Just imagine the scene: Daniel Craig, as 007, storms into Q’s lab.

007: What’s this about me getting a new car?

Q: Ah, well, 007. You remember the first time we gave you an Aston?

007: (cautiously) Yessss.

Q: And what did you do with it?

007: Um . . . I rolled it.

Q: And what did you do with its replacement?

007: Er . . . yeah, I know it got banged up a bit during my last assignment, but I thought you could fix it.

Q: 007, do you know how much a DBS costs these days?

007: Um . . . about 160 thousand pounds, I think.

Q: Did you know we got a visit from the Auditor-General last week?

007: No.

Q: “Not a very efficient use of taxpayers’ money,” they told us.

007: But didn’t we use the argument about buying British brands?

Q: We did. Which is why you’re getting … this car.

007: That’s what I’m on about! What the hell is that?

Q: That is the Aston Cygnet. Twenty thousand quid a pop. A considerable savings.

007: But — but — it looks like one of those silly SmartCars!

Q: That doesn’t surprise me in the least, 007. Here’s what the Times has to say about it:

[The Cygnet] is to be built on the base of Toyota’s existing iQ city car and is likely to be available for less than £20,000.

“Small is beautiful these days,” Ulrich Bez, Aston Martin’s chief executive, said yesterday.

“This concept will allow us to apply Aston Martin design language, craftsmanship and brand values to a completely new segment of the market.”

It is thought that between 4,000 and 5,000 Cygnets will be built each year. Toyota, attracted by the cachet of Aston Martin, said that it would be the only car that it would make for another manufacturer.

007: (stunned) And . . . you’re going to make me drive this . . . this . . .

007 collapses, burying his face in his hands.

Q: Could be worse, 007. Would you prefer a Tata Nano?

Whenever Toronto Star pundits (apart from Chantal Hebert) lay some smack on the federal Liberals, it’s always worth paying attention to. (Ms. Hebert lays smack on Liberals all the time, so it doesn’t really stand out.)

Today it’s Bob Hepburn’s turn to express some frustration with the Waffle:

“The next time you see Ignatieff on television talking about Canadian social policy, hit the mute button and just watch him,” a distraught and well-connected Montreal Liberal said last week.

“He seems bored.”

I’m not sure that “bored” is the right word to describe the Waffle’s Q&A session. “Boring,” on the other hand, is more like it.

Can we come straight to the point here? The Liberal expectation was that, since Iggy became leader, he’d generate some enthusiasm among the electorate who’s getting tired of Harper-style politics. That enthusiasm hasn’t happened — and for a very good reason:

Nobody gets enthused about nothing. Not even Jerry Seinfeld.

It’s not all Iggy’s fault of course. For a salesman to be successful, he needs something to sell, and no Liberal — not even a dedicated cat-seller — has defined the policy alternative that fires up the Canadian imagination, that convinces people that maybe the Natural Governing Party (TM) has actually turned over a new leaf, and should be given a chance at power again. It’s been that way for the past six months. So is it any wonder that Iggy sounds boring when it comes to policy?

(Hat tip: Nick Taylor-Vaisey. BTW, if you click there, check out the prior post; this is the type of blogging potential that Jay Rosen’s been predicting.)

I’ve mentioned before that, after 40+ years, the New Democrats shouldn’t be considered “new” anymore. And an upcoming resolution for a name change is getting some serious consideration:

Two NDP riding associations have passed resolutions calling for a rebranding—simply dropping the “New” from the party name—that will be debated at the party’s national convention in August.

Victoria MP Denise Savoie recently made headlines for expressing support for the idea in Public Eye Online, but she is not the first sitting MP to call for such a rebranding.

Windsor MP Brian Masse says he has favoured a change since his first by-election win in 2002. His reasons are the same as his colleague from Victoria: the party is no longer new.

Naturally, the rest of us have a vested interest in re-branding the New Democrats. Hence the following Blogging Tories Challenge:

And don’t forget the other poll I’ve got running this week. I honestly believe Canadians should ask themselves whether the current Leader of the Opposition really deserves to be considered “intellectual.”

Today’s Blogging Tory Challenge promises to be a bit more — er — respectful of our current Leader of the Opposition. (Just a bit, mind you, and only because Canada Day’s coming up. Besides, since this blog’s focus is national politics, anything involving Tim Hudak is pretty much off-limits.)

The question is, whether Ignatieff is truly deserving of the adjective intellectual, or if perhaps another term could be applied — say, scholar.

What prompts this particular question is Chantal Hebert’s latest column in the Toronto Star, which is just the latest in “negative Waffle coverage” bandwagon. (Since the only people writing that Iggy had a successful couple of weeks are self-identified Liberal apologists, it’s safe to say that the rest of Our Boy’s summer is not going to be spent relaxing at the cottage.)

Anyway, here’s the relevant passage:

If there is one place in the country where a savvy audience will not be fooled by eloquence at the service of empty rhetoric, it is Quebec, the native home of Pierre Trudeau, René Lévesque and Lucien Bouchard. It is fair to say that particular crowd was largely underwhelmed.

It is a paradox that a party that prides itself on being led by a public intellectual is coming up with so few genuinely fresh or challenging ideas.

Which happens to raise the question: Is Michael Ignatieff really an intellectual?

Wikipedia has a broad definition of this word, and I suppose that, loosely, Ignatieff has been “deeply involved in abstract erudite ideas and theories” for a good portion of his ante-political career. But if we get to the second definition — “an individual whose profession solely involves the dissemination and/or production of ideas” — then we have to ask a very crucial question:

What original political idea is Michael Ignatieff associated with?

The idea of “strong national government, run in Ottawa” is associated with Pierre Trudeau, whom we know was an intellectual. The idea of “reduced national presence in society” is one (usually) associated with Stephen Harper — but Harper isn’t an intellectual, mainly because he’s not really communicated this idea. You can’t associate Trudeau’s idea with Ignatieff’s, mainly because it’s part of Liberal DNA and therefore part of the package he inherited along with the party leadership.

So if you try to call Ignatieff an “intellectual” based on an association with ideas, you’re in big trouble.

There is, however, another term that could apply to Ignatieff: scholar.

Scholar has a much broader application than intellectual, mainly because it refers to learning, as opposed to ideas. If you have a career based in university or college, or if you enjoy doing research and producing articles based on that research, you can call yourself a scholar. Certain journalists who use documentation for their research (cf. the late I.F. Stone) could be considered scholars. Ditto a lot of bloggers.

It’s also true that scholar doesn’t have quite the perception of heft as intellectual. This is mainly because we tend to think of scholar as someone buried in books, whereas intellectual carries overtones of initiative and leadership. Which makes the application of scholar to the Liberal leader, surprisingly apt.

But I’d like to know if you agree with this idea.

Last week I set up a poll which tried to identify a good phrase to describe Michael Ignatieff. And now, I can reveal that we have a clear winner:

“Elitist, but shallow.” Kind of a telling phrase, ain’t it?

After all, “elitist” makes sense mainly because the Waffle’s got the exact upper-class background, education, and career that would mark him as part of the Canadian Establishment — the “elite,” if you like.

Contrary to what you might think these days, “elitist” isn’t a disadvantage in federal politics; in fact, it’s a factor that can give you an edge, particularly when it comes to fundraising for the campaigns that put people in Parliament.

It’s the “shallow” bit that’s the killer. It means people don’t believe you’re really capable of the deep thinking that we like to associate with our political leaders. Combine that with “elitist” and you get “dilletante” — a dabbler who’s not really serious about ruling the nation. And it’s damned difficult to convince voters to support you if they don’t think you’re serious about the whole enterprise.

It wouldn’t be so bad if your perception was “popular” instead of elitist. Because then people understand that you’re aiming for the lowest common denominator among the voting populace. American candidates do that sort of thing all the time, mainly because their political culture tends to be anti-elitist nowadays. But the Liberal Party has never really gotten rid of the urge to find “the next Trudeau;” they demand an intellectual bent to their leaders, and are always surprised when it doesn’t work out.

So — how can the Waffle fix that “shallow” descriptor? Well, it would help if he could articulate a positive vision of Canada. That’s something that no Liberal leader since Chretien has been able to do; they’ve always glided along assuming that Canadians know such a vision of Canada, and that the Grits are its custodians.

There’s a problem with that attitude of being a Keeper of the Flame (TM): eventually you become so blinded by the flame’s brilliance that you can no longer describe it. In which case you can no longer tell that the flame’s gone out.

What else can The Waffle do? Well, solid policy wouldn’t hurt. Proposing an alternative stimulus package, or maybe a northern development strategy, or a new doctrine on peacekeeping. Something that might get the shit kicked out of it, once it’s proposed — but at the same time, could be looked on as a positive example of Liberal philosophic gravitas.

And one other thing: more exposure to criticism. After all, a Waffle needs lots of roasting with a hot iron before it’s ready for public consumption.

A political screed, published in the Globe and Mail, that pummels today’s NDP? Not a surprise.

That the author is Gerry Caplan, aka the torch-bearer for the New Democrats for more than 20 years? Whoa. Big surprise.

Jack Layton had boxed himself into the tightest of corners, going nowhere fast. He and a few self-loving communication types who now seem to run the NDP, with nary a piece of substance to be found, are sighing sighs of relief. The NDP is in no better shape to fight a campaign than the Liberals, and everyone knows it. But both parties routinely assert the opposite.

The NDP will hold a big national convention where the only faux-excitement will be an elite-led attempt to change the name to the Democratic Party. To this fine state has the party of Tommy Douglas and David Lewis descended, at a time of multiple crises with the democratic left virtually moribund. No new public policy ideas will be introduced.

Bereft of both cash and ideas, like social democrats everywhere, the NDP is in big trouble. Firing some senior staff would be a good start for a party whose relevance is increasingly marginal.

As an aside, I’m not sure that taking the “New” out of “New Democrats” is such a bad idea. After all, a party that’s been around for 40-plus years can only be considered “new” if you measure time in terms of geologic eras.

I also suspect that Mr. Caplan’s obvious depression is simply a symptom of something that’s inevitable: his status as “old fogey” in the New Democratic Party in particular and Canada’s political establishment in general. Hugh Segal, his old partner from the days of Canada AM’s political panel, shares the same status: their experience gives them gravitas, but the passage of time means few people (apart from some sound-bite hunters) will pay any meaningful attention to them.

. . . Mark Steyn issues his challenge.

I’d be happy to do it. All very “balanced”: Maclean’s can sponsor it, Steve Paikin or some such public-TV cove can anchor it. Name the date, I’ll be there. But, in the absence of any willingness to debate, reasonable people pondering Canada’s strangely ambitious Official Censor might object not just philosophically but on Professor Moon-like utilitarian grounds: if you’re not smart enough to debate Ezra Levant, you’re not smart enough to police the opinions of 30 million people.

I think we can agree that Mark Steyn has a further international reach than Ezra Levant, so this sort of challenge has an even greater potential for damage to the already sputtering CHRC.

Nonetheless, there’s also the question of optics, and which person would be better equipped to deal with Ms. Lynch. And for that reason, I submit this poll:

It seems Elections Canada has been doing some “serious” thinking about why federal elections have such a low turnout. And, according to this Canadian Press story, it’s because the voting process needs to join Web 2.0:

“By working at `bringing the ballot to the elector,’ we may contribute to mitigating some of the reasons for lower turnout.”

A survey conducted for the agency found 57 per cent of those who didn’t vote in the last election blamed “everyday situations” – such as being on holiday, being too busy, family obligations or work schedules – for their failure to cast ballots.

The survey also found considerable public interest in making it easier to vote. Fifty-eight per cent of electors said they’d be likely to use the Internet to register and 54 per cent said they’d be likely to use it to vote.

Among those who didn’t vote in the last election, the survey found 55 per cent said they’d be likely to use the Internet to vote if the service was available.

The report — or rather, reports — are available on Elections Canada’s website in PDF format only. The main report can be found here, and the survey of voters can be found here.

I’m not entirely certain that using the Net for elections is such a good idea. Security implications aside, my gut feeling is that if you treat casting a vote the same way you shop on Amazon, then the relative importance of an election becomes diminished. Whereas, if you have to make an effort to get yourself out to your local polling booth, then the vote gets more of a sense of occasion.

Furthermore, “the Net as solution” really misses the big reason for lower voter turnout, and in order to understand that let me direct you to that Survey of Electors, for the following information:

In more detail, three-in-four (75%) Canadians agree that during the election the parties offered voters a choice and did address issues of importance to voters. However, the level of strong agreement that political parties talk about issues that were important to voters is quite weak, with only one-in-four (23%) in “total” agreement. . . .

There is fairly strong agreement with the view that parties are too influenced by people with a lot of money, with 73 percent agreeing with this view and 31 percent doing so “totally”. . .

In other words, low voter turnout isn’t really the fault of Elections Canada, but the fault of all federal political parties for failing to really engage the average Canadian voter. And solving that problem is going to have to be a political matter, not a bureaucratic one.

You’d probably find it a tall order to think about Michael Jackson, the artist, without thinking about Michael Jackson, the eccentric. But for the sake of this blogpost, I’m going to focus on the former rather than the latter. (The news reports are all going overtime about the latter, so it’s not like I’ll be missing anything.)

You can divide Jackson’s career into two phases. Part One was as an underage prodigy, performing with his brothers in the Jackson 5ive, during the late ’60s and early ’70s. You could consider them the Jonas Brothers of their day, not exactly one-hit wonders (ABC being their one major hit, but I’ll Be There and Ben didn’t exactly fall off the charts either) but you wouldn’t really expect them to be significant hit machines next to, say, the Commodores or the Pointer Sisters.

But that prodigy phase was important because it gave Jackson credibility for his second phase, and that’s the one that really established him as a bona fide major superstar. Because the heyday of Jackson’s solo career happened to coincide with the establishment of MTV as one of the major players in American music.

Think of Michael Jackson’s ’80s hits, and you cannot help but think about his visual persona, the one that MTV became so good at presenting: the tangled hair, the red jacket, the bejangled single glove. And the moves.

Almost all of his songs during this period were songs he danced to, in his videos, with lots of energy and controlled choreography. Beat It. Bad. Thriller. Even The Way You Make Me Feel had a beat that made you move whenever you heard it on the dance floor. Movements looked good on the concert stage, but it was also captured in the scripted music format that MTV became famous for, establishing that cable network as a bona fide artistic medium.

Something else about those songs: if you compare them with today’s corporate, bottom-line, market-driven tunes that emerged out of the ’90s and still get churned out by Miley Cyrus and her generation, you’ll realize that Jackson’s work holds up incredibly well, becoming what musicians would call “standards” alongside the best of Sinatra or Billy Joel or even Elvis. The best of Jackson’s stuff doesn’t rely too overtly on the synthesizer (the exception being Thriller, and that can be forgiven because a brass section can be pretty expensive), but it’s Jackson’s voice work that carries the lyrics through and holds the tune, making it memorable in the listener’s mind.

Was Jackson the greatest superstar of the MTV era? I’d have to say no; in terms of artistic output, I think he got outstripped by Madonna, and in terms of experimentation, I think Prince has the edge. But his music has resonance which, I think, will last longer than the private reputation. Michael Jackson’s music, preserved on CD, VHS and DVD, pretty much guarantees that Michael Jackson will live on.

A while back, you’ll recall that Ezra Levant scored a fairly significant propaganda victory when the head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Jennifer Lynch, refused to debate him. How significant was this victory? Very, according to the resulting PollDaddy instapoll:

Look, even if you allow for audience bias, the participant numbers are significant enough for a small-audience blog that we all know: Ms. Lynch ain’t gonna be “Ms. Popularity” among her critics. And her latest attempt to defend her work hasn’t exactly worked out, resulting in more than a few inquiries as to how the CHRC is supposed to do its business.

Frankly, if I were to give advice to Ms. Lynch and the CHRC, I’d tell her that, right now, she’s going to have to do something that she’s hitherto avoided: she has to debate Ezra Levant. One on one, any show they can agree on (Steve Paikin as moderator strikes me as a good idea).

And what’s more, she’s going to have to do it on Mr. Levant’s terms. No more face time with interviewers she thinks might be sympathetic; the CTV gaffe should have taught her that sometimes they’re not. And no more attempts to manipulate the media into playing “the game” her way; in today’s Internet world, that’s a surefire way to lose audience sympathy.

No, she’s going to have to answer Mr. Levant’s questions about the CHRC and its activities, and answer them directly rather than try to stall with a few press statements. When it comes to the public discourse, the field advantage was never hers, it was Mr. Levant’s, and it was an obvious blunder to refuse to acknowledge this. From the National Post interview in question:

“We welcome this debate. We want it to be an informed debate in the right forum, a place where people can have an informed dialogue. [That place is] Parliament, and parliamentary committees. This why we did a special report to Parliament [last week]. That’s the appropriate forum,” she said in an interview.

Big mistake there, Ms. Lynch. Parliament — and parliamentary committees — aren’t the appropriate venue, because nobody except a few snack-hungry inkstains from the few parliamentary bureaus bothers to pay real attention (in order to generate a few inches of political ephemera). Furthermore, Parliament is not where the majority of your critics air their views.

No, it’s places like Facebook forums, and blogs (both commercial and private), and specialty media where the real battle for public sympathy has to take place, and it’s high time that Ms. Lynch engaged the people in charge of those new media.

And if she can’t defend her position? Well, that adds just that much more credence to Mr. Levant’s mantra of “Fire — them — all,” doesn’t it?