Why Dion as coalition leader?

[BC_chick]

All of you who know me on this forum know that I supported Dion initially, and even though I still think he's a very intelligent man, I did lose faith in him when he proved too weak for politics by allowing the CPC to keep attacking him without fighting back. So what I'm about to say has nothing to do about Dion personally.... and no I'm not a CPC supporter (for all you newcomers).

But I don't understand why this man is being chosen to lead the coalition when he clearly lost the election. This is absolutely ridiculous, he practically brought the LPC to its knees, Canada clearly did not warm up to the man.

He proved himself in denial when he still believed that Canadians would've chosen him if they'd gotten to know him.... even after losing the election. So in all honesty, it's not a surprise that he still thinks he's fit to lead the coalition. But how could the rest of the LPC, the Bloc and the NDP allow this to happen?

I see a lot of criticism in the media and on this forum about this coalition government being good for the CPC in the long run. By choosing Dion as the leader of the coalition, I'm going to have to agree that this move is very short-sighted. Canada rejected Dion.

Why is he leading the coalition?

Edited to add: for the record, I support the coalition, I'm just questioning the choice for its leader.

Edited December 2, 2008 by BC_chick

[Smallc]

Why is he leading the coalition?

Edited to add: for the record, I support the coalition, I'm just questioning the choice for its leader.

He'll be gone soon. As long as the coalition can survive until the convention, then we will have someone stronger to replace him. Who knows, maybe he'll be a good PM?

[Bryan]

My opinions of the coalition itself aside, Dion as leader is the only choice they reasonably had. Layton got even less support, and the optics of putting someone new in would be even worse.

[jdobbin]

Why is he leading the coalition?

Edited to add: for the record, I support the coalition, I'm just questioning the choice for its leader.

A large part is because all three leadership candidates can't be PM and run for the leadership. There is no mechanism to force the leader of the Liberals out before May of 2009. If the deal was scuppered because of the leadership fight, the Tories would call an election in a few months anyways.

Better to support Dion and have a strong cabinet in place and advisers. The written mandate will keep the government focused.

[BC_chick]

He'll be gone soon. As long as the coalition can survive until the convention, then we will have someone stronger to replace him. Who knows, maybe he'll be a good PM?

Look at Harper, good politician, not so good at governing, so yes, it's very conceivable that someone could be a bad politician and good at governing.

I like your answer, it's very optimistic. But I still see the slap in the face for all those that didn't vote for the man, I sympathise with their anger.

No, I don't agree with them that this is a coup, there is nothing undemocratic about a coalition government in our parliamentary system... but I do have to agree that choosing Dion as the leader is pretty unethical.

[BC_chick]

My opinions of the coalition itself aside, Dion as leader is the only choice they reasonably had. Layton got even less support, and the optics of putting someone new in would be even worse.

Good point.

[BC_chick]

A large part is because all three leadership candidates can't be PM and run for the leadership. There is no mechanism to force the leader of the Liberals out before May of 2009. If the deal was scuppered because of the leadership fight, the Tories would call an election in a few months anyways.

Better to support Dion and have a strong cabinet in place and advisers. The written mandate will keep the government focused.

I am not very fond of Ignatieff, but as deputy leader, why not him? Martin stepped down right away, why is Dion being so such an egomaniac?

Edited to Add waaaay later: whoops, I should've slowed down to read that. My apologies.

Edited December 2, 2008 by BC_chick

[jdobbin]

I am not very fond of Ignatieff, but as deputy leader, why not him? Martin stepped down right away, why is Dion being so such an egomaniac?

Because there is still a leadership convention in effect and not one of those leadership candidates would be able to be in cabinet and run at the same time.

[BC_chick]

Because there is still a leadership convention in effect and not one of those leadership candidates would be able to be in cabinet and run at the same time.

Oh, I see. I thought the possibilities initially included Ignatieff. Thanks for clarifying.

Chretien then?

Edited December 2, 2008 by BC_chick

[NDP4Montreal]

I'm okay with Dion since he has committed to resigning anyways...and he has scrapped the crappy carbon tax plan.

He's moreso an interim leader that monitors the transition. He'll be Canada's 23rd PM...Michael Ignatieff will likely be Canada's 24th in May.

[LesterDC]

Look at Harper, good politician, not so good at governing, so yes, it's very conceivable that someone could be a bad politician and good at governing.

I like your answer, it's very optimistic. But I still see the slap in the face for all those that didn't vote for the man, I sympathise with their anger.

No, I don't agree with them that this is a coup, there is nothing undemocratic about a coalition government in our parliamentary system... but I do have to agree that choosing Dion as the leader is pretty unethical.

Maybe... However, the carbon tax plan was his idea. I know that he scrapped it, but he still came up with it before..

[IMASINNER]

My opinions of the coalition itself aside, Dion as leader is the only choice they reasonably had. Layton got even less support, and the optics of putting someone new in would be even worse.

layton atleast GAINED seats.

[noahbody]

Look at Harper, good politician, not so good at governing,

Harper is a good policy man, but a lousy politician.

[Vancouverite]

I think the Conservatives should scuttle the coalition and call an election - the Liberals have no leader, and they'll be even more vulnerable than before.

Of course, I can't see how this coalition can hang together.

[BC_chick]

Harper is a good policy man, but a lousy politician.

He's quite divisive isn't he? Never a good quality in a politician.

[LesterDC]

Harper is a good policy man, but a lousy politician.

true true.. Layton would probably be the better "politician"

[mjp]

ducepe for pm and layton for deputy pm

[BC_chick]

ducepe for pm and layton for deputy pm

As if the idea of the the author of the Clarity Act and the head of the separation movement forming a government together wasn't bad enough....

[Radsickle]

I think the Conservatives should scuttle the coalition and call an election - the Liberals have no leader, and they'll be even more vulnerable than before.

Of course, I can't see how this coalition can hang together.

It was a fascist inclination to try to suppress their opposition's source of public funding. I think the Conservatives would be seen as even more fascist than they are now if they tried to `scuttle' the coalition, ignoring due process. They'll look equally as bad if they try to close this session of parliament this week and wait till next year to do any governing.

The Conservatives are the ones who are `scuttled', thankfully.

As for Dion leading, I would've prefered Elizabeth May or Jack Layton but I suppose the only legitimate option was the current leader of the `official' opposition.

Why is it so important to everyone that there be a specific, singular `leader'? Is it that hard for us to agree with numerous people? It looks like the coalition is able to agree among themselves.

Seems we all agree that Dion doesn't have long-term leadership potential. Why can't Layton be the leader, if we must have a particular figurehead?

[mjp]

I think the Conservatives should scuttle the coalition and call an election - the Liberals have no leader, and they'll be even more vulnerable than before.

Thats the GG's call not harper's.

[noahbody]

He's quite divisive isn't he? Never a good quality in a politician.

I don't really believe Harper is a natural bully. He has played the role believing it is the best/only way to get his policy through. From my point of view, Harper believes in accomplishment over anything else. Would he want to be PM if he couldn't accomplish anything? I highly doubt it.

As I said I think he's a terrible politician, but that said he has characteristics of a strong leader (of a country not a party). He isn't opposed to doing the unpopular (i.e. income trusts) for what he believes is the right move for the country. He's also a very rational, which in a time of economic uncertainty is a good thing. The other party leaders (except Duceppe) are driven by emotion. It's a little like kyoto. We joined up out of emotion because everyone else was doing it. Today, the world pretty much agrees it was a flawed solution. Still if Dion had been in office instead of Harper we would have been writing cheques totaling a sum between 10 and 20 billion dollars. Now we're going to be writing a cheque for 30 billion because other countries are doing it.

[Radsickle]

Harper has never been anything more than a good CEO of some Alberta-based Energy company. He's never been a natural leader; just look at how much eye-liner the wierdo wears and how many cliches he uses daily.

[kimmy]

But I don't understand why this man is being chosen to lead the coalition when he clearly lost the election. This is absolutely ridiculous, he practically brought the LPC to its knees, Canada clearly did not warm up to the man.

He proved himself in denial when he still believed that Canadians would've chosen him if they'd gotten to know him.... even after losing the election. So in all honesty, it's not a surprise that he still thinks he's fit to lead the coalition. But how could the rest of the LPC, the Bloc and the NDP allow this to happen?

I see a lot of criticism in the media and on this forum about this coalition government being good for the CPC in the long run. By choosing Dion as the leader of the coalition, I'm going to have to agree that this move is very short-sighted. Canada rejected Dion.

Why is he leading the coalition?

Although we obviously have different feelings about the whole coalition concept, what you've written here expresses my feelings quite well. Canadians made their feelings for Mr Dion very plain just a couple of months ago. That he will now be Prime Minister in spite of an unmistakably clear message from Canadians sits extremely poorly with me.

As you point out, his post-election comments suggest denial. I honestly don't think he has actually accepted the election results. I hope, at the very least, that he has enough sense to be humble, to avoid talking as if this was some kind of vindication of him, to avoid referring to himself as the Prime Minister. Like, if he starts talking about wanting to move into 24 Sussex for the next 6 months, I hope one of his advisers has the sense to unplug his microphone.

As for why the NDP and BQ and the remainder of the LPC allowed him to be the leader, my guess is that they feel about the same about Dion: they know he's a loser. They know he's damaged goods, they know he's got absolutely no authority, no chance of hanging onto this job past the leadership convention. Basically, everybody knows that he's finished in 6 months regardless. 6 months as a lame duck, then back to snorkeling with Rick Mercer.

Basically, I doubt they would have let somebody *good* have the job, out of fear that he might be able to hang onto it. I think that's all it comes down to.

I also suspect the NDP and BQ believe that Dion being interim PM will do harm to the LPC. I think they probably believe that Canadians who resent this move will resent the Liberals for it. (Ignatieff said as much, yes?)

My opinions of the coalition itself aside, Dion as leader is the only choice they reasonably had. Layton got even less support, and the optics of putting someone new in would be even worse.

Why? They have committed to making this charade last for at least 18 months before an election, correct?

So the plan is to have a PM that Canadians never chose, for at least a year past the leadership convention. Does 6 extra months make it any worse?

-k

[madmax]

Although we obviously have different feelings about the whole coalition concept, what you've written here expresses my feelings quite well. Canadians made their feelings for Mr Dion very plain just a couple of months ago. That he will now be Prime Minister in spite of an unmistakably clear message from Canadians sits extremely poorly with me.

I can't beleive I am agreeing with BC Chick and Kimmy in one post.

BC Chick. I appreciate your candidness regarding Dion.

Kimmy. I think that the LPC will have to figure a way to hide Dion from the public.

As for your splitviews on the coalition.

Only Harper could have made something so implausible happen. Whether you agree or disagree with the coalition or like or dislike it, it is too late now. Yet everything said is true and factual.

Canadians are going to wear this, and all the elected officials are responsible for their actions at the end of the day.

Now, I just watched Dion on TV again. Please make it stop. Please.

[Argus]

Look at Harper, good politician, not so good at governing, so yes, it's very conceivable that someone could be a bad politician and good at governing.

The problem is that Harper's weakness - arrogance and an unwillingness to compromise - are traits which are actually WORSE in Dion. We've already heard all about it - from his own party. He's very unloved. He's arrogant, doesn't listen to advise, a lone wolf who goes his own way, completely without charisma and communications skills.

And this is a guy who is going to lead an unstable coallition which absolutely requires diplomatic finesse and compromise? Please.