Things that make you go hmmm
From Today's Question Period:
Craig Oliver: "Should you push the leadership race up so that you have a leader in place before that vote in January on the budget."
Michael Ignatieff: "Craig, I think there's an emerging feeling in the caucus that given the importance of this vote in late January, it would be appropriate to have a leader in place, a permanent leader in place. And I think it's fair to say that the caucus is considering different options how to do that, how to accelerate our leadership process. But you know, I'm in the race, I don't get to make the rules so it's up to the caucus, it's up to the party. I'll play with whatever rules, on whatever time table they give me."
[later]
Michael Ignatieff: "...I will take the decisions, were I to be given the honour to lead the party, on the 26th, when I've seen the budget. [...] I will not hesitate to vote that government down if they produce a budget that is, like the auto statement, a kind of ridiculous joke..."
[later]
Jane Taber: "Do you agree with [Manley that Dion should resign]?"
Bob Rae: "I think Mr. Dion has already said that he is going to leave once a new leader is chosen. I think he deserves to be treated with dignity as his time in office comes to an end. I do think that obviously the creation of a coalition and the fact that the House is now adjourned and will be coming back at the end of January means we need to have a new leader in place by then. We need to have a the leadership race moved up and we need to have a broad consultation with the party."
[later]
Bob Rae: "...because of what's happened, I can certainly understand that we need to accelerate things."
Craig Oliver: "Should you push the leadership race up so that you have a leader in place before that vote in January on the budget."
Michael Ignatieff: "Craig, I think there's an emerging feeling in the caucus that given the importance of this vote in late January, it would be appropriate to have a leader in place, a permanent leader in place. And I think it's fair to say that the caucus is considering different options how to do that, how to accelerate our leadership process. But you know, I'm in the race, I don't get to make the rules so it's up to the caucus, it's up to the party. I'll play with whatever rules, on whatever time table they give me."
[later]
Michael Ignatieff: "...I will take the decisions, were I to be given the honour to lead the party, on the 26th, when I've seen the budget. [...] I will not hesitate to vote that government down if they produce a budget that is, like the auto statement, a kind of ridiculous joke..."
[later]
Jane Taber: "Do you agree with [Manley that Dion should resign]?"
Bob Rae: "I think Mr. Dion has already said that he is going to leave once a new leader is chosen. I think he deserves to be treated with dignity as his time in office comes to an end. I do think that obviously the creation of a coalition and the fact that the House is now adjourned and will be coming back at the end of January means we need to have a new leader in place by then. We need to have a the leadership race moved up and we need to have a broad consultation with the party."
[later]
Bob Rae: "...because of what's happened, I can certainly understand that we need to accelerate things."
Labels: Bob Rae, Michael Ignatieff
posted by calgarygrit at
6:05 p.m.
15 Comments:
And u are endorsing...?
By
Anonymous, at 7:37 p.m.
Just had a brain wave as my mother would call it:
Since the constitution would only allow the caucus an emergency vote should Dion resign without a convention, I propose the following:
Let the caucus decide, but only upon the "guidance" of the membership. Allow a riding vote or a one member one vote scenario, but the caucus would have to follow the vote of the members. It is a work around that allows the best of both worlds. It gets around the constitution, but allows members a say. Non?
Therefore, if Rae or Iggy gets the most membership votes, then the caucus would have to vote for that caucus. Now if it were a riding vote, then that MP would have to vote for the candidate that won that riding, regardless of their affliation.
I think it works, quite exited actually about this idea. If everyone is in agreement then we should promote the hell out of this idea and make the executive listen!
By
liberazzi, at 7:37 p.m.
Just to finish the point it is a non-binding vote, but the MPs would have to follow the "advice" of the membership.
By
liberazzi, at 7:39 p.m.
I like liberazzi's solution. But remember that Dominic LeBlanc is still in it and he deserves as much of a chance (he's the only one likely to lead for more than 5-10 years).
My hope is that you Liberals can clean up your act so this coalition can win over Canada and topple Harper from his precipice.
By
Ian, at 8:01 p.m.
Ian:
Dom will probably be out by tomorrow.
By
liberazzi, at 8:04 p.m.
leblanc out... backs iggy...
By
icky, at 8:11 p.m.
If there is no convention to pick a new leader as dictated by the party constitution expect to spend months or even years in court battles pitting Liberal against Liberal.
This coalition was such a good idea.
For the NDP and Cons that is.
By
Anonymous, at 8:21 p.m.
Who do you think Dion will endorse?
I think the leader will be Iggy possibly this week.
By
Anonymous, at 8:35 p.m.
I can only think how many millions of dollars the Liberal Party could save by not having a couple thousand delegates travel all the way to YVR. And millions more in savings from not having to criss-cross the country for months winning the hearts and minds of delegates. (Who needs to ask The People what they think, anyway?)
As a gesture of good faith, perhaps the Liberals could even propose a reduction in the Party Subsidy, recognizing that it's not just Small Business and Industry which have to tighten their belts in these challenging economic circumstances. The Conservatives, having received the most votes in the last election, would lose the most by such a proposal.
How 'bout it?
By
Paul, at 8:37 p.m.
Kind of ironic that the party that wants to overthrow an elected government is now picking its leader in a backroom deal as well. We Liberals have a strange view of democracy.
By
Anonymous, at 8:38 p.m.
Bob Rae's argument for a one member one vote process for the Liberal leadership will be Stephen Harper's argument for an election if the budget is defeated by the coalition...i.e. that the best process is to let the people decide.
Bob Rae is trying to have it both ways. If MP's are smart enough to decide who should be PM (which is the coalition argument), MP's or caucus should be smart enough to decide who should be Liberal leader, which is the constitutional process in the party constitution.
By
whyshouldIsellyourwheat, at 9:09 p.m.
MI doesn't understand the West or he would not support the 3 Amigo coalition. He cannot win a majority without the West. That he believes that the Coalition is democratic is the reason I cannot support him. Nor would the West support allowing the BQ to govern Canada. There would be riots in the streets! In Canada eh!
By
Anonymous, at 9:19 p.m.
The problem with this is that the Liberals desperately need to expand their membership and donor base, and a leadership race is one way to do that.
Moreover, I suspect that the lack of perceived legitimacy in this process will amplify divisions within the party.
An interim leader with a May convention is probably the best approach.
By
french wedding cat, at 9:25 p.m.
Who are you all kidding. Iggy is going to be the leader anyways. Let's stop Rae from doing damage and just put the best candidate in the race as leader right now. They should put him in Wednesday right after Dion resigns. Rae wants to merge with the NDP. No thanks.
By
Anonymous, at 9:49 p.m.
Monies and memberships raised will all be swallowed up by the leadership race - I don't think they can afford it.
We all know the two anyway.
By
Anonymous, at 10:46 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home