Angry in the Great White North

Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff continues to talk.  He isn't really saying anything.  He just talks.  A lot.

In this case, he tells Canadians what he expects of the blue ribbon panel that will review Employment Insurance:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he cannot promise sweeping changes to the employment insurance system, despite an agreement earlier this week with the Conservatives to review the program -- a deal that averted a summer election call.

"We're working towards a solution," Ignatieff said Sunday on CTV's Question Period. "I'm going to try in good faith to get there. I can't give you any guarantees we're going get there, but I'm going try."

In case you are confused by the use of the first person pronoun "I", Michael Ignatieff is not actually on the panel.  Three of the six members of the panel have been appointed by the Liberal Party, and they are MP Michael Savage, MP Marlene Jennings, and Liberal Party Director of Policy, Kevin Chan.

Nope, Michael Ignatieff is not on the list.

Of course, he wouldn't be.  It would be silly.  But for some reason Michael Ignatieff can't help but talk as if he was the only member of the Liberal Party, and everything that the Liberal Party does happens because he does it, personally.

Well, for the sake of clarity, Michael Savage, Marlene Jennings, and Kevin Chan are going to be working in good faith. 

It's too bad for them that Michael Ignatieff has so little faith that they will be able to achieve anything.

And if this committee can't come up with something "sweeping" that Michael Ignatieff can accept?  What then?

Ignatieff warned that if that there aren't sweeping changes to the system, the Liberals will be forced to "reconsider our options."

"We're not going to go on and on forever here," Ignatieff said. "This thing has a fixed deadline. We must achieve results for the Canadian people. If we can't then we're going to have to reassess the situation."

Normally that would me a vote of non-confidence and an election.  But then why not just say so?   I suppose it's because it doesn't necessarily mean non-confidence and an election.  It might mean another news conference announcing a move to force an election, followed by numerous news leaks and media interviews pulling back from the brink by reinterpreting the statements of the news conference, and ending with a some excuse to hold off until the signs are more auspicious for the Liberals.

And in the mean time to just sit there in opposition, thinking and making vague threats.

I wonder how many Liberals are wishing they had been allowed a chance to actually vote for this guy to be the leader.