Canadian leaders debates - 2015

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

No one here is single issue and I haven't forgotten about oligarchs.

Or one of them, anyway.

Quote:

What is the inference I should take from the scare quotes?

That you use "the oligarchs" like I use vowels.  But we've been over that.

I don't consider Trudeau an oligarch. Whomever wins, Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, will be in the service of oligarchs whether they like it or not. That's just my opinion of course. I don't think the word oligarch can be used too much. It is important to raise consciousness about the global ruling class which no longer takes positions in government (IMO).

None of this has to do with the debate. Your focus is on me rather than the topic of discussion. Are you here to talk politics? It doesn't seem like it.

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

No one here is single issue and I haven't forgotten about oligarchs.

Or one of them, anyway.

Quote:

What is the inference I should take from the scare quotes?

That you use "the oligarchs" like I use vowels.  But we've been over that.

I don't consider Trudeau an oligarch. Whomever wins, Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, will be in the service of oligarchs whether they like it or not. That's just my opinion of course. I don't think the word oligarch can be used too much. It is important to raise consciousness about the global ruling class which no longer takes positions in government (IMO)

The Marxist wing of the Liberal Party? Who would have guessed such a thing exists?

Left Turn wrote:

Brachina wrote:

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. :-) 

The Forum poll was conducted between 10am and 4pm on August 2nd, before the nightly news cycle. So voters would have been taking it without any knowledge of the NDP's campaign plans. Which means that the NDP bump was likely due to a combination of anger at Harper dropping the writ at the beginning of August, and Forum's poor polling methadology.

Yes, a one day poll on a holiday weekend. I believe the only take away from this poll results are that New Democrats don't have as many cottages and are more available to answer the phone.

Left Turn wrote:

Brachina wrote:

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. :-) 

The Forum poll was conducted between 10am and 4pm on August 2nd, before the nightly news cycle. So voters would have been taking it without any knowledge of the NDP's campaign plans. Which means that the NDP bump was likely due to a combination of anger at Harper dropping the writ at the beginning of August, and Forum's poor polling methadology.

Mulcair first said that he wouldn't participate in a debate unless Harper did last Friday, not on Sunday. 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/07/31/tom-mulcair-wont-debate-wi...

 

Policywonk wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

Brachina wrote:

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. :-) 

The Forum poll was conducted between 10am and 4pm on August 2nd, before the nightly news cycle. So voters would have been taking it without any knowledge of the NDP's campaign plans. Which means that the NDP bump was likely due to a combination of anger at Harper dropping the writ at the beginning of August, and Forum's poor polling methadology.

Mulcair first said that he wouldn't participate in a debate unless Harper did last Friday, not on Sunday. 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/07/31/tom-mulcair-wont-debate-wi...

The NDP says Tom Mulcair won’t participate in any leaders’ debates during the election campaign if they don’t include Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

I don't think the optics on refusing to debate women's issues will be favorable to Mulcair.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Justin Trudeau won’t commit to leaders’ debate on women’s issues

Your link is from April, mine is from yesterday.

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2015/08/04/trudeau-may-in-for-lea...

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and Green Party Leader Elizabeth are the only two federal leaders to confirm they will take part in the “Up For Debate,” national leaders’ debate next month dedicated solely to women’s issues, after the coalition of more than 175 women’s groups and allied organizations lobbied all the party leaders.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) has not responded and NDP Leader Tom Mulcair (Outremont, Que.) is supposed to confirm either way by Aug. 10, but as of last week, Mr. Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) and Ms. May (Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.) had confirmed their attendance for the debate set to take place on Sept. 21, at the Isabel Bader Theatre on the University of Toronto campus.

On July 31st or before the NDP said this:

OTTAWA—The NDP says Tom Mulcair won’t participate in any leaders’ debates during the election campaign if they don’t include Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In laying down that condition, the NDP has likely driven the final nail in the coffin of the traditional debates hosted by a consortium of the country’s largest broadcasters.

The Hill Times is being kind to Mulcair for not mentioning, as you just pointed out, that he previously accepted the debate then backed out because Harper didn't accept. So is Mulcair going to change his criteria and accept the women's issues debate even if Harper doesn't attend?

In an apparent attempt to force a speedy decision, the NDP is setting a deadline, saying it will consider debate proposals until 5 p.m. ET on Aug. 7.

The NDP also says Mulcair will participate in an equal number of French and English debates. But that would necessitate either Harper agreeing to participate in two more debates or Mulcair pulling out of at least one of the four already agreed upon.

Is the NDP going to break their word on having an equal number of debates in both languages?

 

 

The point is that the Liberals and Conservatives were playing games on the debates. Conservatives committing to one set, Liberals commiting to another set, and NDP committing to all of them. For months this was the case. Once we got closer to the debates, Mulcair noted that the debates he committed to don't have candidates, and he's anticipating that he might withdraw if that doesn't change.

Now the Liberals are suddenly talking about "optics". It's not surprising, and it's highly cynical.

Can Mulcair back-peddle any faster?

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says he has not yet agreed to participate in two high-profile English language leaders' debates, despite promises from the organizers the NDP leader would be there.

Both The Globe and Mail and the Munk Debates have said Mulcair will be part of their leaders' debates, on the economy and foreign policy, respectively. But Mulcair told a Radio-Canada radio morning show Wednesday he had only committed to two debates, and neither were to be hosted by Munk or the Globe.

"For now, I will attend [the debate organized by] Maclean's tomorrow," he said in French. "I have confirmed that I will participate in the TVA debate."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/05/tom-mulcair-non-committal_n_7940...

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The point is that the Liberals and Conservatives were playing games on the debates. Conservatives committing to one set, Liberals commiting to another set, and NDP committing to all of them. For months this was the case. Once we got closer to the debates, Mulcair noted that the debates he committed to don't have candidates, and he's anticipating that he might withdraw if that doesn't change.

Now the Liberals are suddenly talking about "optics". It's not surprising, and it's highly cynical.

Nope. The Liberals haven't played games at all. Normally all the parties are consulted on the debates and they are held by a consortium of broadcasters. Harper decided he was going to dictate who would be holding the debates.

In response the Liberals, NDP and Greens agreed to the consortium debates. The NDP said they would accept all debates. The Greens agreed to the Women's issues debate.

Then the NDP changed their mind and decided they would only attend the debates Harper attends which is in effect accepting the validity of the government setting the debates unilaterally.

The NDP also said they will accept an even number of French and English debates.

So far the Liberals have not wavered. They haven't turned down any debates. They accepted the Macleans debate, the two consortium debates, and now the women's issues debate, all debates with set dates.

I suspect the NDP will again change their minds on which debates to attend.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

If the Liberals had not wavered you wouldn't need to add "and now" to their recent change of heart on the debates. 

No, the Liberals never refused a debate. They accepted the consortium debates and reserved the decision on the rest. The Liberals are deciding on each debate as they come up. They are not wavering back and forth.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/federal-election-debate-announcemen...

TORONTO, May 21, 2015 /CNW/ - Rudyard Griffiths, Chair of the Munk Debates, made the following statement today:

"We are pleased that Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair have confirmed their participation in a Munk Debate focusing exclusively on Canada's foreign policy. Too often foreign policy issues have been afterthoughts in past federal election campaigns. By holding this debate during the election, we aim to bring greater public scrutiny to bear on the foreign policy prescriptions of the three federal party leaders recognized in Parliament.

 

Notice the date on the next:

NDP leader tells Montreal radio audience he'll debate in English when French events are added

By James Cudmore, CBC News Posted: Aug 05, 2015 11:04 AM ET Last Updated: Aug 05, 2015 1:58 PM ET

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says he has not yet agreed to participate in two high-profile English language leaders' debates, despite promises from the organizers the NDP leader would be there.

Both The Globe and Mail and the Munk Debates have said Mulcair will be part of their leaders' debates, on the economy and foreign policy, respectively. But Mulcair told a Radio-Canada radio morning show Wednesday he had only committed to two debates, and neither were to be hosted by Munk or the Globe.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-non-committal-about-globe-mu...

Now he is saying he will only accept one English debate for each French debate. That means he is only committed to the TVA debate and the Maclean's debate.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

http://www.straight.com/news/426181/justin-trudeau-wont-commit-leaders-d...

Correct. Trudeau did not agree to all the debates. He reserved judgement and is accepting them once they have firm dates.

Mulcair agreed to all the debates and has been backing out of them ever since. He went all the way from saying he would do all the debates, to he will do the ones Harper goes to, and now he put another condition in the way. There has to be an equal number of French and English debates.

There is nothing non-commital about Mulcair's statements. Insisting on an equal number of French and English debates seems to be an attempt to force Harper to accept more French debates. Either that or it is a way for Mulcair to avoid some of the debates.

As of now:

Macleans - Harper -May - Mulcair - Trudeau

TVA (French) - Harper - Mulcair

Globe and Mail - Harper - Trudeau

Women's issues - May - Trudeau

Consortium French - May - Trudeau

Consortium English - May - Trudeau

Monk debate - Harper

 

Current Count

Harper - Macleans, Globe and Mail, TVA, Monk

Mulcair - Globe and Mail, TVA

Trudeau - Macleans, Globe and Mail, English Consortium, French Consortium, Women's issues.

May - Macleans, Engish Consortium, French Consortium, Women's issues

 

 

 

 

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I see the dates. Therein lies the cynicism. The Liberals were criticizing the non-constortium debates, until it looked like they were going to be the only game in town. It's fine that they want to join in. But trying to turn it around on the NDP is just barking and noise. Good luck with that.

No they were not. They were criticizing Harper unilaterally deciding which debates would be held and for turning down the consortium debates.

The Liberals aren't "turning everything around".

NDP supporters were bragging about Mulcair accepting all debates, then adding the condition that Harper had to be at them. NR is now supporting Mulcair's decision to have only one debate in English unless more French debates are added.

That means he has backed away from his commitment to the Globe and Mail debate on the economy and on the Women's issues debate (and the Monk debate of foreigh affairs).

As of right now Trudeau and Harper will go head to head alone at the Globe and Mail debate. May and Trudeau will be alone for the women's issues debate.

Harper may rustle up another French debate which would allow Mulcair to accept one of the above. Presumably he would take the Globe and Mail one because Harper will be there.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I don't know how I could make this any more clear: there isn't a single leader who has committed to all the proposed debates. It's one thing to be disappointed that more debates aren't happening. It's something else to try to score points for Trudeau, when he was the one who was complicit in making the debate proposals into a game of chicken. Maybe if he committed to all the debates on day one, we wouldn't be in this situation. But it's all noise at this point.

It was Mulcair that said he would attend all the debates, then only the debates that Harper would be at, and now only if there are an equal number of French and English debates which limits him to one English debate. 

Are you saying that Mulcair wouldn't be backing out of the debates if Trudeau was at them? Trudeau has accepted the Globe and Mail and women's issues debate. Mulcair backed out of both after he found out Trudeau will be at them so if anything it looks like he is avoiding Trudeau.

Trudeau has nothing to do with Mulcair first saying he will attend all the debates, then backing out of any debates that Harper won't be at, and now backing out of all English debates beyond the Maclean's one unless Harper manages to arrange more French debates.

The fact is Trudeau has been consistent throughout and has been adding to the list of debates he will attend. Mulcair has been backing out of debates to the point where he is now down to only 2.  That is all on Mulcair.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

So now that we've established that everyone has been selective about which debates they'll attend, you're now shifting gears to criticizing their consistency?

I am not shifting gears at all. There is nothing wrong with being selective about which debates someone decides to attend. My criticism of Mulcair is that he keeps backing out of debates he said he would attend.  I have also heard two deadlines from the NDP, Aug 7th and Aug 10th. So, unless Harper agrees to another French debate in the next few days the NDP will only attend two debates. I hope Mulcair keeps his word this time.

The only firm thing Mulcair said is if Harper is there he will attend to debate him. Its yet to be seen if Mulcair doesnt do a debate with Harper in it. Since anyone can back down from a debate at the last minute there is no point to commit to a debate if your one standard, Harper has to be there, isnt. 

 

 

Pierre C yr wrote:

The only firm thing Mulcair said is if Harper is there he will attend to debate him. Its yet to be seen if Mulcair doesnt do a debate with Harper in it. Since anyone can back down from a debate at the last minute there is no point to commit to a debate if your one standard, Harper has to be there, isnt. 

Nope:

1 - he accepted all debates which was confirmed on Wikipedia and not challenged by anyone here or elsewhere.

2 - he added the qualifier that he would accept all debates if Harper participated. So, the Globe and Mail and Monk announced that Mulcair would attend.

3 - His latest condition is he will only attend an even number of French and English debates. As of now that means he will only attend 2 debates.

Each announcement sounded firm to me and to Wikipedia as they have yet to catch up with taking his name off the Globe and Mail and Munk debates.

Pondering wrote:

Pierre C yr wrote:

The only firm thing Mulcair said is if Harper is there he will attend to debate him. Its yet to be seen if Mulcair doesnt do a debate with Harper in it. Since anyone can back down from a debate at the last minute there is no point to commit to a debate if your one standard, Harper has to be there, isnt. 

Nope:

1 - he accepted all debates which was confirmed on Wikipedia and not challenged by anyone here or elsewhere.

2 - he added the qualifier that he would accept all debates if Harper participated. So, the Globe and Mail and Monk announced that Mulcair would attend.

3 - His latest condition is he will only attend an even number of French and English debates. As of now that means he will only attend 2 debates.

Each announcement sounded firm to me and to Wikipedia as they have yet to catch up with taking his name off the Globe and Mail and Munk debates.

 

He agreed in principle to attend all debates but the only time he made a firm commitment was if Harper would be there. In fact he stated several times it was a pre condition. Question is at some times we expected Harper to attend all debates. I never heard him commit firmly to all debates with no conditions.

 

 

Pierre C yr wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

There's an article on it here.

Quote:

"The NDP has agreed in principle to many of the proposals it has received, including those submitted by the Broadcast Consortium, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, 'Up for Debate' alliance, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Aboriginal People's Television Network," the party said.

The party laid out four conditions:

• The host be credible and non-partisan.
• The topics be varied and relevant.
• All party leaders participate.
• And, that there be an equal number of French and English language debates.

It's not clear how or whether the Globe or Munk debates offend these principles, but Green Party leader Elizabeth May has not been invited to either.

It'd be interesting if there was an objection to the Globe or Munk debates because May hasn't been invited.  I doubt that's the case, but it'd be interesting if it was.

The one surprising change for me would be the equal number of debates in french and english... if that condition broke his promise to debate Harper Id have an issue with that. The idea of Harper on stage and Mulcair the only one not there would be a big problem.

Course at some point making vague promises in principle to attend all debates is relative to how many debates one is expected to have. Which is usually very few. Not dozens. If Harper decides to do his campaign american style it may turn the campaign into a carnival of debates and it may derail the idea of attending 'all of them' with him in it. And Harper is unpredictable but we cant let him dictate the NDP's campaign over it.

Either he will break his commitment to do the same number of debates in French and English or he will miss at least one Harper debate because Harper has agreed to 5  potential debates in total, 3 Engish, 2 French.

Harper is committed to Macleans general, Globe economic, Munk foreign affairs, TVA general French.

So far there are no offers for a second French debate. Lapresse was a possibility but they partnered with the Consortium on July 15th so they plan to go ahead without Harper. Gille Duceppe, May and Trudeau all accepted that debate.

It is looking more and more likely that the only French debate Harper will participate in is the TVA debate. If so and Mulcair keeps his word the Maclean's debate will be his first and last debate in English.

Pierre C yr wrote:

I dont think thats a firm commitment to equal french and english. Its why august 10th will be the date where agreements in principle or negociations and conditional demands will give way to firm commitments. NDP and other opposition parties have the right to make their own demands to try and prevent Harper from setting the agenda.

What is "not firm" about the NDP statement?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-non-committal-about-globe-mu...

"The NDP has agreed in principle to many of the proposals it has received, including those submitted by the Broadcast Consortium, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, 'Up for Debate' alliance, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Aboriginal People's Television Network," the party said.

The party laid out four conditions:

• The host be credible and non-partisan.
• The topics be varied and relevant.
• All party leaders participate.
• And, that there be an equal number of French and English language debates.

The NDP is aware that Harper has only accepted one French debate. They didn't qualify it by saying "if possible".

I hadn't noticed the "topics be varied and relevant" point. The Globe and Mail debate is on the economy and the Munk debate is on foreign affairs and of course the women's issues debate is on women's issues.

So far Mulcair is committed to two debates, Macleans and TVA. His conditions which he presumably thought about before declaring were taken with the knowledge that there is only one French debate that meets his conditions. His conditions seem to be designed to rule out all of the debates except the Macleans and TVA debates. Technically Trudeau hasn't agreed to the TVA debate yet, only the consortium debate. He will probably confirm on TVA at some point but that will mean he is the only leader of the three participating in 2 French debates. Trudeau can only benefit by going head to head with Duceppe. Both will portray Mulcair as cowardly for not attending, unless he chances his mind yet again and decides Harper doesn't really have to be there.

If you promise to buy a barbecue and it turns out that it doesn't cook anything, you're allowed to return it to the store. Same thing if there's supposed to be a federal leaders debate and the federal leaders don't all show up. It's not a crazy to no show a non event.

It's not like Trudeau wasn't playing a ton of games around the nonconsortium debates for months. Trudeau might not be trying to spin this, but he has plenty of slimey operatives trying to spin it for him. I guess we will see whether the campaign is desperate enough to keep to running with it.

That's what I'm saying. Trudeau might not be trying to turn this into an attack when he has people to do it for him. He might bring it up if he becomes desperate enough. Like I've been saying, he's losing on policies like C-51, so Liberals are going to try to turn the campaign itself into an issue. I guess that's another "we will see" thing.

Would you accept Marc Garneau?

https://twitter.com/MarcGarneau/status/627271236905791488

Or would you settle for Trudeau's chief advisor?

https://twitter.com/gmbutts/status/628981121418706945

It's a waste of my time to keep explaining things to you that could be verified with 2 minutes on google. 

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Would you accept Marc Garneau?

https://twitter.com/MarcGarneau/status/627271236905791488

Or would you settle for Trudeau's chief advisor?

https://twitter.com/gmbutts/status/628981121418706945

It's a waste of my time to keep explaining things to you that could be verified with 2 minutes on google. 

"Explanations" are not required. This is the first link you have provided. I am not on twitter although I am signing up as we speak.

I'm happy that twitter has noted Mulcair's withdrawal of his agreement.

Does anyone know what FCM stands for?