All things considered, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet shuffle on Tuesday was more of a shufflette than anything else.

But the very restrained nature of the move — only two new faces at the cabinet table — allowed the prime minister to reinforce the idea that he wants to govern, not go to the polls.

Now is not the time for big cabinet changes or an election, Harper told reporters after the visit to Rideau Hall.

Then he repeated his charge that it is Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and the opposition "coalition" that is looking for an election —not him.

The coalition reference is interesting in that if the Harper government is to avoid an election in 2011, it will take the help of one of those so-called coalition partners to keep the Conservatives in power.

Governor General David Johnston and Stephen Harper (seated) watch as former police chief Julian Fantino takes the oath of office and joins the cabinet. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

With public opinion polls as they are — no one with real momentum — it would appear that an election any time soon would not be in any party's interest.

Still, stay tuned. It was not that long ago when the shoe was on the other foot and when a different (Liberal) minority government was dancing its way through the shoals of opposition manoeuvring.

Also, you have to remember the famous warning of former British leader Harold Macmillan when asked what was the most difficult thing a prime minister has to deal with during his time in office.

"Events, dear boy," he replied. "Events."

The situation can change

Macmillan's answer should be kept in mind when contemplating whether Canadians will be going to the polls in 2011.

Think back to the events of six years ago, when then Liberal prime minister Paul Martin was leading the first minority government in Canada in a quarter century.

The Martin government appeared to be quite stable when suddenly a series of unpredictable events changed political minds, strategies and outcomes.

You can even say that sequence of events began on Feb. 23, 2005 when then Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale was in the midst of presenting his budget to the House of Commons.

At that point, the then leader of the Opposition, Stephen Harper, took the unprecedented step of leaving the Commons while the minister was still talking, stepping into the foyer, which was packed with TV cameras, reporters and political staffers, and telling the assembled multitude that the minority Liberal government was safe.

Harper said his Conservatives would support the budget, thus eliminating the possibility of quick election that could possibly have given the Liberals a majority.

Three months later, mind you, Harper was doing everything possible to force a vote on the legislation implementing the budget, so that he and his party could vote against it.

The New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois had opposed the budget from the outset. So adding the Conservative nays would have triggered an election that public opinion polls indicated Harper could win.

Only by luring disgruntled Conservative Belinda Stronach across the floor, making a deal with the NDP to reduce tax cuts for businesses, and wooing the vote of independent MP Chuck Cadman, who was dying from cancer, did the Liberals manage to save the day.

Even then, it took the vote of Speaker Peter Milliken to break a tie and keep the government alive.

What triggered this amazing about-face? Events, dear boy.

In this case, the ongoing testimony before the Gomery inquiry into the so-called sponsorship scandal, a commission that Martin had foolishly set up and which changed the country's opinion about the Liberals.

Six months later, the Liberals lost a confidence vote and the Harper Conservatives won a minority government in the January 2006 election.

An election this year?

What is illustrative about the events of 2005 is that they underline just how difficult it is to answer the question that everyone even vaguely interested in political life in Canada is asking right now:

Budget watching. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, flanked by former Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale in the Commons in November 2010. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

"Do you think there will be an election this year?" (And, if so, when?)

The answer should be No because there is already a fixed date for the next federal election, Oct. 15, 2012.

That is the date laid out in the election law sponsored by the Conservatives and passed by Parliament in 2006, fulfilling a campaign promise going back to the Reform Party, one of the Conservative predecessors.

Of course, in 2008, Prime Minister Harper ignored that law and asked then governor general Michaëlle Jean to dissolve Parliament because he thought he could win a majority.

It turned out he was wrong about the majority, but correct about his right to ask for an early election. When the watchdog group Democracy Watch challenged the 2008 election call in court, the judge upheld the right of the governor general to dissolve Parliament as he or she sees fit.

Of course the governor general basically does as the prime minister asks. So, in effect, nothing in the fixed-date election law restricts the prime minister having an election any time he wants, if he thinks it is to his advantage.

And that, essentially, is just what Harper will do in the months ahead if he sees public opinion moving in his direction.

Now, if events end up moving towards the Opposition, then Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff will try to defeat the government in the House and force an election.

However, unlike Harper, Ignatieff is not master of his own fate. He would have to get both the New Democrats and the Bloc to vote with his party, and that is something they may not be willing to do if suddenly the Liberals are riding high.

The first test will come around the budget, which could be brought in as early as late February, after the House reconvenes.

But as 2005 showed, votes cast around a budget are not necessarily the final word. What happens next depends on events.

Events, dear boy. Events.