the supreme court will reinstate their constitutional right to vote. this is petty nonsense coming out of the government's attempt to appear consistent on the anti-ignatieff propaganda; harper knows this will be overturned, and would not have passed it if he thought it wouldn't be appealed. that's what you're dealing with with this guy...

a decade from now, we will probably look at the stephen harper period and see little of lasting substance that would not have occurred anyways. he's got those trade deals. there'll be a bridge or a road here and there. but most of his other decisions will be overturned or modified to the point that there's little of his signature left on them. we won't be debating his legacy so much as we'll have a hard time really defining what it is.

but, the one thing that will stand out in this period is how strongly he pushed the courts to enforce the constitution, and the precedents that they set in overruling him. in the process, he's made it that much more difficult for anybody to try and emulate him.

there may not be much legislative law that outlasts him very long. but, there will be a large amount of constitutional judicial precedents that carry on for decades.

he's consequently done less to change the country than he's done to put constitutional rules in place rules that prevent him from changing it in the ways he'd like to.

....which is just consistent with everything else about him: repeated epic failure.

a common response to somebody stating they're a conservative is to ask them what they're conserving. a common answer is that they're upholding the constitution.

we're in a sort of strange period, as our constitution was written somewhat - albeit not radically - to the left of the prevailing conservative consensus. but, has that not been true of every constitution? did the feudal aristocrats in france agree with "liberty, equality, fraternity"? did the totality of american landholders agree that all men are created equal, even if it didn't include slaves?

if i'm right about my shifting party theory, which sees the liberal party stabilize as the country's right-wing alternative, it's rather fitting to place them into the position of conserving the country's institutions as they actually exist. they built this. it's their responsibility to protect it. and, if i'm wrong, it's a mindset that is inevitable to overttake canadian conservatism. eventually, the canadian right will necessarily be composed of trudeauvian liberals that uphold the charter.

the future of conservatisim could be nothing else

it's very hard to see harper in anything but reactionary terms, or the reform movement as anything more than a last gasp attempt to hold on to the past that will eventually be swept away into the dust bin.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/expat-new-brunswickers-upset-they-can-t-vote-in-election-1.3191810