The problem is that young Michael strayed too far from his original thesis. If you’ll recall, Ignatieff had four points of concern he was going to raise with the Prime Minister.
Specifically, Ignatieff wants to know:
1) Details of Harper’s proposal to change the employment insurance system.
2) When the ballooning deficit will be eliminated.
3) How much money has been spent on stimulus projects.
4) How the medical isotope crisis will be addressed.
His report upon emerging from Harper’s inner sanctum included only details on point one. These details were half-hearted, at best, as we all know that a blue-ribbon panel consisting of Conservatives and Liberals can only mean bad things for UI reform. You’ll probably need to show that your ribs are protruding to get any sort of aid once that combination of ivory-tower angels and dog-eat-dog devils get through with their commission. Besides which, we all know how good parliament is at ignoring panel and commission recommedations (witness Romanow, for example). On question 1, young Michael scores 50%.
Unfortunately for young Michael, he has ignored the other three points of his very own thesis. This reviewer respectfully rejects this submission from Mr. Ignatieff and suggest that he resubmit his paper while trying to stay focused on all four points that he mentioned in his outline. This juror cannot in good conscience recommend Michael’s work for publication, nor can he score the submission above 12.5%, given the lack of detail nor forthought in Mr. Ignatieff’s conclusions.