The audacity of Michael Ignatieff

[CHIMO]

Late last month, near the end of a prolonged period of uncertainty in Canadian politics, the Conservative government of prime minister Stephen Harper tabled its 2009 budget, the long-awaited response to the Liberal-New Democrat coalition that had been formed late last year, a last-ditch effort by the government to remain in power.

The question, though, was not so much whether the budget's economic stimulus package was good enough but, politically speaking, how the Liberals – and specifically new leader Michael Ignatieff – would respond to it. Now with the power in their hands, would they seek to bring down the government by voting against it with their coalition partners, or would they back away from the coalition, thereby effectively killing it, and, for the time being at least, prop up the government by voting for it? Ignatieff, who had never been comfortable with the coalition, and whose ascension to the leadership in December was itself the coalition's death knell, chose to vote for the budget and thereby to support the government.


And so for all the budget's flaws – and he listed many of them – all Ignatieff offered by way of amendment was for the government to be held accountable: "We will require regular reports to Parliament on the budget's implementation and its cost – one in March, one in June and one in December." That was it. After all the seemingly noble rhetoric about "helping Canadians", about "pay equity for women" and about "the green economy", after all the drama of the past couple of months, all Ignatieff wanted was three reports. His kingdom for three reports.

There is nothing wrong with accountability, and, to be fair, Ignatieff stressed that he is "ready to defeat and lead in his place" and "ready to act in the national interest, as the gravity of this economic crisis demands".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/13/michael-ignatieff-canada-economy

Guess this will be Harper's areas of attack.

Funny thing though. I don't recall the author analyzing Harper or assigning anything to him?

Wonder if a few Canucks should let the Guardian know about this!

[Bragi]

1. Here's the problem

I'd be happy to defend Iggy in the Guardian, but I am finding his leadership to be uninspiring at best, and indefensible at worst. His fulsome support for the oil sands is certainly indefensible.

I am deeply disappointed by his performance on this and other issues. He let Harper escape certain doom in January, and in supporting the budget has pretty well adopted the same vote-with-Harper political stance that Dion was widely criticized for.

For me, Iggy's leadership is somewhere between a disappointment and a disaster. I hope he soon gets his act together and stops being the neocon-lite that we were all warned about.