On several occasions I’ve heard Michael Ignatieff describe the Liberal Party as being “at the centre of Canadian politics” and then–in the next breath–claim credit for every left-wing policy this country has adopted in the last 75 years. And, to be fair, Ignatieff does a bit of that here–trying to claim credit for medicare and public pensions, etcetera. But, from beginning to end, his description of his political philosophy makes it clear that he sees liberalism as a repudiation of the centre-left as much as the centre-right–and what he describes would be unrecognizable to most supporters of Pearson or Trudeau.

But I couldn't quite match your specific comment to the 10th paragraph (from the top or the bottom). I also checked the binary, octal and hex 10th paragraphs…still no go, so I'm not sure what to make of your comment.

But I do disagree that liberalism is not a breviary because libs/progs are all about enforcing acceptable thoughts while punishing those that don't conform.

Iggy should be a Con, we all know that, but his lust for power overwhelmed his desire to stay true to his beliefs.

I was having trouble sleeping at night, and your speech should do the trick, by the time I get to the fourth paragraph.

In theory the speech at this venue could have been a tour de force for Ignatieff. Instead, this mish-mash of a discussion will not fool the good English folks attending this lecture who at best will leave Whitehall Place bewildered. It will likely leave Canadians doing a little head-scratching themselves, (other than hardcore Iggy partisans, and I mean really hardcore), as they will wonder if this guy is more interested in being an academic bystander than actually rolling up his sleaves and entering the political fray.

I don't think Iggy has a pragmatic bone in his body, it's all theory all the time. I doubt Iggy instills fear in the Conservative ranks, if he ever did.

The bloom may be coming off the rose if the polls are any indicator, they have the Conservaties ahead in the country including vote-rich Ontario, Iggy's backyard (43-39 in Ont. in the latest Strategic Counsel poll which came out yesterday).

"Highfalutin lectures before an English audience is well-trodden territory for Iggy, but the Liberal Party doesn't need someone articulating what it means to be a philosophical Liberal."

Do agree with you though hearing some policy would be nice, but I think he's saving it for the campaign. And the Isaiah Berlin Lecture is all about philosophizing on what it means to be a Liberal, not detailing policies.

The only-Liberals-are-good-Canadians schtick is arrogant and failed to work for Paul Martin's administration that had taken it to new heights. I think this patronizing approach which conflates the Liberal Party of Canada with the Canadian state is actually a very unliberal idea and contradicts other parts of Iggy's speeech. It also goes against some very basic principles of modern western democracies and the British Parliamentary system. It is also the arrogant philosophy that resulted in adscam: the diversion of public funds to the Liberal Party.

What Canada wants to know, and what the Liberals haven't yet said, is what political directions Ignatieff intends to lead the country, motherhood and apple pie aside.

They do pull this bait and switch alot, don't they. Libs try to make themselves sound reasonable when they say they don't like the current crop of Cons but do like …. and it's inevitably someone who is dead or long since retired.

"(To be fair, conservatives often attempt the same dodge, when praising classical liberalism.)"

Not sure what you mean here. I consider myself more of a classical liberal than I do conservative, at least how the terms were formerly used. Cons use to look out for the interests of the blue-bloods and everyone else could go hang. I would have been Liberal if I was alive before Lib changed meaning in mid to late 60s.

Ah, the good old-fashioned ploy: "Those conservatives safely in the past posing no threat to our present ambitions, we always liked and respected (contrary to any statements or behaviour that may have indicated otherwise at the time), but the ones around now? Total bastards who want to destroy Canada."

(To be fair, conservatives often attempt the same dodge, when praising classical liberalism.)

Ah, the good old-fashioned ploy: "Those conservatives safely in the past posing no threat to our present ambitions, we always liked and respected (contrary to any statements or behaviour that may have indicated otherwise at the time), but the ones around now? Total bastards who want to destroy Canada."

we are concentrated in a thin strip – full stop.