Here is Bob Rae on yesterday's CTV Question Period responding to Jane Taber question about Michael Ignatieff being installed as leader as soon as this week.
...I think it would be, Jane, I think if we, behind closed doors (laughs), if you had a group of people getting together and anointing themselves as the people who going to choose a new permanent leader, think there a an awful lot of party members who would feel that they were not being consulted, they were not being listened to.
...I think there is going to be a problem if some people decide that they can somehow anoint themselves as the people who are going to force the issue in that way. I think that would be a mistake. I think that would be unwise to do so. I think there would be a tremendous reaction in the party against that kind of approach.
I agree with Mr Rae that it a mistake for the Liberals to appoint a leader "behind closed doors". It is for that reason I thought the coalition was a bad idea as the people of Canada should get their say. We are supposed to believe that Mr Rae is comfortable with being one who would anoint themselves to pick a new leader, of the country no less, but is uncomfortable in doing that within his own party. I am continually amazed as to the logical pretzels that politicians can twist themselves into.
All that being said, I think that the Liberals would make a mistake if they don't let their membership decide who the next leader should be. Mr Rae is correct in saying there would be a tremendous reaction to that kind of approach, the same tremendous reaction to the coalition that sees Conservatives support testing the 50% level in popular support.
Update: The irony continues. Check out ProgressiveBloggers.ca for people who favour the coaliton going batty over Ignatieff being installed as the interim leader of the Liberals (with a follow-up vote at the May convention). It seems to me that their position is that MPs can be trusted to pick a leader of a coalition, who would be become leader of the country, but MPs cannot be trusted to pick the leader of their own party. Again, I can't follow the logic.
Update II: And Rae's unintended irony continues here.
Comments (6)
Myself I just want the Liberals to get their act together. Their instability is not good. Whether the coalition falls apart or stays together is yet to be decided and that is not an ideal situation. Clearing up the Liberal leadership will hopefully, answer a lot of questions.
Posted by Greg | December 8, 2008 10:21 AM
Posted on December 8, 2008 10:21
“Clearing up the Liberal leadership will hopefully, answer a lot of questions. “
With a coronation?
Somehow, I don’t think your libs have learned anything.
Posted by Alberta Girl | December 8, 2008 10:28 AM
Posted on December 8, 2008 10:28
“With a coronation?”
Harper would be proud of Iggy.
Posted by Greg | December 8, 2008 11:35 AM
Posted on December 8, 2008 11:35
I’m proud of Iggy.
That coup was very smoothly done.
Posted by Ben (The Tiger) | December 8, 2008 9:49 PM
Posted on December 8, 2008 21:49
Ben: “I’m proud of Iggy. That coup was very smoothly done.” No kidding - did 24 hours pass between Dion’s adieu & Rae’s capitulation?
Greg: “Harper would be proud of Iggy.” Right, because Harper was also coronated? What are you referring to (or is this just your “God I hate Harper” issue)?
Posted by Candace | December 9, 2008 10:07 PM
Posted on December 9, 2008 22:07
Given that 69% of Liberals support the installation of “Iggy” as leader of the LPC…well I guess its hard to argue that its undemocratic, consent of the governed and all that.
I’m sure Harper would have preferred Dion sticking around, and I’m equally sure Ontario Tories would have loved a chance at Rae…Iggy was probably the best choice they could have made.
Posted by Gordie Canuk | December 29, 2008 10:38 AM
Posted on December 29, 2008 10:38