Canadian leaders debates - 2015

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.

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.

 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.

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

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 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.

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.

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."

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.

"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

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.

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 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.

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.

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. 

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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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?