Categorical

So far, most of the commentary about Michael Ignatieff's Epoch Times interview has come from Con circles to the effect that it can't be believed in light of his signature on the opposition non-confidence petition. But those of us who want to see Canada's progressives working together may want to pay closer attention to what his new position it might mean in another minority Parliament:

I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up.

Now, it would have been fairly easy for Ignatieff to phrase his explanation in terms which would apply to the budget vote this January but not to any future coalitions - whether by focusing on the supposed urgency of passing the budget which was been the Libs' main excuse for propping up the Cons, or by pointing to the relative seat count as an explanation as to why he wouldn't have seen a coalition as viable at this point in particular.

But instead, Ignatieff chose to directly attack the concept of entering into any agreement which could possibly include the Bloc. And beyond the insult of telling the majority of Quebec ridings that their representatives aren't fit to play a role in deciding Parliamentary outcomes, that also poses serious questions about the Libs' future plans.

After all, it's not difficult to imagine any number of scenarios following an election where the Libs might have the opportunity to finally topple the Harper government - but if and only if they have the Bloc onside. And one would think Ignatieff would recognize some conflicting pressures at play, including a need to weigh the damage which Harper continues to inflict on the country against any countervailing concerns about the Bloc (which were minimal under last fall's structure any event).

But his latest stance suggests otherwise. Instead, he'd rather keep ordering his party to ensure that Stephen Harper's agenda gets implemented than put his party's plans into effect with the support of the Bloc.

Needless to say, that suggests that Ignatieff is interested solely in appealing to the relatively small number of Canadians who maintained their wariness about both Harper and the coalition, rather than even recognizing the concerns of the 35-40% who were happy to see the progressive coalition put into place with Bloc support. And that fact should loom large when voters have to decide who's best suited to move Canada past the Harper era.