I appreciate the credit for writing mean things about Michael Ignatieff. But I evidently have nothing on David Olive, who pronounces the Liberal Leader a politically illiterate "wuss" whose only act of substance was to help legitimize torture, and whose "esteemed diplomat father would not recognize what Iggy became."
For the record, I think that's a little harsh - mostly because I dislike the idea that it's inherently gutless not to bring down the government every time you have the opportunity. (It bears noting, mind you, that Olive - like Rob Silver yesterday - makes a better case for why we might need an election than Ignatieff has managed.) Invoking his dad also seems like a bit of a cheap shot.
Where there's little room for dispute, though, is in Olive's assessment that it's "anyone's guess" who exactly Ignatieff is or what he wants. His handlers, and the leader himself, may think this makes him enigmatic. Personally, I find it just makes him a disappointment.
When Ignatieff took his party's leadership last December, there seemed to be the promise of a higher level of political discourse, spurred by someone who'd bring intellectual rigour to judging other people's policies and developing his own. But instead of trying to change the game in Ottawa, he's opted just to try to play the current game more cleverly than everyone else.
You could practically see Ignatieff patting himself on the head yesterday for navigating his way to a position that allows him to give the appearance of being prepared to bring down the government (which he may not actually want to do) over relatively minor policy disputes (which he may not actually feel all that strongly about) while feigning regret that the Prime Minister has put him in this difficult position (even though he seems to be quite happy to be there). This is what he came back to Canada for?
I'm not sure whether it's fair to say, as Olive does, that Ignatieff "does not know this country," any more than it's fair to say that about Stephen Harper or most other federal leaders. What I will say is that he seems to have spent too much time since his return trying to understand how Ottawa works, and not enough time focusing on what the rest of the country thinks about it.
He may be better than Harper at playing the game, and that may put him in the Prime Minister's Office before too long. But he's squandering the opportunity to make it more than a game - to make it something relevant to Canadians who've never set foot within Hy's and don't plan their summers around the prospect of an election. If anything, he's turning more of them off by adding to noise that they find increasingly indecipherable.
Perhaps Ignatieff would be better in government than in opposition - someone able to use the trappings of power to rise above the fray. But the gusto with which he's jumped into that fray makes it somewhat doubtful. And in any event, one can only guess how many more Canadians will have tuned out by then.
Adam Radwanski