This just struck me. No particular reason in mentioning it... Just a thought.
The caucus MPs selecting a leader in caucus, then going to the party a few months from now for "validation" by member election, is the VERY same thing as Parliamentary MPs selecting a Parliamentary leader right now, then seeking the "validation" of the Canadian public in an election several months down the road...
Interesting, isn't it? Particularly when some of us support the coalition, but not the choosing of a leader in a similar process. Both are similar, and both "legal" per the constitutions and/or traditions of the concerned bodies.
Things that make you go "hmmm..."
4 comments:
Let's call a spade a spade. Ignatieff's supporters are saying we need to appoint, and to use their words, "a permanent leader". If this really was a interim leader we'd be appointing someone neutral. This is an end-run around the membership and it is disgusting!
There is a HUGE difference. MPs are elected by the PUBLIC. They serve the PUBLIC. They should not be subjected to the will of party members for the decisions they make as parliamentarians.
Leaders are elected by the PARTY. They rely on the MEMBERS for MONEY and as VOLUNTEERS at election time. Imagine being asked for a donation by a leader who you had NO SAY over. It would be insulting.
I've spoke to this as well, there is an inherent contradiction in allowing MP's to select a PM, but then crying foul when they select a leader of an opposition, both decisions have delayed input from their respective "voters".
Yeah, we really need to fix the way we review and choose our leaders.
Post a Comment