It seems the Liberal Party had decided to select its new leader via a vote by 800 high-ranking Liberals. While Bob Rae has rendered that vote moot by stepping aside, the outcome essentially remains the same: Liberals didn't choose their leader.
Michael Ignatieff, the Canadian professor in Boston, has ascended to the leadership of Canada's traditional ruling party (fact, not arrogance). A man who has been in federal politics for less time than I have (only since 2006...though at a much higher level) is now our Leader. A man who had spent much of his adult life in another country is now our leader. A man who was never elected as leader by Liberals is now our leader.
As if there wasn't enough fodder for the Tory media machine to counter Ignatieff, now he's been appointed the leader. Why did the Liberal executive drag their feet so long on a permanent leadership convention that could have been held before January 26, 2009?
Ignatieff's eloquently forceful media acumen may not be enough to win a probable March election. Perhaps, as a friend noted, his centre-right political bias might be able to save the party in the long-run, but will he have that opportunity? What happens if the Liberals get trounced in a March election? If Ignatieff delivers even fewer seats than did Dion (which I fear is probable), will Liberals give him an extended mandate in May? Likely not.
That will leave Liberals with a meaningful leadership convention in May. At which point, Dominic LeBlanc will likely challenge Rae and Ignatieff for the leadership. Perhaps, if we're lucky, Justin Trudeau will join the race and we'll get a sneak preview of another Chretien-Martin regime.
This is going to be a fun ride for the Liberal Party. Iggy will inevitably have to defend all the stuff he wrote prior to entering politics. It sucks, mind you, but now the Liberal Party will be the Party that wanted to go into Iraq or the Party that Advocates the use of Torture.
ReplyDeleteOne thing is certain, though: if Iggy can draw the party back to the center, kicking/yelling/screaming, then I dare say he has a hope in hell in challenging the Tories in the next election.
However, if he decides to go back to the standard, default position of the Liberal Party post-1997 election -- Harper Bad, Harper Liar, Harper Evil, Harper = Bush -- then I'm afraid the Liberals are done. Every time a Liberal person calls Harper a liar or is untrustworthy, popular support for Harper knicks up a notch. It's true!
But, seeing how you had absolutely NO say in the appointment of your leader, I must say I feel sorry for you. Liberals like to say they believe in democracy, so long as it's other people's democracy and not theirs. When Harper and MacKay wanted to merge the two parties, I was able to vote to pass judgement. I was also able to vote on the election of Harper as party leader. Unfortunately, the party that has lost touch with the grassroots (i.e. the Liberals) has just collectively given its grassroots the one-fingered salute. That'll be a nice thing to put in the email when they come asking for money.
What's worse, if the coalition does stick and convinces the G-G to form a government, that would be the ultimate coup for democracy. The unelected leader of a party that nobody elected to form government, leading a coalition of three parties that all failed to win enough seats to form government on their own. Nice.
Welcome to Democracy, Liberal Party style!
We will, eventually be able to vote for our leader. I may have understated the fact that, come May, we will vote for a leader. Ignatieff's selection is just temporary (though it certainly gives him a leg up on the competition).
ReplyDeleteI recall a lot of Tories feeling betrayed by MacKay's broken promise. But I guess Tories have a short memory when it comes to aligning with parties whose main interests lie regionally, rather than nationally.
While there is certainly going to be a confirmation vote (I hesitate to call it a leadership vote since there is only one candidate running), the fact remains that if the Liberals are serious about maintaining the coalition and are willing to defeat the Tories, that will mean a PM has been "appointed" (since we don't elect PMs) without having been elected by his own party.. Arguably, it would be difficult to not vote for Ignatieff when he's already PM.. if only because he'll be the only one on the ballot!
ReplyDeleteAs for the Tory-Alliance merger, while it is agreed that people were pissed, the true nature of the merger was that a party was merely reconstructing itself. All the major players of the Reform (e.g. Harper) were former PC'ers who left the party in the late 1980s.
If the Liberal Party were ever to split and reform itself, I'll give them a pass.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Quebec wing of the party also spit off...to become the Bloc Quebecois? Will it be ok when the CPC finally completely "reconstructs" the PC Party?
ReplyDeleteYes, the Quebec wing of the party split off to form the Bloc Quebecois... But I would also point out that there were a few Liberals that broke ranks with the federal Liberal caucus and became Bloc members (Gilles Rocheleau and Jean Lapierre come to mind)...
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about the Bloc is that they took people from both the PC and the Liberal camps.. so it's not entirely correct to say that the Bloc rose from the ashes of ONLY the PC Party.