Canadian leaders debates - 2015

583 posts / 0 new
Last post
bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

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?

On foreign policy, Mulcair is to the right of May. So what does that make him?

NorthReport

+

NorthReport

So do you think the if right-wing Greens and the right-wing Liberals joined forces before the election it would help the right-wing Liberals or not?

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

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.

I disagree.

Mulcair can do well and the exposure is helpful. You reach mkore people with your message through technology than one on one.

The NDP is not in the same positiona s the Conservatives when it comes to exposure and the high number of debates is helpful in leveling the playing field. The Conservatives and Liberals have more friends in the media and will get more firnedly (un)earned media than the NDP. The Conservatives and Liebrals both have raised more money in the last couple years than the NDP and will spend it -- without resttriction up till the election is called and then have an ongoing advantage in what is a long and expensive campaign. The Conservatives are the government and have the most incumbants. Both Trudeau and Harper are much better known thatn Mulcair and less reliant on exposure to introduce themselves.

And then there is Mulcair --  a bright person able to speak well who people like when they come to know him.

To say the debates are out of hand does not make sense -- the campaign is longer. The percentage of campaign time used prepping for debates likely has not changed. But even if it did slightly this is to Mulcair's advantage. There is lots of time for everything else.

bekayne

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

To say the debates are out of hand does not make sense -- the campaign is longer. The percentage of campaign time used prepping for debates likely has not changed. But even if it did slightly this is to Mulcair's advantage. There is lots of time for everything else.

It is out of hand in the sense that the whole process is chaotic. Which is what Harper wanted.

Sean in Ottawa

bekayne wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

To say the debates are out of hand does not make sense -- the campaign is longer. The percentage of campaign time used prepping for debates likely has not changed. But even if it did slightly this is to Mulcair's advantage. There is lots of time for everything else.

It is out of hand in the sense that the whole process is chaotic. Which is what Harper wanted.

I agree but that is not what NR is saying he is saying the number of debates Mulcair is participating in is out of hand and he should cut back. I disagree strongly as I think that would be a disaster.

Mulcair must attend any debate that either Trudeau or Harper attend. He cannot be seen to want to avoid either one. Their machine will punish him without mercy if he did something so stupid. Beyond that, I would still do townhalls with certain interest groups as well.

NorthReport

I am saying that the whole debate scene is now a circus.

Whether or not Harper created it is a moot point. As PM he does have certain perogatives.

Harper is not losing any points for not partipating in a circus.

Wherever Harper debates Mulcair has agreed to participate. Mulcair has not agreed to anything else yet.

 

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

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.

They have accepted a debate with Harper and Mulcair. Trudeau is participating in the August 6th debate with Macleans. He hasn't refused any debates.

The TVA french language debate takes place two days before the consortium debate and has only been accepted by Harper and Mulcair. Unless Duceppe or Trudeau sign up the audience will be very small. Duceppe may appreciate another chance to go after Mulcair. I think Trudeau is better off staying out of it and letting that battle center on Duceppe versus Mulcair on nationalist issues. If only Harper and Mulcair debate, Harper will use the opportunity to play up Mulcair's "nationalism" (not separatism, they are two different things).

Two days later, Trudeau will debate Harper, Mulcair and Duceppe. With the nationalist angle covered the night before, and Trudeau's position known, the moderators will keep the focus on federal issues.

If I were Trudeau, I would refuse the TVA debate regardless of who else participates in it.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Given that the NDP has a lead in the polls, Mulcair doesn't need to go after his opponents in debates aggressively. He can afford to emphasize his own ideas and policies, and almost ignore the others. Treat it as just another press interview, which he always aces. The other leaders will be there, saying whatever they say, but that doesn't even really matter to Mulcair's success. A leader in Mulcair's position only has to sell himself to the voters, not knock down his opponents.

NorthReport

And that is the debate Canadians are looking for. The rest, not so much.

Sixty-four days until the election starts!

Barring some life-changing events, I increasingly think this thing will be about Harper versus Mulcair. That’s the way it feels, anyway. 

 http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/07/sixty-four-days-until-the-election-sta...

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Given that the NDP has a lead in the polls, Mulcair doesn't need to go after his opponents in debates aggressively. He can afford to emphasize his own ideas and policies, and almost ignore the others. Treat it as just another press interview, which he always aces. The other leaders will be there, saying whatever they say, but that doesn't even really matter to Mulcair's success. A leader in Mulcair's position only has to sell himself to the voters, not knock down his opponents.

I don't accept that the NDP has any significant lead as a given. The edge the NDP has is not by any means solid enough to consider it much comfort. It is still a close election with parties within the margin of error.

The NDP looks like it has a slight lead but nothing strong enough to change from the presumption of a very tight election that is still in doubt.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Given that the NDP has a lead in the polls, Mulcair doesn't need to go after his opponents in debates aggressively. He can afford to emphasize his own ideas and policies, and almost ignore the others. Treat it as just another press interview, which he always aces. The other leaders will be there, saying whatever they say, but that doesn't even really matter to Mulcair's success. A leader in Mulcair's position only has to sell himself to the voters, not knock down his opponents.

I don't accept that the NDP has any significant lead as a given. The edge the NDP has is not by any means solid enough to consider it much comfort. It is still a close election with parties within the margin of error.

The NDP looks like it has a slight lead but nothing strong enough to change from the presumption of a very tight election that is still in doubt.

Sean, I'm not saying that the election is in the bag. Quite the contrary, I am saying that given the current situation, the best way for the NDP to grow their vote is for Mulcair to continue showing people that they can trust him to be in charge of the country. Naturally he will also criticize the other parties and leaders, but he doesn't need any sort of knockout, and he will get much better results from emphasizing how an NDP government will improve Canadians' lives than from attacking his rivals.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Hmm, I don't think I really clearly stated what I meant in those last 2 posts. I was comparing the actual situation today to what most of us expected until May. That is, that the polls at the start of the campaign would be showing the NDP at 22% or so, and the Libs and Cons both between 30% and 35%. In that case, Mulcair would have been forced to "knock out" one of his opponents in order to have a chance of winning. As it is, he doesn't have to knock anyone out, just keep doing what has been working so far. To me, at least, the optimal debate strategies in these 2 scenarios would be quite different. That is all I meant to say.

Sean in Ottawa

Ok fair enough Michael. I just disagree that turning down debate opportunities would be a good campaign strategy when you are in the thick of it, have a slight (possible) advantage to actually win.

Mulcair needs as many opportunities to seal the deal. He needs no knock-out but he needs consistency and he needs to understand that the reaosns people are inlcined to vote for him are different than those people used to vote for Harper and what works for Harper won't work for him. He has to be seen as a man of the people. He can never be seen to run from a debate or public contact through the campaign. To that end he will ahve a busy campaign. And that means he may have to do ten debates over the next 14 weeks. For Mulcair this should be an advantage. I think this would be less burden on him than the others for different reasons.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Hey, Sean, I completely agree that Mulcair should do all the debates he can. In post 144, I wrote:

Quote:

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.

Post 160 was about what approach Mulcair should take as he participates in every debate available.

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Hey, Sean, I completely agree that Mulcair should do all the debates he can. In post 144, I wrote:

Quote:

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.

Post 160 was about what approach Mulcair should take as he participates in every debate available.

Oh okay -- I took it in the context of NR idea. No I am with you there.

NorthReport

Certainly doesn't sound like final decisions have been made. The NDP should participate in the Mcleans, Globe, Munk & TVA debates. That's twice as many debates as last time, more than enough.

Debate calculations shift, with poll numbers

NDP strategists in particular are evaluating the upsides and downsides of each of the many debates on offer.

http://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/5717552-debate-calculations-shift...

NorthReport

Getting the feelin' there is going to be some change comin' to the debates.

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

Certainly doesn't sound like final decisions have been made. The NDP should participate in the Mcleans, Globe, Munk & TVA debates. That's twice as many debates as last time, more than enough.

Debate calculations shift, with poll numbers

NDP strategists in particular are evaluating the upsides and downsides of each of the many debates on offer.

http://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/5717552-debate-calculations-shift...

NR, what I gather from the article is that the NDP are maintaining the same strategy that they had prior to their poll numbers rising.  That strategy being to be at as many debates as possible (emphasis my own):

Quote:

But now that the NDP appears to have momentum in the polls, and Leader Tom Mulcair's own personal popularity is rising, the calculations are also in flux too.

NDP strategists in particular are evaluating the upsides and downsides of each of the many debates on offer.

In the absence of Harper, Mulcair could attempt to take on the frontrunner mantle — casting himself in the role of senior politician being challenged by the other party leaders.

The party is also keenly focused on building voter familiarity with Mulcair, and more debates rather than fewer theoretically helps. The consortium debates reached 10 million people in 2011.

"The 2015 Leaders’ Debates will have unprecedented reach, and will be offered across all platforms with closed captioning and simultaneous translation," reads the consortium press release.

NorthReport

ma
My hunch is they are reflecting on their options
Nothing is cast in stone

As norm Spector has already mentioned he sees nothing but downside for Mulcair to debate Duceppe without Harper

mark_alfred

You may be right.  If you're at the top of the polls, having a bunch of debates may not be the best thing.  Could just make you vulnerable, overly familiar, not special, etc.  Also debates are a large investment in resources that could go elsewhere.  Still, seems the NDP suffers from being an unknown and potentially scary entity for some.  So, being in debates, regardless of polls, and regardless of Duceppe, seems like a good idea.

NorthReport

cameron didn't attend a debate in England and it sure didn't hurt him

Brachina

 Actually I think Mulcair kicking Duceppe ass, as long as he doesn't alienate NDP-Bloc swing voters, would be good for Mulcair, it could gain him votes from the Bloc and also undermine the Lib-tory narrative that the NDP are now Cryptoseperatists now (an absurd claim of course, but it still floats around).

NDPP

If the NDP hadn't been so stupid as to support the Ukraine project hook line and sinker, the Harper regime could have found itself mortally vulnerable over its participation. Now they are simply trapped in the 'omerta' of embarrassed complicity. Expect all involved in these debates to carefully exclude its discussion.

NorthReport

A campaign of confusion thus far

Let's start with the debates. The main ones, sponsored by the television networks are scheduled for Oct. 7 (French) and Oct. 8 (English) — assuming the election has not already happened by then. The prime minister has said he will not participate. Whether that's because of his distaste for the CBC or his disinclination to be a punching bag for the other leaders so close to the election is an open question.

So, it seems, is the participation of NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair. The NDP has agreed in principle to the English and French debates, but has not confirmed their leader's presence. If Harper is not there, the New Democrats are not at all sure they want Mulcair, the perceived front-runner, to become a surrogate punching bag for Justin Trudeau, Elizabeth May and (in the French debate) Gilles Duceppe.

Harper may yet change his mind and agree to debate, but if neither he nor Mulcair is there, why bother?

Both leaders say they plan to take part in an early debate to be organized by Maclean's magazine on Aug. 6. How that debate goes will, I suspect, help determine whether other projected debates, to be hosted the Globe and Mail, the Munk Debates and by the private French network TVA, get off the ground.


http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/5729939-a-campaign-of-confusion-t...

mark_alfred

Interesting.  At this point I don't have strong feelings about it.  Initially I thought it would be good for Mulcair to do as many debates as possible.  In fact, I thought it might be good to have one without Harper to allow for the anti-Harper vote to truly coalesce around the strongest candidate.  But, given what occurred in the UK election, I now have doubts.  Mulcair debating the fringe may serve to lessen his brand, and strengthen Harper.

I still feel that Mulcair should do a lot of debates, but I'm less certain than I was previously.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Interesting.  At this point I don't have strong feelings about it.  Initially I thought it would be good for Mulcair to do as many debates as possible.  In fact, I thought it might be good to have one without Harper to allow for the anti-Harper vote to truly coalesce around the strongest candidate.  But, given what occurred in the UK election, I now have doubts.  Mulcair debating the fringe may serve to lessen his brand, and strengthen Harper.

I still feel that Mulcair should do a lot of debates, but I'm less certain than I was previously.

I think it would be arrogant to say Trudeau is the fringe. If Trudeau is there Mulcair should be. I am fine with May and Duceppe being there as well. I don't consider any of these to be fringe.

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:
cameron didn't attend a debate in England and it sure didn't hurt him

So he's the role model?

NorthReport

There is only potential downside for Mulcair to attend any debate if Harper is not in attendance.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

NorthReport wrote:

There is only potential downside for Mulcair to attend any debate if Harper is not in attendance.

I disagree strongly. In fact, debates are essentially free tv time for Mulcair to do what he does best, which is to explain to Canadians how an NDP government would be good for Canada. The guy is the most skilled politician at this sort of persuasion I've seen since Bill Clinton. This is air time which the party would otherwise have to pay for, and the number of viewers paying attention will be much higher than any paid advertisement would draw.

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

There is only potential downside for Mulcair to attend any debate if Harper is not in attendance.

I disagree strongly. In fact, debates are essentially free tv time for Mulcair to do what he does best, which is to explain to Canadians how an NDP government would be good for Canada. The guy is the most skilled politician at this sort of persuasion I've seen since Bill Clinton. This is air time which the party would otherwise have to pay for, and the number of viewers paying attention will be much higher than any paid advertisement would draw.

I agree -- And:

The conservative strategy is based on the fact that they can spend more than anyone else in advertising. The NDP is doing well in the polls but it has the least money to spend in advertising. Debates are better value for the NDP campaign.

Also I agree that  it is a bttter format for the NDP than advertising given the advantage Mulcair my have.

Pondering

Brachina wrote:
Actually I think Mulcair kicking Duceppe ass, as long as he doesn't alienate NDP-Bloc swing voters, would be good for Mulcair, it could gain him votes from the Bloc and also undermine the Lib-tory narrative that the NDP are now Cryptoseperatists now (an absurd claim of course, but it still floats around).

Mulcair wouldn't kick Duceppe's ass. Duceppe is going to go after Mulcair on Energy East and on the Sherbrooke Declaration.

Energy East is not popular in Quebec.

It’s an unlikely coincidence that Mr. Mulcair’s recent Sherbrooke Declaration talk followed Gilles Duceppe’s return to the Bloc Québécois helm. With little time to breathe life back into his party, Mr. Duceppe will do everything he can to persuade nationalist voters who helped elect 59 Quebec NDP MPs in 2011 that their interests aren’t being represented.

Beyond sovereignty, the Bloc is trying to exploit the NDP’s openness to the proposed Energy East pipeline that would run from Alberta to New Brunswick – contending that after fighting pipelines that would run through British Columbia, the NDP is less concerned by one through Quebec. And it can also be expected to make hay of Mr. Mulcair’s opposition to restrictions on wearing niqabs, painting it as unwillingness to protect Quebec’s identity.

The challenge for the NDP will be to deflect these attacks without saying things that hurt it elsewhere in the country.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/some-attacks-mulcair-may-fa...

From the perspective of the Bloc it's a good thing to hurt the NDP right across Canada to give Quebecers even less reason to vote for the NDP.

I doubt that Trudeau will participate in a debate 2 days before the Consortium debate but even if he did he would solidify his firm federalist stance. He isn't going after separatists or soft nationalists, at least not on the topic of nationalism. He would have Duceppe and Mulcair arguing about how Quebec should be allowed to separate although that would probably happen anyway.

If Trudeau doesn't attend, it would be Duceppe and Mulcair going head to head with Duceppe free to be 100% against Energy East. This will still happen on the consortium night debate but it won't garner as much time or attention.

Harper will be irrelevant.

Quebecers have no center-left party provincially. It used to be the P.Q. Federally the Bloc was not a vote for separation as much as it was a vote for the center-left.

So far only the Conservatives and the NDP have accepted the TVA debate.

With the consortium French debate two days after the TVA debate Mulcair has the perfect excuse to drop it. That would leave Harper alone with no one to debate with unless Duceppe agrees to it.  That would force Harper to accept the consortium debate or not debate at all in French which would not go over well in Quebec.

Even if Duceppe agreed to it, a Harper/Duceppe debate would benefit the NDP/Liberals as Duceppe would be attacking Harper alone.

 

Jacob Two-Two

I think being the one party who is saying they'll show up to any debate, anytime, is worth a lot more than any potential downside to any particular debate.

I think voters want to see that there are still a few politicians in Ottawa who understand they have to show up and do their job, even when conditions aren't perfect. I think they're tired of the likes of the Liberals and the Cons, who go scurrying off into the shadows whenever they can't rig things 100% to their own advantage. Heck, it's because the Liberal party refused to do it's job as opposition (because the time wasn't right for them, personally) that we've had all these years of PM Harper.

So while I can imagine that doing every single debate might lead to some complications (especially with Duceppe), being known as the party that wasn't afraid to show up for every debate will be more valuable in the end.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

 

Even if Duceppe agreed to it, a Harper/Duceppe debate would benefit the NDP/Liberals as Duceppe would be attacking Harper alone.

 

It is goofy to think that those at a political debate will not attack those who are not there.

Harper may learn this the hard way. So too would either Trudeau or Mulcair if they decide to boycott a debate the other does not attend.

Duceppe alone does not ahve the ability to compell the others to show up but if Mulcair, Trudeau or Harper take a stage the others would be stupid not to be there.

Harper of course thinks he has the least to lose becuase his party can afford to bombard the airwaves to make up for it. It remains to be seen if Harper is right. Trudeau and Mulcair do not share that illusion. They are each rightly cautious about ceding the stage to the other.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 

Even if Duceppe agreed to it, a Harper/Duceppe debate would benefit the NDP/Liberals as Duceppe would be attacking Harper alone.

 

It is goofy to think that those at a political debate will not attack those who are not there.

Harper may learn this the hard way. So too would either Trudeau or Mulcair if they decide to boycott a debate the other does not attend.

Duceppe alone does not ahve the ability to compell the others to show up but if Mulcair, Trudeau or Harper take a stage the others would be stupid not to be there.

Harper of course thinks he has the least to lose becuase his party can afford to bombard the airwaves to make up for it. It remains to be seen if Harper is right. Trudeau and Mulcair do not share that illusion. They are each rightly cautious about ceding the stage to the other.

But this is a French debate. The rest of Canada won't be paying attention. Duceppe's sole interest is the Quebec separatists and nationalists. Neither Trudeau nor Harper are targets because neither gets any votes from Duceppe's target audience. Harper will be delighted to stand back and watch Duceppe and Mulcair go at it while accusing both of being separatists. Mulcair would be stuck trying to defend Quebec nationalist interests with Harper accusing him of being a separatist and Duceppe accusing him of pandering to Canada on Energy East.

Then two days later he will be at the consortium debate, also in French.

Under all other cirumstances I agree with you. Mulcair should probably accept all debates. He is an excellent speaker, definitely far and away better than Trudeau and Harper. I just think Quebec is a special case. If Trudeau accepts, then of course Mulcair has to be there. If it's just Harper and Mulcair, then sure, Mulcair would "win" that debate. The most likely scenario is that Trudeau won't be there to dilute the attacks and Duceppe will be.

The consortium French debate will include May, Mulcair, Trudeau and Duceppe. Duceppe will then take aim at both Mulcair and Trudeau and the 4 way will be more on national issues not just Quebec.

Energy East is going to be a big issue. Duceppe will make sure of it.

NorthReport

Sticks and stones will break my bones, by names won't stop me from get elected, will it?

Yup, it really damaged Cameron's campaign, going from a minority to a majority Conservative government.

This is not a dummy like '250 seat' Paul Martin we are dealing with here. Harper is one shrewd politician.

Election debate: David Cameron branded a 'disgrace' for refusing to appear in BBC debate

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/election-debate-david-cameron-br...

NorthReport

Mulcair's job is to debate Harper, and of course whoever else shows up at those debates.

Mulcair by participating in 4 debates, that is 100% more than in 2011, shows that he is participating in double the number of debates Jack Layton did in 2011.

What's not to like about this? 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/12/white-house-press-pool-self...

Very Far Away

As the leader of NDP, Mulcair should be in all the debates. Debates are good for democracy. Why hide? Why copy Harper or Cameron in UK? What are we afraid of? 

Also, NDP has a lot to say to Canadian public considering the fact that it doesn't have a huge budget for advertising. I believe these debates will be great for Mulcair and NDP to set the stage for October 19.

NorthReport

The debate schedule is now a circus.

And the fact that Liberals are pushing for Mulcair to debate without Harper says a lot in itself.

Mulcair, with 4 debates with Harper, will be in the debates 200% more frequently than Jack Layton was in the debates last election. Smile

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

The debate schedule is now a circus.

And the fact that Liberals are pushing for Mulcair to debate without Harper says a lot in itself.

Mulcair, with 4 debates with Harper, will be in the debates 200% more frequently than Jack Layton was in the debates last election. Smile

What Liberals are pushing for Mulcair to debate without Harper?  Got any quotes?

I'd be delighted if Mulcair refused to debate unless Harper is present.

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

Sticks and stones will break my bones, by names won't stop me from get elected, will it?

Yup, it really damaged Cameron's campaign, going from a minority to a majority Conservative government.

This is not a dummy like '250 seat' Paul Martin we are dealing with here. Harper is one shrewd politician.

Election debate: David Cameron branded a 'disgrace' for refusing to appear in BBC debate

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/election-debate-david-cameron-br...

Richard Nixon won too. Should his campaign tactics be emulated?

Brachina

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

The debate schedule is now a circus.

And the fact that Liberals are pushing for Mulcair to debate without Harper says a lot in itself.

Mulcair, with 4 debates with Harper, will be in the debates 200% more frequently than Jack Layton was in the debates last election. Smile

What Liberals are pushing for Mulcair to debate without Harper?  Got any quotes?

I'd be delighted if Mulcair refused to debate unless Harper is present.

 Yes, it would fun to see the Leader of the liberal party JT debate policy with the leader of the Junior Wing of the Liberal Party Elizabeth May.

NorthReport

Thanks for confirming my point. 

Pondering

Brachina wrote:

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

The debate schedule is now a circus.

And the fact that Liberals are pushing for Mulcair to debate without Harper says a lot in itself.

Mulcair, with 4 debates with Harper, will be in the debates 200% more frequently than Jack Layton was in the debates last election. Smile

What Liberals are pushing for Mulcair to debate without Harper?  Got any quotes?

I'd be delighted if Mulcair refused to debate unless Harper is present.

 Yes, it would fun to see the Leader of the liberal party JT debate policy with the leader of the Junior Wing of the Liberal Party Elizabeth May.

So, debate one would be Harper, Mulcair, and Duceppe. The debate is primarily for Quebec votes. Duceppe would attack Harper and Mulcair on Energy East but he would focus on Mulcair because that is his only competition for sovereignist votes. Harper would attack both on separatism and the economy. He is going after right wing voters.

Debate two would be Duceppe, Trudeau, May.

Trudeau gets to play Captain Canada against Duceppe with no competition from Mulcair, and May his only other "opponent". Sounds good to me.

 

Sean in Ottawa

NR I think you are way off base here --  4 debates in the time frame we have is not a big deal -- not a circus.

The idea of a debate in Quebec with two of his competitors there and Mulcair not is absurd. (And the one that is not there the weakest of the three.) Won't happen and should not happen.

NorthReport

That's ok Sean - we disagree.

A campaign of confusion thus far

Many questions, few answers, surrounding fall federal election

There is confusion over the leaders' debates — how many there will ultimately be, what the rules will be, who will be invited to participate, and who will show up and who will not.

 


http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/5729939-opinion-a-campaign-of-con...

nicky

Can someone provide a scorecard about the debates? It is getting hard to follow.

Date, sponsor, venue, who is invited, who has accepted, who has declined.

NorthReport

wikipedia

NorthReport

Mulcair needs to bow out as well - this is a farce.

Harper’s no-show at the consortium debates won’t hurt him a bit

The debate over the debates continues, with an announcement by the consortium of television networks of French and English-language election tilts on October 7 and 8.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the podium. The French debate, set for an 8 to 10 p.m. slot on a Wednesday, is now going up against the Montreal Canadiens opener with the Toronto Maple Leafs.

The English debate won’t even be in prime time. It’s scheduled for 6 to 7:30 p.m. the following evening — supper hour in the East and during the work day in the West. This isn’t major league. It’s bush league.

Clearly the consortium — CTV, CBC and Global — decided not to give up prime time in English in the middle of the fall launch season. As for the French debate, there is virtually no commercial cost to Radio-Canada, since whatever it runs that night will get killed by the Habs game.

Why is the French debate two hours, while the English one is only 90 minutes? “Because it will include the Bloc Québécois,” CBC News reported, “which has been excluded from the English-language debate.”

This means that Gilles Duceppe, who has excelled in past English-language debates, has agreed to the consortium’s terms excluding him from this one. Tactically, he would have been better advised to insist on being included — if only for the opportunity to present it as an insult and an affront to Quebecers.

Stephen Harper won’t be at either debate, since the Conservatives have accepted four other debates — with Maclean’s, the Globe and Mail, the Munk Centre and with TVA in French. (Maybe he’ll go to the Habs-Leafs game instead.)

So the consortium debate in English will include Tom Mulcair, Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May. There will be no empty chair, or vacant podium, for Harper. He’s still invited, although he’d look pretty silly if he showed up.


http://ipolitics.ca/2015/07/14/harpers-no-show-at-the-consortium-debates...

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Of course, N.R., you know who wrote this screed. Lifetime Con insider L. Ian MacDonald, whose opinion has zero credibility to me, or most other babblers, I suspect.

Pages