Some addition thoughts - in no particular order

There has been more wild speculation about constitutionalism in the last four days than we have seen in eons. Please, let me add to it in separate posts over the next little while.

First of all - I find this utterly fascinating- it is proof that the conventions work. More on that below.

Any criticism of the situation that hinges on "you can't let the bloc" decide is silly. The bloc decided lots of stuff when Harper was in charge. Doesn't anyone remember the 2006 budget?

Any criticism of the situation that starts with "this is about a political subsidy" is silly. This is about an ill-fated economic strategy to do nothing and wait for things to right themselves. The subsidy, introduced in concert with the first true caps on donations (Jean Chretien) didn't exist four years ago. Yes, the BQ and NDP and Liberals will take a hit - but that will change. Everyone seems to think that the Conservatives are the only ones who know how to fund raise - all three did just fine in the 1990s, without massive corporate donations. All three do just fine at a riding by riding level. All three will change their strategy again. The Reform party turned Canadian Alliance turn Conservative party have just been doing it this way for longer.

Anyone who says taking the subsidy away isn't an affront to democracy are offending the scores of Canadians who cast votes specifically to ensure that a party got something for their vote. This particularly applies, for example, to Conservative voters in (say) Ottawa Centre. Where I live. Not that *I* did that, but I know people who did.

And $27 Million-ish isn't going to make a spit's worth of difference- if anything, they should cancel the tax-rebate for large contributions- that would same much more - and only applies to the quasi-rich who make personal donations over the $500 level. And are paying taxes. Duh.

Advancing the budget into January is not going to do anything because a) Obama won't have had time to jam his stimulus package through and b)

Convention v. Spirit of the law

In Canada, we do not enjoy the stability of a congressional model. We have a system where un-elected people can assume power. It has happened before - but not only when government's change.

Paul Martin, Kim Campbell, Pierre Trudeau, and Louis St. Laurent all became Prime Minister before they faced the people asking for the job.

Granted, none of them sought to reverse an election soon after one was held.

To that end, if we take a close look at the core of the CPC right now, their core would have little problem using this to go after another institution that has stuck in their craw for some time: the Governor General.

Steve is no dummy (tm). His word choice on Friday was spot on - The opposition can defeat the government whenever they want - but Mr. Dion has no right to form the government without facing the people.

Governor General Jean has that right silly. It is, after all, her majesty's (in the UK) government. And the PM serves her. Mr. Dion is the person who is best positioned right now to form that government.

While a technical argument, I think Steve is just that crafty - he is going to blame Dion for his problem- and Dion will end up wearing it as hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are sooooo bored with the shit-show in Ottawa decide that Steve is right.

Of course, there is a legal point to be made that CONVENTION has evolved into the point that the GG has no right to use her legal power. Yes, a legal point. The view is that by not using most of her legal powers in the last 75 years, she has vacated the right to use them. Kind of like how disallowance of provincial laws would be litigated very strongly. More on this view another day- but in the meantime- there are lots of books written on Canadian conventions- and that they ultimately supplant existing law.

It is the institution, after all, that will come under attack. How dare an Unelected CBC journalist take away our electorally secured right to govern. What authority was she appointed under? Paul Martin? What? How can she do this to Steve?

And the mob would rule again.

And, that is a debate I think the conservatives could win. Especially outside of the Queensway belt. Most Canadians do not understand the way our system works, and will wonder why Steve has to have this election again. And then vote for him - not the people who caused the 'crisis.'

I will join the chorus of proud Liberals who think, while interesting, that this Junta is going to hurt Liberals for a long time. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea - it means that in a year, when the coalition of the willing (tm) falls apart - the new Governor General (Ed Broadbent?) will ask the people to vote again.

In the mean time- the Opposition will attack that institution with the same gusto and vile that they have attacked the Senate and Quebec's constitutional position in Canada.