From Borque.org
Tuesday, Dec 2
EXCLUSIVE: IGGY RETHINKS COALITION - CRACK IN THE COALITION
Bourque HotNews
Tuesday, Dec 2
EXCLUSIVE: IGGY RETHINKS COALITION - CRACK IN THE COALITION
Bourque HotNews
Liberal leadership race
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
The first Liberal step: Replace Dion
JOHN MANLEY
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
December 5, 2008 at 8:00 PM EST
Now that the Governor-General has accepted Stephen Harper's request for a prorogation of Parliament until Jan. 26, there is time for everyone to take a breath and think through what just happened and what happens next. As a Liberal, I believe the first step for my party is to replace Stéphane Dion as leader with someone whose first job is to rebuild the Liberal Party, rather than leading a coalition with the NDP.
The world is in the midst of a financial crisis and an economic downturn that have been continually surprising observers since the first signs of difficulty began to emerge in the spring of 2007. Unlike previous slowdowns, this one is accompanied by a seizure of credit markets, a meltdown in the stock markets, falling real-estate values, challenged pension funds and a contagion that is infecting financial institutions big and small the world over. So far, Canada has mostly avoided direct hits, but we are right next to the battlefield and shrapnel is flying everywhere. We cannot assume we will somehow be spared.
Canadians have every right to expect that the politicians they elected so recently would be entirely focused on the issues threatening our economic security and well-being. Instead, they have been subjected to a sordid display of arrogance, hyperbole and incompetence that can only make voters wish a pox on all their houses.
This is too serious a time for games. Our political class was given its marching orders on election night in terms that everyone seemed to understand. The Conservatives were given the privilege of continuing in government but on condition they seek the support of members of other parties. The voters chose not to give them a majority, and the strong mandate that goes with it. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois were given the privilege of representing their electors by holding the government to account in Parliament and working to improve legislation that is proposed.
Last week's fiscal update showed the Conservatives had not been listening on election night. Oh, there had been promises that they would engage Parliament in a more constructive and less partisan way, and the Prime Minister looked statesmanlike at the G20 summit in Washington. But in the fiscal update, they abandoned all pretext of multi-partisanship and co-operation and struck at their opponents, leaving them no choice but to vote them down.
Whether this was stupidity, arrogance or an intentional tactic, I cannot say. But to have created a totally avoidable political crisis when the economy was the task at hand was highly irresponsible. This has only become worse in the past week as a government desperate to hold on to power showed itself willing to be reckless on the national unity file. That is one sleeping dog that should be left alone.
The Liberal Party, with its worst result in percentage of vote in its long and proud history, was also given a message on election night. Namely, that since losing power, the party, its leader and its caucus had failed to regain the confidence of the people. In fact, that confidence had further eroded since January of 2006.
The notion that the public would accept Stéphane Dion as prime minister, after having resoundingly rejected that possibility a few weeks earlier, was delusional at best. Mr. Dion had seemed to accept responsibility for the defeat (although somewhat reluctantly), and should have left his post immediately.
Confronted by a political crisis that was not of his making, Mr. Dion became an obstacle to his party, and to the opposition, in dealing with it. His weakness probably fuelled the Conservative hubris that led to this fiasco in the first place. Furthermore, in agreeing to the terms of the coalition with the NDP and the Bloc, Mr. Dion bound his successor to a controversial arrangement without even consulting any of the candidates to succeed him in the process, leaving them no option but to endorse it or break with him as party leader.
The government must be prevented from running roughshod over the opposition at all times, but especially when the voters have denied them a majority. The best way to do that is for the Liberal executive and caucus to choose a new leader immediately, one who can take charge before Christmas and get the caucus ready for the resumption of Parliament.
Money that would otherwise be spent on a rerun of the last leadership campaign should, instead, be raised for the party's coffers. The new leader should quickly move to modernize the party structure and to prepare an election program, just in case it is needed. But the first task should be to work collaboratively with all other parties to restore the confidence of Canadians in their Parliament.
The government needs to drop the ugly rhetoric that it reverted to so quickly and easily so soon after the election. It's not just about winning confidence votes. The confidence of the House of Commons needs to be earned on a daily basis, by being consultative, trustworthy and respectful. Unfortunately, Mr. Harper has put quite a dollop of poison into the well.
In my experience, most MPs come to Parliament motivated to do the best they can for their constituents. Perhaps on Jan. 26, all 308 of them will return with a new desire to fulfill that ambition.
JOHN MANLEY
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
December 5, 2008 at 8:00 PM EST
Now that the Governor-General has accepted Stephen Harper's request for a prorogation of Parliament until Jan. 26, there is time for everyone to take a breath and think through what just happened and what happens next. As a Liberal, I believe the first step for my party is to replace Stéphane Dion as leader with someone whose first job is to rebuild the Liberal Party, rather than leading a coalition with the NDP.
The world is in the midst of a financial crisis and an economic downturn that have been continually surprising observers since the first signs of difficulty began to emerge in the spring of 2007. Unlike previous slowdowns, this one is accompanied by a seizure of credit markets, a meltdown in the stock markets, falling real-estate values, challenged pension funds and a contagion that is infecting financial institutions big and small the world over. So far, Canada has mostly avoided direct hits, but we are right next to the battlefield and shrapnel is flying everywhere. We cannot assume we will somehow be spared.
Canadians have every right to expect that the politicians they elected so recently would be entirely focused on the issues threatening our economic security and well-being. Instead, they have been subjected to a sordid display of arrogance, hyperbole and incompetence that can only make voters wish a pox on all their houses.
This is too serious a time for games. Our political class was given its marching orders on election night in terms that everyone seemed to understand. The Conservatives were given the privilege of continuing in government but on condition they seek the support of members of other parties. The voters chose not to give them a majority, and the strong mandate that goes with it. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois were given the privilege of representing their electors by holding the government to account in Parliament and working to improve legislation that is proposed.
Last week's fiscal update showed the Conservatives had not been listening on election night. Oh, there had been promises that they would engage Parliament in a more constructive and less partisan way, and the Prime Minister looked statesmanlike at the G20 summit in Washington. But in the fiscal update, they abandoned all pretext of multi-partisanship and co-operation and struck at their opponents, leaving them no choice but to vote them down.
Whether this was stupidity, arrogance or an intentional tactic, I cannot say. But to have created a totally avoidable political crisis when the economy was the task at hand was highly irresponsible. This has only become worse in the past week as a government desperate to hold on to power showed itself willing to be reckless on the national unity file. That is one sleeping dog that should be left alone.
The Liberal Party, with its worst result in percentage of vote in its long and proud history, was also given a message on election night. Namely, that since losing power, the party, its leader and its caucus had failed to regain the confidence of the people. In fact, that confidence had further eroded since January of 2006.
The notion that the public would accept Stéphane Dion as prime minister, after having resoundingly rejected that possibility a few weeks earlier, was delusional at best. Mr. Dion had seemed to accept responsibility for the defeat (although somewhat reluctantly), and should have left his post immediately.
Confronted by a political crisis that was not of his making, Mr. Dion became an obstacle to his party, and to the opposition, in dealing with it. His weakness probably fuelled the Conservative hubris that led to this fiasco in the first place. Furthermore, in agreeing to the terms of the coalition with the NDP and the Bloc, Mr. Dion bound his successor to a controversial arrangement without even consulting any of the candidates to succeed him in the process, leaving them no option but to endorse it or break with him as party leader.
The government must be prevented from running roughshod over the opposition at all times, but especially when the voters have denied them a majority. The best way to do that is for the Liberal executive and caucus to choose a new leader immediately, one who can take charge before Christmas and get the caucus ready for the resumption of Parliament.
Money that would otherwise be spent on a rerun of the last leadership campaign should, instead, be raised for the party's coffers. The new leader should quickly move to modernize the party structure and to prepare an election program, just in case it is needed. But the first task should be to work collaboratively with all other parties to restore the confidence of Canadians in their Parliament.
The government needs to drop the ugly rhetoric that it reverted to so quickly and easily so soon after the election. It's not just about winning confidence votes. The confidence of the House of Commons needs to be earned on a daily basis, by being consultative, trustworthy and respectful. Unfortunately, Mr. Harper has put quite a dollop of poison into the well.
In my experience, most MPs come to Parliament motivated to do the best they can for their constituents. Perhaps on Jan. 26, all 308 of them will return with a new desire to fulfill that ambition.
Dion will bow out early to clear way for successor
Last Updated: Monday, December 8, 2008 | 3:15 PM ET
Embattled Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion announced Monday he will step down earlier than planned to make way for a new chief to try to strengthen the party ahead of a possible election.
Dion originally planned to stay on as a caretaker leader after the party's dismal election results until his successor was chosen in early May. But he has faced growing pressure from his party to leave due to his handling of the recent political crisis and his widespread unpopularity among voters.
"I have decided to step aside as leader of the Liberal party effective as soon as my successor is duly chosen," Dion said in a press release. He did not specify a date.
Liberals are eager to get a new leader in place before Parliament restarts on Jan. 26, when the minority Conservative government could be toppled or a Liberal-NDP coalition government could rise to power.
The federal Liberals are divided on how to select Dion's successor, but it could happen as early as Wednesday. It's unclear whether it would be an interim or permanent leader.
Dion said he agrees with party members that a new leader must be in place before Parliament resumes.
"There is a sense in the party, and certainly in the caucus, that given these new circumstances the new leader needs to be in place before the House resumes. I agree. I recommend this course to my party and caucus," he wrote.
Dion defends approach
He also defended his decision back in mid-October to remain in a caretaker role until the next leader was selected, saying it ensured "effective opposition" to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives.
"I believe that decision was the right one and I am proud of having forced Stephen Harper to back away from his attempt to force upon Canadians his most ideological and harmful plans in these tough economic times," Dion wrote.
There were reports over the weekend that leadership contender Michael Ignatieff was poised to take the top job during a vote at a caucus meeting on Wednesday.
However, some MPs, particularly supporters of leadership rival Bob Rae, have railed against that method of selection, instead calling for the vote to include all Liberal party members.
Ignatieff supporters argue the matter must be settled quickly and can be decided by the 77 elected Liberal MPs in a caucus vote, which would likely guarantee an Ignatieff victory.
Rae, meanwhile, suggested over the weekend that a caucus vote would be undemocratic and illegitimate because it would disenfranchise Liberals in the 231 ridings not represented in the House of Commons.
But Rae's recommendation poses a problem since the Liberal party rejected a motion at its 2006 convention to introduce a one-person, one-vote system, instead sticking with the approach of letting party delegates select leaders.
Under the party's constitution, the national executive must decide in consultation with the Liberal caucus what method will be used to select the next leader, said Liberal Senator David Smith.
Last Updated: Monday, December 8, 2008 | 3:15 PM ET
Embattled Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion announced Monday he will step down earlier than planned to make way for a new chief to try to strengthen the party ahead of a possible election.
Dion originally planned to stay on as a caretaker leader after the party's dismal election results until his successor was chosen in early May. But he has faced growing pressure from his party to leave due to his handling of the recent political crisis and his widespread unpopularity among voters.
"I have decided to step aside as leader of the Liberal party effective as soon as my successor is duly chosen," Dion said in a press release. He did not specify a date.
Liberals are eager to get a new leader in place before Parliament restarts on Jan. 26, when the minority Conservative government could be toppled or a Liberal-NDP coalition government could rise to power.
The federal Liberals are divided on how to select Dion's successor, but it could happen as early as Wednesday. It's unclear whether it would be an interim or permanent leader.
Dion said he agrees with party members that a new leader must be in place before Parliament resumes.
"There is a sense in the party, and certainly in the caucus, that given these new circumstances the new leader needs to be in place before the House resumes. I agree. I recommend this course to my party and caucus," he wrote.
Dion defends approach
He also defended his decision back in mid-October to remain in a caretaker role until the next leader was selected, saying it ensured "effective opposition" to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives.
"I believe that decision was the right one and I am proud of having forced Stephen Harper to back away from his attempt to force upon Canadians his most ideological and harmful plans in these tough economic times," Dion wrote.
There were reports over the weekend that leadership contender Michael Ignatieff was poised to take the top job during a vote at a caucus meeting on Wednesday.
However, some MPs, particularly supporters of leadership rival Bob Rae, have railed against that method of selection, instead calling for the vote to include all Liberal party members.
Ignatieff supporters argue the matter must be settled quickly and can be decided by the 77 elected Liberal MPs in a caucus vote, which would likely guarantee an Ignatieff victory.
Rae, meanwhile, suggested over the weekend that a caucus vote would be undemocratic and illegitimate because it would disenfranchise Liberals in the 231 ridings not represented in the House of Commons.
But Rae's recommendation poses a problem since the Liberal party rejected a motion at its 2006 convention to introduce a one-person, one-vote system, instead sticking with the approach of letting party delegates select leaders.
Under the party's constitution, the national executive must decide in consultation with the Liberal caucus what method will be used to select the next leader, said Liberal Senator David Smith.
Dear Friends,
Over the past few days I have been honoured by the incredible surge of support from all parts of our party for my candidacy for the leadership.
The week ahead promises to be an exciting one and I wanted to share with you my thoughts as it begins.
First, every one of us owes a debt of thanks to Mr. Dion for his public service as Leader of our party, as a cabinet minister and an MP. I hope that we may continue to count on his contributions to Canada and to the Liberal Party.
Second, I want to share with you that I will stand as a candidate to replace Mr. Dion under the process outlined in the party constitution, as voted upon by the delegates of the grassroots of our party at the last convention in Montreal, for replacement of a Leader who resigns prior to a leadership convention. I am doing so because our parliamentary caucus and party need leadership now to confront Stephen Harper's Conservatives.
Third, should I succeed in winning the support of the national executive of the party and our caucus as leader, I remain committed to having that leadership confirmed by our party at our upcoming convention in Vancouver, as our party's constitution requires.
Fourth, should I become leader I hope to immediately engage the grassroots in the very real policy challenges facing our country at a time of peril and in the party renewal challenges that all Liberals must face together. I will need the best from each and every one of us in this regard.
Thanks to each and every one of you for all your hard work and support on my behalf. It is appreciated more than I can say. If you haven't done so already please tell me what you think, volunteer or make a donation.
Michael
Over the past few days I have been honoured by the incredible surge of support from all parts of our party for my candidacy for the leadership.
The week ahead promises to be an exciting one and I wanted to share with you my thoughts as it begins.
First, every one of us owes a debt of thanks to Mr. Dion for his public service as Leader of our party, as a cabinet minister and an MP. I hope that we may continue to count on his contributions to Canada and to the Liberal Party.
Second, I want to share with you that I will stand as a candidate to replace Mr. Dion under the process outlined in the party constitution, as voted upon by the delegates of the grassroots of our party at the last convention in Montreal, for replacement of a Leader who resigns prior to a leadership convention. I am doing so because our parliamentary caucus and party need leadership now to confront Stephen Harper's Conservatives.
Third, should I succeed in winning the support of the national executive of the party and our caucus as leader, I remain committed to having that leadership confirmed by our party at our upcoming convention in Vancouver, as our party's constitution requires.
Fourth, should I become leader I hope to immediately engage the grassroots in the very real policy challenges facing our country at a time of peril and in the party renewal challenges that all Liberals must face together. I will need the best from each and every one of us in this regard.
Thanks to each and every one of you for all your hard work and support on my behalf. It is appreciated more than I can say. If you haven't done so already please tell me what you think, volunteer or make a donation.
Michael
Wow....assuming that this Coalition doesn't completely come apart at the seams, and that
they last long enough to overthrow the Conservatives in late January in order to Crown a
Liberal as PM with NDP (& Bloc) backing....if you want a voice in who'll be the PM....
Dig out your cheque-book and donate to the Liberal Party, to become a member, and you
too can earn (maybe) a vote to determine whether Ignatius or Rae will be the next PM with
-out ever running for the Job in the 40th General Election. If Rae gets his way, then you'll get
a vote (as he claims that just Senators & MP's voting...cutting out party members....would be
un-Democratic), and if Ignatius gets his way (only Senators & MP's get a vote) then your
donation to the Liberal Party will have been for nothing.
Bob Rae is very "in favor" of a coalition without another election....but claiming just Senators
& MP's voting...cutting out Liberal Party members....would be un-Democratic I personally
find very very funny (hypocritical, but still very funny).
And YES I know that in theory we in Canada do not vote for a Party or a Leader, but only
for an MP....and supposedly the MP's decide who in their Party will be the next PM even
though much more advertising is done for the (not?) Leader's of the Parties than for any
local MP....and that if an MP votes against his/her Party, they can find themselves out on
their ear...so an MP really just tows the Party line and isn't really there to represent their
constituents (Why would a "Ralph Goodale" try to sell the Green Shift to Saskatchewan
before the last Election if he was really representing his constituents interests). Our system
in Canada is very dysfunctional at best.
they last long enough to overthrow the Conservatives in late January in order to Crown a
Liberal as PM with NDP (& Bloc) backing....if you want a voice in who'll be the PM....
Dig out your cheque-book and donate to the Liberal Party, to become a member, and you
too can earn (maybe) a vote to determine whether Ignatius or Rae will be the next PM with
-out ever running for the Job in the 40th General Election. If Rae gets his way, then you'll get
a vote (as he claims that just Senators & MP's voting...cutting out party members....would be
un-Democratic), and if Ignatius gets his way (only Senators & MP's get a vote) then your
donation to the Liberal Party will have been for nothing.
Bob Rae is very "in favor" of a coalition without another election....but claiming just Senators
& MP's voting...cutting out Liberal Party members....would be un-Democratic I personally
find very very funny (hypocritical, but still very funny).
And YES I know that in theory we in Canada do not vote for a Party or a Leader, but only
for an MP....and supposedly the MP's decide who in their Party will be the next PM even
though much more advertising is done for the (not?) Leader's of the Parties than for any
local MP....and that if an MP votes against his/her Party, they can find themselves out on
their ear...so an MP really just tows the Party line and isn't really there to represent their
constituents (Why would a "Ralph Goodale" try to sell the Green Shift to Saskatchewan
before the last Election if he was really representing his constituents interests). Our system
in Canada is very dysfunctional at best.
Yep, you gotter Ron...
...any one for electoral reform?
I can tell you who's not...Libs and Cons...
They would see several of their seats go to NDP or maybe even Greens under PR.
The only federal party that has endorsed electoral reform, and specifically proportional representation is the NDP.
Incidentally, which system would you choose?
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/reform.html
Tough question. The first post the post thing is fine if we only had two parties, which we don't.
The Alternate Vote system seems like a good (but a bit boring) idea. Proportional Representation
would give a more accurate picture of what the Country as a whole actually wants, but it might
produce even uglier minority/coalition situations than we already have....
The closest to my idea is the French double ballot system, but I picture it set up more like a
Bonspeil in Curling. I first mentioned this on the Thread: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/79460-multi-party-vs-2-party.html#post1012811
I'm not claiming it'll be cheap or easy...but it'll boil down to a government that the
people have put in place, through an elimination process, that has the power to
do what it needs to, unlike what we're currently seeing. This system would be fun too.
The Alternate Vote system seems like a good (but a bit boring) idea. Proportional Representation
would give a more accurate picture of what the Country as a whole actually wants, but it might
produce even uglier minority/coalition situations than we already have....
The closest to my idea is the French double ballot system, but I picture it set up more like a
Bonspeil in Curling. I first mentioned this on the Thread: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/79460-multi-party-vs-2-party.html#post1012811
I'm not claiming it'll be cheap or easy...but it'll boil down to a government that the
people have put in place, through an elimination process, that has the power to
do what it needs to, unlike what we're currently seeing. This system would be fun too.
Oh Yeah....also Mandatory Voting (even if it's a spoiled ballot) with the consequence of a
small ($25) fine for not voting, subtracted right off your income tax return. You Vote and
get a slip to attach to your tax return when you put your ballot in the box. That way the
Government, whatever it turns out to be, is elected by as many eligible voters as possible.
I believe Australia does something like this, so there is already an existing example for us
to follow.
The divine-right-to-govern party
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Wednesday, December 10, 2008
When Dominic LeBlanc withdrew from the Liberal leadership race on Monday, he said it had been a privilege "running for the leadership of the greatest democratic institution in the Western world." In keeping with the democratic principles he so admires, he then called on his party to short-circuit its own constitutional leadership selection process and anoint Michael Ignatieff forthwith.
When asked by reporters how he could reconcile his professed love of the democratic process with his desire to see Mr. Ignatieff in the leader's office (and, presumably himself in a prominent front-bench role) without a vote by more than the 77 Liberal MPs and 58 Liberal senators, Mr. Le-Blanc offered the heartfelt response of all great defenders of democracy: "The urgency of the situation requires extraordinary measures."
Sorry? Is our country being invaded? The urgency of just what situation requires the suspension of rank-and-file Liberals' right to choose their party's boss?
Oh, right, I forgot: the urgent need to replace the Conservatives as government without an election; another time-honoured democratic tradition.
After Mr. Ignatieff was safely in office, then the Liberals should, according to Mr. LeBlanc, "create a mechanism for widespread democratic consultation" with the membership. You know, um, after the democratic process has been rendered redundant.
Wow, I'm sure grateful there are people with a deep understanding of democracy, such as Dominic Le-Blanc, standing up in Parliament for our rights and institutions.
In short, Mr. LeBlanc's commitment to democracy extends only so far as it doesn't interfere with his preferred candidate's ascension to the Liberal throne or the glorious restoration of the Liberal party to power in Ottawa.
Monday evening, the Liberal party executive backed away from Mr. Ignatieff's preference to have the party's next leader chosen this week by the 135-member caucus, alone. Instead, they postponed the selection until next week and expanded the voters' list to include riding presidents, failed candidates from October's election and presidents from the party's women's, youth, aboriginal and seniors' clubs, some 800 in all.
In other words, instead of just having the party's college of cardinals choose the next Liberal Pope this week, the party would open up the process to the Canadian equivalent of super-delegates -- voters who owe their access to a ballot to their membership in the party's governing elite -- and hold off Mr. Ignatieff's coronation until next week.
Hillary Clinton would love these guys. Had her Democrats had the same abiding faith in democracy, she could have convinced them to ignore the results of the primaries and let super-delegates alone select her as their nominee.
Of course, all this was pre-empted Tuesday when Mr. Ignatieff's lone remaining rival, Bob Rae, backed out of the race rather than almost certainly lose the truncated, ex-officio-controlled version proposed by the hierarchy of "the greatest democratic institution in the Western world."
So why were Mr. Ignatieff's supporters adamant that he had to be installed before Christmas? And why were Mr. Rae's people only asking for a postponement until the middle of next month? The Rae camp was every bit as adamant as the Igantieff camp that a new leader had to be in place before Parliament reconvenes in late January.
Why the haste? Because the Liberals have never quite given up on the notion they are Canada's Divine Right to Govern party.
Most parties with just half as many votes as a government wouldn't dream of trying to unseat it. Nor would they consider attempting to form government less than two months after receiving the lowest vote share in their history, without first going through another general election.
But most parties aren't, in their own delusional estimation, "the greatest democratic institution in the Western world."
Recapturing power now would do nothing to solve the Liberals' core problems in fundraising, organizing and policy. Indeed, it might make their fundamental flaws worse by postponing their resolution.
But none of that matters as much to Canada's Liberals as being back in power, back in control of public spending and patronage.
Thus the man they last week proposed to foist on Canada as an unelected prime minister -- Stephane Dion -- they have this week tossed over the rail in favour of foisting Michael Igantieff on their membership.
Such are the heavy obligations that come with being such a magnificent democratic institution.
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Wednesday, December 10, 2008
When Dominic LeBlanc withdrew from the Liberal leadership race on Monday, he said it had been a privilege "running for the leadership of the greatest democratic institution in the Western world." In keeping with the democratic principles he so admires, he then called on his party to short-circuit its own constitutional leadership selection process and anoint Michael Ignatieff forthwith.
When asked by reporters how he could reconcile his professed love of the democratic process with his desire to see Mr. Ignatieff in the leader's office (and, presumably himself in a prominent front-bench role) without a vote by more than the 77 Liberal MPs and 58 Liberal senators, Mr. Le-Blanc offered the heartfelt response of all great defenders of democracy: "The urgency of the situation requires extraordinary measures."
Sorry? Is our country being invaded? The urgency of just what situation requires the suspension of rank-and-file Liberals' right to choose their party's boss?
Oh, right, I forgot: the urgent need to replace the Conservatives as government without an election; another time-honoured democratic tradition.
After Mr. Ignatieff was safely in office, then the Liberals should, according to Mr. LeBlanc, "create a mechanism for widespread democratic consultation" with the membership. You know, um, after the democratic process has been rendered redundant.
Wow, I'm sure grateful there are people with a deep understanding of democracy, such as Dominic Le-Blanc, standing up in Parliament for our rights and institutions.
In short, Mr. LeBlanc's commitment to democracy extends only so far as it doesn't interfere with his preferred candidate's ascension to the Liberal throne or the glorious restoration of the Liberal party to power in Ottawa.
Monday evening, the Liberal party executive backed away from Mr. Ignatieff's preference to have the party's next leader chosen this week by the 135-member caucus, alone. Instead, they postponed the selection until next week and expanded the voters' list to include riding presidents, failed candidates from October's election and presidents from the party's women's, youth, aboriginal and seniors' clubs, some 800 in all.
In other words, instead of just having the party's college of cardinals choose the next Liberal Pope this week, the party would open up the process to the Canadian equivalent of super-delegates -- voters who owe their access to a ballot to their membership in the party's governing elite -- and hold off Mr. Ignatieff's coronation until next week.
Hillary Clinton would love these guys. Had her Democrats had the same abiding faith in democracy, she could have convinced them to ignore the results of the primaries and let super-delegates alone select her as their nominee.
Of course, all this was pre-empted Tuesday when Mr. Ignatieff's lone remaining rival, Bob Rae, backed out of the race rather than almost certainly lose the truncated, ex-officio-controlled version proposed by the hierarchy of "the greatest democratic institution in the Western world."
So why were Mr. Ignatieff's supporters adamant that he had to be installed before Christmas? And why were Mr. Rae's people only asking for a postponement until the middle of next month? The Rae camp was every bit as adamant as the Igantieff camp that a new leader had to be in place before Parliament reconvenes in late January.
Why the haste? Because the Liberals have never quite given up on the notion they are Canada's Divine Right to Govern party.
Most parties with just half as many votes as a government wouldn't dream of trying to unseat it. Nor would they consider attempting to form government less than two months after receiving the lowest vote share in their history, without first going through another general election.
But most parties aren't, in their own delusional estimation, "the greatest democratic institution in the Western world."
Recapturing power now would do nothing to solve the Liberals' core problems in fundraising, organizing and policy. Indeed, it might make their fundamental flaws worse by postponing their resolution.
But none of that matters as much to Canada's Liberals as being back in power, back in control of public spending and patronage.
Thus the man they last week proposed to foist on Canada as an unelected prime minister -- Stephane Dion -- they have this week tossed over the rail in favour of foisting Michael Igantieff on their membership.
Such are the heavy obligations that come with being such a magnificent democratic institution.
Yes, this could be amusing..watching the once mighty Libs self destruct:lol: But, a race with only one contender? Even I could win that one.
Walter good day to you, you seem to think that the Conservatives are the holiest group of politicians while they are on record cheating and shoving to get a hold of power.........
Eggy will push Harper out of office as well as the leader of the Conservatives.....
Walter if we compare Eggy with Deon it would be comparing Superman verses Harper..
I saw Harper yesterday on the telly talking with Peter M @ CBC, Harper looked uncomfortable and never once admitted that the Conservatives blinked, running from Parliamentary duty like a bunch of cowards..
In denial or what ?...