We'll have to see if that moniker sticks but what could be even more concering to Stephane Dion is this.
...Diehard Liberals rolled their eyes and refused to defend their leader beyond half-hearted hopes for improvement. I asked one top party strategist if their guy had the right stuff to win back power. He studiously peered into his wine glass and said ? nothing. Talk about silence speaking volumes.
It's also a tad too quiet in the Liberal backrooms. Instead of the clanking as Mr. Dion's positions are dismantled, they should echo to the sound of a party platform being hammered together, just in case there's a snap election next month.
Again I will say all of this is a tad premature. What this reflects, to me, is that Stephane Dion never had the support of establishment of the Liberal party. His Parliamentary colleagues and insiders were almost entirely behind other candidates (mainly Michael Igantieff and Bob Rae). His caucus colleagues, who know his best, always had their doubts and so far Mr Dion has nothing to alleviate those doubts. Stephane Dion's support came from the "grass-roots" delegates and it is much harder to tell if they are turning away.
Comments (3)
…which is why election-by-caucus makes so much more sense than the multi-month, incredibly expensive, corruption-prone dog and pony show we have right now.
The Leader is, first and foremost, leading the parliamentary wing of the Party, and it makes sense that fellow parliamentarians are best suited to evaluating candidates’ leadership skills and ability to work and play well with others. It should have been a red flag that very few of Dion’s closest colleagues thought he was right for the job.
Making it a Party-wide affair not only allows terrible candidates to be elected out of ignorance, it also causes candidates to go competing for the affections of the David Orchards and ethnic blocs out there. Worst of all, it makes it extremely difficult and expensive to replace a bad leader, as the Liberals are finding out now.
The price of election-by-caucus is continual low-level jockeying to be next in line and occasional factionalism (as in the Australian Labor Party, in particular). But this may even be a good thing for party democracy, as the Leader is forced to take account of his backbenchers, who may after all be instrumental in removing him.
Posted by mgl | March 3, 2007 9:19 AM
Posted on March 3, 2007 09:19
Ah the dreamteam and the nightmare. You just have to love it.
Posted by daniel | March 3, 2007 12:01 PM
Posted on March 3, 2007 12:01
“It should have been a red flag that very few of Dion’s closest colleagues thought he was right for the job.”
But Kennedy and Martha Hall Findlay thought he was their main man and they engineered his crowning (along with whatever ethnic games were played) .
But wait .. Kennedy and Findlay aren’t in Parliament ; they aren’t “fellow parliamentarians best suited to evaluating candidates’ leadership skills and ability to work and play well with others.”
Ohhh … mgl , I see your point now and it’s a good one.
Posted by nomdenet | March 3, 2007 12:02 PM
Posted on March 3, 2007 12:02