Ignatieff in London

Michael Ignatieff was in London Friday afternoon. I was pleased with the format, in which Ignatieff gave a short speech (following an introduction by Jim Peterson), and proceeded to answer questions, as I had though it may be a more informal meet and greet type event.

The speech touched upon what is shaping up to be a major theme in the Ignatieff campaign, namely the nature of the Liberal Party as a national institution. In this sense he argued Liberals must have national representation. He stressed dealing with Quebec along previously-stated lines ("recognition and respect" etc.), and the need to bridge rural-urban and regional divides. It's refreshing to see someone arguing so passionately for the value of this party beyond being an "election machine." Still, I would like to see a discussion as to how he would attempt to bring such rural and Western voters into the fold.

Ignatieff spoke at some length about immigration, and what he described as a mess in family reunification, tying it to national unity and the economy, and the need for skilled workers. This was along the lines of the recent Ontario convention speech available online.

Not a barnburner, nor meant to be in the more relaxed luncheon atmosphere, there were nonetheless highlights. His French, though used briefly, was impressive. I was also pleased to see him stick to his guns over his "centre-left" comment. The criticism of this has basically been a front for those preferring a move in the other direction, couched in terms of it being outdated rhetoric, which if meant to suggest ideological rigidity makes no sense when referring to Ignatieff, as my blogging colleague pointed out recently. Personally, though it got little reaction, I found his statement that where we should plant the Liberal standard is where Mike Pearson planted it, in the centre of Canadian life, as well as referencing the legacy of that era's Liberal social programs (though unfortunately still seeming to skirt around Trudeau) to be dead-on and well-said.

The questions began with the usual Iraq, torture, statement/question. I'm going to assume you've all read this answer or heard it elsewhere. Along the same lines. On Afghanistan, he answered similar to his House of Commons statements, and spoke about being committed to aiding Darfur. This included a mention of the NDP's seeming lacking of depth of understanding of the differences between the conflicts, with Ignatieff insisting we should not expect Sudan to be anything but difficult. He was asked about legal aid, to which he professed an interest in strengthening (along with investment in Post-Secondary Education, and R & D). He concluded by commenting on a Canadian national academic being detained in Iran and ways to work towards securing his release.

It would have been nice if there was time for more questions but the ones that were asked seemed to get a good back and forth. His engagement with the audience in question-and-answer, including challenging questions, seems strong.

-Steve