The Liberals brilliantly win another political game, and the tories lose

[jim3775]

This is my working theory; the liberals intentionally picked a Governor General who had tenuous connections to separatist Quebecers to hurt the conservatives.

The liberals leaked the "separatist connections" to the press and played up the charges. The benefit of this was threefold; first this would instantly increase her approval with separatist Quebecers who are desperate for some good news for their side.

Secondly, average non-separatist Quebecers may think the charges of "separatist connections" are trumped up and she is probably not a separatist, but they will think that in the least she is very Quebec centric and will be a representative of mainstream Quebec in the position of G.J. which will raise her approval with them.

Third, the Alberta conservatives will of course bitch and moan about a possible separatist in the position of G.J., her approval rating is Quebec is like 75% so those people will be turned off by the tories complaints, probably it will also make people think that the tories are attacking a fine upstanding woman who doesn't deserve to be attacked, hurting the conservative approval in Quebec just as they were making inroads.

Maybe I'm giving the liberals too much credit here, but if this is true the liberals play a damn good game.

Also, the conservatives have been lobbying for the first-generation immigrant vote lately, the fact the Jean is an immigrant helps the liberals too.

[getmeouttahere]

1. Is there any discernable conservative party membership in QC?

I certainly have never observed any, or heard or read any reporting on it if there is.

[jim3775]

4. I dont know about membership, but there are major campaigns by the

conservatives to get votes from people sick of the liberals because of the sponsorship scandal.

[Bassic]

5. And they are not working very well.

[applegrove]

2. I honestly think this was a case of picking the most incredible person

for the job. For so long that job has gone to politicians. And they don't do the job of being non politicians very well. I think we are all in for 4 years of joy. She is a deep person with a story. She is a communicator. A thinker.

I mean it isn't often you get a real intellectual to take that job.

[iverglas]

3. here's my theory ;)

Can you imagine Michaelle Jean resolving a constitutional crisis?

What if the Liberals lost a vote in the House that the opposition insisted was a confidence vote, and the government insisted was not?

What imaginable authority would Jean have to deal with that situation?

If the old practice of appointing an experienced politician, one of those senior statespeople, had been followed, it would have been a recognition of that person's standing and wisdom -- authority -- to make decisions like that. The GG would have spoken with a voice that everyone, including the Liberals, would have to listen to.

Appointing Jean makes it far less likely that any governmental crisis can be legitimately resolved by the GG. Neither the politicians nor the public would see her as having the authority (as distinct from the power) to substitute her judgment for the people's elected representatives'.

The Liberals might have had their own narrow interests in mind here, given the extreme minority government circumstances in which the appointment was made. But I'm actually willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and think that they had purer motives, at least in addition to any venal ones.

There isn't a society on earth that doesn't have some supreme authority built into its constitutional / governmental arrangements. Flags and bits of parchment don't resolve impasses; people have to, and every society has a person who is the one who makes the final decision. (George W. Bush can veto legislation, after all -- and yes, there are veto overrides, as I understand it, but a divided Congress couldn't do that.)

But essentially, no matter what a Queen or GG might say, the people are going to decide whether to accept it or not anyhow. The GG could rule that Parliament is dissolved, for instance, and if the govt didn't resign and present the writ for an election, what would happen? Would the guys in bearskin hats oust them at spearpoint?

The appointment of a pure cultural figurehead as the approximate head of state is a sign of maturity. We're gonna have to fight our own battles, and settle our own differences, without a big mummy or big daddy to do it for us.

I've been surprised that nobody seems to have noticed this aspect of the thing, given as how a constitutional crisis is not a complete impossibility in the current conjuncture.