about it, especially in contrast to the fact that the Liberals have gotten (or recruited) a number of relatively high profile candidates in ridings where incumbent Liberal MLAs are retiring. Off the top of my head I can think of 4, and there are probably more:

1.Virginia Greene in Vancouver-Point Grey to replace Gary Collins
2.Irene Barr in Port Moody-Westwood to replace Christy Clark
3.Olga Illich in Richmond Centre to replace Greg Halsey-Brandt
4.Some prominent berry grower in one of the Interior ridings.

The problem for the NDP is that it's pretty much too late to do anything about it without them breaking their own rules.

The NDP has a rule that candidates for the nomination must be members of the party for at least 90 days before they can run. I'd be surprised if any nomination contest isn't held within 60 days, at least in the winnable ridings.
So, it's impossible for the NDP to recruit high profile women candidates without breaking their own rules. Beyond this, it's likely that most candidates for upcoming nomination have already sought out party members for support. So, unless they're asked to step for any new recruit, it's highly unlikely the new recruits would win.

One thing though I just remembered, it's actually 2 women nominees who have defeated male candidates for the nomination.

1.Charley Beresford defeated Evan Roberts in Oak Bay-Gordon Head
2.Carol McNamee defeated Nelson Allen in Nanaimo-Parksville.

If the lack of women candidates does become a big issue for NDP members, we'll likely see it play out on February 6.

On that day, in Malahat-Juan de Fuca, Cowichan School Trustee Julie Thomas competes for the nomination against high profile NDP pol and former Chief of Staff to Dan Miller John Horgan and in Burnaby North BCGEU Rep Jaynie Clark battles former NDP MLA Pietro Calendino. Under normal circumstances, my guess is (and it's strictly a guess) is that in both ridings the male candidate would be favored to win.

If it becomes a REALLY big issue, On Feb 5, Patricia (Tish) Lakes could upset former MLA Corky Evans in Nelson-Creston.

The issue of the lack of NDP women candidates is a real and serious one, and the comments from Maya - while stemming from completely understandable emotions from the Hastings race - simply highlight what a lot of people know, but are afraid to talk about openly.
The issue isn't specifically whether Raj should have won over Shane, or if Shane deserved to win. Clearly in the current context, in the current system, with the current circumstances Shane did his work and won. And it's not his fault. The issue of diversity and an appalling lack of women candidates is much bigger and more complex than the Hastings result - and worth raising and discussing.
It's the giant elephant in the middle of the NDP room! Of course the powers that be, and the men that have won nominations & their supporters are super-sensitive to the issue being raised, and would prefer it just not be talked about.
But as Adam T has pointed out - it is being talked about, and will be talked about. When Gordon Campbell ends up having a dramatically more diverse and gender balanced slate of candidates than Carole the elephant will be sitting all over us. And then it will be long too late to do anything about it!

Re: "It's the giant elephant in the middle of the NDP room! Of course the powers that be, and the men that have won nominations & their supporters are super-sensitive to the issue being raised, and would prefer it just not be talked about"

Every male candidate that won had plenty of women supporters and, in ridings where women ran, they defeated women candidates who had male supporters. To blame sexism for the results (which you didn't do) would be wrong.

The male nominees have no reason to feel guilty. They won fair and square, and despite Maya Russell's claim to the contrary, I saw no evidence in any of the nominations that I attended that sexism had anything to do with the result.

Another woman for the Liberals that should be mentioned is Jeannie Kanakos running in Delta North, a Paul Martinite and someone with the skills to be in cabinet with her time in the federal civil service and her decades of work on aboriginal issues.

Given the NDP's infighting in the riding and that the Liberals have won this riding in 96 and 01 and only narrowly lost in 91. I would expect to see Jeannie as a Liberal MLA after the election and someone that clearly has the skills and ability to get into cabinet.

Good on Maya and others for sparking debate on these serious questions. Shame on those beating her up for doing so. Let's not forget, that it was the nasties who opposed her candidate (Raj) that were first out of the gate to jump on the commentary bandwagon - kicking the shit out of her and the rest of Raj's supporters after Raj had already lost and their preferred candidate (Shane) had won.

Raj herself, on the other hand, showed nothing but high-road class in sticking around and rallying behind the winner when the final result rolled in. She deserves full marks for a strong, positive, inclusive and credible campaign that should position her well for any future goals she might have. The party would do well to continue to support and nurture women like her who are interested in running.

Sadly, even those who opposed Raj and who are now calling for calm and unity can't resist the chance to swipe at her as a last-minute gimmick candidate; or sneeringly tell her what they think her weaknesses were/are. If that's how cheery and unifying these folks are when they win, I would hate to see how they act when they loose!

I can certainly forgive Maya for expressing some valid emotions through some colourful language. And she raises some very valid points. One only needs to read some of the early posts by these nasties to see where she might get the feeling of folks being abused!

Adam T is correct that simplistic or overt sexism is not the cause of any particular women candidate's being defeated in any nomination race. And as far as I can tell, that is not what is being alleged by people raising concerns. Adam T is wrong - Maya never claimed that Shane didn't win fairly, or allege any wrong doing in the process as it unfolded. It is totally unfair of you to misrepresent her concerns as such. While she used strong language, the concerns were clearly deeper, and more structural or systemic. As far as I know, noone has challenged the legitemacy of the Hastings meeting result or the cleanliness of that process.

Hastings aside, there are still bigger legitemate questions on the issue of the NDP looking like the "No Dames Party".
There are many questions that will need to be asked coming out of all this:
1) Is the current process for nominations - 90 day sign-up waiting periods; 5 hour 'lock-up' nomination meetings; haphazard and weak candidate search/recruitment; etc. - disproportionately unfavourable to women and other equity candidates?
2) Is the party through it's policies, and leading personalities demonstrating meaningful leadership in helping to esnure the party's public face reflects that of 2005 British Columbia?
3) Can the part learn from other parties here and abroad on how to develop more diverse slates of candidates? Can we learn from outside scrutiny, and not just interal navel-gazing by the status quo insiders (many of whom seem to see no problem at all!)?

While I am sympathetic to the notion that everyone needs to rally-around, and unite for the election, I am also always suspicious of those who constantly use loyalty/untiy arguments to block any discussion of serious problems.

It's always an easy 'out'. We can't talk about that now, we have an election to prepare for. We can't talk about that now, we have an election debt to pay-off. We can't talk about that now we have to focus on opposing the Liberals, etc... It's time for some leadership on these issues.

Asking Questions, fair point. It depends on how you interpret her comment "the party is sick" as to whether she is alleging direct sexism or not. She probably did not mean to allege direct sexism.

Personally, I would have preferred to vote for a woman, but just didn't like Raj's politics.

She's endorsed by the 'COPE lite' faction, supported Nils Jensen in the leadership campaign, and generally seems to be on the right of the Party (oops, I mean "she's pragmatic and realistic'').

I find a lot of that crew really cynical and condescending, and quite frankly don't think their politics are reflective of this community. I'm not all that impressed with Shane Simpson either, so it was really just a case of 'the lesser evil' from my perspective.

I sense a lot of excitement in this room. The NDP party face an incrediable opportunity and challenge in this upcoming election. The candidates have been chosen by the people in their communities and they need our support and our input.

It is my belief that effort needs to be made in each community to provide transportation to the polling stations come election day. There are so many people in rural ridings that do not have any or adequate transportation. There are a lot of people who are not registered to vote.

I believe that voting is a duty. Sometimes I think that our generation forgets the struggles and sacrifices that have been made by the pioneers and activists in this province and in Canada in order to guarantee us this right.

I for one would be willing to drive anyone to the polls if they want to vote. I would like to know if there is anyone else that would be willing to help organize a team of volunteers that could be available to drive on election day. It's not about who you are going to vote for, it's about ensuring that as many people as possible are able to have a voice in shaping this province.

I have to admit that it is my personal belief that many of the people who will not vote come election day are the very ones that have been hurt the most by Liberal mean spiritedness. Regardless, everyone that wants to vote, should be given the means by which to do so.

Congratulations to Charlie Wize in winning the nomination for Cariboo South. He is a man with integrity and is very well respected in the Cariboo Chilcotin. We need a voice in this riding and with Charlie, I believe we will have one.

The NDP have been in the process of reorganizing the party for the last few years and I am pleased to see a great slate of candidates. They are a great bunch of intelligent people gearing up to fight the real infection that has been plaguing our province for the past four years, the BC Liberals, who, have passed legislation that has taken away the most basic of life needs, ie: food and shelter, from some folks that have not had the good fortune or the ability to have worked for two years in a row and as a result, do not qualify for welfare. Then we, as a community, wonder, and hold forums in City Hall, to try to find out why the crime rate in our community has risen so much in the past two years.

The right to the basic needs of life is guaranteed to all Canadians in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We as British Columbians need to speak out against injustice. We need to be worried when we have a political party in power that passes legislation that takes away the rights and needs of our most vulnerable citizens. I say shame shame!!

No infection in the NDP party. The NDP have always had a keen social conscience and have committed themselves to fiscal responsibility. I say, wake up and smell the coffee. The real infection in BC is our current administration.