However, because I wasn't a delegate, I can't complain. You snooze, you lose, I suppose. But I do wonder on what this result actually say's about the Party's current psychology at the moment. (Hint: we're very afraid.)
But, Stephane Dion's defense of the motion to put the leadership race in that timeline (beyond what the Executive wanted) was spirited as it was convincing:
They were persuaded in that choice by former leader Stéphane Dion, who reminded delegates of the hatchet jobs done on him and Ignatieff by relentless Tory attack ads. Liberals, he argued, must not choose a new leader until they've amassed the money and organization needed to fight back against the inevitable Tory onslaught.I don't necessarily disagree with Dion's telling, as he is right; the Conservatives will rip to shreds any new Liberal leader, and if we aren't prepared we're going to fall back to their onslaught, while the New Democrats laugh their arses off and gobble up the rest of our vote.
"The defeat has been very severe. The party has a monumental task to do. We should do it step by step," Dion said in a later interview, adding that "the only good news of this disastrous [election] result" is that Liberals have plenty of time to pull themselves back together.
If Liberals choose a leader before undertaking any rebuilding, Dion said, "The leader will be without any protection facing the Conservatives."
He predicted the Tories will try to do to the next leader what they did to him and Ignatieff, define the person "in a very negative way," as "an ugly, unsympathetic person, unable to be a leader, not a Canadian, willing to tax them like crazy."
He said Canadians will believe that unless the Liberal Party is ready to counter the attacks.
"And for that we need greater organization, good fundraising, good communications in the social media and the traditional media."
However, there's a few of considerations here:
1. A lot of fundraising is leadership driven, and scaring the bejeezus out of Liberals will only be effective for so long
2. The longer we sit without a permanent leader, the greater time the other two can say we are so moribund we have no direction, and let that idea settle with Canadians, further driving down potential donations
3. Restructuring our organization is a good idea, but it will take place under an interim leader, under the interim leader's direction and mindset, and with the interim leader's personality driving it - get the hint?
4. Even if we get everything done in time, fundraising and restructuring and all, the Conservatives and New Democrats will still likely have better organizations than us - at least one of them will - and it's likely we'll get shitkicked anyways, even if we are competitive, but leaving the kicking fresher in the minds of Canadians
There's also my paranoia surrounding Rae's ambition, and the likelihood that he'll stick on whether we do good or bad.
Why I preferred the 2012 leadership race was simple; the longer the time under a permanent leader, the longer time we have to fundraise with that leader; to restructure under the permanent leader's auspices; and the more time we have to combat the Conservative and New Democrat narratives sure to follow. These benefits right there made sense to me - waiting longer did not.
But, as I said before, it was out of my hands so I can't really complain. I'll roll up my sleeves in the meantime - after my tropical vacation.