When you (or someone in your team) make an error in judgement or an operational oversight, and you are humble enough to change your decision.
The Cauchon decision is a landmark in the history of our party. Do you recall the last time a leadership team sat with those who disagree with them, and changed a decision of this magnitude, and of such national import?
The grassroots were heard. But more importantly, the ability of a true leader to change a decision based on team feedback is something that distinguishes this true leader from the megalomaniacal ideologue who is the "boss" of the Reform-a-Tory Party. THIS is the true difference the public will see in the upcoming campaign - along with a leader who CAN be tough and hit back if and when necessary.
Michael Ignatieff showed the leadership that will coalesce a movement which will eventually "bring to justice" the rogue Harper regime.
Can't wait to see the books opened up...
8 comments:
I appreciate your point of view.
But, if this was Harper would you have called him a flip flopper or a wimp who can't lead and can be bullied by his own caucus?
And, if this was a conservative nomination spat would you have called it "bitter infighting"?
Just curious.
Excellent post! Thanks.
I get it; this is showing leadership the same way that he showed leadership when he "allowed' Newfoundland Liberal MP's to vote against the budget.
Seriously, has Ignatieff ever stuck with a position in the face of criticism?
Marie: To be honest, I would have been sad if Harper (or his henchmen) because it would have forced me to change my opinion of him. But that's okay, because I know he would never be a diplomatic leader, and actually calmly discuss something where he could reach a "mutual decision" with a large group - including people he would not necessarily be a fan of.
I don't view any such nomination battles as "ugly" - and you can read all our posts going back many years. I've seen too many nominations (in multiple parties), and to tell you the truth, if a nomination isn't well contested, and fought hard, it just ain't no fun.
Anon 6:50. Actually, Ignatieff has stuck by a whole lot more than Harper ever has. Or Layton. He stands by his incredible volume of published work. As an intellectual he constantly questions his, and others' judgement and ideas. Challenges new ideas and old. This is what it takes to grow a nation. To grow a party.
Ignatieff has stood firm on positions regarding terrorism. He has stood firm on positions regarding marginalized peoples. He has stood firm on his support for the new green economy (something he has talked about since he first appeared on the public - political - scene). He has stood firm on his thoughts about involving rural Canada, Alberta, and The West in national decision-making.
Regardless of what the Conservative attack ads say (read: BS), Ignatieff has stood behind some pretty bold and far-reaching principles, and continues to do so. I can't wait for the campaign. Can't wait for the ads (from our side)...
Marie: To be honest, I would have been sad if Harper (or his henchmen) because it would have forced me to change my opinion of him. But that's okay, because I know he would never be a diplomatic leader, and actually calmly discuss something where he could reach a "mutual decision" with a large group - including people he would not necessarily be a fan of.
I don't view any such nomination battles as "ugly" - and you can read all our posts going back many years. I've seen too many nominations (in multiple parties), and to tell you the truth, if a nomination isn't well contested, and fought hard, it just ain't no fun.
The problem with your logic: Iggy changed his mind on 2 issues @ once: 1) his choice of Lieutenant. 2) the choice of candidates.
If he wasn't prepared to trust his self-appointed QC recruiter, then why did he pick him in the first place?
Anon: A good leader will, and SHOULD, change his/her mind. I've hired literally hundreds of people for my own business and a couple of Canada's largest companies. I have often felt very good about a decision, lauded and brought along a new recruit... then had to fire them for some indiscretion - OR - help them grow in their roles by over-turning one of their decisions...
As far as the will of the riding. I'm sure he was following the guidance of the "regional boss", and it won't be happening now...
Knowing - and learning - how to make group decisions is a key part of leadership. Being open to accepting change is another. Iggy was definitely caught between a strong "regional boss" and his own thoughts (which he had articulated over a year ago). His eventual decision reflected his own thoughts..
It was a good decision for MI, AND for the party. Well done.
Post a Comment