Sheila Copps, during what turned out to be an unsuccessful campaign to become the next president of the Liberal Party of Canada, was quite open about the fact that she thought Bob Rae would be perfectly suitable as a permanent leader.
That idea was controversial within the party.
Minutes ago, the party announced that the 3,000 or so delegates to its biennial convention picked Mike Crawley to be president. Crawley was widely seen as the “change” candidate.
Now: The existing rule so far as a leadership goes is that a race will be held in 2013 and that, as a condition of his accepting the title of interim party leader, Rae would not run for permanent leader.
Asked literally every day by reporters “Do you want to run for the permanent job?”, Rae has refused to answer that question saying only, he will do what the party executive has asked him to do and will do his best at that job.
Given the results of the election for party president, Rae’s often frustrating dodging of the “do you want to be leader” question now seems like quite a smart media strategy.
So Liberals, help me out in the comments section below, because I’m very keen to know: How will the election of Crawley and the other executive influence the future leadership race and Rae’s ability/inability to run in that race?
Crawley has said he would let Bob run but I bet you’ll see him possibly make Rae step down earlier then Apps indicated.
Well, regardless of what happens with Crawley president, Bob Rae accepted leadership on the explicit condition that he would not run for permanent leader. You can’t change the rules after the fact, because then it’s unfair to all the other potential candidates. Bob Rae will have had a lot of positive exposure from the Media Party by the time the contest starts. If he runs, quite frankly, it says a lot about his word and his principles or lack thereof.
But then I’m a Conservative, so what do I care, the CPC is going to have a field day with Rae.
Crawley represents what the Liberal party needs: change. Given the rejection they received in May’s election, I think they need to rebrand themselves as something different from the other parties to be around after the next one. Maybe they should be looking outside their ranks and the caucus for a bright new person who could put a completely different face on the party. Picking someone tied to the downfall of the party seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction.
Despite pressure for Bob to be “the guy”, I hope that we (the LPC members) would consider someone who would be at the helm for more than a “one and out” election strategy. We need a calm, steady hand at the tiller, who can speak well, inspire the troops and be a constant and consistent leader… and is young enough to be there for the long re-building process that is ahead of us.
I hope that we do that with some alacrity, but if not, we need someone who can be there, for the long term.
David,
I really don’t think there’s as much difference between Mike and Sheila on this issue as you think. My understanding is that the position of them both is/was that Bob is free to run for the permanent leadership, but he’ll need to step down from the interim office first.
Nothing is preventing Bob from running for the permanent job under that scenario, except for his promise to the last national executive and, more importantly, to Liberal members, that he would not run for permanent leader. This was important because the interim office, with its party and taxpayer-supported budget and public profile, gives the holder an enormous advantage over any other candidate.
Bob is free to change his mind, but he will have to explain to Liberals and to Canadians why he is breaking his word. And Liberals and Canadians will be free to either accept or reject his argument. But if he wants to run, he is absolutely free to do so, no matter what the national executive says.
It has nothing to do with anything, in my opinion. Bob has every right to say that he will do what the party wishes. Furthermore, anyone in his place has the right to say that: anything less is oppressive and stupid since no one can read tea leaves (besides my grandmother, ha).
In the interest of fairness though, I do think that if the rules are changed after the fact, it should be at the request of the entire membership and that it should be a 2/3 vote in favour.
“Rae’s often frustrating dodging of the ‘do you want to be leader’ question now seems like quite a smart media strategy.”
No, it seems shifty and dishonest. It reminds me of Ignatieff’s refusal to give a straight answer on the coalition question on the first day of the last election.