Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Jack Layton Is Now The Real Leader of the Opposition: Ignatieff Plays Hamlet

Michael Ignatieff began his press conference in the National Press Theatre in Ottawa today by saying that the Harper government’s budget was deeply flawed. For a moment, I thought he was about to do something interesting, to propose serious and substantive amendments to the budget. But then he dropped the clunker. The Liberals, he said, will propose an amendment requiring the government to provide periodic updates on how the budget is working.

There you have it. Michael Ignatieff went away last night, laboured, and brought forth a mouse.

Explaining himself in answer to questions from the media, the Liberal leader was embarrassingly sophomoric. The Liberal-NDP coalition had been useful, he said, because it had forced the government to put many useful measures in the budget. On the other hand, he said the budget remained a “Conservative” budget that likely would not work. Nonetheless, he said he intended to vote for it. Provided, of course, that his “Mickey Mouse” amendment is acceptable to Stephen Harper. By turns, Ignatieff sounded like Demosthenes, thundering down condemnation on a government that has repeatedly failed Canadians, and then like an apple-polishing pupil asking for a report card from the head master. Rule number one in politics: you can’t have it every which way. If you vote for the Conservative budget, it becomes your budget Mr. Ignatieff, no matter what font the government uses to print its reports for you.

In answer to questions that suggested that perhaps he had thrown the game away, Ignatieff could have replied in the manner of Hamlet: “Do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe.”

Having decided “not to be” as a serious opponent of the Harper government, Michael Ignatieff could consider a career on the stage.

Meanwhile, Jack Layton has become the real leader of the opposition. He showed courage when he reached out to the Liberals to form a progressive coalition that could provide Canadians with the leadership they need to cope with the economic crisis. He tried the option of working with the Liberals. Michael Ignatieff has walked away from that option. Layton has retained his integrity and his clear understanding of what the country needs. Progressives now have one party and one party only available to them: the NDP.

9 comments:

Patrick Ross said...

You're underestimating the significance of Ignatieff's proposal.

It isn't merely an occasional report on "how the budget is working". It's a periodic report on whether or not the budget is being implimented.

Layton's primary argument against the budget, I recall, is that the Conservatives allegedly can't be trusted to impliment it.

Ignatieff's proposal would give the opposition a stick with which to ensure that the government does impliment the budget.

It's the kind of reform we should have had in this country a long time ago. It's a shame that Jack Layton lacks the same imagination.

Anonymous said...

Iggy, request for reports is as hollow as it is stupid. The Conservatives have been lying about the finances of the country, will these lies be any different if they are put in report form?

Iggy just made himself irrelevant to government and irrelevant to opposition.

To see how consistent Liberals are, watch this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4e5laXN9zE

Anonymous said...

What good will it do for the Libs to monitor the implementation of the budget when the budget is flawed to begin with. A whole lot of hot air again.

Ryan said...

Don't you think it's a little immoral to let a budget pass that you think will fail in delivering?

I can understand why Michael "Empire-Lite" Ignatieff would want the Conservatives to hold the bag for a depression. Unfortunately, the bag will actually be held by the citizens of Canada instead.

Patrick Ross said...

So which part of the budget, specifically, is it that's flawed?

Is it the $7 billion for infrastructure?

$2 billion for social housing?

$1.7 billion for job retraining?

What part, specifically?

Patrick Ross said...

Whoops. My apologies, folks. That was me.

James Laxer said...

Hi Patrick: What's wrong is the scale of the stimulus spending. Direct spending of about $6 billion this year and again next year will create about 60,000 jobs, if it all gets spent. Over the next six months, Canada is set to lose about 300,000 more jobs. That's on top of those who are already unemployed. To deal with the scale of the recession, Canada needs direct spending of about $50 billion this year and again next year. That would create about 500,000 to 600,000 jobs. Fifty billion dollars is about 3 per cent of our GDP. Without such direct spending by government, we are going to sink deeper into recession and deflation. That's what's wrong with the budget, and now the Liberals have bought into it.

Patrick Ross said...

I could almost respect that kind of reasoning, but far too often in this country have we seen millions or even billions of dollars spent on something with little net result.

Your argument seems to be that we aren't spending enough money.

But spending more money won't do the country any good if it isn't spent wisely.

I would rather see the government spend a smaller amount of money and be able to manage it effectively.

susansmith said...

The infrastructure sounds impressive until one see the "fine print." Thus that money has to be equally matched with funds from provincial and municipal coffers. Considering that last year a similar program was offered and that most of this money is still sitting in the feds "piggybank" one knows that this was all window dressing.
It reminds me of EI, where the majority of workers cannot access EI due to the stipulations of elgibility. Looks great until one reads the "fine print." Take note, the Liberals care so little about workers that they didn't even bother to make a condition of voting for the budget with conditions to change these so more workers could qualify. Of course, prior to their "choke" they were big on talk of the conditions that were necessary to get their support.
Of course, I can understand why they were nothing but talk, considering it was a liberal govt who screwed over workers in changing the access to these funds.
Now that liberals have now owned this budget, there will be no whining, you voted for it, you eat it.