National Post: The changing face of Stephen Harper

[tuvor]

Who's that Prime Minister in Ottawa preparing to appoint a string of partisan senators tomorrow, and dreaming of converting the G8 from an economic focus to one of promoting health care for mothers and children in the developing world -- and what's he done with Stephen Harper? The man who first came to Ottawa as a Reform MP in 1993 with an agenda to privatize social services, restrict immigration and end Upper Chamber patronage would likely not recognize the Conservative leader of today, and not just because of the greyer hair. Mr. Harper has come a vast distance in his approach to policy in the four years he's been running the federal government, rather than sniping at it from inside a regionally focused rump party. "How much of that is the natural evolution, or maturity and wisdom or prudence that comes with age," says Faron Ellis, a Lethbridge College political scientist and author of a book on the Reform party's history, as opposed to a "political learning curve," is hard to say. Whatever the reasons, there's no question, things look much different in Stephen Harper's mirror than they did 17 years ago.

---

SENATE APPOINTMENTS

Old Harper : A triple-E Senate-- elected, effective, and equally representing all provinces --wasn't just Reform Party policy, it was its DNA. Harper once called it one of the four key parts of his "vision" for Canada; there was "no better or fairer proposal" to create a "genuinely federal system."

New Harper: Mr. Harper did appoint Alberta's elected senator, Burt Brown, but his grand vision has blurred a bit: One of his first acts as Prime Minister was appointing Michel Fortier to the chamber so he could have the Montrealer in Cabinet. In 2008, amidst the coalition crisis, he appointed 18 senators, all as Tories, many party loyalists, and he'll add five more this week (though he's asked all appointees to commit to eight-year term limits). Once he has a reform-minded majority, Mr. Harper has promised elections will be next, though he hasn't explained yet how he plans to tackle equality and effectiveness.

---

PROROGUING PARLIAMENT

Old Harper: ...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=2493129

[HeresyLives]

1. Steep learning curve once you're in office.

It's easy to criticize from the outside tho, and that's all he knew.

[Spazito]

2. I must be more cynical than you!

Harper knew what he was doing then and now. He and his cabal, when the reform party was out front and not hiding behind the "New Conservative" cloak, knew exactly what they would do if they won power and it was and is exactly what is now being done, imo.

He was saying what he thought the public would buy as opposed to having any real principles behind his platitudes.

[HeresyLives]

3. LOL I'm not sure that's possible.

I joined the Reform party when it came out to see what they were like ...fresh new wind from the west and all that...and stayed with it thru the CA business until Day became leader and I gave up in disgust.

They really do believe in what they said back then, and there is more loyalty to Day than to Harper in terms of 'principle'.

Harper's appeal was that he could appear to be 'moderate' until he had a majority, and then they were going to re-arrange the entire country to suit themselves.

They actually believe women vote on the basis of looks, and that there would be 'Harper-mania'. They'd given up on 'Day-mania' by that time, because it was obvious Day couldn't pull it off. Persecution of Christians and all that.

Harper is evangelical, and believes everything they do, but he's also an opportunist and a strategist, so he's more willing to put things on hold until he has full power. Plus while in office he's discovered why things are done a certain way, and he's learning what he can and cannot do. The hard way sometimes, like proroguing.

The only reason he's in there at all is the mess Liberals were in. And he's on a very short leash, even after all these elections.

If the Liberals come out with some good policies, Harper will be gone, in spite of his 'moderation', and attempts to look warm and fuzzy.

[gula]

4. his 'moderation', and attempts to look warm and fuzzy.

To see the words Harper and moderation used in the same sentence just blows me away. He wouldn't recognize the latter if it hit him in the face.

Also, he would not be able to look warm and fuzzy dressed up in a Teddy bear suit. His eyes have the cold, deadly look of a snake.

I'll stop now, before I really blow my gasket.

[Spazito]

5. wow, you joined the reform party?!?

Didn't their homophobic, racist crap bother you right from the start? Why the reform instead of the Progressive Conservative party? I am genuinely curious as to why someone would join them yet have, from what I have read of your posts, a 'liberal' philosophy overall.

[HeresyLives]

6. Yeah, to see what they were like.

I was PC...red tory...at one time, and then they got massacred so I joined Reform to see what the attraction was. As it turned out there wasn't one, at least for me, but I now know a lot about the party so it's all useful knowledge.

Manning said a new party always attracts 'flies' and there were certainly a lot of them in Reform. He promised to get rid of them when they became the CA, but actually they ended up with more!

I went back to the PCs when Day was elected because that ended any chance of the party ever improving. When MacKay joined the PCs to Reform I left the PCs.

Since then I've remained an Independent, and vote Liberal by default because the Cons aren't remotely PC, they're neo-cons. Republicans with a different name. And so religious they have a ton of people from the CHP in their fold. Coat-tail riding.

What I'd personally like is a new party. One with progressive ideas suited to the 21st century, and without all the baggage.

[Spazito]

7. Thanks for your response!

It was very interesting to read. I was always liberal with a small 'l', not a party joiner but vote for the Liberals unless the NDP candidate in my riding polls better against the Cons in which case the NDP gets my vote. There were two old style conservatives I respected: Joe Clark and Eric Nielson from the Yukon. You can't find people like them nowadays, sadly.

Thanks again for your post, it is appreciated.

[HeresyLives]

8. I always considered myself the 'loyal opposition'.

I'm socially progressive, and fiscally conservative, and while the Liberals usually got in, they needed someone to keep their feet to the fire. Otherwise they'd get carried away, and need to be replaced. When that happened I wanted responsible people able to take over from them and right the wrongs and excesses, and there were a lot of good Tories in those days that you could count on to run the country without wrecking it.

Not so today.