Canadian leaders debates - 2015

583 posts / 0 new
Last post
Misfit Misfit's picture

And Unionist, I did not see your post before mine. You phrased what I was trying to convey so well.

Stockholm

I agree - let's hear from the Green party - and people who want to hear Elizabeth May's tedious droning can see MORE of her when she has her own little debate with Mario Beaulieu and Jean-Francois Fortin!!

onlinediscountanvils

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

I think Layton made a mistake by caving in in 2008 and letting a fringe party quack like Elizabeth May get juxtaposed with leaders of real parties. If she ever leads the Greens to 12 or more seats - then she can be in a leaders debate with the big boys. Until then she can have a place at the children's table with the leaders of the Bloc Quebecois and Force et Democratie  

Oh geez, sorry everyone! Software problem. My "ignore" function got temporarily overridden by my "flag as disgusting" function!

My interest in the leaders debates is probably on par with Slumberjack's, but Unionist's post highlights the main reason why I think May should be in the debates with Harper et al. When only 25% of our MPs are women, it's long past time to bury the patriarchy and let them howl.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

What would be your take on the Greens at the debates if the Greens were led by Robert May?

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I think the Green Party would have the most negative effect on the Liberals. The centre is where the people are, and any new party has to go there, whether it is green or some kind of nationalist.

However my partisan calculations should not be used to determine whether she is in the debates or not. There should be some rule which is always followed. 

Aristotleded24

NorthReport wrote:
You are wrong Ari.

There needs to be standards documented in election law. Just because some group, as it does not matter which group can make a lot of noise in the mainstream press, but has less than 4% per cent support, is not a valid reason why. We do not have a PR system in place and probly never will. If that were to change then it might be worth considering but not now.

So under that criteria, you would be fine with the New Brunswick and PEI sections of the NDP to be excluded from the televised debates that are set to occur during each province's next provincial election?

NorthReport

I think the suggestion of having 2 groups of debates is an excellent one

One group for Harper
Mulcair and Trudeau and one for the rest

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Misfit wrote:
I'm not Green, but I do support May's participation in the debates. Preston Manning and Duceppe were allowed to debate when they had no seats nor representation across Canada while the Greens field candidates in all constituencies and have representation in the House of Commons. Elizabeth May is too articulate and too knowledgeable about pipelines and oil extraction and that is why she is not welcome.

Also not a Green Party supporter (though I'd probably vote for Paul Manly if I lived in the riding of Nanaimo--Ladysmith -- it was disgraceful of the NDP to reject him as a candidate for nomination), I too support May's participation in the debates; and I agree with you that the likely reason she was not allowed in the debates in 2011 is because she is too knowledgeable about pipelines and extraction.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Misfit wrote:
I also agree with Aristotled24. This very same line of reasoning can be used against the NDP to keep them out if their popularity falls for whatever reason. And, Elizabeth May does not wish to talk about the wonderful imaginary middle class, she is there to discuss pipelines, fracking, and oil extraction, issues which I feel no other party wants to give more than token recognition to, if that.

+1

Misfit Misfit's picture

@Left Turn, and I would vote for Manley as well. I am disgusted with what the NDP did to him.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I also want to say that I agree with onlinediscountanvil 100%. I have not agreed with everything Elizabeth May has said or done, but she is definitely a fantastly articulate leader and she is a positive role model for young women who aspire to run for public office some day. I also know that at a debate, Elizabeth May will shine.

keenanmiltonthomas

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

Anyway from what I understand May will not be allowed to participate in the leaders debates in this election as well.

Quote:
Although there are usually a dozen or so political parties registered with Elections Canada at any given time, not all party leaders participate in the debate. The rules have shifted over time, but the most accepted criteria requires that a political party needs to have representation in the House of Commons as well as proven popular support in the country of at least 5 per cent of popular vote in the polls.[1] Over the years, there have been at least three, and as many as five, leaders at each such debate.

In this parliament the Green Party has representation in the House of Commons and they have been polling higher than 5 per cent of popular vote.

Just in response to those saying the Green Party is consistently polling under 5%, take a look here: http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html In Eric Grenier's compiled polling data, the Greens are somewhere between 5.4% - 7.5% while no other small party (including the Bloc & Forces et Démocratie) is polling above 5%.

With representation in the House, candidates (presumably) running in all 338 ridings AND more than 5% popular support, Elizabeth May will most likely be in the debate. Although, as others have mentioned, the lack of clear rules may allow the broadcast consortium to deny her particpation. However,  I imagine that it wouldn't go over very well if that happened; the Greens and their supporters would put up even more resistance than they did in 2008, garnering more sympathy votes as others have pointed out.

It'll be interesting to see how the UK Green Party Leader does in the debate and how well her party does in their general election in May.

Stockholm

We should not clutter the leaders debate with insignificant fringe party leaders like Elizabeth May who essentially lead "vanity parties". Let the small party leaders have a little debate amongst themselves and then let the leaders of the parties that are serious contenders for power have it out on another night.

Aristotleded24

Stockholm, in Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick, your post can be slightly modified to read:

Quote:
We should not clutter the leaders debate with insignificant fringe parties like the NDP who essentially lead "vanity parties". Let the small party leaders have a little debate amongst themselves and then let the leaders of the parties that are serious contenders for power have it out on another night.

As for whether or not she leads a "vanity party?" That's a matter of opinion, some think so, others don't.

Stockholm

In New Brunswick and PEI they don't face the possibility of a useless six way debate circus where the incumbent will get off unscathed in a demolition derby. I also don't want may in the debate because she is just there to be a second Liberal leader who will just spend her time defending Trudeau and attacking Mulcair - all the while being her usual arrogant, sanctimonious self - yecch!

NorthReport

She does indeed need to step down, either before or right after the next election. and actually if she were to step down now, the Greens would end up having better results. Last time after all she only got less than 4% for goodness sakes, 3.9% support to be exact. 

Unionist

How can Jack Layton be dead, and these anti-democratic opinions be alive and well?

Further proof that there is no just Creator in the universe.

 

NorthReport

Why would folks who dislike Harper so much put spokes in the wheels of those with the best chance of bringing him down? 

And not democratic in the least. As has been suggested let's have 2 debate groupings. 

One for the main players and one for the bit players.

Consider it like soccer. It will take a while, a lot longer than Canadians want, for Canada to be accepted into the big leagues. 

Brachina

 I think a fair comprise between practical and fair would be to have some debates with all leaders represented in the house and and some with just Mulcair, Harper and Himer, er I mean Trudeau. I believe it how some countries deal with it. 

 

 Both Mulcair and Harper want more debates and this would give them the excuse they need.

keenanmiltonthomas

Stockholm wrote:
In New Brunswick and PEI they don't face the possibility of a useless six way debate circus where the incumbent will get off unscathed in a demolition derby. I also don't want may in the debate because she is just there to be a second Liberal leader who will just spend her time defending Trudeau and attacking Mulcair - all the while being her usual arrogant, sanctimonious self - yecch!
Here are multiple instances demonstrating issues (pretty significant ones too!) where Elizabeth May and the Green Party disagree with the Trudeau Liberals: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/08/06/green_party_shames_ndp_and_liberals_with_clear_view_on_gaza_siddiqui.html http://www.straight.com/news/818486/elizabeth-may-condemns-bill-c-51-saying-it-would-create-secret-police-force http://www.greenparty.ca/en/media-release/2015-01-25/elizabeth-may-surprised-justin-trudeau-has-ducked-critical-need-federal Not to mention their differing opinions on pipelines and tar sands development. Also I don't understand the need to hurl insults as a way to get your argument across, I mean come on, we're allowed to disagree, but be respectful!

keenanmiltonthomas

NorthReport wrote:

She does indeed need to step down, either before or right after the next election. and actually if she were to step down now, the Greens would end up having better results. Last time after all she only got less than 4% for goodness sakes, 3.9% support to be exact. 

I doubt that'll happen, May has made the Green Party more relevant than ever before, yes the Greens only got 3.9% of the popular vote last time, but she won a seat and this time around, I think they'll win 2 (perhaps 3, but that might be pushing it). The fact that the Greens had to funnel their resources into select ridings to have a chance of winning is just the reality of First-Past-the-Post, you can't blame them really, what else is there to do?

NorthReport

I think she

 

May  should be allowed in as long as she wears her "I am part of team liberal" jacket during the debates

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I think that when asked a question, Trudeau and May should be permitted 90 seconds to confer, but then must give one mutually agreed upon answer.

grangerock

As a woman, I see EMay as not a good role model--she gossips and is not classy--remember the nasty letter she wrote about Andrea Horwath in the Ontario provincial election--very unbecoming for a leader to attack another leader in the way she did.  She reminds me of a classic bully--bragging about how hard she works and everyone is her friend until they're not.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

British artist Bridget Riley did some nice op-art in the 60s which was red and green stripes. 

A vote for the Liberals or the Greens is a vote for the Cons or vote NDP. 

 

keenanmiltonthomas

NorthReport wrote:

I think she

 

May  should be allowed in as long as she wears her "I am part of team liberal" jacket during the debates

 

 

 

 

 

You keep saying that May is a Liberal, where's the evidence? So ridiculous.

Aristotleded24

keenanmiltonthomas wrote:
Not to mention their differing opinions on pipelines and tar sands development. Also I don't understand the need to hurl insults as a way to get your argument across, I mean come on, we're allowed to disagree, but be respectful!

Grangerock has demonstrated in other threads how the Green Party supports pipelines just like anyone else.

keenanmiltonthomas

Aristotleded24 wrote:

keenanmiltonthomas wrote:
Not to mention their differing opinions on pipelines and tar sands development. Also I don't understand the need to hurl insults as a way to get your argument across, I mean come on, we're allowed to disagree, but be respectful!

Grangerock has demonstrated in other threads how the Green Party supports pipelines just like anyone else.

Grangerock didn't do their research then! http://greenparty.ca/en/blog/2014-11-14/pipeline-politics

Aristotleded24

keenanmiltonthomas wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

keenanmiltonthomas wrote:
Not to mention their differing opinions on pipelines and tar sands development. Also I don't understand the need to hurl insults as a way to get your argument across, I mean come on, we're allowed to disagree, but be respectful!

Grangerock has demonstrated in other threads how the Green Party supports pipelines just like anyone else.

Grangerock didn't do their research then! http://greenparty.ca/en/blog/2014-11-14/pipeline-politics

Actually, I made a huge mistake here. It was not grangerock who exposed this, it was [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/greens-and-liberals-dirty-party-po... and my apologies to both of you. Green support for pipeines was exposed [url=http://www.greenparty.ca/en/media-release/2012-08-02/greens-welcome-onta...

Quote:
“In the wake of the 2010 Enbridge spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan and findings of US regulators that its corporate culture resembled 'Keystone Kops,' you would think Enbridge would have read the riot act to all its operations to avoid spills.  But just days ago, Enbridge had a new pipeline spill in Wisconsin,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands. “I am all in favour of getting Alberta oil to refineries in Eastern Canada, but the reversal of Line 9 must be approved only if and when the pipeline is refurbished to the highest industry standards.  Bitumen crude and diluents are almost impossible to clean up. Canada's energy security can be enhanced if, and only if, Enbridge accepts its responsibility to operate Line 9 to higher standards."

and [url=http://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/9/29/bruce-hyer-1/]here:[/url]

Quote:
We should look after Canadians' needs first. An east-west pipeline could allow us to do just that. It would reduce our dependency on foreign oil and would create long-term jobs here at home instead of exporting them to the United States and communist China, and FIPA makes that even worse. A cross-country pipeline would reduce our huge trade deficit, giving Canada self-sufficient energy security.

I am not talking about TransCanada's proposed energy east pipeline. I am opposed to energy east as it is currently proposed. Any pipeline from west to east must be brand new and double walled. It must have leak sensors between the walls and shut-off controls that are proven to work. Any pipeline must be virtually spill-proof. It also cannot carry diluted bitumen or dilbit, as proposed by energy east. Tar sands bitumen must be upgraded to synthetic crude before it enters Ontario.

The Green Party knows we will not stop using oil overnight. Any transition to sustainable sources will take time.

keenanmiltonthomas

Aristotleded24 wrote:

keenanmiltonthomas wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

keenanmiltonthomas wrote:
Not to mention their differing opinions on pipelines and tar sands development. Also I don't understand the need to hurl insults as a way to get your argument across, I mean come on, we're allowed to disagree, but be respectful!

Grangerock has demonstrated in other threads how the Green Party supports pipelines just like anyone else.

Grangerock didn't do their research then! http://greenparty.ca/en/blog/2014-11-14/pipeline-politics

Actually, I made a huge mistake here. It was not grangerock who exposed this, it was [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/greens-and-liberals-dirty-party-po... and my apologies to both of you. Green support for pipeines was exposed [url=http://www.greenparty.ca/en/media-release/2012-08-02/greens-welcome-onta...

Quote:
“In the wake of the 2010 Enbridge spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan and findings of US regulators that its corporate culture resembled 'Keystone Kops,' you would think Enbridge would have read the riot act to all its operations to avoid spills.  But just days ago, Enbridge had a new pipeline spill in Wisconsin,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands. “I am all in favour of getting Alberta oil to refineries in Eastern Canada, but the reversal of Line 9 must be approved only if and when the pipeline is refurbished to the highest industry standards.  Bitumen crude and diluents are almost impossible to clean up. Canada's energy security can be enhanced if, and only if, Enbridge accepts its responsibility to operate Line 9 to higher standards."

and [url=http://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/9/29/bruce-hyer-1/]here:[/url]

Quote:
We should look after Canadians' needs first. An east-west pipeline could allow us to do just that. It would reduce our dependency on foreign oil and would create long-term jobs here at home instead of exporting them to the United States and communist China, and FIPA makes that even worse. A cross-country pipeline would reduce our huge trade deficit, giving Canada self-sufficient energy security.

I am not talking about TransCanada's proposed energy east pipeline. I am opposed to energy east as it is currently proposed. Any pipeline from west to east must be brand new and double walled. It must have leak sensors between the walls and shut-off controls that are proven to work. Any pipeline must be virtually spill-proof. It also cannot carry diluted bitumen or dilbit, as proposed by energy east. Tar sands bitumen must be upgraded to synthetic crude before it enters Ontario.

The Green Party knows we will not stop using oil overnight. Any transition to sustainable sources will take time.

I take issue with this being used as proof enough to label the Green Party and Elizabeth May as 'pro-pipelines'. Contrasted with the other major political parties, the Green Party's position on pipelines is very different. Yes, they are willing to support a pipeline from West to East, however, unlike the other parties, they are calling for a very different West-East pipeline as demonstrated by the quote above regarding Energy East. In reality the Greens are pro-pipeline (singular!) with pretty major caveats.

Aristotleded24

keenanmiltonthomas wrote:
In reality the Greens are pro-pipeline (singular!) with pretty major caveats.

I still don't see the materail difference between the Green Party position and the position as articulated by Thomas Mulcair.

Pondering

How much impact do the debates have? I suspect all the leaders have to do is appear presentable not necessarily "win" the debate.

addictedtomyipod

Aristotleded24 wrote:

keenanmiltonthomas wrote:
In reality the Greens are pro-pipeline (singular!) with pretty major caveats.

I still don't see the materail difference between the Green Party position and the position as articulated by Thomas Mulcair.

I agree, the Green position on pipelines is not much different than the NDP's.  But it doesn't really matter what their position is on anything, as we have no idea how each individual MP will vote on any given issue.  We know for sure that Bruce Hyer will support a pipeline, guns and war. I have heard Lizzie support a west east pipeline on several occasions, so I'm sure she would support a pipeline.  The Greens spend an awful lot of time confusing their position on anything, and keep sending out mixed messages.  I emailed Peter O'Neil after reading his article in the VanSun, correcting him on what May said (We're the only Party against all pipelines).  He replied that the Greens are just doing what the old Reform Party did and allowing MP's to pitch their own ideas and not reflect party policy.  I call this misrepresentation and that is what the Greens are all about. Is this Lizzie's new way of doing politics?  It appears so.

 

ajaykumar

Very democratic to leave the Greens out. I know that NDPers are worried about the Greens in BC. Its no longer a fringe party. NDP doesnt have a seat in New Brunswick, Greens do. Next time, Lets ban the NDP from New Brunswick debate, and see the reaction from the NDP. Debate! what are the NDPers afraid of? BTW debates dont matter. Adrian Dix won the debate , a lot of good it did the NDP. Hudak won debate. I know the NDP doesnt like to give everyone an equal oppotunity, but lets be fair. Socialism is all about fairness. BTW how is the satellite offices news working for the party of the downtrodden workers? How many daycare spaces could be created with $2.7 million? How many jobs for the youth? The sponsorship scandal costed $ 2 million. The NDPs satellite offices costed $2.7, oh and I also forgot the mailings!!! I justed looked at NDP.ca, its filled with Reality Checks on Trudeau, its encouraging to see an opposition party holding another opposition party to account!!!!!!!!!!

keenanmiltonthomas

addictedtomyipod wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

keenanmiltonthomas wrote:
In reality the Greens are pro-pipeline (singular!) with pretty major caveats.

I still don't see the materail difference between the Green Party position and the position as articulated by Thomas Mulcair.

I agree, the Green position on pipelines is not much different than the NDP's.  But it doesn't really matter what their position is on anything, as we have no idea how each individual MP will vote on any given issue.  We know for sure that Bruce Hyer will support a pipeline, guns and war. I have heard Lizzie support a west east pipeline on several occasions, so I'm sure she would support a pipeline.  The Greens spend an awful lot of time confusing their position on anything, and keep sending out mixed messages.  I emailed Peter O'Neil after reading his article in the VanSun, correcting him on what May said (We're the only Party against all pipelines).  He replied that the Greens are just doing what the old Reform Party did and allowing MP's to pitch their own ideas and not reflect party policy.  I call this misrepresentation and that is what the Greens are all about. Is this Lizzie's new way of doing politics?  It appears so.

 

 

In my opinion the Green position on energy East is much more nuanced.  If you go to this link: http://elizabethmaymp.ca/news/publications/island-tides/2013/04/25/pipel...

You can see that the Greens and May are much more clear and precise about what they would like to see happen with energy East.  

As for the ability of Green MPs to vote as they wish and articulate their individual opinions,  I see this as a strength. There is far too much partisanship in parliament as I'm sure most of us can agree and what better way to reduce that partisanship than with thoughtful,  real discussion of the issues facing Canadians?  

Jacob Two-Two

But are the Greens making that clear to voters? That what one Green Party candidate says doesn't necessarily apply to any other, or the party in general? Because that's not the kind of politics people are used to, and I think it needs to be quite clear to avoid misleading people. I don't see the Greens making a case for an agenda-less party. I don't follow the Greens that closely, but from my limited perspective it looks like they talk out of both sides of their mouth in order to confuse people and win their vote without them knowing quite what they're voting for.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The big danger of Trudeau is economic mismanagement on the scale of Paul Martin.

Massive cuts to social services, health, welfare. The Chretien/Martin government was a very bad time for the poor in Canada, as modern times are. 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

We have 18 refineries across Canada. Why do we need to pipe the shit so far in any direction? Any idea which reduces the amount of pipeline is good. Gas is good for pipelines. Heavy tar-oil moving at high speed? Why can't we turn it into something useful closer to where it is sourced? What is wrong with the concept of added value? Is this unknown in Canadian business school?

They are always whining Canada can't get the world price. You make more money using oil than selling it. The Americans banned the export of it a long time ago and Canada should get a clue. America considers oil to be a "strategic reserve". Canadian policymakers wouldn't even know what that means.

China have said they want to move away from exporting commodities and low-value added materials. They have decided this with a GDP of under $10,000 per capita. Canada is at $52,000 and they have not made this decision yet. 

 

 

addictedtomyipod

keenanmiltonthomas wrote:

addictedtomyipod wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

keenanmiltonthomas wrote:
In reality the Greens are pro-pipeline (singular!) with pretty major caveats.

I still don't see the materail difference between the Green Party position and the position as articulated by Thomas Mulcair.

I agree, the Green position on pipelines is not much different than the NDP's.  But it doesn't really matter what their position is on anything, as we have no idea how each individual MP will vote on any given issue.  We know for sure that Bruce Hyer will support a pipeline, guns and war. I have heard Lizzie support a west east pipeline on several occasions, so I'm sure she would support a pipeline.  The Greens spend an awful lot of time confusing their position on anything, and keep sending out mixed messages.  I emailed Peter O'Neil after reading his article in the VanSun, correcting him on what May said (We're the only Party against all pipelines).  He replied that the Greens are just doing what the old Reform Party did and allowing MP's to pitch their own ideas and not reflect party policy.  I call this misrepresentation and that is what the Greens are all about. Is this Lizzie's new way of doing politics?  It appears so.

 

 

In my opinion the Green position on energy East is much more nuanced.  If you go to this link: http://elizabethmaymp.ca/news/publications/island-tides/2013/04/25/pipel...

You can see that the Greens and May are much more clear and precise about what they would like to see happen with energy East.  

As for the ability of Green MPs to vote as they wish and articulate their individual opinions,  I see this as a strength. There is far too much partisanship in parliament as I'm sure most of us can agree and what better way to reduce that partisanship than with thoughtful,  real discussion of the issues facing Canadians?  

If the Greens want to share their opinion of energy east then they should do it honestly.  But they don't, instead they choose to play politics with this issue and that drives me nuts.

If the Greens want to let their MP's behave like independents, then they should not use a party system to forward their agenda.  Your always want to have it both ways.

If a party takes a position on something, it is because of discussion with its supporters and votes from members.  Once a position is taken and campaigned on it is honest to back it up with votes in the HOC, with a party whip if necessary.  The Greens want to take a position and leave it at the door. They also want to use this issue to demonize all the large parties.  Oh look, those big bad parties, look at what they do.  We would never, ever do something like that.  

Do you realize that your support of the Greens will get you nothing?  

NorthReport

Ask the liberal supporters how well it went for Ignatieff

Pondering wrote:

How much impact do the debates have? I suspect all the leaders have to do is appear presentable not necessarily "win" the debate.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I'm not sure I see the relevance of the Greens having a slightly different perspective on a few issues.  Sure, parties are going to agree on a great many things, but isn't just about ANY party going to have a few ideas that differ from other parties?  Why would there be two different Communist Parties of Canada if they agreed on every last thing??

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

Ask the liberal supporters how well it went for Ignatieff

Pondering wrote:

How much impact do the debates have? I suspect all the leaders have to do is appear presentable not necessarily "win" the debate.

As I said, they have to appear presentable. Ignatieff failed to prepare for the debate. Trudeau won't make that mistake.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Just curious:  did you know beforehand that Ignatieff would? 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

No matter how badly Ignatieff did, Trudeau will not be 1% of the debater Ignatieff was. Igantieff can talk in a clear, relaxed and empathetic tone about very complex issues, even though he is a pro-torture neo-liberal hatchet-boy. Trudeau can read off of sheets, which is not useful in debate.

Ignatieff said there was a red door and a blue door, and everyone knew they went into the same room. Trudeau could not come up with this kind of Ignatieffian con-artistry on his own. Ignatieff would write long policy briefs all on his own. He even wrote a book which dealt with sophisticated issues of Canadian identity and advocated that Quebec should be recognised as a nation. Ignatieff is one of the most brilliant snake-oil salesmen Canadians have encountered since Preston Manning.

ajaykumar

NDP relying on debates would be a huge mistake. Debates are only for undecided voters, and undecided voters vote for CPC or the LPC. Trudeau has been debating at Mcgill! I have seen Mulcair's interviews, he avoids question, doesnt answer clearly. Bob Rae outshined Mulcair in the HOC, until Trudeau was elected! Mulcair is a good actor, not a debator. Historically, NDP leaders have been better debators than the rest of the leaders because theyve never been in government and so dont have anything to defend. And keep in mind that thanks to consistent scrutiny and focus of attacks on Trudeau by Sun News, National Post, sections of CBC, and Globe and Mail, people already know him well. Expectations are already set. Debates wont change them. In 2011, the NDP ran a negative campaign aimed at the Liberals. I cant remember a single policy that NDP put that resonated with Canadians. I also believe that the media helped the NDP to reduce the Liberal vote, as many newspapers are tory backers. And the liberals werent expecting an election, they werent prepared, lacked funding, volunteers etc...It took Jack Layton 4 elections to bring the party to offical opposition election. I dont think Mulcair can bring the NDP to power or even hold on to official opposition in one election. Trudeau "brand" is also very powerful, older Canadians love Pierre Trudeau. he was declared the grestest canadian PM. JT is called dumb by NDP/CPC supporters, which is quite offensive. And those who call him dumb , should apply to McGill and graduate with a degree and then talk! 

Aristotleded24

ajaykumar wrote:
Trudeau "brand" is also very powerful, older Canadians love Pierre Trudeau.

Not in my part of the country they don't.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The Trudeau name is likely to be a great uniting force in this election.

But not in the way the Liberals intend.

nicky

Yes Pondering Justin will prepare

I have heard from people who purport to know that he spends two hours a day with a media consultant preparing on how to present himself.

He will memorize about 25 set answers and pray that they somehow relate to the questions that get asked.

You and I both know what will happen if he actually has to think on his feet.

Pondering

montrealer58 wrote:

No matter how badly Ignatieff did, Trudeau will not be 1% of the debater Ignatieff was. Igantieff can talk in a clear, relaxed and empathetic tone about very complex issues, even though he is a pro-torture neo-liberal hatchet-boy. Trudeau can read off of sheets, which is not useful in debate.

Ignatieff said there was a red door and a blue door, and everyone knew they went into the same room. Trudeau could not come up with this kind of Ignatieffian con-artistry on his own. Ignatieff would write long policy briefs all on his own. He even wrote a book which dealt with sophisticated issues of Canadian identity and advocated that Quebec should be recognised as a nation. Ignatieff is one of the most brilliant snake-oil salesmen Canadians have encountered since Preston Manning.

Brilliant though he may be he lost the election because he didn't connect with people. He also did poorly in the debate because he thought he could rely on his intelligence.

Mulcair is well-liked but he is losing based on his political and campaigning decisions.

nicky wrote:
Yes Pondering Justin will prepare I have heard from people who purport to know that he spends two hours a day with a media consultant preparing on how to present himself. He will memorize about 25 set answers and pray that they somehow relate to the questions that get asked. You and I both know what will happen if he actually has to think on his feet.

Good to hear but I was confident that he was preparing anyway. He will "memorize" more than 25 set answers. He will have solid positions on every issue and an answer for every attack. Mulcair may win the debates but Trudeau will win the election.

jjuares

Interesting that this thread will help Justin "win" the debates. These debates are always measured mostly against expectations not so much against the other participants. Comments like the ones found in this thread help to lower expectations and that helps Trudeau. I personally hold Justin in very low regard in terms of his intellect, his positions , his personality and his ethics. But he is very capable of memorizing lines and delivering them with the correct inflexion. He is easily the most scripted politician I have seen but all of them are scripted to some degree so that makes Trudeau different by degree not by kind. That of course is also a great help in minimizing the difference. Ignatieff "lost" the debates for the same reason Trudeau may win them. He was expected to do well. I thought he would slice and dice Harper and Layton badly. Yeah he got flattened in one part of the debate by Layton but the rest wasn't so bad it just wasn't up to the expectations that were placed on him.

Pages