Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
In one big way it is more non-democratic then what the conservatives did. The running of Ignatieff into the leadership role goes against the original charter of the Liberal Party that mandates that all party members get a vote in deciding their leader through the convention process. In this case the leadership is being decided by the relative few elites in the party which are the senators and MPs. It would not surprise me if they lose members over this.
|
Not at all against the charter. He was merely appointed interim leader. He'll still be up for election in May, and any other party member can run against him at that time, should they so choose. But the party decided that rather than elect a lame-duck interim leader as is often the case, the current circumstances required that they choose an interim leader who could lead the party in case of an election.
It certainly is unusual for an interim leader be someone who intends to run the party long-term, but there is a historical precedent for it: Hugh Guthrie was appointed (not elected) interim leader of the Conservatives in 1926, and remained interim leader for a full year before a leadership convention was held where he put up his name to be the full leader of the party.