“I stand between you and your dinner,” Michael Ignatieff told a crowd gathered for lunch, which is sort of like dinner, at the Toronto Hilton. “And you’re going to be a little hungrier by the time I get through.”
Ah. This was the Liberal leader explaining the effect of his own presence. It’s the same Michael Ignatieff who likes to punctuate his remarks with asides like, “You know, I’m a pragmatic fellow.” He is an illuminated manuscript come to life, or at least partway. He began with this warning about the still-distant meal, whichever one it might be, because he planned to give us a “more substantive” speech than the audience might be used to.
The Liberal leader is having a substantive autumn. Several days before this he delivered a speech his factotums advertised as being about “Canada in the world: where we’ve been, where we are and where we’re going.” Today his theme was the economy: “What Canada’s been through, the challenges we’re facing, and where we should be going.” You know, he’s a weighty fellow.
The challenge for Ignatieff since he moved to Toronto from Massachussetts in 2004 has been how to position himself. Is he regular folks? When I interviewed him in 2006 he was busy droppin’ his g’s from every gerund and ever-lovin’ participle. He has since decided that won’t work. Small mercies. Now he takes the long view, thinks the big thought, interposes himself between lunch crowds and their dinner with only the weight of his cogitation to hold back the tide.
Somewhere in the office of the leader of the Opposition, I feel sure, there is a DVD of season three of The West Wing. Toby Ziegler’s chess match with president Bartlett has received repeated viewings. Ziegler tells his boss how to win against a populist challenger. “You’re not ‘just folks,’ ” he says. “You’re not plain-spoken. Do not, do not, do not act like it.”
Bartlett protests: “I don’t wanna be killed.”
Ziegler: “Then make this election about smart, and not. Make it about engaged, and not. Qualified, and not. Make it about heavyweight. You’re a heavyweight. And you’ve been holding me up for too many rounds.” And Ziegler knocks down his own beleaguered king, because this guy Bartlett, he cannot be beaten at chess.
God, I love that scene.
Anyway, here was Ignatieff on the economy. He was here to be substantive. But only up to a point: those Conservatives have been fudging the numbers. When he gets elected Ignatieff will “open the books” and figure out what the budget balance really is. Only then will he come up with a financial plan. “We won’t make decisions without numbers we can trust.”
The decisions he makes, after we elect him, will form “a balanced plan,” winding down stimulus spending neither too quickly nor too slowly. “We will balance the books without making the most vulnerable pay the price,” he said. But even then, “expenditure control alone can’t dig us out of the mess Mr. Harper has left us with.”
Pages: 1 2
Print
Comment
Poor Ignatieff. The image is taking hold that he's a phoney. This piece by Wells is reminiscent of the column by Salutin in the Globe the other day.
Count Iggy is truly making Prof. Dion look better everyday – at least Prof. Dion taught in Canada!!
Well, my money's still on Harper. He's had to fight every step of the way.
But things can change, and quickly.
Update: All I know is that my judgment on these memes is faulty — I thought in 2007 that "Stephane Dion is not a leader" was a silly line to push that no intelligent person would go along with.
And yet…
But in your gut you knew that the "Stephane Dion is not a leader" line would resonate, no?
And it resonated, not because most folks aren't intelligent, but because humans have an (often frustrating) ability to hold onto many different and often contradictory thoughts at the same time.
No, I actually was quite surprised by that — I figured Dion had shown guts in standing up to the seppies in the QC intellectual establishment in the 1990s, and that sort of intestinal fortitude is what forges leaders and what would come out on the campaign trail.
But apparently it resonated with Liberals – they stayed home.
I think "Just Visiting" is a much easier sell. So if my gut reactions are off what the public has, maybe this one will flop and Ignatieff will wipe the floor with Harper.
Dion vs the seppies is and was old news; specifically I'm not sure that very many voters were thinking about that Dion credential while they were voting. I definitely don't recall that credential getting mentioned at all during the election almost a year ago (I had forgotten about it); for Dion's sake maybe it should have been mentioned.
Further, if that credential had come up I'm confident that many voters would have thought something along the lines of "Well yes, on that particular issue Dion did demonstrate the makings of a true leader, but despite that instance I still don't believe he would make a good PM".
And I'm not sure that that resonated with Liberal voters as much as there unwillingness to actually go through with the Green Shift, but that's a different discussion.
Should've, could've, would've.
Point is, I thought it reflected a steely side of his character which would end by making the charge look ridiculous as the campaign went on, not unlike how the anti-Chretien stuff backfired badly in '93. (Shows how much I know.)
As for the Green Shift, well, if you're worried about the policy chops and political judgment that thought that little beauty up, remember that the carbon tax was first hauled onto the national political stage by one Michael Ignatieff, during his first run for the leadership. (Along with "Quebec = a nation" in the constitution, "not losing sleep" vs. "une crime de guerre" on Israel, and a few other fun things.)
But. It's quite possible that Ignatieff is flexible enough that he will avoid Dion-esque faceplants, and therefore push Stephen Harper to an early retirement. Having read the last one so badly, I'm very hesitant about my predictive powers for the next one. (My inability to read the public's mood may reach John Tory-esque levels.)
That is an EXCELLENT scene. Now if only we could get a leader, of at least one of the parties, to have as much substance as Bartlett or even half of that, maybe we could return to effective government. Sad. No wonder people don't vote, the selection is awful.
Er…disingenuous.
I wouldn't take advice from the Post if I were Ignatieff. Just like Harper shouldn't take advice from the Star.
But I thought the point re Harper getting away with it rang true enough to repeat.
Some people just do. Ever see Steyn's review of Chretien's bio? He posits what would have happened, had Chretien stuck around to deal with Adscam:
http://bit.ly/15SWSP
"What would Chrétien have done? He'd have said, "Waal, da scam is da scam and, when you got da good scam, dat da scam. Me, I like da scam-and-eggs wid da home fries at da Auberge Grand-Mère every Sunday morning. And Aline, she always spray da pepper on it. Like Popeye say, I scam what I scam. Don' make me give you da ol' Shawiniscam handshake …" Etc., etc., until it all dribbled away into a fog of artfully constructed incoherence, and the heads of the last two journalists following the story exploded, and he won his fourth term."
Anyway, we'll see.
All interesting Paul, but why do I think it would be more like this
I love parodies like this. Now I know that I'm not the only one that noticed that for some reason people on that show spent a lot of time hurrying from one office to another for no apparent reason or benefit.
Labour productivity growth seems to peak in countries where hiring and firing is very difficult (ie Europe, particularly France), which makes sense. People will buy an expensive machine to lick the envelopes if they cannot hire a receptionist. But a receptionist will treat the customers better. Labour productivity growth is a good thing, but it needs to be place in context to have more meaning.
It's an over-used, age-old cop-out to continually blame previous administrations for the ineptitudes and incompetence of a newly-seated government. I don't find the Harper administration making too many excuses. Rather, they are going about the business of running this nation as best they can, with the cards they've been dealt, regardless of their predecessor gripping the federal plough and the nature of the economic terrain. Contrarily, Mikhail Igneutiev will use the "unknown factor" for his own justification, and a "show me when I get there" blackmailing attitude for his lack of accountability now, and his ambition for the power which eludes him.
"I don't find the Harper administration making too many excuses."
You've got to be kidding me.
It is a tired dodge…per coyne's column of a month ago. And even odder now that the numbers come from Finance, seen by the PBO and audited by the Aud General. Given that Iggy has some former PCO bigwig on staff it makes the claim that they just dont know and can't know even thinner.
Saying its not possible says that the bureacracy participates in out and out fraud. It would be nice to see this excuse, for both sides, stripped away by those who question them, voters, media watchdogs etc.
i have a client in toronto who has backed harper, but seems torn by ignatieff. it’s hard to understand why, though: ignatieff is one of these people who takes a stand on things and harper doesn’t, he just does as he’s told to do.
I love that shoulda, coulda, woulda phrase…use that with the kids and coworkers all the time.