Michael Ignatieff’s weighty autumn

Somewhere in the office of the leader of the Opposition, I feel sure, there is a DVD of season three of The West Wing

by Paul Wells on Friday, September 25, 2009 9:00am - 108 Comments

What’s left? Michael Ignatieff’s Secret Plan to Raise Your Taxes Forever is what. Just kidding, although I suspect I’ve just foreshadowed the Conservative campaign to come. Ignatieff’s speech included a lengthy defence of the very idea of taxation, rebutting a remark Harper made to the effect that no taxes are good taxes. “It’s an astonishing statement for a prime minister to make,” Ignatieff said. “We pay taxes, Mr. Harper, so that premature infants get nursing care when they’re born. So that policemen will be there to keep our streets safe.” So if taxes are legitimate, are more taxes better? No sir or madam: a Liberal government will “keep our tax rates competitive.”

No, what’s missing, after “spending control” that won’t feel like cuts, and taxes that are good but won’t rise, is magic beans. I mean growth. Special growth. “Growth beyond recovery.” A plan to “hit the ground running—fast—once we climb out.” Special growth comes from “standing up for Canadian entrepreneurs,” “investing in the Canadian people” and “going where the growth is.” India and China? “India and China.”

There followed a bunch of shaky statistics. The Conservatives “have actually cut funding to our research councils.” No: the research councils’ budgets are larger today than when the Conservatives were elected. “Under Stephen Harper, where do you think we rank, out of 30 leading economies, in terms of labour productivity growth?” I don’t know, 26th? “Twenty-sixth. Twenty-sixth out of 30.” Sure, but the dozen or so Canadians who know what labour productivity growth is will know Ignatieff got his factoid from the Council of Canadian Academies—which points out that productivity has lagged for decades, regardless of the party in power.

Ignatieff promised “strong policies on climate change” without waiting for the Americans. “We will create a national carbon cap-and-trade system with absolute targets. In that manner, we will enter the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen with our head held high.” This establishes a timeline. If the election campaign began next week, voting day would be at the beginning of November, which would give the new Ignatieff government six weeks to design its cap-and-trade system before Copenhagen. That’s ambitious. Probably opening the Conservatives’ fudge-encrusted books and concocting an economic plan would have to come after that.

With that, the Liberal leader let the lunch crowd get down to dinner. His Bartlett campaign—engaged, qualified and heavyweight—lay ahead.

Bookmark and Share
  • Theresa

    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.

  • kcm

    Er…disingenuous.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

      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.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

    All interesting Paul, but why do I think it would be more like this

    [youtube SnxQk8C_-kE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnxQk8C_-kE youtube]

    • scf

      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.

  • scf

    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.

  • Tripper523

    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.

    • http://twitter.com/ChrisInKW @ChrisInKW

      "I don't find the Harper administration making too many excuses."

      You've got to be kidding me.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

      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.

  • http://azmattressoutlet.com/ phoenix mattress

    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.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    Glad to see that, metaphorically, he's stopped dropping his -g's on gerunds. He'd just have wound up running a bunch of useless erunds.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

    And we all know he's Russian.

    "Ерунда" ("Erunda") translates to "nonsense".

    Leave that to the policy platform, not the vocab.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PaulHuedepohl PaulHuedepohl

    Nicely done!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

    Hubris?

From Macleans