A developing consensus

Over the last week or so, former Con candidates and supporters went public criticizing the party for various reasons. This week, some key voices in the media are joining the fray as well - and it looks more and more likely that the Cons will pay a serious (if justified) price for their own culture of entitlement.

First, there's a Vancouver Sun editorial slamming the Cons for their ethical lapses:

Paul Martin would likely still be prime minister today were it not for public disgust over the smug abuse of power uncovered by the Gomery Commission. The specific crimes and misdemeanors were all the more damaging politically because they fit into a public perception of the Liberals as a party that had been in power so long its members could no longer see the difference between national and partisan interests.

Now Canada's "new government," as the Conservatives like to call themselves, is showing signs that it is fundamentally not much different from the old government when it comes to resisting the temptations of power...

Meanwhile, the Conservative member of Parliament who is chair of the British Columbia caucus has been hard at work trying to profit from the principle that drives patronage, the notion that the benefits of government are most readily available through partisan channels.

In the face of an ethics complaint, the federal Conservative party says it did not approve of a decision by Dick Harris, the MP for Cariboo-Prince George, to "appoint" a Tory in a riding held by a New Democratic Party MP to act as a conduit to the government.

But neither has it condemned his statement that people in the Skeena- Bulkley Valley riding would get better service from the government if they deal with the nominated Tory candidate, Houston Mayor Sharon Smith, than they will through their elected MP, New Democrat Nathan Cullen...

In opposition, Harper's Conservatives claimed the high moral ground by repudiating patronage. As we have already seen, that ground is harder to hold in government.

It's worth the effort. Otherwise, Canada's new government will look pretty old when the next election comes.

And then there's the Star, with a particular focus on the Cons' patronage appointments:

When Stephen Harper became prime minister, he pledged to end most patronage appointments by creating an independent commission that would select people based on merit, not political party ties.

That pledge is now just one more of Harper's broken promises...

Harper's flip-flop on patronage has been stunning, given that his Federal Accountability Act, enacted in December, allows for an independent commission to control appointments. But after a fight with opposition parties over who should head the agency, Harper opted not to set it up. Since then, he has made hundreds of appointments. In just one week in March, he gave jobs to 10 party faithful.

Under Harper, the tradition of patronage clearly is alive and well.

Now, it's unlikely that patronage alone will be seen as an important enough story to topple the Cons in the next general election. But both editorials also point out the connection between patronage and the wider issue that the Cons simply can't be trusted to keep - or even believe in - their campaign promises. And that reality should not only highlight just how old the Cons have become in office, but also thoroughly discredit Deceivin' Stephen next time he asks for the trust of Canadian voters.