In the era of Conservative minority governance, scandal management operated according to three basic principles: (1) deny, obfuscate, delay, repeat as necessary; (2) nobody cares about this crap except journalists and lefties; and (3) the Liberals were worse. It was nothing if not effective.
The Conservatives successfully faced down everything from the prorogation backlash to the long-form census debacle, Afghan detainee abuse, Helena Guergis's supposed airport meltdown and her husband Rahim Jaffer's Busty Hooker affair, and Bev Oda's "not" of disputed parentage.
None of these issues concerned corruption, at least. The overall impression, correct so far as we know, was of a relatively clean and law-abiding government. And it was certainly true that the Liberals, at the time the only real alternative, offered a less than compelling remedy.
Some commentators have puzzled over the Conservatives' behaviour in majority governance. Instead of mellowing, they seemed to have lunged out of their shackles, clutching a list of grudges. Parliament is more sour than ever.
When it comes to controversy, they seem to be getting bolder. Consider Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan's astonishing defence of a poll, commissioned by his party, which insinuated to voters that Liberal MP Irwin Cotler had stepped down, or was planning to step down, thus leading to a by-election in his Montreal riding.
Normal people would call this "lying." But for Mr. Van Loan, this is a matter of our fundamental freedoms: "To say that one cannot speculate on [Mr. Cotler's] future, that that form of freedom of speech should forever be suppressed, is to me an overreach that is far too great." This bold defence of BS has not gone unnoticed. Former Conservative strategist Bruce Anderson called it "wrong on every level," which is about right.