My opinion of Bob Rae, with the breaking news of his imminent withdrawal from the leadership race, has just grown considerably. I've always thought of him as an admirable, honourable, and respectable politician and an asset to the Liberal Party, but have always had reservations about him as a potential leader due to his electability issues in Ontario - the last bastion of Liberal Party support in Canada. I felt the inability of Rae and Ignatieff to compromise in the last leadership race hurt the Liberal Party, so I am very glad to see a softening of his resolve, reluctant though it may be, this time around.
I was concerned from the outset that the leadership race was too long, too expensive and too much of a distraction to our other priorities. We knew from the beginning we had two strong and able candidates, and it was a matter of picking one and then moving forward. I support a one-member-one-vote system and have recommended a more inclusive and democratic process in the past, but given the extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves in, having the party pick a leader sooner than later is a good choice. I share with the many in our party the lamentation that democracy will have been sacrificed for expediency, but I think the situation is not as bad as it seems. Clearly Ignatieff has strong support in the party and is seen by many outside the party as a formidable threat to Harper and a strong leadership candidate for all Canadians. If the economy, prorogation, coalition, pending budget vote and looming election prospect weren't in play, then this would not be an acceptable turn of events; but in the end we have to be practical and I think moving forward with Ignatieff is an acceptable decision. I praise Bob Rae for recognizing this and putting the party ahead of his personal ambitions.
Despite the large amount of caucus and grassroots support for Ignatieff in the party, it is also true that he has been polarizing to a degree and there is a significant portion of the party who will not be happy with his ascension to the leadership. Iggy has his work cut out for him to show respect to Rae and his supporters and to unite the party under a common purpose. Likewise, non-supporters of Ignatieff have to look hard at themselves and decide, what is their purpose? Is it to make the Liberal Party strong and in turn help it lead Canada or to continue to fight our internal battles and weaken the party in pursuit of divergent agendas? Disagreements are fine, but there's a an immediate need to harness our diversity and use it as a strength rather than to continue to let it weaken us.
The Liberal Party, with its values of inclusiveness, compassion, economic discipline and progressiveness are too important to have them sacrificed to the partisan and destructive agenda of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Our common purpose is to strengthen our party through fundraising, policy generation and the articulation of a new vision for Canada. Through the combined effort of all we can achieve this and restore competent leadership for Canada - we are stronger together.
I was concerned from the outset that the leadership race was too long, too expensive and too much of a distraction to our other priorities. We knew from the beginning we had two strong and able candidates, and it was a matter of picking one and then moving forward. I support a one-member-one-vote system and have recommended a more inclusive and democratic process in the past, but given the extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves in, having the party pick a leader sooner than later is a good choice. I share with the many in our party the lamentation that democracy will have been sacrificed for expediency, but I think the situation is not as bad as it seems. Clearly Ignatieff has strong support in the party and is seen by many outside the party as a formidable threat to Harper and a strong leadership candidate for all Canadians. If the economy, prorogation, coalition, pending budget vote and looming election prospect weren't in play, then this would not be an acceptable turn of events; but in the end we have to be practical and I think moving forward with Ignatieff is an acceptable decision. I praise Bob Rae for recognizing this and putting the party ahead of his personal ambitions.
Despite the large amount of caucus and grassroots support for Ignatieff in the party, it is also true that he has been polarizing to a degree and there is a significant portion of the party who will not be happy with his ascension to the leadership. Iggy has his work cut out for him to show respect to Rae and his supporters and to unite the party under a common purpose. Likewise, non-supporters of Ignatieff have to look hard at themselves and decide, what is their purpose? Is it to make the Liberal Party strong and in turn help it lead Canada or to continue to fight our internal battles and weaken the party in pursuit of divergent agendas? Disagreements are fine, but there's a an immediate need to harness our diversity and use it as a strength rather than to continue to let it weaken us.
The Liberal Party, with its values of inclusiveness, compassion, economic discipline and progressiveness are too important to have them sacrificed to the partisan and destructive agenda of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Our common purpose is to strengthen our party through fundraising, policy generation and the articulation of a new vision for Canada. Through the combined effort of all we can achieve this and restore competent leadership for Canada - we are stronger together.
5 comments:
All hail illigit Iggy.
so much for letting members of the party choose their leader!
A coronation? A 'confirmation' (to quote Emperor Ignatieff himself)?
I wanted LeBlanc to win out of the three of them, but most importantly, I WANTED A SAY.
I'm ashamed as a member of this party for having donated to the LPC, when my most fundamental right as a member was taken away.
The only money going in the direction of the LPC from me in the near future will be an additional donation towards Dion's '06 campaign debt.
Make money online viewing ads. Make money in 24 hours. Perfect home business. http://cityofgold.survey272.hop.clickbank.net/
I think all this talk about Iggy's "coronation" is a bit foolish. There were three candidates at first. Then, only one remained. When there's only one candidate, it really doesn't make sense to wait until a May convention and go through a pro-forma vote. One candidate means there's no contest, so case closed.
What Liberals should ask themselves instead is why there have been only three candidates stepping up to the plate and not more. To me, this shows that even many Liberals are losing faith and/or interest in their own party. The steep decline in donations is further confirmation.
I applaud you for supporting the one member, one vote system. Delegated votes are extremely undemocratic and open to manipulation (as I discovered first-hand in the Liberal leadership contest in 2006).
The party will have to drop its elitist nature and start shaking hands with the grassroots members. Otherwise, Iggy or no Iggy, the Liberal Party will fade away sooner or later.
Post a Comment