Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Repeat anything enough it starts to seem true

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, April 23, 2010 2:03pm - 87 Comments

By the time the last Liberal leader was disposed of, his full name was Stephane Dion Notaleader. The Conservatives have attempted to do the same with Mr. Notaleader’s successor—first it was Just Visiting, until that was neatly turned into an attack on immigrants and expats, now it’s Just In It For Himself.

And so now, perhaps having taken the last few years to observe the effectiveness of this phenomenon, the Liberals have finally decided to respond in kind. At Wednesday’s QP there were 12 references to a Conservative “culture of deceit.” At Thursday’s session there were 14 references. This morning there were a dozen.

And all of this has quite upset Tom Lukiwski, the parliamentary secretary to the government’s house leader, who rose with the following point of order after QP on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning a question asked by the member for Toronto Centre in question period earlier and directed to the Prime Minister. I would suggest that the member for Toronto Centre used unparliamentary language when he directed his question to the Prime Minister and said that the Prime Minister should bear some responsibility for the culture of deceit of the Conservative government. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, not that you need reminding, that any time one points a question at an individual, as opposed to the government, and uses unparliamentary language, that member is usually called upon to withdraw those remarks. I have provided you with copies of the blues in both languages, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that you review them at your earliest opportunity and rule accordingly.

Tags: house of commons, Michael Ignatieff, Parliament, Question Period, Stéphane Dion, Tom Lukiwski

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

Culture of S&M

(smoke and mirrors ;)
Saskboys Homeboy

I think what it really means is that the libs have the same guy writing all the questions for Question Period, my guess is that it is Frank Graves.
officerfarva

Now if only the Cons had ONE guy who actually answered questions.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

My guess is that you're wrong, given that Graves isn't on the payroll.
http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

:)
:)
:)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It's been amusing to watch the Liberals try to flog their "culture of deceit" line. I don't think it's working very well, though. Better luck next time.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

or even on the volunteer roll.
MacLean's Regular

Now you're in outright denial. Is everything OK?
Andre

The problem with the line is it's too clever for the common Canadian( immigrants?). None of them remember Harper's "culture of defeat" line. It's probably why they only use it in the House of Commons; as a way to unnerve Harper. They's be more successful if they called him Swedish Chef.

They should with something more direct, poignant, and widely usable: Harper – Deceitful.
http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

Or the other one from last summer, I think it was "We can do better", that didn't work. I remember watching Ignatieff talking and he repeated it so many times it sounded like a joke, like a Rick Mercer sketch, and a rip off to Obama's
"Yes, we can"
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Yeah, that was the line from the Narnia ads. The fatal flaw with that line was that Iggy, at the time, had provided absolutely nothing, idea-wise, to demonstrate how he could do better. The ads were a disaster, and most people were not impressed. Perhaps not coincidentally, Iggy started his long descent in the polls right around that time.
MacLean's Regular

It's really a shame that you think Canadians are that stupid.

I'm pretty sure the decline at the time (since reversed) had more to do with election speculation than a few teevee commercials.
simanitram

And that you spend way to much time with the epistemic closure of smalldeadanimals
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It's really a shame that you think Canadians are that stupid.

It's really a shame that you got that from what I wrote, Tiggy. On the contrary, I think that Ignatieff's dismal 14% personal approval rating is evidence that Canadians are collectively much smarter than Liberals usually give them credit for.

I wasn't implying a direct causal relationship. However, I'm also pretty sure that Iggy's crappy ads didn't help him very much. They certainly didn't project competence, which is what Iggy so desperately needed.
MacLean's Regular

You seem to go from polls on leadership to polls on voter intention willy-nilly, depending on what makes your argument look stronger.

Do you know you do that?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Willy nilly? Since Ignatieff is the subject of this conversation, and we're talking about his personal credibility and about advertising in which he appears, I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about his personal approval rating as well.
MacLean's Regular

I thought political advertising/messaging was the topic of this conversation.

I bet if Harper had appeared in that sun-dappled glade and read the same script Ignatieff had, the Conservatives would have judged it pure genius.
http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

The "culture of deceit" list is full of holes because

Iggy the "bookworm" has been at it!
http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

I like Harper best when he talks substance. He does, at times, you know. It all depends on if you're listening. Or not.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

That's a bet you'd lose, at least in my case.
http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Crit_Reasoning,

I'm trying to catch up in points – 109 versus 72

(make that 73 )
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

All of them are preferable when they talk substance instead of talking points.

Any thoughts on why Harper doesn't take advantage of more opportunities to talk substance?
http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Any thoughts on why Harper doesn't take advantage of more opportunities to talk substance, you mean, for instance, each and every time he wants to talk senate reform? How many times now has he tried to bring the issue to the forefront? And how many times has he been taken seriously by a significant enough group of the MSM to let him bring his point over into a discussion?

It just doesn't happen. And you know why? I truly believe that if "they" would give Harper a chance to state his argument, he would make too much sense, and that truly is his strong point, hence the opposition in the HOuse or in the media won't give him a chance to sound reasonable. That would undermine the opposition's strenght.

You know, the time when Harper took time out of politics, he could be heard on political shows to do some commentary and he was good, very good. But then of course, the opposition at large wasn't concerned about a man doing commentary…………how times have changed.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

I have vague memories of Harper as a commentator, and my (initial) reaction to that version of Harper is more positive than negative (more of an Andrew Coyne, less of a Tim Powers).

And, to be honest, I wasn't thinking about Harper's thoughts about senate reform, although, again, my initial reaction is to agree with you about that particular issue – Harper tends to speak substantively about senate reform and his thoughts do not get as much traction as they deserve.

But the substantive Harper seems to be quite a bit more elusive these days compared to his days as a commentator. These days he tends to speak substantively about things that interest him, but might not interest others, and ignores topics that others have questions about.

Harper might find that he could make a bit more progress if he could buckle down and provide substantive answers in QP and held some press conferences.
MacLean's Regular

"How many times now has he tried to bring the issue to the forefront?"

Fewer times than he's stacked the Senate with his cronies, that's for sure.
http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Completely agree.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

If you can put aside the discrepancy between Harper's deeds and his words wrt Senate reform, what do you think about his ideas for senate reform?