On rulings

For all the attention paid to Peter Milliken's ruling this week, I haven't yet seen any commentary pointing out the contrast between the unequivocal statement of the supremacy of Parliament that has been rightly praised, and the rather weak remedy linked to the finding that the Cons have breached their obligations to Parliament. And it's worth pointing out not only that the disconnect exists, but also why it seems to have come about.

So I'll offer a reminder that Milliken's ruling results in a shorter timeline and more apparent pressure on the government than any of the opposition parties has ever been willing to demand. And it's not reasonable to expect a decision-maker to grant an outcome substantially better than the winning side of a dispute has bothered to ask for.

Once again, the opposition parties' willingness to compromise has resulted in their being in a worse position than if they'd actually stuck to the principle of genuine governmental accountability - both to Parliament and to the public. And the absolute certainty that Harper will play them against each other during Milliken's 14-day period (secure in the knowledge that agreement with one eliminates any risk of a finding of contempt) only makes it all the more likely that the result will be less of the truth coming out than should be expected.