If there is an afterlife, then my late father must be up there somewhere laughing at me – and maybe feeling a little smug.

In 1968, I, like most young people, was absolutely gaga over a fellow named Pierre Trudeau. Like most Canadians, I had no idea what Trudeau did for a living before being elected to Parliament in 1965.

To me and millions of others, Trudeau was just this cool guy who drove a Mercedes convertible, wore an ascot and sandals into the House of Commons, and always looked good in the media because he had something called “charisma.”

My father, who supported Robert Winters, the veteran Trudeau defeated for the Liberal leadership, advised me to learn more about this guy before I became a blind disciple. But, being 18, I, like most young people, paid no attention and joined the strange mania that beset the land.

Over the following years, Trudeau sometimes disappointed me; sometimes, he thrilled me. So, sometimes, I voted for him; sometimes, I didn’t. I suspect that was the case with most Canadians – except in Alberta after the National Energy Policy.

Now that Justin Trudeau has been crowned as the latest messiah to lead the Liberals out of the wilderness, I, like most older Canadians, am astounded how someone with so little political experience has not only taken over the party but has recast the political landscape – just as my father was astounded about Trudeau the Elder.

My father’s theory then was that the Conservatives, with their reliance on fierce partisans such as Erik Nielsen, had done such a good job of discrediting the Pearson government with endless scandals that they wound up discrediting the entire political profession in Canada.

So, as far as voters of 1968 were concerned, the less experience Trudeau had, the less baggage he had.

This is why General Motors Co. learned long ago not to accuse Ford Motor Co. of making unsafe cars for fear the public will wonder about all cars – something the current Conservatives should think about.

The Tory spin machine may have destroyed two consecutive Liberal leaders. But the Tories’ latest set of attack ads seems to have backfired.

In fact, they may be helping Justin Trudeau.

This is partly because the ads are not very good. But it is also because Trudeau has made two good tactical decisions.

He has stuck to the high road so far with his own ads, which accentuate something people may want now- the positive. And when you run a policy-free campaign, there is less that the other guys can use against you.

Sure, Trudeau stumbled badly after the Boston Marathon bombings by talking about the root causes of terrorism at the least appropriate of times. But the prime minister overreacted, to the point of being seen as using a tragedy to score some political points.

On policy, or the lack of it, Trudeau appears to have learned something from one Stephen Harper: Harper likes to do policy by stealth.

With the exception of election promises, key policy decisions are implemented abruptly. No warning. No advance debate (so the Opposition can’t attack you). Just the announcement, as Harper did with his “take it or leave it” position on health-care funding transfers to the provinces.

Despite the sudden Liberal strength in the polls, the Tories will be difficult to dislodge in 2015. But reduction to a minority government is a possibility if the Tories can’t get their act together.

Longtime policy expert Bill Neville warned the incoming Harper government in 2006 that a hostile civil service may not withhold information from their masters, but disclosure might be like someone telling you your parachute is missing just as you are about to jump.

The words of Neville, the late Tory strategist, rang true when the auditor general (AG) reported that $3.1 billion in anti-terrorism funding can’t be accounted for.

Missing paper trails are nothing new in Ottawa. But Treasury Board officials would have known for weeks what the AG was going to report – plenty of time to prepare credible media lines and a plausible narrative for their boss, Tony Clement, for when the damning report was tabled.

Instead, Treasury Board insiders let an obviously unprepared board president attribute the missing money to an accounting problem the way a kid explains that the dog ate his homework.

Clement looked like an idiot. But then the honourable minister has plenty of experience in that regard – just as the bureaucracy has in dealing with governments (and ministers) – they don’t like.

This shouldn’t be any surprise. After all, this government’s default position has been to blame civil servants when things go wrong.

The latest example is Heritage Minister James Moore blaming staff for neglecting to invite Marc Garneau, the Liberal MP who also was Canada’s first astronaut, to the official opening of the Canadarm exhibit at the Aviation Museum in Ottawa.

Civil servants can’t defeat a government by themselves. But they can let one defeat itself. Tory strategists should think hard about that.

© 2013 Investment Executive. All rights reserved.