Proroguing and Partisanship

In typical fashion for historians, I want to wait a bit before posting more on the significance of the last five days. But in the meantime, I'm trying to think about this issue beyond my own partisan leanings.

One issue that seems to be cropping up regularly as an argument for why Michäelle Jean should not have granted Harper's request is the fact that since Parliament has been prorogued until late January, this will give Stephen Harper over six weeks to spend Conservative money on advertizing to bash the coalition partners and perhaps fragment their alliance. I don't doubt that this is true. But is this really a valid, non-partisan reason to oppose Governor General Jean's decision? If the other parties were not deeply in debt and unable to spend, would this be an issue? I doubt it. For all that I loathe the Harperites and the way that they use their money, they have proven extremely adept at grassroots fundraising. And to my mind, that's not a reason to oppose proroguing.

Now, using his position as Prime Minister for the next two months to enact policies and make government appointments when he lacks the support of the House - that's a completely different bucket of fish heads...

The Liberals may yet find that the Governor General has given them a gift. But will they take advantage of the next two months to get themselves a new leader and some post-Green Shift direction? For their own sakes, they had better hope so!

Recommend this Post