LeBlanc drops out of Liberal leadership race
CBC News
New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc has dropped out of the Liberal leadership race and thrown his support behind rival Michael Ignatieff, one of two remaining contenders.
"[Ignatieff] is the consensus choice of Liberals to lead the party at this moment. And I want to be clear he is also my choice," LeBlanc, a New Brunswick MP, said at a news conference on Monday afternoon in Ottawa.
The 40-year-old lawyer was the first to leap into the race for the top job when he announced his intentions just two weeks after the Oct. 14 federal election.
...
During the press conference, LeBlanc urged his party to expedite the process to find a permanent leader, pushing for the selection to be completed in the next three weeks.
"The Liberal party owes itself and the Canadian people a new leader, a permanent leader, a leader able to make the necessary decisions and needed judgments leading to the budget vote and beyond," said LeBlanc.
"Moreover, I believe we need that leader in place as soon as possible. Certainly no later than the beginning of the new year."
...
8 comments:
This is the right choice.
The fact that Conservatives are flipping out over this scenario shows we have them running with Ignatieff at the helm.
No more need to hand cabinet posts to the NDP. We can do this alone. I just hope we can all unite under Michael and have no animosity lingering - which it seems we won't. Michael's campaign is much more inclusive this time around.
"It seems we won't." Are you kidding me? This is the most undemocratic decision the Liberal Party has made. We're selecting a "permanent leader" without the input of the membership. Well, if they don't need the membership then this is one member who is leaving.
Are you more concerned with the process (which will never be perfect) or with a re-built Liberal Party going into the next election?
Michael Ignatieff gives us our best chance and the Conservatives know it.
Membership votes to elect the National Executive and to establish a constitution. Constitutionally, caucus members and the exec can select an interim leader - no "permanent leader" appointed here. Membership in 2006 explicitly rejected the idea of one-member one-vote for leadership. Would it really be more democratic to just change the constitution or ignore it with some back-room deal? Is it really democratic to have the parameters of the leadership race changed and be decided during the race, by one of the candidates?
It's inaccurate to suggest that the current proposal is for Ignatieff's undemocratic appointment.
The Caucus would make a recommendation to the National Executive, which would then select the leader. The MPs in caucus are elected; the members of the National Executive are elected. The latter body also includes representatives of all Provinces and Territories (including those where we have few members and no MPs), as well as women, youth, and Aboriginal Canadians.
The last convention rejected one-member-one-vote in favour of the current system largely because the latter guarantees that Liberals have a say even where they are thin on the ground. The main drawback in OMOV is that it's too easily hijacked by those able to sell large numbers of 'memberships of convenience' through cohesive interest groups. It was by recruiting supporters among right-to-life and socially conservative church groups that Stockwell Day became leader of the Canadian Alliance; not an encouraging example for the Liberal Party to emulate.
And the decision will be followed by the scheduled convention, which is likely to ratify it but retains the right to do otherwise. So, let's show some restraint when using terms like 'undemocratic.'
MC, that's like Harper lies. The membership DO NOT vote for the Executive. Delegates do. For leadership the membership have a far greater input, though not one member one vote. Furthermore, there is NOTING unconstitutional about the Executive consulting with the membership before appointing an interim leader everyone is admitting will be permanent. Even Ignatieff admits it when he says his leadership will be "confirmed" by the membership, as opposed to the membership actually electing him.
The constitution never foresaw this illegitimate process. No different than foreseeing a prorogation after a few days. If the National Executive does this Ignatieff is a lameduck illegitimate leader. And if you want me to shush before the COnservatives hear me you can be sure they will label him with this anyway. It sucks! Its undemocratic!
The process will mean the end of the coalition.
The Governor General will not hand the government to an interim leader who may be replaced in a few months but leads a three-headed monster based on agreements signed by a previous leader.
Post a Comment