Canadian leaders debates - 2015

583 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brachina

nicky wrote:

I'm not sure what I think about this.

On the one hand I would have liked Tom to take on all comers.

On the other, we have the example of the "Opposition Debate" in the recent UK election which only benefited Cameron who boycotted it. Milliband was the target of the various microparties, just as Tom would be. While I have little doubt Tom would prevail but he would potentially trivialize his position as the main alternative to Harper.

No one can say Tom is afraid to debate. He will be in four, likely five dbates, more than in any other election.

And no, I certainly do not grieve for Elizabeth May. Yesterday she gave a disgusting performance accusing the Conservatives and the NDP of "collusion" to keep her out of te debates, as if the two major parties are as obsessed with her as she is with herself.

 Yeah I know, her reaction was SO over the top, it was fucking crazy funny. Doublecross in deed.

 I can under stand critizing the decision, but she went nuts, any worse and she would have been foaming at the mouth.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
The election should be focused on attacking Harper. Period. What's the point of a nationwide debate where all the opposition leaders attack each either while Harper watches it all on TV sporting a Cheshire Cat grin?

Full agreement.

The politics of refusing a debate interferes in this logic. By not going to a debate the NDP provides cover for an argument that the NDP are doing it too. It is a lousy strategy that many New Democrats do not understand or support and is winning the NDP nothing but criticism.

The argument that this was out of hand is completey bogus. The NDP could have drawn the line after the consortium or gone case by case. The consortium is what we used to have -- the symbolism of everyone showing up but Harper at the consortium debate was not to be missed. and is far more representative of Harper's advantage seeking in other ways than any other debate could be.His no-show at the debate represents a lot more than debates and the NDP is stupid not to realize this.

This decision is ill-advised and will hurt the NDP and help Harper even if you want to forget about the possibility that it may also help Trudeau. It's a dumb decision and one that will play to campaign messages to those who are not very sophisticated. The NDP is out-thinking themeselves and assuming everyone else is thinking the same way and not considering the way this will spin.

Plain stupid.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I'm with Sean on this one. The NDP will lose votes because of this decision. Not my vote, but some they could have had if they had agreed to participate in the consortium debates.

nicky

If Tom does well in the other debates whatever damage he will suffer from this will vanish. However much May and Trudeau will whine the public will have seen him perform well in five other debates.

It will be hard for them to claim he is afraid to debate for a sixth or seventh time them if he has already beaten them five times over. It will be like the armless and legless knight in Monty Python.

That's if he does well of course. And judging on past performance why wouldn't he. He won evry debate during the leadership campaign and dominates Parliament. 

He is more likely to do well in a debate where Harper is the main target than in a debate with Trudeau and the microparties where everyone is ganging up on him.

Although others will disagree I also think that it is a legitimate strategy to minimize May's participation by agreeing to debates to which she is not invited. Her performance yesterday in claiming there is an NDP-Conservative (she may also have included the Communists, bankers, Jews and Free-Masons) conspiracy to sideline her indicates once again that her primary target will be the NDP.

It is a joke that she should be in the debates at all with one elected MP and 3% in the polls. It is not a joke however that she might draw off enough votes to deliver Harper another majority.

 

 

addictedtomyipod

Elizabeth May is slowly loosing her credibility. Her interview on CBC recently over her Party denying the Green candidate in Kelowna to cooperate with the Liberals was so full of spin.  She spoke over the interviewer, did  not answer his questions and twisted into a pretzle to deny they were crushing democracy.  Add to that yesterday and her wild conspiracy theory that Mulcair colluded with Harper to derail the debate in order to keep her out is so outlandish she is looking like she is having a breakdown.  The Greens are loosing in the polls and that sets her hyper partisan spin into overdrive.

This is one MP that needs to be sent on an extended holiday.  She is a disaster.

Brachina

 She's one slip up away from being carted way in a tin foil hat and while Green Party ends up back as a fringe party.

Brachina

 She's one slip up away from being carted way in a tin foil hat and while Green Party ends up back as a fringe party.

takeitslowly

The annoucement from the NDP also feeds into the dangerous and harmful narrarative that all the parties are the same. I agree with Sean in Ottawa that this will hurt the NDP because its a cyncial an calculated move

Unionist

Someone said on Facebook that maybe Mulcair should have stayed away from Question Period whenever Harper was absent, in order to make a similar point.

 

kropotkin1951

terrytowel wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Right or wrong the message I get is that there are two parties vieing for government and the NDP is only interested in replacing the Conservatives in office not in being a fringe party like the Greens and potentially the Liberals after this election.

Using your logic Olivia Chow should have been dropped from the mayors debates. And those debates should of been only Ford & Tory since they were 1-2 in the polls at the time. As Chow was a distant third in all polling.

My logic says that it is to the front runners advantage to claim they are the only viable options. My comment was about the stragey of frontrunners not whether anyone should be dropped from a debate.

So are you in favour of the Christian Heritage Party and the Marxist Leninist Party being included in the debate or is it only when your partisan interests are affected that your love for fair play and democracy is activated?

Mr. Magoo

I would basically agree that if the incumbent chooses not to participate in a debate, that debate is a bit incomplete.

At the same time, folk are decrying the fact that Harper apparently has a bigger war chest, and can bankroll more dreary attack ads than the other parties.

So isn't a debate without him kind of a golden opportunity?  Two hours to rip giant holes in the CPC platform and their history without any concern for rebuttal?  Add to that a few non-Harper-friendly journalists summarizing the debate the following day, and how is that not a good thing?

No, he won't have to answer for his failings.

Yes, he won't be there to spin-doctor his failings.

And yes, we can relive the fun the next day when some journo points out that "Mr. Harper chose not to respond to this".

NorthReport

Just more Liberal media complex spin.

 

Unionist wrote:

Someone said on Facebook that maybe Mulcair should have stayed away from Question Period whenever Harper was absent, in order to make a similar point.

 

Basement Dweller

This is a made-up issue. People are gone to the cottage, campsite, basement or where ever.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I would basically agree that if the incumbent chooses not to participate in a debate, that debate is a bit incomplete.

At the same time, folk are decrying the fact that Harper apparently has a bigger war chest, and can bankroll more dreary attack ads than the other parties.

So isn't a debate without him kind of a golden opportunity?  Two hours to rip giant holes in the CPC platform and their history without any concern for rebuttal?  Add to that a few non-Harper-friendly journalists summarizing the debate the following day, and how is that not a good thing?

No, he won't have to answer for his failings.

Yes, he won't be there to spin-doctor his failings.

And yes, we can relive the fun the next day when some journo points out that "Mr. Harper chose not to respond to this".

Exactly my opinion as well.

nicky

But a debate without Harper will not be a debate about Harper. It will be about Mulcair. Trudeau will be desperately trying to upstage Mulcair to claw back into contention. May and Duceppe will also attack Mulcair since the few seats they can hope to gain are NDP seats. The only winner of such a debate may well be Harper.

DLivings

Given the current state of the parties presented by most recent polls, a debate without Harper present will simply be a gang up on Mulcair...   depending on the debate format it may not even depend much on the participants' acumen in debating...  simply persistent loud voices.. and the time allocations (visible sense of fair play) won't be in Tom's favour.  

I understand the problem with the optics of being ready to debate all comers, especially given the historical mainstream media debate in Canada.  I think this issue has evolved and isn't as simple as that for the ndp any longer.  

This is a strategic decision... it has to do with leader and party capacity, strategic thinking, the need to keep the focus on Harper as the one to defeat.  

Given that we're in a summer break, (oh and an election may be called tomorrow!) this news will soon be eclipsed by other events and will become a paper tiger.  

There will be more substantive issues to contend with than debating with an empty chair, and becoming the target of tarnished Trudeau and mushy May.

NorthReport

Much todo about nothing.

terrytowel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So are you in favour of the Christian Heritage Party and the Marxist Leninist Party being included in the debate or is it only when your partisan interests are affected that your love for fair play and democracy is activated?

As Olivia has said (and I'm paraphrasing) "I don't make up the invite list. Once invited I attend, and I expect others who are invited to attend as well."

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I understand the problem with the optics of being ready to debate all comers

While I'll reluctantly understand if Tom bows out of debates without Harper, I don't think there's any negative optics about saying "bring it". 

It won't be the same debate, but to decline the opportunity to present your ideas and plans can look like a lack of commitment to your ideas and plans.  The other candidate won't say what they believe, so you don't believe anything either?  If Harper wants to walk away from an opportunity to say "here's what we believe" that that's his business  -- make hay with that.

But I have to think that at their root, the original idea of debates was to allow candidates the opportunity to tell the electorate what they think would be good for Canada.  That the debates seem to have drifted toward an opportunity to tell the electorate why what the other candidate thinks would be good for Canada is nonsense is another story, unless it comes from "we believe...".

NorthReport

Here are the four confirmed debates, double the number of the last election. 

Quote:
Traditionally, party leaders participated in two televised debates during the federal election - once in English and once in French. These debates were produced by a consortium of major television broadcasters, including CBC, Radio-Canada, CTV and Global.[21] In May 2015, the Conservatives said they would not participate in the traditional leaders’ debates and instead would take part in as many as five independently staged debates in the run-up to the fall federal election.[21] The New Democratic Party confirmed thatTom Mulcair will accept every debate where the Prime Minister is present.[22]Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has been invited to all four confirmed debates, but to date has only confirmed his participation in the Macleans debate.[23][24][25] The Bloc has been confirmed their attendance at the French language TVA debate and the Green Party has confirmed their attendance at the Macleans debate

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

NorthReport

Why won't CBC broadcast the Macleans debate?

Misfit Misfit's picture

I'm in full agreement with Sean and Michael. The consortium debates are a longstanding Canadian tradition. They are also the most importantly timed debates in the enitire election process. It is as Sean posted earlier free air time that the NDP cannot afford to lose. I believe that Tom will be there and this is just pre-election posturing, stupid posturing mind you, but just pre-election talk. The NDP is not going to give the Liberals an open invitation like that to rise in the polls and Harper is likely going to be struggling in the polls and may even show up himself. The writ hasn't even dropped yet and a lot can happen in a short period of time. Don't worry.

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

Why won't CBC broadcast the Macleans debate?

Did Macleans offer them the opportunity?

terrytowel

"Stop hiding. Stop picking and choosing who you will speak to and attend all the debates"

-Olivia Chow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFs86u-eAPQ

Misfit Misfit's picture

I just watched E May's interview yesterday with Rosemary Barton on CBC's Power and Politics, and I liked what she had to say. She has a legitimate right to be angry with Tom Mulcair. She also talked about the TPP and its effect on Supply Management agriculture programs. She also discussed how crown corporations like the CBC will have to work on a for profit basis and all the disastrous implications for the environment. These are all important issues which need to be discussed and Canadians need to know about.

socialdemocrati...

This could play poorly if only because no one is talking about the fact that the Liberals AND Conservatives are the ones who refused to attend debates. People are attacking Mulcair switching from attending to conditionally attending, and it's part of the double standard that the media always applies to the NDP. We need to hold the parties to the same standard and note that the other parties are 100% worse.

 

Pondering

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

This could play poorly if only because no one is talking about the fact that the Liberals AND Conservatives are the ones who refused to attend debates. People are attacking Mulcair switching from attending to conditionally attending, and it's part of the double standard that the media always applies to the NDP. We need to hold the parties to the same standard and note that the other parties are 100% worse.

The Liberals have not refused any debates. They are leaving their options open.

Rokossovsky

DLivings wrote:

Given the current state of the parties presented by most recent polls, a debate without Harper present will simply be a gang up on Mulcair...   depending on the debate format it may not even depend much on the participants' acumen in debating...  simply persistent loud voices.. and the time allocations (visible sense of fair play) won't be in Tom's favour.  

I understand the problem with the optics of being ready to debate all comers, especially given the historical mainstream media debate in Canada.  I think this issue has evolved and isn't as simple as that for the ndp any longer.  

This is a strategic decision... it has to do with leader and party capacity, strategic thinking, the need to keep the focus on Harper as the one to defeat.  

Given that we're in a summer break, (oh and an election may be called tomorrow!) this news will soon be eclipsed by other events and will become a paper tiger.  

There will be more substantive issues to contend with than debating with an empty chair, and becoming the target of tarnished Trudeau and mushy May.

Right.

Harper will have a night of eating popcorn and thinking about way he can spin opposition candidates statements, and then runs some attack ads talking about the bickering talking heads in the opposition, in the hope he can split the vote further and come up the middle.

14 million people might watch the consortium debate if he attended, not so much if not.

The problem is Harper's brinksmanship, not the NDP making an unfortunate but necessary decision.

May cries a lot but I don't here her calling for BQ inclusion in the Maclean's Magazine debate, as much as she likes to complain about being excluded -- as usual she only sticks up for herself, while claiming to be non-partisan.

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

This could play poorly if only because no one is talking about the fact that the Liberals AND Conservatives are the ones who refused to attend debates. People are attacking Mulcair switching from attending to conditionally attending, and it's part of the double standard that the media always applies to the NDP. We need to hold the parties to the same standard and note that the other parties are 100% worse.

The Liberals have not refused any debates. They are leaving their options open.

In that case, neither have the NDP, since they are merely making conditions on their attendance, not backing out.

Brachina

Rokossovsky wrote:

DLivings wrote:

Given the current state of the parties presented by most recent polls, a debate without Harper present will simply be a gang up on Mulcair...   depending on the debate format it may not even depend much on the participants' acumen in debating...  simply persistent loud voices.. and the time allocations (visible sense of fair play) won't be in Tom's favour.  

I understand the problem with the optics of being ready to debate all comers, especially given the historical mainstream media debate in Canada.  I think this issue has evolved and isn't as simple as that for the ndp any longer.  

This is a strategic decision... it has to do with leader and party capacity, strategic thinking, the need to keep the focus on Harper as the one to defeat.  

Given that we're in a summer break, (oh and an election may be called tomorrow!) this news will soon be eclipsed by other events and will become a paper tiger.  

There will be more substantive issues to contend with than debating with an empty chair, and becoming the target of tarnished Trudeau and mushy May.

Right.

Harper will have a night of eating popcorn and thinking about way he can spin opposition candidates statements, and then runs some attack ads talking about the bickering talking heads in the opposition, in the hope he can split the vote further and come up the middle.

14 million people might watch the consortium debate if he attended, not so much if not.

The problem is Harper's brinksmanship, not the NDP making an unfortunate but necessary decision.

May cries a lot but I don't here her calling for BQ inclusion in the Maclean's Magazine debate, as much as she likes to complain about being excluded -- as usual she only sticks up for herself, while claiming to be non-partisan.

 Nor is she demanding Forces et Democratic get attend the Maclean's debate.

socialdemocrati...

Rokossovsky wrote:

Pondering wrote:
The Liberals have not refused any debates. They are leaving their options open.

In that case, neither have the NDP, since they are merely making conditions on their attendance, not backing out.

The Liberals full out decline several debates, but they spin it as "leaving their options open".

See why the double standard on the NDP is just more partisan BS?

Misfit Misfit's picture

The Greens run candidates in every riding from coast to coast to coast. I think there is a big difference between May being in the debate vs these upstart fringe parties excluding the Bloc which will likely be gone after the election anyway. The Green party has been around for many elections and there is a big difference.

Pondering

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The Liberals full out decline several debates, but they spin it as "leaving their options open".

See why the double standard on the NDP is just more partisan BS?

Which ones did they decline? As far as I saw they didn't respond positively or negatively.

The NDP specifically stated they would accept all debates. NR was on here crowing about it, Wikipedia had them accepting all debates. Now Mulcair is letting Harper dictate the debates. Wikipedia has changed their page.

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

Notice, Liberals are "yet to confirm" not refused.

Mulcair may have made the smartest choice strategically. I just hope the consortium retaliates in some way and that the Liberal Media Complex NR is so fond of referencing really becomes one and sticks it to both Mulcair and Harper for being so arrogant.

 

NorthReport

This issue is dead. The CBC, part of the Liberal media complex, can broadcast the Macleans debate and have chosen not to. Too bad. Frown

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

This issue is dead. The CBC, part of the Liberal media complex, can broadcast the Macleans debate and have chosen not to. Too bad. Frown

Can they also broadcast the Grey Cup?

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

This issue is dead. The CBC, part of the Liberal media complex, can broadcast the Macleans debate and have chosen not to. Too bad. Frown

Do you have any link to support that claim? You may not be aware of this but broadcasters are not free to just take content from other providers and rebroadcast it. Instead, they have to get permission from the content creators who often don't grant it because they are competitors. This is because of the existance of copyrights which also apply to books and music and all sorts of media. If the networks just decided to go ahead and steal the broadcasts they couldn't announce it in advance because the owners of the content would get a court injunction to stop them. If they didn't announce the broadcast then they wouldn't get advertisers and they would get sued.

NorthReport

Is CBC responsible for 1st dirty trick of the campaign? 

  1. Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  1h1 hour ago

    Dear @petermansbridge Paul Wells says "any broadcaster who wants the signal is free to carry it live too." http://www.macleans.ca/politics/why-canada-needs-more-election-debates/ …

 

NorthReport

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  2h2 hours ago

Norman Spector retweeted Barry Kiefl

"any broadcaster who wants the signal is free to carry it live too." http://www.macleans.ca/politics/why-canada-needs-more-election-debates/ …

Norman Spector added,

Barry Kiefl @[email protected] is there a reason CBC TV will not carry this week's debate? https://twitter.com/nspector4/status/627838132109492224 … @nspector4

 

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Bekayne, I don't know that CBC would even want to broadcast the Grey Cup. The Roughriders are 0-6.

Sean in Ottawa

Is it possible the CBC is not convinced the debate would be balanced? Not sure -- just asking.

I am sure they are unhappy with these events but perhaps there is another reason.

kropotkin1951

terrytowel wrote:

"Stop hiding. Stop picking and choosing who you will speak to and attend all the debates"

-Olivia Chow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFs86u-eAPQ

Frankly who cares what Olivia thinks. Besides how well did her strategy work?

I doubt if I will have the stomach to watch many of the debates. If all the parties attack each other relentlessly I am sure that by October Canadians will be so sick of the f*'ing election they will be verbally assaulting canvassers on the doorstep. Of course the lower the turnout the better the chances are that we will be stuck with a Conservative minority and all the opposition parties will be broke and afraid to trigger an election.

Brachina

kropotkin1951 wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

"Stop hiding. Stop picking and choosing who you will speak to and attend all the debates"

-Olivia Chow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFs86u-eAPQ

Frankly who cares what Olivia thinks. Besides how well did her strategy work?

I doubt if I will have the stomach to watch many of the debates. If all the parties attack each other relentlessly I am sure that by October Canadians will be so sick of the f*'ing election they will be verbally assaulting canvassers on the doorstep. Of course the lower the turnout the better the chances are that we will be stuck with a Conservative minority and all the opposition parties will be broke and afraid to trigger an election.

 Actually I've been secretly thinking that Mulcair giving people some fucking space this week, for good reasons, might actually be the cause of the bump forum.saw. :-) 

mark_alfred

I was a bit disappointed by Mulcair saying that he would not attend the Consortium debate unless Harper was there.  But, there truly is nothing to gain by going if Harper isn't there.  Also, I was disappointed when Mulcair took no questions after his opening speech (that immediately followed Harper's speech).  Yet, he clearly laid out that he is the serious candidate for change and is Harper's main competitor, and that was all he needed to do.  The rest of the focus was to be on Harper and the elongated election campaign expense.  Why distract from that?  We're seeing some very good strategy here.

I'm looking forward to the debate this Thursday.

Basement Dweller

mark_alfred wrote:

I was a bit disappointed by Mulcair saying that he would not attend the Consortium debate unless Harper was there.  But, there truly is nothing to gain by going if Harper isn't there.  

I laughed at the fake rage on the CBC forums. It was interesting to watch the concern trolls pretend to be long-time NDP supporters getting all excited over this non-issue. No regular person was more than "a bit disappointed" and more likely totally unaware.

I miss when the CBC forums had mostly real people on them :P

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

I was a bit disappointed by Mulcair saying that he would not attend the Consortium debate unless Harper was there.  But, there truly is nothing to gain by going if Harper isn't there.  Also, I was disappointed when Mulcair took no questions after his opening speech (that immediately followed Harper's speech).  Yet, he clearly laid out that he is the serious candidate for change and is Harper's main competitor, and that was all he needed to do.  The rest of the focus was to be on Harper and the elongated election campaign expense.  Why distract from that?  We're seeing some very good strategy here.

I'm looking forward to the debate this Thursday.

The networks have not yet said what they are going to do instead of having the debates. I know if I ran the networks I would definitely do something to punish those who decided not to show up. They could do an indepth examination of each party's platform with only Trudeau being there live to defend his.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

The networks have not yet said what they are going to do instead of having the debates. I know if I ran the networks I would definitely do something to punish those who decided not to show up. They could do an indepth examination of each party's platform with only Trudeau being there live to defend his.

I don't know any network executives, but I'm guessing that they will be very careful about attempting to "punish" the 2 parties which are most likely to form the government after the election. It wouldn't be good for business.

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The networks have not yet said what they are going to do instead of having the debates. I know if I ran the networks I would definitely do something to punish those who decided not to show up. They could do an indepth examination of each party's platform with only Trudeau being there live to defend his.

I don't know any network executives, but I'm guessing that they will be very careful about attempting to "punish" the 2 parties which are most likely to form the government after the election. It wouldn't be good for business.

They can keep the debate offer open. If at least 3 leaders agree then the debate goes forward. If less than three agree then the pundits can use that time to critique the platforms and speak with whichever leaders choose to show up. If Harper and Mulcair don't show up it is not the fault of the networks.

terrytowel

Sarah Kennell, spokeswoman for Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, one of the groups organizing the Women's debate, said the group hasn’t heard back from Harper about whether he will attend. But she said Tom Mulcair committed last fall to participating in the debate.

“As far as we’re concerned, they’ve committed to the debate,” she said. “We look forward to seeing them there, and we haven’t heard otherwise.”

Asked about Mulcair’s attendance, NDP spokesman George Soule referred to last Friday’s press release, which said the party will be accepting debate proposals until this Friday at 5 p.m. and will announce the list on Monday.

The release said the party has received several dozen debate proposals from a wide range of organizations.

http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/1445811/tom-mulcairs-attendance-at-women...

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The networks have not yet said what they are going to do instead of having the debates. I know if I ran the networks I would definitely do something to punish those who decided not to show up. They could do an indepth examination of each party's platform with only Trudeau being there live to defend his.

How do you find time to cheer for Trudeau when you're supposed to be fighting "the oligarchs"?

"If you chase two rabbits, you'll catch neither."

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The networks have not yet said what they are going to do instead of having the debates. I know if I ran the networks I would definitely do something to punish those who decided not to show up. They could do an indepth examination of each party's platform with only Trudeau being there live to defend his.

How do you find time to cheer for Trudeau when you're supposed to be fighting "the oligarchs"?

"If you chase two rabbits, you'll catch neither."

No one here is single issue and I haven't forgotten about oligarchs. What is the inference I should take from the scare quotes?

Pages