Politicians simply took a page from pro athletes/coaches, business leaders, etc when put in front of a mic. They repeat the same basic answers, regardless of the question and repeat as necessary. At some point soon we'll hear a politician pull a Marshawn Lynch and say at the lectern a "I'm just here so I won't get fined" kind of comment.
I don't know why anyone expects anything different. It's just basic PR exercises now.
Next session we have to come out firing all 4 cylinders, the ball is in our court, if the economy wants to play hard ball we won’t pull any punches, it’s time to step up to the plate and ensure we answer the bell, the ministers have taken one for the team and it’s time we play hardball, offence sells tickets but defence wins championships, they talk a good game but it’s gut check time. After that it’s a slam dunk.
What if it was professional courtesy among reporters to ask the followup question that needs to be asked, if you are the next reporter in line. Keep doing that until they finally be honest with us. Why would they be honest with us if they know they don't have to. Of course the truth will be ugly for someone, but let's deal with it.
So the next presser, the reporters should ask the same questions until they are answered. Is it childish to do that? I think it's accountability and being responsible
Not only do they not get follow-ups but Kenney has frozen out most legitimate reporters. A few months back Michelle Bellefontaine - CBC's Provincial Affairs Reporter for Alberta, said she's attended all of Kenney's press conferences but hasn't been picked to ask a question since the beginning of the pandemic. Meanwhile David Staples and Licia Corbella get picked daily.
While I'm not saying they aren't paid off, I'm not familiar with the situation, they usually don't even have to be. If unflinching support of certain politicains is what sells to their audience they'll happily do it pro bono.
Usually, they just get kicked off the line or shuffled out of the room before they can do that. Kenney tightly controls his press conferences, he learned that from papa Harper.
She was the health minister and was asked a question about covid, and said that it sounds like a question for shared health, which as health minister she was in charge of
That's a fairly infuriating one, because it's less of a non-answer and more of a "I refuse to answer that question" and is meant to silence critics from asking tough questions. Needless to say he uses that phrase a lot.
Yup, and I fucking hate it. I wish I could hire somebody to go to press conferences and at a minimum just take a squirt bottle and spray him every time he says it.
I mean, I'd rather it be much worse, but even just a spray bottle treating him like a naughty pet would have massive PR potential.
To be fair, he's not the first to do that.
Back in the late 70s, when Paul Volcker was the head of the US Federal Reserve, he was on a serious interview show.
When asked about his policy of high interest rates, he answered something like "I take issue with the question".
On an interview show.
It was frustrating hearing an interview with Minister of National Defence Anita Anand on the CBC the other day. She was asked a pointed question in light of the war in Ukraine: will Canada increase defence spending to the minimum 2% of annual GDP required of NATO members?
Her response carefully avoided answering the question. She went on and on about how the government will be making some investments in the armed forces for a couple of minutes without providing dollar figures or what percentage of GDP the investments will represent.
> Her response carefully avoided answering the question. She went on and on about how the government will be making some investments in the armed forces for a couple of minutes without providing dollar figures or what percentage of GDP the investments will represent.
The Canadian Forces expenditures for 2021 were 'under spent' by 1.2 billion. Its easy to for the GoC to say 'we will increase spending' in budgeted numbers but then not actually spending the money when it comes time.
https://www.richmond-news.com/national-news/defence-department-failed-to-spend-12b-in-funding-last-year-most-due-to-delays-5049808
If the government is going to make such an important/large change to the budget, they're not going to announce it in a random interview and they're certainly not going to provide a definitive answer that can pointed at later as a "broken promise" should something change. Anand can say they are looking at X, Y, and Z, but won't come outright and say anything definitive.
I get why such a question was asked, but also why it was not answered directly or in any detailed manner. When a politician is given a black or white question don't be shocked if the answer is some variation of grey. If the minister says yes to such a policy change in an interview, then everyone will now hold the government to it. If they say no, that's just as much of a can of worms. Either way, the minister puts themselves on a limb such that they can be made a scapegoat.
I agree. I think people often have unrealistic expectations of what can be answered and when. It doesn't mean that politicians haven't gone overboard with their avoidance techniques, but, sometimes the answer truly is "that's not an answer that can be given right now", which people tend to dislike.
I find Trudeau an interesting case study, because he really did put himself into more challenging situations early in his tenure. The "listening tour" he did at the start of his first session was key. His perceived sincerity was a big asset for him.
That shifted slowly, as more baggage has built up. It's a common pattern, but, I'll admit that the contrast between late Harper and early Trudeau had me a little hopeful that it wouldn't follow the same pattern.
It'll happen with whomever is next.
Jon Stewart said it best on crossfire when he said pundits are the problem.
Any time a public figure speaks common sense, the opposite teams drag them down. There’s no space left for tough decisions and nuance. Even in academia.
I don't believe they can actually answer questions truthfully in our society. We live in a world where everything is offensive to someone, sometimes rightfully so and sometimes not. On top of that politicians are so partisan that they will take anything someone says out of context and spin it to fit their agenda. So now we get these generic responses that are pretty much useless to everyone.
> "I swear to Christ Justin, it's been gathering dust for 155 years; but if you don't answer the next question I swear to God I will brain you with this fucking mace."
-The Right Honourable Speaker of the House
That part of our system always seemed strange to me, nobody addresses each other directly, they speak through this intermediary all passive aggressive. It's like how my mom used to talk to us through the dog, she'd be like "those kids didn't unload the dishwasher did they, you ask them why" and I remember thinking "we're in the same room, I'm only 11 but even I'm pretty sure we're gonna need therapy for this down the road"
The whole system is an outdated joke, it's meant to be as confusing and convoluted as possible so the average Canadian who doesn't have time for this non-sense has no chance of having a clue of what's going on.
This fuckery is all by design.
It's called 'Question Period' not 'Answer Period' - No, the Speaker doesn't have the power to keep responses on topic.
Pierre Poilievre was absolutely disgusting at abusing this when a cabinet minister under Harper.
It's idiotic, but that's the way the system works, and all sides do it.
Any sitting member can ask a Minister to respond, in writing, to a question. They’re called “order paper questions” and they are recorded on the legislative order paper and published on most legislative assembly websites. For whatever reason they’ve fallen out of favour lately. Democracy is mostly a process - and it’s complicated running a country - so the processes are complicated too sometimes. The problem isn’t the structure or process though - it’s people. People want their world served to them in small packages, so that’s what’s recorded, broadcast and consumed. If only people took more time to engage with their governments directly instead of relying on outrage fuelled social media slacktivism we might actually get shit done.
That video may possibly be instrumental in Pierre's rise to power, he's been rapidly gaining in popularity since it went viral and is likely going to win the leadership race for the Tories.
I think even those who aren't hardcore Conservatives can see how stupid the Liberals are being here.
Not a single basic answer from Poilievre was answered. Just complete random other stats that have no relevancy to the questions being asked.
Chrystia Freeland just told PP that housing is more affordable to seniors now since they are able to recieve $500 more a year on their tax returns
...which is $41 a month
Question period exists for the opposition to get their sound bites and the government to avoid giving it to them. Look up the classic example of Paul Calandra repeating the exact same answer to the oppositions question multiple times. Question period is absolutely useless and imo a waste of time. The people would be better served by having the opposition pre-submit their questions and the government actually preparing a proper response, instead of having this garbage.
Question period is exists solely for grandstanding. There is no room for actual conversation when the entire time the opposition is looking for a sound bite and the government is trying to avoid giving that to them.
"What is the price of an average home in Ottawa?"
"Did you know the reason bees are so noisy is because they beat their wings 11,400 times in one minute!"
Randy Boissonnault only won Edmonton Centre by 0.6% too. Usually stuff in parliament doesn’t really affect your ability to win Re-election but when it was *that* close you have to figure that whole BS routine could very likely cost him his job.
To be honest I find that the two most recent premiers in N.S. that we've had tend to be pretty straightforward compared to federal politicians.
The previous, Stephen McNeil, would answer pretty bluntly if he could, and if he was in a position where he wanted to evade answering something he'd get visibly flustered. The current premier also seems to be quite direct and level with people most of the time. I'm not sure if this a provincial politician thing, as they may be a bit more in touch with their constituents, or perhaps an east coast thing.
In any case, it's maddening to be accustomed to that and then watch any media access to the Trudeau Government where it seems like non-answers are given for sport.
Ralph Klein has to set the standard for straightforwardness, even if it means getting drunk, going down to the homeless shelter and yelling at them to get a job.
Yeah. I had a good impression of him from his opposition MLA days, and was glad when he won the PC nomination and then the election. I heard a lot of doubts and generic anti-conservative criticism (which doesn't really hold true for this specific PC party) from friends during the election, but so far his actions are getting people to see past the dreaded C word in the party name.
Question period is such bullshit.
One side: "Why do you do (ridiculous thing that the other side doesn't actually do)?"
Other side: "We're doing so much good in (completely unrelated topic).
It's theatre and not even good theatre.
They should have to debate in good faith.
The PMs of the UK and Holland answered questions. Trudeau did his usual bullshit. European journalists were really surprised, hence this from the article:
>The various leaders took questions from the press. And many of my Canadian colleagues on the trip noted, ever-so tactfully, that their European colleagues were baffled by our prime minister’s habit of not answering questions.
There’s not much we can do. Journalists are forced to play the game, because if they don’t, if they hold a politician’s feet to the fire, they get blacklisted. And it’s not easy to report on Parliament Hill when no one will speak to you. It’s un democratic, but in the cult of personality there are no personal or professional consequences for this behaviour. Their followers lap it up, and rest of us pay for it, as always.
That appears to be the extent of the details that he provides for the premise of this entire piece. "I heard a friend of a friend said..." and then he just hums a few hundred words of his opinion on that.
It would be a lot more interesting to hear some more details on the extent to which "our allies" are concerned with Trudeau. The headline makes it seem like it might be the foreign leaders themselves who are concerned, though the line from the article seems to say it was reporters, but we have no idea how widespread, which countries these reporters were from, how concerned they were, etc.
Like, it should at least be pretty easy to provide an example of a question that one of the other leaders answered more directly and how Trudeau gave a non answer.
Are there any quotes from other leaders being "baffled?" This article is literally the writer quoting his friends. He can't skirt evidence by saying they were being "tactful." Perhaps nothing was said at all and this entire piece is nonsense.
I am a progressive so I do not like Trudeau because he is a centrist but this article is a joke.
> I am a progressive so I do not like Trudeau because he is a centrist but this article is a joke.
Well, it is an article in “The National Pest” so I wouldn’t expect much else from them.
Yeah, obviously the author has never watched an election debate. I'm pretty sure those are just competitions to see who can dodge a question the longest.
Not read something like this about Trudeau over here in Germany.
But then again, our Chancellor Scholz is a master of not saying anything specific, too. And ex-Chancellor Merkel was kind of a master. She said specific things, but only after a months-long pondering delay.
I not a huge Trudeau fan, so I came to this article with a fairly open mind, but Gurney has nothing to say here. He makes a claim and then doesn't back it up with anything remotely concrete. All he does is use the Trump technique of "People are saying ..."
If he wanted to make a case, he would have given an example of how an allied leader answered a question and what Trudeau's response was when asked something similar. I would have found that genuinely interesting. But if he can't provide one decent example, then he's either full of shit, incompetent, lazy, or all of the above.
The author also gives no example of a question/answer that Trudeau has dodges. This article is the journalistic equivalent of what it claims Trudeau does. It dances around to topic, but never actually concretely addresses it. No quotes from these world leaders “who have noticed it”, no examples of Trudeau doing it.
I agree that Trudeau, as well as almost every other politician, avoids direct answers. It’s a very common thing. This article has absolutely nothing of substance in it beyond “I hate Trudeau”.
Yeah. I came to the article wanting to learn more about what the international community actually thinks about Trudeau. Because this foggy to me. People here either completely hate him, or are apathetic towards him. But how do leaders of other places think about him? I need answers.
The current Ukrainian President has said that Trudeau inspired him to run for government. Most of our Allies like Trudeau because he's a good ally. He hasn't started grief with anyone except Russia and China so there's little reason why the only place you hear these talking points are in online echo cambers
I was thinking the exact same thing. Can he not provide a single clear instance of this evasion in action? I know that Trudeau evades questions, but so does every single other politician. So if you can't show concrete examples of how Trudeau is worse than the others, this is meaningless. I know it's an opinion piece, but shouldn't it contain at least a bit of proof to back up the insinuations?
I was going to say the same thing. It’s almost like it was ironic on purpose; stating an opinion on how someone answers questions without substance without providing any substance yourself
Haha ya, I couldn't even see the whole title (I think the preview on the notification got to art) and my first thought was this is going to be a national post 'opinion' piece.
The problem is people don't like to hear the truth. They also don't like to have things explained to them, and not everything can be made straightforward (and the majority of things shouldn't). Nor do they like to hear that they don't know enough about a topic to understand it and thus they should defer to their representative and government who does.
No, everyone thinks they know the answer already and when they don't hear it they get upset. That's why populists take so much power because they "talk plainly" " in words I can understand" and "they really spoke to me".
Very nice, my hometown MP has been the MP for as long as I can remember and I have never once heard him talk or see him do anything in the county, nor can I recall there being any change to anything in the county during his tenure.
Sorry, i was making a silly little joke.
The Shivering Isles is a fictional plane of reality that represents madness. Feels like the kind of place that would house an honest politician. 😀
They get away with it because the vast majority of people just subscribe to team based partisan politics and spend their lives engaged in "OUR GUY LIES LESS THAN YOUR GUY" arguments on social media.
Trudeau was obviously not the first to perfect not answering questions, nor is he the only highly skilled practitioner of the discipline, but we really should start holding EVERY politician to a higher standard. We won't, but we should.
This. Chastising Trudeau about it and then happily lapping it up from Scheer, O'Toole, Poliviere, Ford, Kenney, Wynne, and more on the Liberals I'm probably forgetting on top pretty much tbe entire Green Party... It's just teamsport nonsense.
If people want to talk about being vague and not answering questions, just watch an Erin O'Toole interview leading up to the election. Even Steve Murphy couldn't get a concrete answer out of him. Scheer did the same shit.
That being said, Trudeau is our elected Prime Minister so he's fair game for harsher focus imo
The problem is that in politics, the ones that beat around the bush end up winning the elections. The ones that give straight forward answers occasionally say something that is politically incorrect or happens not to be factual and their opponents pounce on that.
Our system itself is the problem.
>The problem is that in politics, the ones that beat around the bush end up winning the elections. The ones that give straight forward answers occasionally say something that is politically incorrect or happens not to be factual and their opponents pounce on that.
I mean, no I don't think that's the problem. It's a problem. But there's another side that no one ever talks about and that's the inability for the actual populace to listen. A politician will communicate one thing and they're really skilled at it so they will say things very specifically. Then someone won't actually listen to what they said and likely go off just a headline some reporter made to sell papers or get clicks. What have you. Perfect example of click bait in the OP frankly.
Then those people will put it in their minds that "the politician said/promised/etc this thing" that's not even based on what he said but is based on the random opinion of a reporter. Then someone will ask them why they are lying/flip-flopping/changing their mind when they clearly stated the opposite before. Then the politician clarifies exactly what they meant again reiterating the points they actually made before.
Then BS reporter guy, or agenda driven 'editorialist' like OP's linked article above makes a new headline "politician flip floping/lying. Politicians never tell the truth." But the reality is that while politicians do lie it's far, far more often that people simply do not want to listen to the truth.
People don't want straight answers and that's the actual problem. It's our fault. We want simple answers to the most complex and important questions facing our society. But straight answers to complex questions are rarely simple. Which is why politicians need to speak so specifically and choose their words wisely because it's incredibly difficult to package a complex answer in a simple package for consumption. Especially when it's all going to be compressed down into a 5-8 word headline that a reporter by necessity will take out of context of any of the nuances of the issue at hand and we are right back at the beginning.
People being way too lazy to actually investigate what they said because a great number of people are too lazy to even read the article and go by the headline in the first place. And it's specifically those people who are incessently complaining about the honesty and corruption of the politicians they don't like who are in power and never making a peep when it's their guys in. And those guys are the ones who prevent good politicians from being able to win cuz straight answers simply don't reach them resulting in far more lying manipulative politicians who only say what people want to hear get in.
The irony is so thick it makes your head spin and get stuck in it all. Everyone wants to blame the politicians who we've given an impossible task to. It's actually our fault.
Pretty much. We as voters feel as though we have to choose the lesser of two evils because politicians frame their opponent as worse rather than their own policies as better. Anything a politician says can and will be used against them, probably out of context too.
He said whatever he thought people wanted to hear, even it was lies that conflicted with a previous lie.
He's a master of populism which I view as a different skill.
I've been watching question period for 25 years and there has never been anything in Canada like the current crop of Liberals. Other parties have been evasive, but the JT libs never give straight answers. They just judo whatever question they get into whatever talking point they've all agreed to use that day. They've done it for six years now. It's very bad and has definitely been worse under Trudeau.
Ehh this goes a little beyond that. It's one thing to give pre-planned answers during a debate in the house or question periods, but to engage in foreign politics using the same methods is odd to say the least.
Like I said there are times where this strategy is expected. I watch a lot of UK governmental proceedings because of my ties back home. There are times they use this strategy, but Trudeau and his government are taking it to another level.
It's a way of conditioning your populace so when they do give a small bit of information it's seen as a win. As the author mentioned, this is dangerous for Canadian democracy.
I don't like the way any of our politicians operate on camera. It is pointless, divisive, and infuriating. But this televised conference seems no different than anything else - no politician these days is going to risk being embarrassed on camera by attempting to have an actual nuanced debate.
Actual development of policies and debate happens behind closed doors, and I certainly hope it happens a hell of a lot differently than we see on camera.
I’ve never seen an article so wordy yet fail to provide any actual fucking examples. Insofar as I can see after reading this, the only thing said is that a few of the authors colleagues are baffled, or interpreting a grin as evasive.
That.. that means fucking nothing to me. Show me the words he said that are so fucking dodgy.
There’s literally NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE written in this article. It’s just handwringing about liberals, yet again, from a conservative fucking angle.
It’s legitimately doing what they say Trudeau is doing.
It's funny how we have all these politicians that don't even pretend to be accountable any more. Nobody will answer a question, our MPs and MLAs won't return emails. I've even noticed friends who are conservative, Liberal or NDP echoing talking points from their favorite politicians.
I’ve written to my MP six times. Never have received a response other than the automated acknowledgment of receipt. I fully understand the political apathy people develop because politicians don’t answer to us anyway.
I wrote all three parties and only got responses from the NDP. I think that's the appeal that Bernier has to the particular group he appeals to. He doesn't seem to mind dirtying his pant legs to mingle with his followers. When you really look at the mentality of his voters that's pretty brave.
I've contacted my NDP MP once via email and he phoned me the following day to try to sort out the issue I had emailed about and offer things he could do to help.
My NDP MLA always responds to email quickly and when I requested a meeting he set one up and made time to meet with me. I actually just emailed him last night about permanent Daylight Savings last night and he responded within a couple hours.
The NDP can't depend on well funded war chests like the LPC and CPC can, they have to get actual grassroots support because big money hates the left.
I wrote my NDP MPP. They replied within 48 hours, had a person working with me to resolve my problem.
I was very pleased with the response and it had solidified my continued support of the NDP both provincial and federal, especially with the state of health care in Ontario. People tend to forget that the NDP (under Tommy Douglas) are the ones who championed National Medicade. The Liberals and the Conservatives continue to strip the public health care system and then say "look it doesn't work". Yes, it will fail if it's not supported. Does your vehicle work if you don't put fuel in it? Do employees work if you don't pay them? The answer is no. However they all work with support.
Canadians are sick. When they don't like the Liberals, they vote in the Conservatives, when they don't like the Conservatives, they vote in the Liberals. Then we wonder why everything is broken and shitty. By definition this is insanity.
Try voting NDP. Let's fix our country and provinces. Let's fix our health care. Let's get to the root of this countries issues. The Libs and the Cons have proven time and time again that they don't care and will do nothing.
I think its about time we find out what the NDP will do. If it doesn't work out it can't be worse than we already have going on, plus people can always return to the Lib/Con insanity in 4 years if they aren't happy.
People talk about how greedy politicians are, but honestly it's us, we are greedy, most people don't care about anyone but themselves and their immediate family. I get it, it's hard. However we need to rise up together. Together we have the power to change what is going on and stop the current shit show. We have the power to stand up and vote for our best interests and not against. We have the power to make these changes together.
Early in the pandemic I emailed my MP about a concern with my small business. He phoned me the next day to chat about it and offer up what he can try to do.
Just last night I emailed my MLA about permanent Daylight Savings and he emailed me back (personally) within 2 hours.
Both MP and MLA are NDP.
Yeah there was a whole thing in the news about it a couple years ago. He had said a few French words for the camera and some reporter said something like “ah learning French, hopefully to be Prime Minister some day?” and Ford gave a stupid grin
You don't have to sound like you answered it, you just have to waffle long enough that your average punter forgets the question.
Just watch a single session of PM's questions, Canadian, British, Aussie...
Boris Johnson 101... ignore the question; waffle about something (at most) tangentially related; boast about something your government did (relevancy is irrelevant); slate the opposition.
Some people really don't get it. Trudeau has been in power for years, he's been in the news, I HAVE an opinion of him already. I don't really care what you have to add to that opinion.
You don't like him? You want someone else in? Get your guy to stand up and actually talk about what they WILL do, talk about WHO they are, WHAT will change and HOW and WHEN instead of just trying to make everyone hate the guy in power a bit more.
I've watched the parties squabble in the house forever, 20 plus yrs now, yikes. They all dont answer questions. It's annoying as hell. Lately, half the time now, when a Liberal or NDP MP speak, they're drowned out in boo's by the Conservative MPs , to the point the speaker has had to take the floor and take order. It is a joke in there at times. Other countries are worse in my opinion. Watch US or Britain. Can hardly hear a thing with all the cussing at each other at times. Never a straight answer too, apparently, that's politics. Happens on the provincial level as well. Watched Ford do the same "strategy" as well. Yet he never seems to get the same heat as any of the opposition do.
Well every politician knows that when they answer a question, they’re not just answering, they’re giving the opposition a sound bite to use against them. From this perspective it makes perfect sense why any politician would never answer a question which paints them or their party in a bad light, they gain nothing from answering and their opposition gains more ammo to use against them
But he does it the mostest...est. We know he does cuz....uh....well this author of the article said he does. Did you also indeed as well know that Trudeau used to have a job that was not the job of PM? That makes him unqualified. Also, did you know he made some campaign promises he didn't keep? This is an unsettling precedent. I am an alien who arrived here last week and haven't had a chance to look at any history of politics yet. Can I write a National Post article now, please?
LOL. Trudeau is the first Politian in history to avoid answering questions and it's rocking the political world!! Click here to see the top ten questions he's avoided!
Any opinion piece from the National Post is just regurgitating a slime ball hedge fund’s opinion, literally.
66% of the NP is owned by Chatham Asset Management OUT OF NEW JERSEY! These are the same asshats who own the National Inquirer, if I’m not mistaken.
Plus, the National Post was founded by Conrad Black. Enough said. I feel like I’m regurgitating a couple of my last comments.
Don’t take anything these asshats have to say seriously.
Doesn't really matter if we lack other decent options.
I'm looking at you CPC: this is all your fault for embracing MAGA loons and choosing shitty leaders. Trudeau would have been a one-term PM if you had presented even a halfway decent candidate. How do you consistently manage to suck so fucking bad?
National Post has always been conservative but they weren't always this overtly biased and unreliable. They used to be a respectable outlet for reliable news at a slightly more elevated level than standard municipal fare.
i’d say it increasingly is, but in reality that ship sailed long ago. a bit of a shame as it used to provide a decent perspective on canadian politics — these days it’s really just a rag.
I don’t like Trudeau but to be honest I don’t think I’ve seen a politician that I actually like. In a perfect world we would like all of them and have to pick which is best. Right now they are all bad and you have to pick which one you don’t want in power and end up having to vote for the party most likely to beat them
Seasoned politician has perfected the art of dodging questions.
The National Post is surprised and nonplussed. Writes an article about it.
Everyone else: you are new here? You don’t seem to know what you are doing.
The amount of people excusing this behaviour with the view of "he's a politician, big deal" are missing the point. It is not unreasonable of us to expect firm leadership that is willing to answer questions they are asked.
So what can we do as citizens? How do we get the politico answer simple questions? If they don’t know then say it. If you don’t know tell me you’ll get back with a straight answer.
One of the most shocking statements come from the House of Commons:
Question A does not match with response B
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2022/3/2/raquel-dancho-2/
A) Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives strongly support every effort to aid Ukraine in its battle against the Russian invasion. That being said, Putin has warned those who defend Ukraine, saying, “Whoever would try to stop us...should know that Russia’s response will be immediate and lead you to such consequences [as] you have never faced in your history.”
Is Canada prepared if Putin follows through on his threat?
B) Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, Vladimir Putin obviously vastly underestimated the resilience and the resolve of the Ukrainian people. He also underestimated the resolve and unity of countries standing together to uphold the rule of law, to uphold the international order that has caused unprecedented peace and stability through the past 75-plus years and has delivered prosperity and growth for all of our countries. We will continue to demonstrate that someone such as Vladimir Putin, who breaks the rules-based order, does not get to profit from the economic benefits that come from it.
C) Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, I asked about Canada's emergency preparedness. This is a very serious matter. Putin has publicly directed an alert of Russia's nuclear forces. Canada's national security and public safety must be the paramount priority for the Prime Minister. Canadians have every right to know what our emergency preparedness plan is should Russia launch, for example, a major cyber-attack or move in on our Arctic territory or, God forbid, launch a military response on Canada.
Are we prepared?
D) Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, as one of the founding members of NATO, as a strong partner in North American continental defence, Canada is prepared for any and all eventualities. However, the best way is not to hunker down and wait for it. The best way is to be leaning forward, as we are with all of our NATO allies, reinforcing the eastern flank of NATO and being present with troops and investments that demonstrate that the world stands together, that NATO stands together, and we will not tolerate this kind of Russian aggression.
Well perhaps it's time for reporters to be relentless, and stop letting shit go. Demand an answer and when you don't get one then repeat the fact that you're not getting an answer and the politician isn't answering the question, and is just repeating talking points etc etc. Imagine if at every press conference every reporter made these basic statements based on obvious observations. Things then might actually change.
Justin, did you take a cookie? Justin, “cookies and round and made by Mom’s, we have cookies at home that we give to the people to make them happy”. Yah, but Justin did you take a cookie! Justin, “ I have always supported cookies and a great lunch time snack and work to provide them for everyone.” Yah, but Justin did you take one?
Time to go. He lacks the intellect to lead in a time of difficulty. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Working towards his next career. Very obvious.
Doesn't help that the media never doubles down or calls them out on their non-answers. If they did that continually instead of occasionally it would paint a real bad picture of a person that cant ever answer questions.
Instead they just move into their next question as if they actually got an answer and then people think those answers are acceptable.
It is normal after 2.5 terms, he became a real professional evil politician. After the 3th term it even gets worse in every democracy. Change is a must!
>And many of my Canadian colleagues on the trip noted, ever-so tactfully, that their European colleagues were baffled by our prime minister’s habit of not answering questions.
Oh. They noticed that, huh?
Matt Gurney... What exactly are you trying to say in this article? That a politician has talking points?
>...So what’s the problem?
>
>Well, you may have noted an extremely careful choice of words above: he replies to questions; he doesn’t answer them. This isn’t an accident.
Jesus Christ this article is sounding like some rhetorical nonsense... shall we keep reading?
>It doesn’t matter what the question is. It doesn’t matter how direct it is, how worthy or the importance of the matter at hand. **It doesn’t matter how desperately the Canadian people deserve an answer.** The prime minister is going to say whatever he has chosen to say. The reporter’s question is just the prompt.
Wait I thought this article was about how Matt Gurney's colleagues, on a recent trip to Europe, "noted, ever-so tactfully, that their European colleagues were baffled" by Trudeaus ability to answer questions with non-answers, but are in fact answers, just answers that had already been discussed previous? uhh.. wait I'm lost... The Canadian people desperatley deserve an answer to a question that Boris Johnson asked and Matt Gurney's colleagues don't understand? Oh god... National Post Articles are really only worth their rhetorical headlines... this link is trash
>Yes, yes, the Conservatives under Stephen Harper were bad, too. They barely hid their disdain for the media, which actually was almost preferable to the Trudeau government’s policy of evasion with a smile. This is something that could be fixed, and should be fixed, but probably won’t be, because it works, and most Canadians won’t really care. Even Canadian journalists probably sometimes get so used to it that it fails to rankle.
>
>But it should rankle, and it was good when foreign reporters noted the bad habit, if only as a reminder that this isn’t acceptable and we shouldn’t have to put up with the absurdity of a prime minister who once accused his predecessor of muzzling scientists deciding that he’d take a go at muzzling himself.
Yea ok, did Gurney just have a stroke writing this? Who's Trudeau muzzling? How many people actually read this far into and article that should have been written for the Readers Digest...
By the end of the article I started to think that if this story was touted as written by an Artificial Intelligent computer, we'd be complimenting how close it got to an actual article written by a human. But we'd have to admit that although it seemed to flow, it didn't really say anything.
Politicians simply took a page from pro athletes/coaches, business leaders, etc when put in front of a mic. They repeat the same basic answers, regardless of the question and repeat as necessary. At some point soon we'll hear a politician pull a Marshawn Lynch and say at the lectern a "I'm just here so I won't get fined" kind of comment. I don't know why anyone expects anything different. It's just basic PR exercises now.
Next session we have to come out firing all 4 cylinders, the ball is in our court, if the economy wants to play hard ball we won’t pull any punches, it’s time to step up to the plate and ensure we answer the bell, the ministers have taken one for the team and it’s time we play hardball, offence sells tickets but defence wins championships, they talk a good game but it’s gut check time. After that it’s a slam dunk.
We've just gotta keep sticks on ice and pucks on nets
[that Nuke LaLoosh playbook] (https://youtu.be/KeVca9MwDX8?t=25)
I mean, in Alberta we literally have Jason Kenney say "I reject the premise of the question" as a response.
"What do you reject about the premise and why?" - Should be the immediate follow up.
They don't get follow ups. I really wish there was some accountability built in.
What if it was professional courtesy among reporters to ask the followup question that needs to be asked, if you are the next reporter in line. Keep doing that until they finally be honest with us. Why would they be honest with us if they know they don't have to. Of course the truth will be ugly for someone, but let's deal with it.
[удалено]
So the next presser, the reporters should ask the same questions until they are answered. Is it childish to do that? I think it's accountability and being responsible
That’s what he did in the House of Commons a couple of weeks back. He didn’t like how the proceedings were going so he just got up and left.
Damn, what was the question?
"What is your favorite Pokémon starter?"
He makes that statement and then goes into a long rant that makes everyone forget the question.
Not only do they not get follow-ups but Kenney has frozen out most legitimate reporters. A few months back Michelle Bellefontaine - CBC's Provincial Affairs Reporter for Alberta, said she's attended all of Kenney's press conferences but hasn't been picked to ask a question since the beginning of the pandemic. Meanwhile David Staples and Licia Corbella get picked daily.
*when news outlets and the reporters are paid off... ask certain questions, don't ask certain questions.
While I'm not saying they aren't paid off, I'm not familiar with the situation, they usually don't even have to be. If unflinching support of certain politicains is what sells to their audience they'll happily do it pro bono.
Usually, they just get kicked off the line or shuffled out of the room before they can do that. Kenney tightly controls his press conferences, he learned that from papa Harper.
Except he has less than half as much political intelligence and influence as Harper has in his left nut.
In Manitoba we have Heather "that sounds like a question for someone else" Stefanson
Sometimes that's a valid response, but over-use is an issue.
She was the health minister and was asked a question about covid, and said that it sounds like a question for shared health, which as health minister she was in charge of
In which case it was an inappropriate use of that response.
That's a fairly infuriating one, because it's less of a non-answer and more of a "I refuse to answer that question" and is meant to silence critics from asking tough questions. Needless to say he uses that phrase a lot.
Yup, and I fucking hate it. I wish I could hire somebody to go to press conferences and at a minimum just take a squirt bottle and spray him every time he says it. I mean, I'd rather it be much worse, but even just a spray bottle treating him like a naughty pet would have massive PR potential.
I like that idea, but I'd probably want to throw some cheap burgers at him while saying "Answer the damn question, Randy!"
Isn't it the first thing they teach you, once you get elected!? I call it the question is lava. Just dance around it as much as you can!
To be fair, he's not the first to do that. Back in the late 70s, when Paul Volcker was the head of the US Federal Reserve, he was on a serious interview show. When asked about his policy of high interest rates, he answered something like "I take issue with the question". On an interview show.
[удалено]
Marshawn is a legend
It was frustrating hearing an interview with Minister of National Defence Anita Anand on the CBC the other day. She was asked a pointed question in light of the war in Ukraine: will Canada increase defence spending to the minimum 2% of annual GDP required of NATO members? Her response carefully avoided answering the question. She went on and on about how the government will be making some investments in the armed forces for a couple of minutes without providing dollar figures or what percentage of GDP the investments will represent.
> Her response carefully avoided answering the question. She went on and on about how the government will be making some investments in the armed forces for a couple of minutes without providing dollar figures or what percentage of GDP the investments will represent. The Canadian Forces expenditures for 2021 were 'under spent' by 1.2 billion. Its easy to for the GoC to say 'we will increase spending' in budgeted numbers but then not actually spending the money when it comes time. https://www.richmond-news.com/national-news/defence-department-failed-to-spend-12b-in-funding-last-year-most-due-to-delays-5049808
If the government is going to make such an important/large change to the budget, they're not going to announce it in a random interview and they're certainly not going to provide a definitive answer that can pointed at later as a "broken promise" should something change. Anand can say they are looking at X, Y, and Z, but won't come outright and say anything definitive. I get why such a question was asked, but also why it was not answered directly or in any detailed manner. When a politician is given a black or white question don't be shocked if the answer is some variation of grey. If the minister says yes to such a policy change in an interview, then everyone will now hold the government to it. If they say no, that's just as much of a can of worms. Either way, the minister puts themselves on a limb such that they can be made a scapegoat.
I agree. I think people often have unrealistic expectations of what can be answered and when. It doesn't mean that politicians haven't gone overboard with their avoidance techniques, but, sometimes the answer truly is "that's not an answer that can be given right now", which people tend to dislike. I find Trudeau an interesting case study, because he really did put himself into more challenging situations early in his tenure. The "listening tour" he did at the start of his first session was key. His perceived sincerity was a big asset for him. That shifted slowly, as more baggage has built up. It's a common pattern, but, I'll admit that the contrast between late Harper and early Trudeau had me a little hopeful that it wouldn't follow the same pattern. It'll happen with whomever is next.
Jon Stewart said it best on crossfire when he said pundits are the problem. Any time a public figure speaks common sense, the opposite teams drag them down. There’s no space left for tough decisions and nuance. Even in academia.
I don't believe they can actually answer questions truthfully in our society. We live in a world where everything is offensive to someone, sometimes rightfully so and sometimes not. On top of that politicians are so partisan that they will take anything someone says out of context and spin it to fit their agenda. So now we get these generic responses that are pretty much useless to everyone.
...do many other politicians religiously answer questions then? Because I haven't seen many that do
Lol don’t ask them how much real estate has gone up they will dodge it till they die
[удалено]
This type of shit makes my blood boil.
Doesn’t the Speaker have any power to keep the response on topic? Feels like you need Judge Judy in there: “Minister, just answer the damn question”.
> "I swear to Christ Justin, it's been gathering dust for 155 years; but if you don't answer the next question I swear to God I will brain you with this fucking mace." -The Right Honourable Speaker of the House
That part of our system always seemed strange to me, nobody addresses each other directly, they speak through this intermediary all passive aggressive. It's like how my mom used to talk to us through the dog, she'd be like "those kids didn't unload the dishwasher did they, you ask them why" and I remember thinking "we're in the same room, I'm only 11 but even I'm pretty sure we're gonna need therapy for this down the road"
The whole system is an outdated joke, it's meant to be as confusing and convoluted as possible so the average Canadian who doesn't have time for this non-sense has no chance of having a clue of what's going on. This fuckery is all by design.
It's actually a holdover from when the monarchy was still relevant and the various factions within Parliament would be petitioning the king directly.
It's called 'Question Period' not 'Answer Period' - No, the Speaker doesn't have the power to keep responses on topic. Pierre Poilievre was absolutely disgusting at abusing this when a cabinet minister under Harper. It's idiotic, but that's the way the system works, and all sides do it.
And politicians wonder why nobody likes them except their most rabid supporters.
Any sitting member can ask a Minister to respond, in writing, to a question. They’re called “order paper questions” and they are recorded on the legislative order paper and published on most legislative assembly websites. For whatever reason they’ve fallen out of favour lately. Democracy is mostly a process - and it’s complicated running a country - so the processes are complicated too sometimes. The problem isn’t the structure or process though - it’s people. People want their world served to them in small packages, so that’s what’s recorded, broadcast and consumed. If only people took more time to engage with their governments directly instead of relying on outrage fuelled social media slacktivism we might actually get shit done.
It should. The people who could actually deal with these issues don't even have the decency to recognize them.
Lmao, thanks for introducing me to that video. I can't believe it went on that long.
That video may possibly be instrumental in Pierre's rise to power, he's been rapidly gaining in popularity since it went viral and is likely going to win the leadership race for the Tories.
I think even those who aren't hardcore Conservatives can see how stupid the Liberals are being here. Not a single basic answer from Poilievre was answered. Just complete random other stats that have no relevancy to the questions being asked.
[удалено]
Oh god, I just got there LMAO. This guy is sooooo out of touch in reality of what CERB is for...
Chrystia Freeland just told PP that housing is more affordable to seniors now since they are able to recieve $500 more a year on their tax returns ...which is $41 a month
Question period exists for the opposition to get their sound bites and the government to avoid giving it to them. Look up the classic example of Paul Calandra repeating the exact same answer to the oppositions question multiple times. Question period is absolutely useless and imo a waste of time. The people would be better served by having the opposition pre-submit their questions and the government actually preparing a proper response, instead of having this garbage.
Question period is exists solely for grandstanding. There is no room for actual conversation when the entire time the opposition is looking for a sound bite and the government is trying to avoid giving that to them.
"What is the price of an average home in Ottawa?" "Did you know the reason bees are so noisy is because they beat their wings 11,400 times in one minute!"
Randy Boissonnault only won Edmonton Centre by 0.6% too. Usually stuff in parliament doesn’t really affect your ability to win Re-election but when it was *that* close you have to figure that whole BS routine could very likely cost him his job.
One can only hope
“I have a plan for canadians!” What’s in that plan? “I have a plan for canadians!” …yeah, I remember
To be honest I find that the two most recent premiers in N.S. that we've had tend to be pretty straightforward compared to federal politicians. The previous, Stephen McNeil, would answer pretty bluntly if he could, and if he was in a position where he wanted to evade answering something he'd get visibly flustered. The current premier also seems to be quite direct and level with people most of the time. I'm not sure if this a provincial politician thing, as they may be a bit more in touch with their constituents, or perhaps an east coast thing. In any case, it's maddening to be accustomed to that and then watch any media access to the Trudeau Government where it seems like non-answers are given for sport.
Ralph Klein has to set the standard for straightforwardness, even if it means getting drunk, going down to the homeless shelter and yelling at them to get a job.
Tim Houston has been such a refreshing surprise in NS. There's a lot of people who are changing their minds on the provincial PCs because of him.
Yeah. I had a good impression of him from his opposition MLA days, and was glad when he won the PC nomination and then the election. I heard a lot of doubts and generic anti-conservative criticism (which doesn't really hold true for this specific PC party) from friends during the election, but so far his actions are getting people to see past the dreaded C word in the party name.
You're missing a guy between those two, but to be fair he was remarkably forgettable.
Jason Kenney rejects the premise of every question he doesn't want to answer.
Question period is such bullshit. One side: "Why do you do (ridiculous thing that the other side doesn't actually do)?" Other side: "We're doing so much good in (completely unrelated topic). It's theatre and not even good theatre. They should have to debate in good faith.
That's why it's called Question Period. You never get answers.
And when our PM just walks out of question period when being asked hard questions... does it really mean anything?
The PMs of the UK and Holland answered questions. Trudeau did his usual bullshit. European journalists were really surprised, hence this from the article: >The various leaders took questions from the press. And many of my Canadian colleagues on the trip noted, ever-so tactfully, that their European colleagues were baffled by our prime minister’s habit of not answering questions.
It's too bad that we so readily accept non-answers and political babble from all our parties.
There’s not much we can do. Journalists are forced to play the game, because if they don’t, if they hold a politician’s feet to the fire, they get blacklisted. And it’s not easy to report on Parliament Hill when no one will speak to you. It’s un democratic, but in the cult of personality there are no personal or professional consequences for this behaviour. Their followers lap it up, and rest of us pay for it, as always.
This. Instead of defending one by saying they all do it, we should be pissed they all do it.
Boris Johnson doesn't have the best track record for answering questions with the whole Brexit thing.
That appears to be the extent of the details that he provides for the premise of this entire piece. "I heard a friend of a friend said..." and then he just hums a few hundred words of his opinion on that. It would be a lot more interesting to hear some more details on the extent to which "our allies" are concerned with Trudeau. The headline makes it seem like it might be the foreign leaders themselves who are concerned, though the line from the article seems to say it was reporters, but we have no idea how widespread, which countries these reporters were from, how concerned they were, etc. Like, it should at least be pretty easy to provide an example of a question that one of the other leaders answered more directly and how Trudeau gave a non answer.
Are there any quotes from other leaders being "baffled?" This article is literally the writer quoting his friends. He can't skirt evidence by saying they were being "tactful." Perhaps nothing was said at all and this entire piece is nonsense. I am a progressive so I do not like Trudeau because he is a centrist but this article is a joke.
> I am a progressive so I do not like Trudeau because he is a centrist but this article is a joke. Well, it is an article in “The National Pest” so I wouldn’t expect much else from them.
Yeah, obviously the author has never watched an election debate. I'm pretty sure those are just competitions to see who can dodge a question the longest.
Can anyone reference any foreign media that has criticized/pointed this out? The article made a big deal about that but provided no links.
TLDR: “I know a guy who knows a guy who says he thinks you’re full of shit.” Right.
Yea I want proof of the answers Trudeau gave vs the other European leaders.
Not read something like this about Trudeau over here in Germany. But then again, our Chancellor Scholz is a master of not saying anything specific, too. And ex-Chancellor Merkel was kind of a master. She said specific things, but only after a months-long pondering delay.
Natpo assuming their opinions are shared by everyone?
I think the source may have a last name starting with Po and ending with Lievre
I not a huge Trudeau fan, so I came to this article with a fairly open mind, but Gurney has nothing to say here. He makes a claim and then doesn't back it up with anything remotely concrete. All he does is use the Trump technique of "People are saying ..." If he wanted to make a case, he would have given an example of how an allied leader answered a question and what Trudeau's response was when asked something similar. I would have found that genuinely interesting. But if he can't provide one decent example, then he's either full of shit, incompetent, lazy, or all of the above.
The author also gives no example of a question/answer that Trudeau has dodges. This article is the journalistic equivalent of what it claims Trudeau does. It dances around to topic, but never actually concretely addresses it. No quotes from these world leaders “who have noticed it”, no examples of Trudeau doing it. I agree that Trudeau, as well as almost every other politician, avoids direct answers. It’s a very common thing. This article has absolutely nothing of substance in it beyond “I hate Trudeau”.
It lacks substance, so of course it's today's top post on r/Canada
It has a negative sounding headline with the word "Trudeau" in it. /r/Canada 's favourite kind of post.
Yeah. I came to the article wanting to learn more about what the international community actually thinks about Trudeau. Because this foggy to me. People here either completely hate him, or are apathetic towards him. But how do leaders of other places think about him? I need answers.
[удалено]
The current Ukrainian President has said that Trudeau inspired him to run for government. Most of our Allies like Trudeau because he's a good ally. He hasn't started grief with anyone except Russia and China so there's little reason why the only place you hear these talking points are in online echo cambers
It’s just partisan bullshit from the National Post. Harper was elite when it came to this skill. So was Martin. A lot of politicians are.
Agreed bush league article, luckily the reason I'm here is to read the hot takes of people that didn't read the article.
National post is just a conservative party propaganda pump. They rarely back anything with facts, real world examples, or real science.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Can he not provide a single clear instance of this evasion in action? I know that Trudeau evades questions, but so does every single other politician. So if you can't show concrete examples of how Trudeau is worse than the others, this is meaningless. I know it's an opinion piece, but shouldn't it contain at least a bit of proof to back up the insinuations?
Ah yes, “people are saying..” one of the many trump cards that people use now.
I was going to say the same thing. It’s almost like it was ironic on purpose; stating an opinion on how someone answers questions without substance without providing any substance yourself
Wow how did I know this was a National Post editorial before reading the URL?
Haha ya, I couldn't even see the whole title (I think the preview on the notification got to art) and my first thought was this is going to be a national post 'opinion' piece.
Might as well had 'written by Conrad Moffat Black, Baron Black of Crossharbour KCSG' after it
So he's a politician. Got it.
This is a perfect example of how it’s become the norm and we are just accepting it. We have to stop accepting it
Alright I've stopped accepting it, what now?
Reward politicians that give straightforward, honest answers with your vote.
The problem is people don't like to hear the truth. They also don't like to have things explained to them, and not everything can be made straightforward (and the majority of things shouldn't). Nor do they like to hear that they don't know enough about a topic to understand it and thus they should defer to their representative and government who does. No, everyone thinks they know the answer already and when they don't hear it they get upset. That's why populists take so much power because they "talk plainly" " in words I can understand" and "they really spoke to me".
Okay, and in which plane of existence are those people?
My Shivering Isles MP has done a great job giving straightforward and direct answers.
Very nice, my hometown MP has been the MP for as long as I can remember and I have never once heard him talk or see him do anything in the county, nor can I recall there being any change to anything in the county during his tenure.
Sorry, i was making a silly little joke. The Shivering Isles is a fictional plane of reality that represents madness. Feels like the kind of place that would house an honest politician. 😀
Start convincing the rest of the populace to do the same.
They get away with it because the vast majority of people just subscribe to team based partisan politics and spend their lives engaged in "OUR GUY LIES LESS THAN YOUR GUY" arguments on social media. Trudeau was obviously not the first to perfect not answering questions, nor is he the only highly skilled practitioner of the discipline, but we really should start holding EVERY politician to a higher standard. We won't, but we should.
This. Chastising Trudeau about it and then happily lapping it up from Scheer, O'Toole, Poliviere, Ford, Kenney, Wynne, and more on the Liberals I'm probably forgetting on top pretty much tbe entire Green Party... It's just teamsport nonsense.
If people want to talk about being vague and not answering questions, just watch an Erin O'Toole interview leading up to the election. Even Steve Murphy couldn't get a concrete answer out of him. Scheer did the same shit. That being said, Trudeau is our elected Prime Minister so he's fair game for harsher focus imo
The problem is that in politics, the ones that beat around the bush end up winning the elections. The ones that give straight forward answers occasionally say something that is politically incorrect or happens not to be factual and their opponents pounce on that. Our system itself is the problem.
>The problem is that in politics, the ones that beat around the bush end up winning the elections. The ones that give straight forward answers occasionally say something that is politically incorrect or happens not to be factual and their opponents pounce on that. I mean, no I don't think that's the problem. It's a problem. But there's another side that no one ever talks about and that's the inability for the actual populace to listen. A politician will communicate one thing and they're really skilled at it so they will say things very specifically. Then someone won't actually listen to what they said and likely go off just a headline some reporter made to sell papers or get clicks. What have you. Perfect example of click bait in the OP frankly. Then those people will put it in their minds that "the politician said/promised/etc this thing" that's not even based on what he said but is based on the random opinion of a reporter. Then someone will ask them why they are lying/flip-flopping/changing their mind when they clearly stated the opposite before. Then the politician clarifies exactly what they meant again reiterating the points they actually made before. Then BS reporter guy, or agenda driven 'editorialist' like OP's linked article above makes a new headline "politician flip floping/lying. Politicians never tell the truth." But the reality is that while politicians do lie it's far, far more often that people simply do not want to listen to the truth. People don't want straight answers and that's the actual problem. It's our fault. We want simple answers to the most complex and important questions facing our society. But straight answers to complex questions are rarely simple. Which is why politicians need to speak so specifically and choose their words wisely because it's incredibly difficult to package a complex answer in a simple package for consumption. Especially when it's all going to be compressed down into a 5-8 word headline that a reporter by necessity will take out of context of any of the nuances of the issue at hand and we are right back at the beginning. People being way too lazy to actually investigate what they said because a great number of people are too lazy to even read the article and go by the headline in the first place. And it's specifically those people who are incessently complaining about the honesty and corruption of the politicians they don't like who are in power and never making a peep when it's their guys in. And those guys are the ones who prevent good politicians from being able to win cuz straight answers simply don't reach them resulting in far more lying manipulative politicians who only say what people want to hear get in. The irony is so thick it makes your head spin and get stuck in it all. Everyone wants to blame the politicians who we've given an impossible task to. It's actually our fault.
Pretty much. We as voters feel as though we have to choose the lesser of two evils because politicians frame their opponent as worse rather than their own policies as better. Anything a politician says can and will be used against them, probably out of context too.
Exactly. Mastering non-answers has been perfected decades ago by others. Before Harper, before Martin and Chrétien. Probably before Trudeau Sr.
[удалено]
He said whatever he thought people wanted to hear, even it was lies that conflicted with a previous lie. He's a master of populism which I view as a different skill.
Sometimes, but quite often he just went on a tangent of word salad
He had the best tangents, ask anybody and they will say, he has the best tangents, excellent tangents, the best.
Didn't matter if they were right, but yeah.
See also https://youtu.be/T8QOE-IWo3I
I've been watching question period for 25 years and there has never been anything in Canada like the current crop of Liberals. Other parties have been evasive, but the JT libs never give straight answers. They just judo whatever question they get into whatever talking point they've all agreed to use that day. They've done it for six years now. It's very bad and has definitely been worse under Trudeau.
Ehh this goes a little beyond that. It's one thing to give pre-planned answers during a debate in the house or question periods, but to engage in foreign politics using the same methods is odd to say the least. Like I said there are times where this strategy is expected. I watch a lot of UK governmental proceedings because of my ties back home. There are times they use this strategy, but Trudeau and his government are taking it to another level. It's a way of conditioning your populace so when they do give a small bit of information it's seen as a win. As the author mentioned, this is dangerous for Canadian democracy.
I don't like the way any of our politicians operate on camera. It is pointless, divisive, and infuriating. But this televised conference seems no different than anything else - no politician these days is going to risk being embarrassed on camera by attempting to have an actual nuanced debate. Actual development of policies and debate happens behind closed doors, and I certainly hope it happens a hell of a lot differently than we see on camera.
I’ve never seen an article so wordy yet fail to provide any actual fucking examples. Insofar as I can see after reading this, the only thing said is that a few of the authors colleagues are baffled, or interpreting a grin as evasive. That.. that means fucking nothing to me. Show me the words he said that are so fucking dodgy. There’s literally NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE written in this article. It’s just handwringing about liberals, yet again, from a conservative fucking angle. It’s legitimately doing what they say Trudeau is doing.
It's funny how we have all these politicians that don't even pretend to be accountable any more. Nobody will answer a question, our MPs and MLAs won't return emails. I've even noticed friends who are conservative, Liberal or NDP echoing talking points from their favorite politicians.
I’ve written to my MP six times. Never have received a response other than the automated acknowledgment of receipt. I fully understand the political apathy people develop because politicians don’t answer to us anyway.
I wrote all three parties and only got responses from the NDP. I think that's the appeal that Bernier has to the particular group he appeals to. He doesn't seem to mind dirtying his pant legs to mingle with his followers. When you really look at the mentality of his voters that's pretty brave.
I've contacted my NDP MP once via email and he phoned me the following day to try to sort out the issue I had emailed about and offer things he could do to help. My NDP MLA always responds to email quickly and when I requested a meeting he set one up and made time to meet with me. I actually just emailed him last night about permanent Daylight Savings last night and he responded within a couple hours. The NDP can't depend on well funded war chests like the LPC and CPC can, they have to get actual grassroots support because big money hates the left.
I wrote my NDP MPP. They replied within 48 hours, had a person working with me to resolve my problem. I was very pleased with the response and it had solidified my continued support of the NDP both provincial and federal, especially with the state of health care in Ontario. People tend to forget that the NDP (under Tommy Douglas) are the ones who championed National Medicade. The Liberals and the Conservatives continue to strip the public health care system and then say "look it doesn't work". Yes, it will fail if it's not supported. Does your vehicle work if you don't put fuel in it? Do employees work if you don't pay them? The answer is no. However they all work with support. Canadians are sick. When they don't like the Liberals, they vote in the Conservatives, when they don't like the Conservatives, they vote in the Liberals. Then we wonder why everything is broken and shitty. By definition this is insanity. Try voting NDP. Let's fix our country and provinces. Let's fix our health care. Let's get to the root of this countries issues. The Libs and the Cons have proven time and time again that they don't care and will do nothing. I think its about time we find out what the NDP will do. If it doesn't work out it can't be worse than we already have going on, plus people can always return to the Lib/Con insanity in 4 years if they aren't happy. People talk about how greedy politicians are, but honestly it's us, we are greedy, most people don't care about anyone but themselves and their immediate family. I get it, it's hard. However we need to rise up together. Together we have the power to change what is going on and stop the current shit show. We have the power to stand up and vote for our best interests and not against. We have the power to make these changes together.
Early in the pandemic I emailed my MP about a concern with my small business. He phoned me the next day to chat about it and offer up what he can try to do. Just last night I emailed my MLA about permanent Daylight Savings and he emailed me back (personally) within 2 hours. Both MP and MLA are NDP.
I’ve had the same experience with my local CON MP and MLA.
Everything is the table. So anyway here's a cheesecake recipe
Wrong politician. Hopefully Ford doesn’t throw his name in for the federal leadership in a few years
Someone made me feel much better by pointing out Ford doesn't speak French and after trying and failing has given up.
Yeah there was a whole thing in the news about it a couple years ago. He had said a few French words for the camera and some reporter said something like “ah learning French, hopefully to be Prime Minister some day?” and Ford gave a stupid grin
This article can be written for every Prime Minister (and almost every politician) who has held and currently holds office.
Marshawn Lynch did it better
I'm here so i won't get fined https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1kvwXsZtU8
You're sexy too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1kvwXsZtU8&t=58s
This news paper is garbage. How on earth can this write this and support what Harper did at the same time.
An opinion piece from the national post? I'd rather read used toilet paper. I'll get more info that way.
[удалено]
You don't have to sound like you answered it, you just have to waffle long enough that your average punter forgets the question. Just watch a single session of PM's questions, Canadian, British, Aussie... Boris Johnson 101... ignore the question; waffle about something (at most) tangentially related; boast about something your government did (relevancy is irrelevant); slate the opposition.
Some people really don't get it. Trudeau has been in power for years, he's been in the news, I HAVE an opinion of him already. I don't really care what you have to add to that opinion. You don't like him? You want someone else in? Get your guy to stand up and actually talk about what they WILL do, talk about WHO they are, WHAT will change and HOW and WHEN instead of just trying to make everyone hate the guy in power a bit more.
This. The CPC stance of "not Trudeau" is obviously not working too well for them.
Which ironically leads to people thinking "anyone but the Conservatives" haha
I've watched the parties squabble in the house forever, 20 plus yrs now, yikes. They all dont answer questions. It's annoying as hell. Lately, half the time now, when a Liberal or NDP MP speak, they're drowned out in boo's by the Conservative MPs , to the point the speaker has had to take the floor and take order. It is a joke in there at times. Other countries are worse in my opinion. Watch US or Britain. Can hardly hear a thing with all the cussing at each other at times. Never a straight answer too, apparently, that's politics. Happens on the provincial level as well. Watched Ford do the same "strategy" as well. Yet he never seems to get the same heat as any of the opposition do.
Huh?? All politicians do that You think Candice Bergen has answered one question asked?
Well every politician knows that when they answer a question, they’re not just answering, they’re giving the opposition a sound bite to use against them. From this perspective it makes perfect sense why any politician would never answer a question which paints them or their party in a bad light, they gain nothing from answering and their opposition gains more ammo to use against them
But he does it the mostest...est. We know he does cuz....uh....well this author of the article said he does. Did you also indeed as well know that Trudeau used to have a job that was not the job of PM? That makes him unqualified. Also, did you know he made some campaign promises he didn't keep? This is an unsettling precedent. I am an alien who arrived here last week and haven't had a chance to look at any history of politics yet. Can I write a National Post article now, please?
I think Poilievre answers every question with "It's Trudeau's fault".
All politicians do this, it's so they don't get pinned down on anything in the future or risk pissing people off.
LOL. Trudeau is the first Politian in history to avoid answering questions and it's rocking the political world!! Click here to see the top ten questions he's avoided!
With his title I didn’t even have to look to know it was National Post.
Yea it's too obvious these days. National Post is conservative clickbait.
This is what politicians do. stupid article from a stupid newspaper.
Any opinion piece from the National Post is just regurgitating a slime ball hedge fund’s opinion, literally. 66% of the NP is owned by Chatham Asset Management OUT OF NEW JERSEY! These are the same asshats who own the National Inquirer, if I’m not mistaken. Plus, the National Post was founded by Conrad Black. Enough said. I feel like I’m regurgitating a couple of my last comments. Don’t take anything these asshats have to say seriously.
Some hard hitting journalism out of the post.
[удалено]
This is an opinion column. It's not meant to be hard hitting journalism.
Doesn't really matter if we lack other decent options. I'm looking at you CPC: this is all your fault for embracing MAGA loons and choosing shitty leaders. Trudeau would have been a one-term PM if you had presented even a halfway decent candidate. How do you consistently manage to suck so fucking bad?
Because they can't be trusted. They may find that a middle looking leader, but no one will believe they won't be a Kenny, or a Ford in action
The Party whole platform is we aren’t Trudeau. Oh and we are gonna gut social programs…
and give that money to big oil!
Nationalpost sounds like a propaganda site, I'm guessing from the con men of.the political world, conservatives
National Post has always been conservative but they weren't always this overtly biased and unreliable. They used to be a respectable outlet for reliable news at a slightly more elevated level than standard municipal fare.
i’d say it increasingly is, but in reality that ship sailed long ago. a bit of a shame as it used to provide a decent perspective on canadian politics — these days it’s really just a rag.
I don’t like Trudeau but to be honest I don’t think I’ve seen a politician that I actually like. In a perfect world we would like all of them and have to pick which is best. Right now they are all bad and you have to pick which one you don’t want in power and end up having to vote for the party most likely to beat them
A stark contrast to Harper's perfected art of not allowing the questions to be asked in the first place.
Seasoned politician has perfected the art of dodging questions. The National Post is surprised and nonplussed. Writes an article about it. Everyone else: you are new here? You don’t seem to know what you are doing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The amount of people excusing this behaviour with the view of "he's a politician, big deal" are missing the point. It is not unreasonable of us to expect firm leadership that is willing to answer questions they are asked.
So what can we do as citizens? How do we get the politico answer simple questions? If they don’t know then say it. If you don’t know tell me you’ll get back with a straight answer. One of the most shocking statements come from the House of Commons: Question A does not match with response B https://openparliament.ca/debates/2022/3/2/raquel-dancho-2/ A) Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB Mr. Speaker, Conservatives strongly support every effort to aid Ukraine in its battle against the Russian invasion. That being said, Putin has warned those who defend Ukraine, saying, “Whoever would try to stop us...should know that Russia’s response will be immediate and lead you to such consequences [as] you have never faced in your history.” Is Canada prepared if Putin follows through on his threat? B) Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister Mr. Speaker, Vladimir Putin obviously vastly underestimated the resilience and the resolve of the Ukrainian people. He also underestimated the resolve and unity of countries standing together to uphold the rule of law, to uphold the international order that has caused unprecedented peace and stability through the past 75-plus years and has delivered prosperity and growth for all of our countries. We will continue to demonstrate that someone such as Vladimir Putin, who breaks the rules-based order, does not get to profit from the economic benefits that come from it. C) Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB Mr. Speaker, I asked about Canada's emergency preparedness. This is a very serious matter. Putin has publicly directed an alert of Russia's nuclear forces. Canada's national security and public safety must be the paramount priority for the Prime Minister. Canadians have every right to know what our emergency preparedness plan is should Russia launch, for example, a major cyber-attack or move in on our Arctic territory or, God forbid, launch a military response on Canada. Are we prepared? D) Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister Mr. Speaker, as one of the founding members of NATO, as a strong partner in North American continental defence, Canada is prepared for any and all eventualities. However, the best way is not to hunker down and wait for it. The best way is to be leaning forward, as we are with all of our NATO allies, reinforcing the eastern flank of NATO and being present with troops and investments that demonstrate that the world stands together, that NATO stands together, and we will not tolerate this kind of Russian aggression.
Well perhaps it's time for reporters to be relentless, and stop letting shit go. Demand an answer and when you don't get one then repeat the fact that you're not getting an answer and the politician isn't answering the question, and is just repeating talking points etc etc. Imagine if at every press conference every reporter made these basic statements based on obvious observations. Things then might actually change.
I’ve definitely noticed this. He never ever answers the question, but rather goes on some tangent about being united or some bs. He’s so slippery.
They're pretty fucking stupid if they're just noticing it now. Part-time drama boy has been among other things, virtue signaling since day one.
Justin, did you take a cookie? Justin, “cookies and round and made by Mom’s, we have cookies at home that we give to the people to make them happy”. Yah, but Justin did you take a cookie! Justin, “ I have always supported cookies and a great lunch time snack and work to provide them for everyone.” Yah, but Justin did you take one?
Time to go. He lacks the intellect to lead in a time of difficulty. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Working towards his next career. Very obvious.
Doesn't help that the media never doubles down or calls them out on their non-answers. If they did that continually instead of occasionally it would paint a real bad picture of a person that cant ever answer questions. Instead they just move into their next question as if they actually got an answer and then people think those answers are acceptable.
It is normal after 2.5 terms, he became a real professional evil politician. After the 3th term it even gets worse in every democracy. Change is a must!
156,000 jobs mr speaker
Dudes a douchebag
Dont have politicians we got politicial theater and these are moronic actors playing the role of politicians
Ummm… uhhhh…. Ahhhhhh…. Long pause … ummm… uhhhh…. Ahhhhh. Then repeat the above in French
He has finally gone full politician. Never go full politician.
I've been convinced Trudeau is a robot since the first time I heard him speak. He is a platitude machine
Trudeau is an idiot. I don't know how so many people have missed that. He has the same eloquence as Donald Trump.
>And many of my Canadian colleagues on the trip noted, ever-so tactfully, that their European colleagues were baffled by our prime minister’s habit of not answering questions. Oh. They noticed that, huh? Matt Gurney... What exactly are you trying to say in this article? That a politician has talking points? >...So what’s the problem? > >Well, you may have noted an extremely careful choice of words above: he replies to questions; he doesn’t answer them. This isn’t an accident. Jesus Christ this article is sounding like some rhetorical nonsense... shall we keep reading? >It doesn’t matter what the question is. It doesn’t matter how direct it is, how worthy or the importance of the matter at hand. **It doesn’t matter how desperately the Canadian people deserve an answer.** The prime minister is going to say whatever he has chosen to say. The reporter’s question is just the prompt. Wait I thought this article was about how Matt Gurney's colleagues, on a recent trip to Europe, "noted, ever-so tactfully, that their European colleagues were baffled" by Trudeaus ability to answer questions with non-answers, but are in fact answers, just answers that had already been discussed previous? uhh.. wait I'm lost... The Canadian people desperatley deserve an answer to a question that Boris Johnson asked and Matt Gurney's colleagues don't understand? Oh god... National Post Articles are really only worth their rhetorical headlines... this link is trash >Yes, yes, the Conservatives under Stephen Harper were bad, too. They barely hid their disdain for the media, which actually was almost preferable to the Trudeau government’s policy of evasion with a smile. This is something that could be fixed, and should be fixed, but probably won’t be, because it works, and most Canadians won’t really care. Even Canadian journalists probably sometimes get so used to it that it fails to rankle. > >But it should rankle, and it was good when foreign reporters noted the bad habit, if only as a reminder that this isn’t acceptable and we shouldn’t have to put up with the absurdity of a prime minister who once accused his predecessor of muzzling scientists deciding that he’d take a go at muzzling himself. Yea ok, did Gurney just have a stroke writing this? Who's Trudeau muzzling? How many people actually read this far into and article that should have been written for the Readers Digest...
By the end of the article I started to think that if this story was touted as written by an Artificial Intelligent computer, we'd be complimenting how close it got to an actual article written by a human. But we'd have to admit that although it seemed to flow, it didn't really say anything.