Roundup: Media rounds and brand damage

Posted on by

Freed from the expectation that they needed to stay quiet(er) in order to not jeopardise their chances of remaining in caucus, both Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott hit interview circuit, the former in Maclean’s and the Globe and Mail, the latter also in Maclean’s and on CBC Radio and Power Play. And there is no doubt that both of them thought they were doing the right thing, but I’m not sure they quite grasp some of the political realities that the prime minister is grappling with. They kept saying that if Trudeau had just apologised from the start, this all could have been avoided, but that would have meant admitting that he was in the wrong, and that’s both a problem on every level for him to do, and I get the impression that nobody thinks they were trying to interfere or apply inappropriate pressure. And because they both think they’re right, we’re in the situation we’re in. Philpott did tell Don Martin that she’s aware of other conversations that are still relevant to what happened, but she’s not going to dangle them out there (err, she just did) because everything that people need to know is already public, but she didn’t say that she thought the prime minister was lying. In her interview with the Globe, Wilson-Raybould admitted to clashing with Carolyn Bennett over the Indigenous Rights framework, but it was her comments to Maclean’s that really made me pause, where she said she didn’t really understand the Liberal Party anymore, and it makes me wonder if she actually understood them to begin with, given how the party morphed itself as the cult of Trudeau after his messianic leadership campaign, and that many of the new MPs are as a result of that rather than stalwarts who stood with the party through the lean opposition years. Oh, and Wilson-Raybould also sorta disputed that there were negotiations regarding ending the tiff with Trudeau, and some confusion as to whether that was before she quit Cabinet or in the weeks that followed, and we got a bit of clarification.

Speaking of Trudeau, there has been a lot of focus on the damage to his brand, in particular his Feminist™ brand in the past few weeks, and with the ouster of Wilson-Raybould and Philpott (not to mention Celina Caesar-Chavannes’ decision to leave caucus of her own accord). In particular, the symbolism of the whole Affair crashing down around the Daughters of the Vote event was a darkly ironic for the prime minister, with one of his former youth delegates calling his rhetoric hollow. Add to that, there has been an expectation built up around him that his “doing politics differently” led people to believe that when push came to shove that he wouldn’t act like a politician, in spite of all of the symbolism he invested in. (There is probably a lesson in there too about filling in the blanks when someone says they’ll be different, but won’t specify how). Over on Twitter, Moebius Stripper reminds us not to confuse the actual good feminist work of this government with its Feminist™ branding.

Amidst the awfulness and brand-torching, Chris Selley recalls weeks ago when the Liberals floated a trial balloon to say that Trudeau would apologise for…something, didn’t, and now the claims that Wilson-Raybould tried to force an apology. Paul Wells, meanwhile, is in a Mood, and he (quite properly) lambastes this while Affair as another in a line of incidents that reveals the true heart of this government, and the ramshackle way in which they run this government (and if you looked at what they’ve done to the Senate alone, I would absolutely agree).

Good reads:

  • Canada has expressed its concern about the implementation of laws that would stone gays and adulterers in Brunei.
  • Good news, everyone! David Lametti says he’ll resist any attempts to influence his decision around SNC-Lavalin’s prosecution.
  • The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that extending EI sick benefits would cost an additional $1.1 billion dollars.
  • Bill Blair sounds increasingly like any new laws around handguns won’t happen until the next parliament.
  • After returning from monitoring elections in Ukraine, Lloyd Axworthy warns that Canada will be vulnerable to foreign disinformation in our election.
  • In the Senate, Government Leader in the Senate, Senator Harder, backed down from his nuclear programming motion. (Look for my weekend column for more).
  • A second attempt at a Senate investigation into the Double-Hyphen Affair – this time as a special committee – is now being debated.
  • Pierre Poilievre finished his fourth and final day of holding himself hostage in the Chamber and pretending it was a filibuster.
  • The Canadian Bar Association wants Quebec to drop its pre-emptive use of the Notwithstanding Clause in its “secularism” bill, so they can test its constitutionality.
  • Here’s the transcript of that interview that Jason Kenney had with Charles Adler, that has Kenney rattled.
  • The first leadership debate in the Alberta election was held last night.
  • The Canadian Press’ Baloney Meter™ tests the claim that the carbon price rebate will leave eight out of ten families better off.
  • Heather Scoffield suggests that the Double-Hyphen Affair and the impact on rule of law is damaging Canada’s reputation internationally.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

3 thoughts on “Roundup: Media rounds and brand damage”

  1. “…she said she didn’t really understand the Liberal Party anymore, and it makes me wonder if she actually understood them to begin with, given how the party morphed itself as the cult of Trudeau after his messianic leadership campaign, and that many of the new MPs are as a result of that rather than stalwarts who stood with the party through the lean opposition years.”

    Good observation, Dale. I would just add that the pitches both JW-R and Dr. Philpott made for remaining in the Liberal Caucus were based largely on what they saw as adherence to ‘Liberal Party values.’ These appeals were destined to fall flat in a Caucus made up mainly of acolytes of the Justin Trudeau Party.

  2. The actions and statements of JWR & Dr. Philpott would seem much more reasonable if one were to try on the notion — as many Canadians have — that they are, you know, like, actually right. Or, as Christie Blanchard put it so trenchantly: “She’s right. They’re wrong. End of story.”

    Whether Andrew Sheer is preferable to Justin Trudeau is irrelevant. Whether JWR was being un-collegial by taping her conversation with Michael W. is irrelevant. Whether it was “understandable” that she be kicked out of caucus is irrelevant.

    What is relevant is whether anyone — prime minister, PMO minion, or person off the street — tried to sway the independent judgement of the A-G. Tried to sway it at all. Even once (let alone 11 times).

    Did that happen? Obviously it did. Was that inappropriate? Obviously it was. Should there be an apology? Obviously there should.

    Even Donald Trump knows he can’t call up the A-G about a prosecution in progress. (That’s why he is left tweeting about it.) What does he know that Justin Trudeau has yet to learn? And a candidate for the job of A-G has to swear under oath before a Senate committee that he hasn’t discussed ongoing cases with the President.

    Why is this principle not front and centre in our Canadian discussion?

    Not to mention the other question that no one seems to be talking about: why did the PMO keep lobbying for a DPA that SNC Lavalin is so clearly not eligible for?

  3. I think to understand the Liberal Party, you have to understand those years of infighting and that they subsequently almost lost official party status. When Paul Martin won the leadership, it looked like the Liberals wouldn’t be out of power…ever. A very few years later, their leader (Michael Ignatieff) didn’t even win his own seat.

    I don’t know if Trudeau is a messiah figure, but he certainly injected them with the spirit that was missing. The name Trudeau helps, but partly because they are very proud of the Liberal record in that era; it has positive associations. And he’s grounded in that Liberal history. Bringing them from near-annihilation back to power in his first election as leader — was stunning.

    Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott don’t seem to understand any of that. They won their seats first time out; they were immediately given senior cabinet positions. If caucus members said to them, this could be lost in a minute, they probably had no concept of what that meant. It doesn’t matter if they’re totally right about everything (and I don’t believe they are). They can’t be trusted with matches.

    When he kicked them out, he talked about the importance of unity within caucus. Those weren’t empty words. Uniting the Liberals again — even knowing that was what had to be done — was his strength. He has made a lot of sense in his speeches this week, but the tide is against him right now, and people don’t seem to realize it.

Comments are closed.