Angry in the Great White North

Again, a running count of Michael Ignatieff's flip-flops:

• Israel was justified in the attack on Qana.  Israel committed a war crime when it attacked Qana.
• Canada ought not to export asbestos.  Canada ought to export asbestos.
• Michael Ignatieff supports a carbon tax.  Michael Ignatieff does not support a carbon tax.
• Stephen Harper must fill in vacant Senate seats.  Stephen Harper should not have filled in vacant Senate seats.
• The Conservatives must not spend the $3 billion in stimulus.  The Conservatives can spend the $3 billion.
  Michael Ignatieff will definitely raise taxes.  He definitely won't raise taxes unless he definitely decides he definitely needs to raise taxes, definitely .
• The coalition would have been legitimate and stable.  The coalition would have been illegitimate and destabilizing.
• Michael Ignatieff takes Ruby Dhalla at her word.  Michael Ignatieff won't say the allegations against Ruby Dhalla are unjustified.

So what is it this time?  It is the threat of a June election over Employment Insurance changes:

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is serving notice of an election as early as June if the Conservative government doesn't make some immediate changes to the employment insurance system in Canada.

Talking to reporters at the close of the convention that confirmed him as Liberal leader, Ignatieff said today that he's told his party to have an election platform ready to go by June.

"I'm trying to protect these unemployed workers across the country who badly need help and if the government will work with me, we can get it done," Ignatieff said. "If they won't, we'll have to have an election."

That was on May 2.

Apparently we misinterpreted what Michael Ignatieff was saying.  Today, May 13, Michael Ignatieff clarifies what he meant.  He wants EI reform, and if he doesn't get it, well, then, um, he'll make Parliament work:

The call for EI improvements has perhaps been misinterpreted - it isn't a call for elections this summer. I think Canadians by and large would be less than happy to face another election - but I've said earlier we're going to hold the government accountable, and we're continuing to do this, and make Parliament work.

So the election is off the table, or at least hidden under a napkin.  All because we misinterpreted the meaning of "we'll have to have an election".

Silly us.

I wonder if Liberal partisans are aware of this clarification.  It is reported in South Asian Focus, which is a bit off the beaten path.  Perhaps a more widely read newspapers can follow up on precisely what Michael Ignatieff means when he says "we'll have to have an election".