Alternating Liberal leaders

[Leafless]

I came across an interesting media article relating to ' to maintain the tradition of alternating between English and French leaders.'

Montreal - area Liberal MP Denis Coderre said "the liberal party should think twice about dropping it's winning formula of alternating between French and English leaders that allowed it to dominate federal politics during the past century."

What do you think?

Is this in fact an important criteria to winning elections anymore or do you think the job simply goes to the most qualified candidate?

[Drea]

I came across an interesting media article relating to ' to maintain the tradition of alternating between English and French leaders.'

Montreal - area Liberal MP Denis Coderre said "the liberal party should think twice about dropping it's winning formula of alternating between French and English leaders that allowed it to dominate federal politics during the past century."

What do you think?

Is this in fact an important criteria to winning elections anymore or do you think the job simply goes to the most qualified candidate?

Chretien and Martin were both from Quebec.

[geoffrey]

Martin is anglophone though. Which means we'd be due for a francophone. Meaning I'd rather not have a) them elect a French leader or have them not be elected to government.

No more Quebec handouts, thats all the French PM's have ever done.

[Leafless]

geoffrey

You wrote- " Martin is an Anglophone though. Which means we'd be due for a Fracophone."

But this is not entirely true is it.

Paul Martin should be considered French.

He is a franco-Ontarian who lived most of his adult life in Quebec and represents a Montreal riding.

And in the leadership convention in 1968 Jean Chretien didn't respect this tradition when he ran against John Turner and lost.

So in fact we should be due for an English speaking Liberal PM.

I always thought this traditon was always culturally tainted or even racial so to speak concerning social and political identity.

Best qualified I think should be the bottom line.

[Bakunin]

The liberal are done in quebec for at least the 10 next year, no interesting candidate of quality will come from quebec however if we look at the last 40years, i guess the quality of the leaders has never been a priority for the liberals.

[geoffrey]

The liberal are done in quebec for at least the 10 next year, no interesting candidate of quality will come from quebec however if we look at the last 40years, i guess the quality of the leaders has never been a priority for the liberals.

Nothing good since Pearson? Couldn't agree more.

Is there any French Prime Ministers worthy of greatness? Not really no. All have ruled for Quebec and the French alone (besides Laurier to some extent, so I'll give credit where its due).

[Hicksey]

Funny, no mention of the best person for the job getting it.

[Slavik44]

This isn't a tradition or requirement for Liberal leadership it is a bit like saying the NHl should ensure the Vancouver Canucks make it to the stanley cup finals and loose to a team from New York, this season, in order to stick with tradition. Besides, to be honest I don't see any French politicians suggested for leadership that I really like, so I would rather the Liberals break with tradition...whatever that is because I don't belive the best Candidate will be from quebec.

[Leafless]

I used 'best qualified' to describe the candidate most suited for the job but agree this word sounds a little to extreme as to suggest certain qualifications are necessary when in fact it is the most 'politcally desiarable' is the most important criteria relating to a leader of a political party.

So I agree with Hicksey and Slavik that the word 'best person or politician' is better suited than 'best qualified'.