T1B

For most of us, ethics begins with doing what's right and telling the truth. For Stephen Harper, they often end in a conundrum.

Even before wisely dropping the "Promise made, promise kept" mantra foolishly borrowed from Paul Martin, the Prime Minister misplaced his moral compass in a question. Stripped of particulars, Harper routinely, if indirectly, asks voters: Is it acceptable to break a promise to do what's needed?

In the Conservative universe of situational ethics, every breach of trust comes with an explanation.

Luring Liberal David Emerson to switch parties and putting Michael Fortier in the unaccountable Senate as well as in charge of historically corrupt public works was justified by the need to add big city cabinet representation.

Converting Wajid Khan into a Conservative is positioned as selflessly putting country ahead of partisan interest, even if his report on the Middle East is too sensitive to share with that country.

Those decisions are bookends on an ever-lengthening shelf.

An Accountability Act that in opposition promised dozens of specific measures shrunk precipitously in power. A trumpeted victory of merit over patronage was made hollow by more than 100 appointments.

Once an anathema, governing from the centre at the expense of an empowered Parliament is now the operational method of a singularly controlling administration.

If those examples are too arcane for citizens to storm the metaphorical barricades, two others are not.

One is the Halloween income trust reversal and the other is the still unfolding flip-flop on excluding non-renewable natural resources from the equation that keep taxes and services in rough national equilibrium.