senate reform (2)

Let's say you bought a Lada because it was the lowest-cost vehicle when you needed something motorized with an enclosed cab to pick up the groceries at the corner store, and your friends invited you for a car race. You obviously wouldn't think of putting a Porsche engine in your Lada to join them; because you'd figure it'd burn out the transmission for starters. Then if you upgrade your transmission, you'd burn out your differential. Upgrade that, you'd blow out your tires. Upgrade your tires, you'd have to change the suspension, and so on. You just know it'll waste a lot of resources and cause a lot of downtime trying to get the car to do what it was never meant to do in the first place, and even if it did work, it would cost too much to keep it as a car to run simple errands with.

So what makes Harper think he can reform the senate bit by bit the way he is?

If something isn't efficient, you improve the process, but if it's not effective, you have to re-evaluate your options in achieving your goals. (If you don't agree with the goals, well, buckle up for a national debate.) To do anything less is a dishonest abuse of power, and to mislead the people in such a way is hypocritical to the worst degree.