On pressure points

The news that Con Human Resources Minister Monte Solberg encouraged opposition criticism in order to push for change in his own department's summer jobs policy has received some attention already. But it's worth noting what Solberg's action - as well as the success it achieved - says about the way the Cons' government is run.

After all, there's no indication that the program would ever have been changed based on discussion within the Cons' caucus or cabinet - no matter how strong the reasons for change, or how (relatively) well-respected the minister concerned about the program's structure. Indeed, it doesn't look like Solberg himself - despite his title as a cabinet minister - had any ability to alter the policy without approval which could only be secured with the opposition's help.

As a result, it took a public flogging to force Harper to apparently acknowledge the "mess" and allow for any change. Which would tend to reinforce the conclusion that the Cons have such an extreme top-down structure that no Con MP other than Harper himself can credibly claim any ability to influence government decisions.

At the same time, the eventual success of the pressure should also highlight another lesson for the opposition (and indeed any Cons who haven't yet undergone a Harper-ordered lobotomy): no initial position from the Cons is ever final if it's followed by a sustained and organized outcry. And while the opposition should be wary about allowing Con MPs to decide where to use such a strategy, the summer jobs backtrack offers hope that the worst the Cons have offered so far can eventually be reversed...as long as the opposition parties can avoid getting distracted.

Update: Coincidentally (I presume), this story came out on the same day as word of Solberg's actions:

Though there is no doubt who makes the final decisions, a senior staffer says the prime minister is open to persuasion by ministers who know their file.

"He's willing to be swayed," a staffer says, though ministers had better be prepared because Mr. Harper is apt to shoot holes in weak arguments.

Of course, the quote falls into the "self-serving comment by anonymous source" category - making it even less credible than a direct partisan claim would have been.

That said, it's worth wondering how Solberg's actions would relate to the claim that Deceivin' Stephen is entirely willing to be persuaded by his cabinet ministers. Were the opposition's arguments better than Solberg's? Is Solberg considered a minister who doesn't know his file? And if not, then who is (as some presumably must be for there to be any basis for distinction)?