Is there any principle now that Harper hasn't betrayed?

[Martin Chriton]

If he knew well in advance and didn't kick off the new process in a timely manor than I agree he acted unethically here with the supreme court appointment.

[punked]

If he knew well in advance and didn't kick off the new process in a timely manor than I agree he acted unethically here with the supreme court appointment.

Well he retired 8 months ago do you think 8 months was enough? I think Harper just doesn't want the public to actually pick who they want. He is scared that 64% of them are on the left side while only 33% of them are on his.

[August1991]

With Harper's Senate appointments, I'm wondering if there is any principle left that he has professed that he's not now betrayed? I can't think of any. Fixed election dates? Lifting third party election spending limits? Greater role for committees? More freedom for Members of Parliament? Increased government transparency? Greater Access to Information? No deficits? Cutting government spending? Telling the truth? Keeping election promises. Etc.

As I pose this question, I'm aware that Harper's Kool Aid drinkers will whine, "The Liberals made him do it! The Liberals made him do it!", that it's all the Liberals fault, but that's to be expected.

So, I wonder, is there any principle you can name that Harper once championed that he hasn't betrayed?

As Moonbox noted above, Harper is not the Liberals - and that simple fact makes our country a democracy. (For anyone who believes that the Liberals/Conservatives are identical twins, Zimbabwe and Russia under Putin should make the advantage of choosing between even identical twins clear - as long as the twins don't collude. By all evidence, the Liberals and Conservatives don't collude or else they are very good actors.)

Harper kept Four of his Five promises (as also noted above) and in particular, he cut the GST.

----

Nevertheless Barts, you make a good point. I voted for Harper and the Tories because I wanted a smaller federal government that respected provincial sovereignty. Under Harper so far, the result is mixed. He has raised spending on the military (a federal area) but he hasn't cut spending elsewhere. He hasn't vacated tax areas and rather has handed federal cash to provincial governments.

I think Harper is following Flanagan's "incremental conservatism" idea, or something. Dunno.

Sometimes, I think that conservatives succeed best when they state clearly what they are such as Thatcher, Reagan and Harris in Ontario. Perhaps Harper knows that he is not a good salesman and so he must adopt a different approach.

Edited December 23, 2008 by August1991

[segnosaur]

I don't believe that Harper has any principles, short of power. That doesn't put him in any different category then a Liberal. It just seems that the Right are happy with this version of Big Government, Big Spending, and Big Patronage.

Actually its quite possible for someone who is 'fiscally conservative' to support the Conservatives even if they don't like this version of 'big government'...

It all depends on what they believe any possible opposition parties would do if they were in power. It wouldn't really help for a conservative who favoured spending cuts/elimination of patronage to support a party that would actually increase spending more than the conservatives, or appoint just as many (if not more) people to patronage positions.

[Bryan]

Harper has clearly and repeatedly said he WOULD appoint senators if the provinces didn't step up and elect them. The only province who has elected any Senators is Alberta, and Harper honored their choice. Everyone else has sat on their hands. He's waited long enough, there is work to be done and the seats needed to be filled. If you don't like it, get off your ass and elect senators to fill the next round of vacancies.

[Smallc]

Harper has clearly and repeatedly said he WOULD appoint senators if the provinces didn't step up and elect them.

Well, almost all provinces are looking into it with the exception of Quebec and Ontario. He just couldn't wait though, it seems, for those provinces to come up with the proper system of election and did whatever he chose despite what he had said earlier.

[Bryan]

Well, almost all provinces are looking into it with the exception of Quebec and Ontario. He just couldn't wait though, it seems, for those provinces to come up with the proper system of election and did whatever he chose despite what he had said earlier.

Great. There's more vacancies coming up. If the provinces elect their senators, he'll honor that vote. If the Liberal-stacked senate actually co-operates, he'll make it the law of the land. So far neither of those two are happening. Now that they know he's not bluffing, maybe they'll actually step up before the next round of vacancies. If not, they only have themselves to blame.

[Smallc]

If the Liberal-stacked senate actually co-operates, he'll make it the law of the land.

No, he needs to open the Constitution and have either Ontario or Quebec on side for that. He can amend their term length with just the Commons and Senate, but he can't change how they are selected without the permission of 70% of the provinces containing 50% of the population.

My real point is, he makes stupid promises.

[Bryan]

No, he needs to open the Constitution and have either Ontario or Quebec on side for that. He can amend their term length with just the Commons and Senate, but he can't change how they are selected without the permission of 70% of the provinces containing 50% of the population.

Exactly, which is why blaming Harper is stupid. There are lots of factors that are still not in place, so the best he can do right now is appoint those who ARE elected, and outside of that only appoint those who agree to step down if/when such a preocess is established.

My real point is, he makes stupid promises.

It would be dishonest to lump this in as a promise, even more so to imply that any such promise was broken here. It was and still is the long term goal of the party. It does not have a deadline, and it's not connected to one particular election or sitting of government.

[Smallc]

Richard Cloutier would have told you that you're bleeding blue. This is nothing but hypocritical. He didn't apologize for it. He didn't give a big explanation of it. He didn't pick people based on anything but partisan politics. Its completely disgusting and it demonstrates that there really is no principle that is sacred to him. Political opportunism always comes first with Prime Minister.

I voted for him because I thought he was the best of the 4 leaders for this country. I voted for him because I didn't want Mr. Dion as Prime Minister. I can sincerely say that I will not vote for Stephen Harper ever again. I trusted Paul Martin. I certainly don't trust the Prime Minister. I only hope that Michael Ignatieff is a better, more honest leader.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

No, he needs to open the Constitution and have either Ontario or Quebec on side for that. He can amend their term length with just the Commons and Senate, but he can't change how they are selected without the permission of 70% of the provinces containing 50% of the population.

Indeed, some people seem to have some rather foggy notions of how things work.

My real point is, he makes stupid promises.

There's a difference between a long-term policy that one admits may or may not happen, and saying "I'll appoint who you elect." The latter is a semi-empty gesture, and the provinces know it. The whole thing is more designed to please the Reform/Alliance Rump which currently runs the Conservative Party. I think most Canadians simply don't give a crap about Senate reform. Meech Lake is looong gone.