The rewrite continues

Another day, another couple of stories which conspicuously rewrite history to pretend that pro-coalition grassroots efforts in 2008 didn't happen. And in both cases, there are points worth some serious followup.

First, there's Susan Delacourt's latest:

(I)t can be argued that last year's protest was more effective -- so far, anyway -- because it had an influence on the Governor-General. It was partly out of deference to widespread anger that she decided to grant the prorogation last year to Harper, we've heard. Right now, it's not clear what this Facebook group can accomplish -- the Jan. 23 rallies will be an important measure, but where will that influence have an effect?

Now, I'd take the above passage with a mine's worth of salt. Assuming that the Governor-General herself has kept the confidences of the PM, the only possible source for information about the basis for Jean's decision is the Harper PMO - which obviously has a massive stake in both ignoring the pro-coalition side in 2008, and talking down the possible impact of the prorogation protest now.

That said, if Jean's decision was in fact based in the slightest on favouring one of two competing sides in an active public opinion battle rather than the constitutional convention of accepting the advice of the PM, then that might well be the most disastrous precedent of all coming out of Harper's prorogation tactics. And any Cons who think they have reason to be smug about the outcome might want to consider what it would mean if opposition parties see both a need and a benefit in packing Canada's streets with protestors in order to influence the GG's decisions.

Secondly, there's James Wood's excuse for Brad Wall's refusal to comment on the prorogation crisis despite the fact that he's nominally the minister responsible for intergovernmental relations:

When reporters asked for the intergovernmental minister this week to comment on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue parliament, it was clear the Saskatchewan Party government wasn't too anxious to have Wall wade into that nest of thorns (especially with rumours flying that the PM was to attend the world junior hockey championship in Saskatoon on Tuesday -- and have a handshake meeting with the premier at the game. In the end, Canada's hockey-fan-in-chief didn't make it.)

The Sask. Party government has had its ups and downs with the federal Conservative government, but has generally been among its closest provincial allies. The prorogation issue, however, has fired passions on both sides and there appeared to be little interest in having Wall stoke them further.

Again, it's downright bizarre that Wood would consider the current prorogation as having "fired passions on both sides" when hardly anybody has bothered to take Harper's side - and the few voices trying to carry the Cons' water have tried to make the case that "it's not a big deal" rather than offering passionate support for Harper.

But the line is particularly out of place when Wall chose to wade directly into the 2008 confrontation when there actually were large movements on both sides. And particularly with Con member Don Morgan providing a tepid defence of Harper rather than even recognizing for a second that Saskatchewan's voters might not be happy to have Parliament shut down, this looks to be another example of the Sask Party placing its allegiance to Harper above the interests of the province.

(Edit: fixed typo.)