Canadian leaders debates - 2015

583 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jacob Two-Two

Has it occurred to you, Pondering, that you're counting on Canadians ignoring everything that matters about politics in order for Justin to win?

According to you, nobody cares about the platform, or the debates, or what happens in parliament, or history and records of the parties, or experience and qualifications, or political accomplishments. It's hard not to see you and the other Liberal boosters as some kind of sociopaths, because if you turn out to be right, THAT OUGHT TO BE HORRIFYING. To a normal person anyway, yet you guys all cheer for this.

Hopefully, you'll be proven wrong. Hopefully for all of us and the country as a whole, we will find out that Canadians do care about these things, and send your boy packing.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
According to you, nobody cares about the platform, or the debates, or what happens in parliament, or history and records of the parties, or experience and qualifications, or political accomplishments. It's hard not to see you and the other Liberal boosters as some kind of sociopaths, because if you turn out to be right, THAT OUGHT TO BE HORRIFYING. To a normal person anyway, yet you guys all cheer for this.

People do care about the platform. I foresee an excellent Liberal platform because Trudeau has attracted top level talent in a multitude of fields. People care about the values of the leader and the team they assemble to stand with them. A strong team provides the expertise. The Liberals are a very professional party. They are current and clever.

People care about the economy and how the country is run not about the day to day shenanigans in the house.

The "history and records" of the parties does count but the sins of individual liberals during particular administrations is not held against the current team. Furthermore the history you think is terrible, such as Martin's cuts of the ninties, are not held against the current liberals either nor even considered terrible by many Canadians.

Intelligent people of good conscience can disagree with you Jacob. It seems the blindness is on your side and it is self-defeating.

nicky

I don't hink we are the ones who are "blind" about Justin's limitations Pondering. You seem to be the one suffering from terminal myopia when you think he is remotely qualified to be PM.

ajaykumar

If NDP/CPC Alliance questions Trudeau's judgement, it should get the grades need to be accepted into Mcgill, graduate, and teach a hard subject like math. #leadersdebate. #foodforthought

Pondering

nicky wrote:

I don't hink we are the ones who are "blind" about Justin's limitations Pondering. You seem to be the one suffering from terminal myopia when you think he is remotely qualified to be PM.

No, you exagerate his limitations and minimize his strengths. It may comfort you but it won't help you recognize your enemy or defeat it.

nicky

AJ, I don't know what marks Justin had to get to get into teachers college but we do know that he did not have the marks to get into law school.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Just curious:  did you know beforehand that Ignatieff would? 

If you are asking me, no, but I voted Layton in 2011 and knew I would long before the debates. I never liked Ignatieff.

keenanmiltonthomas

addictedtomyipod wrote:

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?  

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/media-release/2014-03-07/neb-decision-anothe...

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

People do care about the platform. I foresee an excellent Liberal platform because Trudeau has attracted top level talent in a multitude of fields.

Yes, that's what all your arguments come down to. Your magical powers of precognition. But leaving your crystal ball aside for the moment...

Quote:

People care about the values of the leader and the team they assemble to stand with them. A strong team provides the expertise. The Liberals are a very professional party. They are current and clever.

If the leader doesn't provide expertise then she or he is not actually leading. Just fronting. You're admitting that Justin is just a face on a poster and is not the hand on the tiller.

Quote:

People care about the economy and how the country is run not about the day to day shenanigans in the house.

People who care about this would never vote Liberal. Not if they were acquainted with the party's actual record.

Quote:

The "history and records" of the parties does count but the sins of individual liberals during particular administrations is not held against the current team.

I'm sorry. Which individual Liberals stole over a billion dollars from the EI fund and how did they slip that past the rest of the party? Please explain.

Quote:

Furthermore the history you think is terrible, such as Martin's cuts of the ninties, are not held against the current liberals either nor even considered terrible by many Canadians.

Only because many people have an inaccurate notion of what actually happened in the nineties. The mainstream media covers up the crimes of establishment parties. This is something you freely admit when we aren't talking about the Liberal party and Canada. Did George Bush run a good economy? A lot of USians think he did. Does that make it true? Facts matter Pondering, despite your constant reliance on public opinion, and the facts are clear. The Liberals badly mismanaged the economy in the nineties and the lies that were repeatedly told about that time don't change that. If a lot of people believe something foolish, that doesn't make it less foolish. it actually makes it more, if anything.

Quote:

Intelligent people of good conscience can disagree with you Jacob.

Of course they can. It happens every day. That doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with me is automatically an intelligent person of good conscience. They have to earn that distinction through their actions.

ajaykumar

nicky wrote:
AJ, I don't know what marks Justin had to get to get into teachers college but we do know that he did not have the marks to get into law school.

Its harder to get into teachers college than law school. Generally, people trust teachers more than lawyers. And Trudeau went to top schools like UBC, And Mcgill. 

Jacob Two-Two

Since he didn't get into law school but did get into teacher's college, obviously that is not true.

Unionist

Absolutely amazing, how eager some people are to smear shit on their political opponents, that they can't even focus for 2 seconds on the fact that this thread is supposedly about leaders' debates.

In my humble opinion, you should all get over your atavistic hatred of each other (i.e., Liberals and NDP, so similar, and yet so antagonistic) - what Gerry Caplan calls the "narcissism of small differences" - and get ready now, today, for what needs to happen the day after the election (assuming we manage to hold Harper to a minority - unlikely, if these threads are any indication, but still):

[url=http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/02/07/canadas-2008-electi...’s 2008 election offers lessons for 2015 vote[/url]

Quote:
In 2008, Conservative government blundered in believing opposition would not unite against it and opposition erred in allowing throne speech to pass.

Yeah yeah, I know, I'm not posting about the debates either. I simply decided to smear everyone. Getting into the thrill of the urination!!

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Unionist wrote:

... Yeah yeah, I know, I'm not posting about the debates either. I simply decided to smear everyone. Getting into the thrill of the urination!!

Strictly speaking, it is the other form of bodily waste that smears, urine would more properly be characterized as splattering or soaking.

keenanmiltonthomas
NorthReport

The debates are not that important.

If Harper is not there, Mulcair should probably pull out as well, as what's the point? There doesn't seem to be any sense to this.

Everyone knows the party's positions anyways.

Election debate dates set by broadcasters without Conservatives

English-language debate to be held Oct. 8; French on Oct. 7 - same night as Montreal Canadiens season opener

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-debate-dates-set-by-broadcaster...

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

The debates are not that important.

If Harper is not there, Mulcair should probably pull out as well, as what's the point? There doesn't seem to be any sense to this.

Everyone knows the party's positions anyways.

Election debate dates set by broadcasters without Conservatives

English-language debate to be held Oct. 8; French on Oct. 7 - same night as Montreal Canadiens season opener

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-debate-dates-set-by-broadcaster...

I disagree-- not just becuase of the spectacle of Harper not being where everyone else is.

There is a lot to discuss and it is the anti-Harper vote that has the most flux and hardest decisions.

Mulcair woudl be an idiot to pull out -- it might be one of a few things he could do to give the lead back to Trudeau.

NorthReport

Not a chance. Have you seen the Ontario polls out today?

The race is between Harper and Mulcair, and that is who should be debating.

mark_alfred

I agree with Sean on this one, NR.  The more exposure people have to Tom and the NDP, the more likely it will develop into a solid relationship rather than just a momentary flirtation.  This is the best way to break the Red Door Blue Door fixation, which still has a hold on some people.  Also, I'm confident Tom will be far more impressive than Trudeau in a debate, which will solidify people's commitment that Tom, not Trudeau, is the best and most reliable agent for change.  And, not cowering from any debate sets him apart from both Trudeau and Harper, both of who are cowering from debates (the Women's Issues debate, the Consortium debate, etc.)

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

Not a chance. Have you seen the Ontario polls out today?

The race is between Harper and Mulcair, and that is who should be debating.

The Ontario provincial poll? Why yes, I have seen it.

NorthReport

Mulcair has said he will debate Harper anywhere. The NDP should stick to that. If Harper is not going to be there, there is no point in Mulcair participating.

Election debates take on different lustre, as NDP gain momentum in polls

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/07/09/election-debates-take-on-dif...

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

Mulcair has said he will debate Harper anywhere. The NDP should stick to that. If Harper is not going to be there, there is no point in Mulcair participating.

Election debates take on different lustre, as NDP gain momentum in polls

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/07/09/election-debates-take-on-dif...

That would be a ridiculous gift to Trudeau who would only have to debate with May and they could both attack Mulcair as well as Harper freely.

Given what a strong speaker Mulcair is why would he do that?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

A Liberal/Green debate would be like an old cartoon of Chip 'n Dale.

"You're more awesome!"

"No, YOU are!!"

"But I insist!!"

"After you...!!!"

NorthReport

Mulcair is the front-runner, Harper is the PM.

Why would Mulcair go to any debate where Harper is not present?

What's the point?

And if it's such a wonderful gift to Trudeau then as a Liberal you would be supporting that.

So there you go, we agree, that Mulcair should not attend if Harper is not present.

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Mulcair has said he will debate Harper anywhere. The NDP should stick to that. If Harper is not going to be there, there is no point in Mulcair participating.

Election debates take on different lustre, as NDP gain momentum in polls

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/07/09/election-debates-take-on-dif...

That would be a ridiculous gift to Trudeau who would only have to debate with May and they could both attack Mulcair as well as Harper freely.

Given what a strong speaker Mulcair is why would he do that?

mark_alfred

Mr. Magoo wrote:

A Liberal/Green debate would be like an old cartoon of Chip 'n Dale.

"You're more awesome!"

"No, YOU are!!"

"But I insist!!"

"After you...!!!"

Laughing

NorthReport

So what do you think of Mulcair debating Duceppe without Harper present?

 

mark_alfred

I think that's fine. 

Mind you, I do see your point that debating marginal nobodies like Trudeau and May could possibly damage his profile as a serious contender within the public's consciousness.  The important thing is to look like a serious alternative to the current PM, and engaging with the riff-raff could make him be seen as riff-raff as well.  The main thing is to beat Harper, so why waste time with the riff-raff?

But, I still feel that the more exposure Mulcair has, the better.  So, I do agree with Sean on this issue.  It's a good move for Mulcair to debate the riff-raff as well as debating Harper, the main opponent.

Brachina

Mr. Magoo wrote:

A Liberal/Green debate would be like an old cartoon of Chip 'n Dale.

"You're more awesome!"

"No, YOU are!!"

"But I insist!!"

"After you...!!!"

 

LMAO +1,000,000

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

I think that's fine. 

Mind you, I do see your point that debating marginal nobodies like Trudeau and May could possibly damage his profile as a serious contender within the public's consciousness.  The important thing is to look like a serious alternative to the current PM, and engaging with the riff-raff could make him be seen as riff-raff as well.  The main thing is to beat Harper, so why waste time with the riff-raff?

But, I still feel that the more exposure Mulcair has, the better.  So, I do agree with Sean on this issue.  It's a good move for Mulcair to debate the riff-raff as well as debating Harper, the main opponent.

At least one of those "marginal nobodies" just might surprise you. The first debate is coming up quickly.

Brachina

NorthReport wrote:

So what do you think of Mulcair debating Duceppe without Harper present?

 

 

He will be, Duceppe has been invited to the consortium debates.

NorthReport

Mulcair could send someone else in his place to debate if Harper isn't in the debate?

I notice it is the party that is invited, not necessarily the leader.

Who could Mulcair send to represent the NDP when Harper is not in the debate? 

 

PS It might be helpful to not make comments that so and so is going to win such and such a debate. Or that someone is a better debater than someone else. They all have strengths and weaknesses. They are all party leaders so each will have their chance.

NorthReport

What do you think of the pros and cons?

Brachina wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

So what do you think of Mulcair debating Duceppe without Harper present?

 

 

He will be, Duceppe has been invited to the consortium debates.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Let the audience decide -- with their eyes -- how many debates are too many.

If Harper declines debates, let Mulcair accept them.  Then he can at least say he never ran away from an opportunity to defend what he believes in.  It really doesn't matter how many people watch, so long as he can truthfully claim it.

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

What's wrong with this picture?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_leaders%27_debates#2015_debates

Nothing is wrong with it.

The Liberals have agreed to 3 debates so far. The Macleans on Aug 6th, and the two Broadcast Consortium debates on October 7th and 8th.

On October 5th, two days before the Consortium debate, only the Cons and the NDP have agreed to go on TVA for a French debate. Neither Duceppe nor Trudeau has accepted yet. There is a limit to how many debates people will watch. I assume people will want to watch Harper and Mulcair go head to head, but they may decide just to watch the highlights.

None of the other debates have assigned dates. I suspect the Liberals won't confirm either way until that's decided.

mark_alfred

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Let the audience decide -- with their eyes -- how many debates are too many.

If Harper declines debates, let Mulcair accept them.  Then he can at least say he never ran away from an opportunity to defend what he believes in.  It really doesn't matter how many people watch, so long as he can truthfully claim it.

Agreed.

NorthReport

NDP strategists need to seriously give their heads a shake.

 

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  3h3 hours ago

Personally I can see only downside for @ThomasMulcair in a French debate with Duceppe and without Harper

 

Sean in Ottawa

North Report -- thankfully you do not get to make this call -- it would be a serious mistake.

People who duck from debate will pay dearly.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

North Report -- thankfully you do not get to make this call -- it would be a serious mistake.

People who duck from debate will pay dearly.

I completely agree.

NorthReport

Anyway Mulcair needs to cut back on a lot of these debates, as it is turning out to be circus now.

Harper's holding at 4 debates, Mulcair should consider doing the same.

NorthReport

It's not ducking from debates but your stratedy is the wrong one for this situation.

How many debates were there last election? Two, correct?

For Mulcair to participate in four debates that would be a 100% increase in the number of debates from 2011. 

Do you think all the NDP has to do during the campaign is deal with debates?

NDP needs to focus on the Conservatives if the NDP are to win the election. 

 

NorthReport

Thank goodness the NDP have not yet decided to attend debates where Harper is not there.

Hopefully Mulcair will only participate in debates where Harper is in attendance. Four debates is double the number of debates than 2011.

That's enough.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

NorthReport wrote:
Thank goodness the NDP have not yet decided to attend debates where Harper is not there Hopefully Mulcair will only participate in debates where Harper is in attendance 3 debates is 50% more debates than 2011 That's enough

This sounds exactly like Kory Teneycke. Nothing matters except getting the advantage on the other guy. Informing the public doesn't matter. Putting forth worthwhile ideas doesn't matter. Just win by hook or by crook.

But even if all you think about is how to get the most votes, Mulcair can't lose by participating in debates. Answering questions in a way that is persuasive and reassuring is his biggest strength. That's exactly what debates are about. The more people see of Mulcair answering questions about policy, the more they like and trust him. Even if relatively few people watch the consortium debates, it will still be far more eyeballs than Mulcair could command by giving a speech at a rally.

And speaking of rallies, Mulcair is relatively weak at set piece speeches. He is no John Diefenbaker, or even Pierre Trudeau as an orator. He is much more talented and impressive at answering questions than he is at delivering a speech.

NorthReport

What's wrong with this picture?

As of right now:

The unfinalized participants so far are:

NDP - 8 Debates - what are the Pros and Cons for the NDP's partipation in each of these debates. 

Cons - 4 Debates

Grns - 3 Debates

Libs - 3 Debates

BQ - 1 Debate

Debate Schedule and Participation (not finalized)

Date / Topic / Host / Participants (not finalized)

Aug 6 / General / Macleans-Rogers-CTV / NDP-1, Cons-1, Libs-1

Oct 5 / General / TVA-Fr / NDP-2, Cons-2

Oct 7 / General / BC-Fr / NDP-3 / Libs-2, BQ-1, Grn-1

Oct 8 / General / BC-Eng / NDP-4, Libs-3, Grn-2

TBD / Economy / Globe-Google / NDP-5, Cons-3

TBD / Foreign Policy / Munk / NDP-6, Cons-4

TBD / Women / Up for Debate / NDP-7, Grn-3

TBD / Elderly / CARP / NDP-8

TBD / Economy / Bloomberg / 

TBD / General / Huff-Twitter-Samara / 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_leaders%27_debates#2015_debates

NorthReport

Right now the debate situation is a circus.

4 debates is 100% more debates than 2011. There is more to an election than just debates. But Mulcair's opponent is Harper and the NDP needs to focus on that.

http://www.saultstar.com/2015/07/10/votes-forgotten-in-strategizing-over...

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Right now the debate situation is a circus.

4 debates is 100% more debates than 2011. There is more to an election than just debates. But Mulcair's opponent is Harper and the NDP needs to focus on that.

OK, just so that I understand you, what do you propose that Mulcair should do while Trudeau, May and Duceppe are debating on the 3 major networks? What activity would you schedule for those 2 nights, if you were the campaign manager?

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

Right now the debate situation is a circus.

4 debates is 100% more debates than 2011. There is more to an election than just debates. But Mulcair's opponent is Harper and the NDP needs to focus on that.

That would be great. Leave the two consortium debates to Duceppe, May and Trudeau so they can discuss what cowards Harper and Mulcair are. Duceppe and Trudeau would debate Canadian unity allowing Trudeau to be Captain Canada because Duceppe only cares about Quebec. Duceppe would paint Mulcair as a snake in the grass federalist trying to hoodwink nationalists. Duceppe will be against Energy East as an invasion of Quebec. Trudeau will assure everyone that EE will not proceed against the wishes of Quebec and they will both attack Mulcair as being a promoter of the project putting jobs before the environment and betraying Quebecers.

Mulcair needs to be there to defend himself. He is Duceppes primary target and pretty much the primary target of May and Trudeau as well. Both Duceppe and Trudeau stand to gain going head to head on Canadian unity. Duceppe, as the sole defender of Quebec's nationalist hopes and dreams, Trudeau as the sole defender of Canadian unity.

You can bet that Quebecers will be all eyes on a debate between Trudeau and Duceppe. Even if no one else in Canada watches it will be a defining debate in Quebec. Trudeau will do much better with Mulcair out of the equation. In the French debate it will make Harper and Mulcair irrelevant.

Mulcair debating Harper in Quebec will be boring. I would love for Mulcair to pull out of the Consortium debates but he would be a fool to do so, therefore he won't because Mulcair is nobody's fool.

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

Right now the debate situation is a circus.

And that's exactly what Harper wanted

NorthReport

Everyone knows the reasons the Liberals want Mulcair there.

And you're correct Mulcair is not foolish so hopefully he will pass. 4 debates, 100% more debates than 2011 is more than enough.

Quote:
Then there’s Elizabeth May. The NDPers think she’s in league with the Liberals and are afraid she’ll help Trudeau and attack Mulcair.

http://www.saultstar.com/2015/07/10/votes-forgotten-in-strategizing-over...

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Right now the debate situation is a circus.

4 debates is 100% more debates than 2011. There is more to an election than just debates. But Mulcair's opponent is Harper and the NDP needs to focus on that.

That would be great. Leave the two consortium debates to Duceppe, May and Trudeau so they can discuss what cowards Harper and Mulcair are. Duceppe and Trudeau would debate Canadian unity allowing Trudeau to be Captain Canada because Duceppe only cares about Quebec. Duceppe would paint Mulcair as a snake in the grass federalist trying to hoodwink nationalists. Duceppe will be against Energy East as an invasion of Quebec. Trudeau will assure everyone that EE will not proceed against the wishes of Quebec and they will both attack Mulcair as being a promoter of the project putting jobs before the environment and betraying Quebecers.

Mulcair needs to be there to defend himself. He is Duceppes primary target and pretty much the primary target of May and Trudeau as well. Both Duceppe and Trudeau stand to gain going head to head on Canadian unity. Duceppe, as the sole defender of Quebec's nationalist hopes and dreams, Trudeau as the sole defender of Canadian unity.

You can bet that Quebecers will be all eyes on a debate between Trudeau and Duceppe. Even if no one else in Canada watches it will be a defining debate in Quebec. Trudeau will do much better with Mulcair out of the equation. In the French debate it will make Harper and Mulcair irrelevant.

Mulcair debating Harper in Quebec will be boring. I would love for Mulcair to pull out of the Consortium debates but he would be a fool to do so, therefore he won't because Mulcair is nobody's fool.

NorthReport

The bigger question is why won't Liberals accept debate between Harper- Mulcair - Trudeau?

That says it all, does't it.

As usual Liberals are just playing games with this situation.

bekayne

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-election-2015-munk-debates-wins-...

In a statement released before the consortium deal had been announced, Teneycke suggested the Munk debate would highlight the "stark differences" between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his opponents on topics ranging from "Russian aggression in Eastern Europe" to how best to confront ISIS.

So you do that with a debate that excludes the leader who has had the most differences on foreign policy with the Conservatives?

NorthReport

Wondering what else the right-wing Greens and the right-wing Liberals have up their sleeve.

Do you think right-wing May will join the right-wing Trudeau Liberals before the election?

And if she did, would that hurt or help the Liberals?

Pages