The ever feckless Michael Ignatieff has spoken, revealing yet again why he's not up to the job of leading the Liberal Party of Canada. Igs should have been prepared for the failure of Copenhagen and he should have been ready to come out charging against Harper.
Harper, quite predictably, slimed his way out of the Copenhagen climate change summit by blowing Big Oil with this line: “What will be most critical for Canada in terms of filling out the details of our regulatory framework will be the regulatory framework of the United States. If the Americans don't act, it will severely limit our ability to act. But if the Americans do act, it is essential that we act in concert with them.”
In case you haven't figured that out, what Harper said was code for, "I'm off the hook, I can scam this for years to come and that's exactly what I'm fixing to do." Harper can say that because he can get away with it. No one has the guts to stand up to him and call him a fraud.
So, after having been invited to shred Harper's blustering, what does the Liberal Party's Michael Ignatieff have to say? He responds with this: “We cannot allow Canadian environmental policy to be entirely dependent on American politics. We need an aggressive, made in Canada climate-change plan now. And we're willing to work with Mr. Harper on this if his government brings forward a serious plan that treats our provinces fairly and includes pollution reductions for all sectors.”
That's it? That's what we get for letting Iggy put Dion down? That's leadership? Does this guy not know how to go on the attack? Is he running scared of Harper? Shouldn't he be off somewhere writing a book or something?
Why doesn't he attack Harper when the scoundrel is vulnerable? Why let the guy off the hook with vague arguments over emission reductions that will never materialize while Harper has the key to 24 Sussex Drive anyway? Why not turn to this Tory jerk's abject refusal to recognize the change that's already happening and already enroute, his refusal to institute adaptation policies the far north and both coasts will need in the near future? Harper won't do that. He can't, because that would acknowledge the gravity of the threat and leave him having to explain why he's doing Sweet Fanny Adams about it.
If Iggy can't grasp how to kick Harper straight to the curb on this issue then he's worse than useless as leader of the Liberal Party. Don't give us bullshit about "working with Harper on a serious plan" when, unless you're brain dead, you have to realize Harper has no intention of doing anything remotely like that. Harper will eat Ignatieff's lunch if he goes that route. Look how he played the Liberal leader for a sucker on the Pinata Budget.
I'm sorry but Michael Ignatieff is but a meandering political disaster. You don't get moments like this all that often and, entirely true to course, he blew it. If the roles were reversed, Harper would never have passed up this opportunity.
For god's sake Mike, you'll never land a punch if you can't figure out how to throw one. Unless, of course, you're on Harper's side on climate change. Maybe that you chose this week to issue another ringing endorsement of the Athabasca Tar Sands I shouldn't bother positing the question.