Angry in the Great White North

Yesterday I discussed how Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff has set vague and meaningless conditions with which to decide whether to vote down the budget.  In that case, Michael Igantieff warned Stephen Harper and the Conservatives against a tax cut that was "very large".

It was brilliant.  Even a large tax cut could be said not to be very large, and the budget will pass.  The condition is simultaneously tough sounding, which thrills Liberals tired of two years of Stephane Dion's spinelessness, but at the same time devoid of any measurable to determine if it has been satisfied, which gives Michael Ignatieff the ability to interpret it any way that suits him.

Today, another excuse arrived by email:

Dear Steve,

During my January economic listening tour - and by way of thousands of emails - you provided me with a litmus test for the upcoming budget, and I shared your views with Mr. Harper. I told him that in order for his budget to earn the support of the Liberal Party, it must do three things: 1) protect the most vulnerable Canadians - those hardest hit by these difficult times, 2) protect the jobs of today, in every region of the country, and 3) create the jobs of tomorrow, strengthening Canada's competitiveness and productivity without leaving our children to inherit a legacy of debt and deficit.

Later today, when the government releases its budget we will be looking to see if it meets this test and whether Stephen Harper is serious about addressing the economic challenges we face after failing to act for so long.

In order to make the right decision for Canada, I will be taking some time to review the contents of the budget, and will return with our Party's decision on Wednesday. In the meantime, I want to hear from you. Please let me know if you think the budget meets your test.

As I've said before, we are in this crisis together and we will get out of it together. I look forward to hearing from you.

Michael

The link in the email goes to a page on Michael Ignatieff's own website, and not to the Liberal Party website.  The visitor then fills in the form with his or her advice on how the Liberals ought to respond to the budget, hits Submit, and the comments are recorded.

Or are they?

I'm willing to bet that Michael Ignatieff is not overly concerned with what people say.  If his mind is already made up, and if he is planning to let the budget pass, this exercise seems pointless, right?

Not really.  Even if there are difficult sections in the budget, Michael Ignatieff can huff and puff, and then say that even though his preference is to vote down the budget, the overwhelming response from concerned Canadians who visited his website was to allow the budget to pass unless it was outrageously inadequate.

See?  It wasn't him, it was all those people who filled out the form.  Michael Ignatieff listens.

Yeah right.

Michael Ignatieff could have provided an email address for people to email their opinions instead of using this web form, but then the person sending the email would have a copy of the email sent.  You could conceivably gather all the emails together and see that the overwhelming majority of respondents wanted the budget voted down, contrary to what Michael Ignatieff said.

But by using a form, there is no independent record on the respondent's computer of what he or she said.  If Michael Ignatieff says most of the people said to let the budget pass, then we can't really prove him wrong.

Of course, the Liberal Party folks processing the responses would know.wait a second.this isn't the Liberal Party website.  It is Michael Ignatieff's own website.  So that means it is Michael Ignatieff's own website administrator who knows the truth.  The Liberal Party website administrators would not see the raw data.

OK, that seems a bit paranoid, and yet, it is curious that Michael Ignatieff's own site is being used to gather these opinions that will allegedly sway his thinking.  Like he's operating independently (or at least at arm's length) from the party.  It'll be interesting to see if a pattern develops.