A good dissection of Harper's failure...

The Globe and Mail: Harper's big gamble turns up snake eyes

I think this article does a good job of laying out a synopsis of why Harper failed in his attempt to boot the Liberals and force a federal election.

The whole article is worth a read...

In particular I found the following passages to be the most salient:

The first questions about the Harper strategy began to surface after Prime Minister Paul Martin pledged in a speech to the nation to hold an election within 30 days of the report of Mr. Justice John Gomery. In his televised response, Mr. Harper kicked off what was to become a pattern of personal irritation, calling the Prime Minister a sad spectacle.

Later, he told the Commons that Mr. Martin's career was going down the toilet, and, in perhaps the most controversial remark of all, accused the Prime Minister of waiting for two cancer-stricken MPs to get sicker so they could not make the budget vote.

I did take at least one exception with the article and that was this assertion:

Some also believe that Mr. Harper failed to anticipate the New Democratic Party's departure from the coalition that was set against the government. A budget deal between the NDP and the Liberals left Mr. Harper with only the Bloc Québécois as his partner in bringing down the government.

If Harper truly failed to anticipate that one, he is a moron and ought to lose his leadership. Liberal-NDP coalitions, at least in the last 50 years have been a mainstay of Liberal minority governments. Even I saw that one coming. Harper had to know that was coming down the pike.

This one I do agree with, and for the general public this is a bit of a "peek behind the curtain", but I am hearing that moderate Tories knew this was brewing:

That coalition was one of the reasons Ms. Stronach cited for her departure. But those close to her also say that Mr. Harper's treatment of her played a larger role.

Ms. Stronach, and the many followers who helped her to a second-place showing at the party's leadership convention last year, felt frozen out of decision-making. It is a complaint that many others in the party, including some Ontario Tories, also express.

On the outside, publicly it sounds better for Stronach to say she was dismayed by the "dangerous" liaison with the Bloc. However, the real straw that broke the camel's back was Harper's treatment of moderate voices in general and internal rivals in particular. Perhaps Harper saw the problems the Chretien-Martin Liberal turf-wars had caused and thought it best to deal with Ms. Stronach and the progressive wing in a decisive "decapitation" or at least "neutralizing" fashion?

If there was a viable alternative at the time for Paul Martin would he have stuck it out with Chretien for so long? Hard to say.

What keeps MacKay from bolting? Answer: His Dad. (Follow the link, 7th graf from the bottom of the article).

That's the same reason Martin wouldn't have jumped ship, Pops.

In Stronach's case, her father had very little power to keep her in the Tory camp. In fact, his political leanings made her more comfortable with the decision - he ran under the Liberal banner (unsuccessfully) in the federal riding of York Simcoe in 1988.

Anyhow, I ramble...as usual....

I think last night's vote was:

-Good in the short term for Canada-Quebec Unity.
-An event that may add fuel to the "western alienation" fire.
-A set-back politically for Harper and the Tories.
-A short-term win for the Liberals, but could be the beginning of the end, depending on how Gomery ends.
-A big win for Layton's leadership of the NDP.
-A minor set-back for the BQ, but could be good for Duceppe's shot at the PQ leadership and eventual Premiership of Quebec.

A. Liberal