I wonder, before we go any further, if you wouldn’t mind having a look at Daniel Finkelstein’s latest screed in the Times of London.

Please, go ahead. I’ll still be here when you get back.

Hi again.

First, I’ll admit that I’d completely forgotten that this week was an anniversary of sorts, of the time when Canada narrowly avoided a constitutional crisis. Of course, I’m not the only one; I’d bet a lot of pundits, MSM and otherwise, would like to hide that little episode.

But Finkelstein resurrects it, and for a very good reason: he’s fearful that the same situation could happen in Great Britain:

I still believe that the next election will produce a Conservative majority. A hung Parliament is, however, certainly possible given the ground David Cameron has to make up. And I don’t believe we are mentally or constitutionally prepared for the minority rule that could be with us soon. I worry that with only the tiniest bit of bad luck, it could rock the throne.

There are, it has to be pointed out, a few major differences between Harper’s situation last year and Britain’s situation this winter. The big one, of course, is that there is no contemporary British political leader as inept as Stephane Dion. (No, not even Gordon Brown.) Which means the odds of a coalition falling apart, in Britain, are somewhat slimmer but by no means guaranteed.

The second difference is that in Canada’s case, Harper was leading the incumbent government, while David Cameron would presumably be leading a novice one. In Cameron’s case, being a new government, he is far more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt, both by the voting public and by his Opposition.

Mind you, Mr. Finkelstein’s point is somewhat — um — subversive: he seeks to find a way for the Queen to avoid making a decision should the British government find itself in Harper’s last-year scenario. But the thing is, with that sort of scenario, the Queen’s role is exactly what’s needed: as a voter-neutral party with a vested interest in keeping the Government working, deciding whether or not a proposed coalition could be given a mandate is part of her job description. It’s exactly the sort of thing you expect a Head of State to decide upon.

One more thing: Finkelstein points to a project by the British Institute for Government, called Making Minority Government Work. The IFG has a website on the subject; what do you suppose the odds are that the Harper Prorogation will show up as a case study?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009 at 14:03 and is filed under International, Media Watch, Parliament, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.