Michael Ignatieff Is MIA

Photo: Globe and Mail

Do you really blame the Liberal leader for disappearing during this summer break? It’s a strategy that has more than a few pundits wondering why, although I suspect the reasons are more benign than others would like to believe. During a summer that has seen it’s share of silly news and haphazard conjecture about nothingness [Wafergate has come to it's painfully logical conclusion], it’s particularly difficult to care out here on the west coast where we’re in the throes of a heat wave that is doing it’s best imitation of Toronto. Only Toronto isn’t being Toronto this year, it’s being Vancouver. In October.

Where was I again? Ah yes, Michael Ignatieff and his reclusive Marlon Brando-like disappearing act. As I say, what exactly would the Liberals prefer to attack the Conservatives on this time? They still haven’t galvanized a platform that makes any sense beyond their desire to champion Employment Insurance reform, and even that little wedge went out when Mr.Ignatieff blinked in the early summer showdown. Besides, Employment Insurance rolls are at their highest levels since 1997 when a certain Finance Minister, let’s call him Paul Martin, decided to cut this terrible burden to the Liberal government by reducing eligibility. Yes, I can see how that might be awkward to bring up again, particularly as it’s difficult to now argue that E.I. doesn’t work when it has record numbers swelling it’s ranks.

Of course, I will offer a devil’s advocacy here. Part of the problem with Michael Ignatieff’s ascendancy to the Liberal throne is that he came in hot and heavy, ready to do battle at every corner and turn, and to disassociate his leadership from his weak-kneed predecessor as much as possible. But the Conservative Party, shrewd strategists that they are, have managed to effectively curtail the Liberal momentum by creating policies and programs that the Liberals would likely have invented themselves. Rather difficult to criticize a government that is running a Liberal platform, isn’t it? I mean, what are they going to do, complain they’re not spending enough money?

An effective opposition to the Conservative government would be, surprisingly, a Conservative party. One that demanded fiscal sobriety, responsible governance, an end to the seemingly self-generating programs and regional development crown corporations and perpetuation of social justice entities like the Status of Women ministry, and the Human Rights Commission. But, because the Liberals favour all of the things the Conservatives are doing, except for the unfortunate fact that they don’t get to be the ones doing them, there isn’t much that Michael Ignatieff can do right now. Short of finding a new “scandal” to invent, although to date the government has fairly resembled Teflon on all sticky issues, there’s nothing new under the sun.

So I don’t think it’s a particularly bad strategy for Michael Ignatieff to find a rock and crawl under it for a while. He’s certainly no stranger to disappearing acts, as the Conservative attack ads have been quite forthright in reminding us of. By keeping a low profile, and not constantly appearing in front of the cameras to wave his finger at the government, furrow his considerably bushy brows, and use eloquent language to describe the absolute inadequacy of power he presents in doing anything about it, he might actually do himself a favour.

There’s also a more obvious [and perhaps self-defeating for a political writer] logic to his absence. It’s summer, and people have better things to do than worry about politics.

David Miller: A Master Negotiator

Every time I think about how Toronto residents went 36 days without services in a city that never fails to find new reasons to increase property taxes, only to concede on pretty much every single union demand, I am reminded of the scene in Bad Santa where Santa Billy Bob’s partner negotiates his own position into complete capitulation. Although perhaps that’s not a completely fair comparison. After all, it’s not like the characters in that movie had a particularly strong bargaining position to begin with. To borrow from Seinfeld, then, I am reminded of the episode in which George Costanza manages to negotiate himself into a lower settlement from NBC’s original offer. In this case, David Miller plays George Costanza, a comparison that I think fits quite well with Mr.Miller’s zany comedy he puts on as Mayor of Toronto.

Truly this is a man who has lost all credibility in a mayoral tenure that has run it’s course; indeed, one that has now run off course and lays upside down in a ditch, wheels spinning fruitlessly. So what has 36 days of inconvenience provided Toronto residents 7 years after David Miller promised to never let it happen again? Why, let’s ask Mark Ferguson, president of CUPE Local 416:

“We feel quite pleased that we were able to reach a settlement that we believe is fair, a settlement without concessions.

[...]

“This is a deal, I think, my membership will be happy with,” echoed Ann Dembinski, of CUPE Local 79.

Quite. When you have union representatives openly boasting about reaching a settlement that is “fair” and without concessions, it’s pretty much like pressing your thumb and forefinger opposed to each other whilst thrusting the finger from your opposite hand through the circle and winking. That’s right Toronto, you’ve been screwed.

The David Miller word for “flexibility” should be understood as a synonym for “utter surrender”, when refusing to answer whether CUPE had to give up their 18 bankable sick days. We do know the answer now: they won’t have to. But future hires will. That’s “kind of” a victory, isn’t it? In the same way that hearsay and conjecture are “kinds of” evidence, to borrow a line from the Simpsons.

Q: Why is this man smiling? A: He works for the union. Photo: Peter Power, Globe and Mail

Other “flexible” agreements decided upon are the three-year [not four-year] contract, so that we can all do this again in 2012, and pay raises of 6% over three years. Yes, I said 6%, not 4% that the city offered earlier. Again, masterful negotiating. In every regard this settlement is better then what the city offered on July 10.

What I can’t understand, beyond all the rhetoric from both the union and the city of Toronto, is how anyone for one moment could accept that the striking union had any leverage, whatsoever, in this struggle. If anything, I expected the kind of outcome from a “Bad Santa” or a “George Costanza” negotiation, because after all, it’s not like you couldn’t replace each and every single city of Toronto worker in about 24 hours, given the level of unemployment in the province. I mean, this was actually a great opportunity for a political leader to stand up once and for all, look the unions straight in the eye, and tell them to get lost. Who in this recession is getting “bankable sick days”? Who is getting 6% raises? Who is even able to say with certainty that their job is safe?

But we know why David Miller folded with a Royal Flush against a pair of dueces. Because a man made by the union, is a man beholden to the union. This was all a sham, a big show for the audience, some rhetorical tough talk, followed by the inevitable dive in the third round. And in the end, the same taxpayers who were screwed in the short term from a 36-day strike that yielded 48,900 tonnes of garbage, will be utterly crushed when the city’s impossibly expensive concessions can’t be met, and they have to raise taxes again. David Miller probably won’t be around when that eventuality works it’s way down the pipe, but you can bet there will plenty of people around to remember who was responsible.