The Globe and Mail economic debate September 17

Puffs of smoke. You should know about that. Kind of a cheap shot.

An hour in, no French yet, by the three on stage or May off stage (unless she has a separate French labguage Twitter feed eunning?)

Maxamed Cabdirazak Roobeye wrote:

The talking points are mind numbing 

Moderator does not know how to stop leaders talking over each other.

Harper is not giving up and does keep using his talking points. 

Trudeau just said that disposable income just reached 165%, I think he meant household debt.

Harper's losing his voice

Structural change, how do you build a new economy asks the moderator of Trudeau? Answer be a partner. step up, invest.

All three are doing well, slight edge to Trudeau. Mulcair risks being lost in between them, Trudeau doing well contrasting against Harper. Harper really nailed Mulcair on the pan Canadian NDP record, accurate or not. If you are open to talking points you will like Trudeau. The downside for the Cons of reducing expectations is that all Trudeau has to do is be coherent. This moderator, though, makes Steve Paikin appealing.

Mulcair? Answer the question? Don't go on about this fluffy crap. What a waste. Who votes on coming from a big family or sitting down with the provs?

No mention of productivity, investments, or skills development in an economic debate. I found Harper and Mulcair made the most sense to me. Both mention that keeping the books balance secure our social programs, of course it is far more credible coming from Mulcair 

Mulcair sounded much, much tougher and stronger tonight.  And this time, he actually sounded like an NDP leader.

(could have done without the Romanow tribute...not sure who that would even appeal to...but overall much much better).

Trudeau came off like a kid playing a party leader in a mock debate or a school play.

 Mulcair's only weakness was that he couldn't give details on his cap and trade plan, he made great arguements for having one, but skirted the details. He tore apart Trudeau double talking record in the second half. Didn't come off as sedated as last time, balanced in temperment between Harper and Trudeau. Made a good points on immiration, I loved that he brought up social housing, pulling seniors out of poverty, lowering the retirement age, the cost of education, that crazy high costs for homes is bad for young families in contrast to Harper's position. The bill C-36 moment felt tacked on, but its always nice to remind people of Trudeau's choice. 

 Trudeau biggest weakness' was talking points way too much, a bit on the overly hyper side, he thinks he deficits are the answer to ever fiscal question, he uses it as an excuse to ignore anything outside of it, Mulcair nailed him hard both on the Liberal record and his own record (this was damaging to Trudeau, big time) including promises balanced budgets one day and then deficits a not long after, voting one way and campaigning another, such as on 15$ an hour minium wage, ect... Score a couple of good shots on Harper.

 Harper was mostly on the defence and it was a weak defence, basically passing the buck to the internation crisises. Lied through his teeth about Mulcair and Trudeau saying they were going to let in hundreds of thousands in without background checks, neither have suggested anything like that, it was Harper's most dispicable moment of the night and the single most blatant lie (but not the only one). Harper did very bad tonight throughout, but Trudeau took the heaviest blows. Harper did get nailed good by Mulcair on the issue of corporate taxes, when Mulcair pointed out that dispite cuts to corporate taxes, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector.

 Oh and using Hillar's comments on not using security issues as an excuse do nothing about refugees was inspired, no one is going to accuse Hillar of being a bleeding heart lefty.

 Another good shot at Trudeau was on his own hypocracy over the rich using lower small business taxes via shell companies, when Mulcair pointed out that Trudeau did just that very thing on the money he made for speeches he made. I think Trudeau will have lost a lot amoung small business people and contractors. 

Brachina wrote:

 Another good shot at Trudeau was on his own hypocracy over the rich using lower small business taxes via shell companies, when Mulcair pointed out that Trudeau did just that very thing on the money he made for speeches he made. I think Trudeau will have lost a lot amoung small business people and contractors. 

Except there is no hypocrisy involved. He never said that it was cheating or that there was anything morally wrong with it. He said it is a means through which small business tax cuts benefit the wealthy. I worked for a trucking company many years ago that was 50 separate companies occupying the same building and each trucker was also considered a separate company. The trucker leased the truck from the company and bought fuel from "another" company and had the truck maintained by "another" company that bought parts from "another" company and transported goods contracted from "another" company and all these companies and more occupied the same building. Just because a business is small doesn't make it a mom and pop shop.

 Mulcair had the funniest quips at times made me laugh a few times, but still maintained his Prime Ministerial vibe. Mulcair made too many good points to list them all. 

 This would have been a better debate had Trudeau not attended, it was like two adults trying to debate around a hyperactive child. I pretty sure Trudeau would have been happier to have been debating himself, he hates letting anyone else speak, I don't mind some pushiness, but Trudeau seemed to resent the idea that others were allowed to speak.

Three way tie.  Of the eight or so people across Canada who watched it, I'm sure no one changed their mind. 

Mulcair did do better than last time, which is good.  Otherwise, though, I'd say it was a tie between the three.

mmphosis wrote:

Does anyone know where/how I could watch this debate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbnMz7tsXjo

mark_alfred wrote:

Three way tie.  Of the eight or so people across Canada who watched it, I'm sure no one changed their mind. 

Mulcair did do better than last time, which is good.  Otherwise, though, I'd say it was a tie between the three.

Good assessment, I see it a little differently. I think Mulcair and Trudeau came closest to achieving what they wanted to achieve. Harper might have solidified his base but he needed to show some passion to win back some of the support he has lost and he failed to do that. It's true that we are subject to world events but he said nothing about what he would do for those who are suffering especially Alberta who has pawn shops full of luxury goods. Harper's message was well honed because he has been saying the same thing since he was first elected. It was like watching a rerun, my mind kept drifting. He was dull.

Mulcair and Trudeau both had slight "flubs" but I think both achieved their goals in terms of self-presentation. Mulcair, the steadfast hand on the rudder to steer us through rough seas without upsetting the boat to steer us into calmer waters. Serious, traditional, as non-radical as they get. I don't recall his mentioning ending of subsidies to oil companies although I remember a serious moment of "polluter pay" that was pitch perfect. He was more forceful without being overly hostile, for the most part very prime ministerial.

Trudeau proved what he had to prove, he had no trouble going toe to toe with Harper and Mulcair. He presented the Liberal economic pitch solidly, defended it well, and solidified his brand as passionate and optimistic and ready to shake things up.

I agree that these are still early days and not that many people will watch the debates except people who are into politics who have already made up their minds who are the same people who are commenting on most media sites. It's very difficult to predict how the undecided voter will respond to the pitches of the parties, most particularly the NDP and the Liberals.

jjuares wrote:

National Post is calling Mulcair the clear winner. This is usually what happens the media calls the winner and it influences the public.

One commentator is not "The National Post".

 Can you imagine both Justin and May trying win the debate by talking over the Mulcair and Harper the whole time again, gag. Having Justin there was bad enough. I don't mind some, but Trudeau got carried away.

Neo-liberalism was the big winner. One candidate called for no tax increases, one called for no personal income tax increases, and the other called for no net tax increases. The supposed most progressive candidate said that the best social policy is a united family, which is a classic right-wing line, while echoing the most right-wing candidate when it came to deficits. The debate coveted the ideological spectrum from A to B.

The next debate is in French so the focus will shift entirely to Mulcair and he will be attacked unceasingly. No other party has anything to gain by attacking eachother because the NDP takes up to 52% of the vote in some Québec polls. The Liberals are going to try and play a cynical game of trying to pin the NDP between them and the Bloc Québecois. They don't care if the BQ vote rises because if the NDP drops it helps them win seats in Montreal, and if the NDP drops, it helps the national NDP numbers to go down, which helps the Liberals to make the case in Québec and elsewhere that they are best positioned to defeat Harper which is the main motivation for Québec (and BC?) voters. As such, I expect that the biggest risk to Mulcair will be Duceppe aiding by Trudeau. Harper has almost nothing to gain, all he can do is appeal to fiscal conservatives in the Québec region and make it clear that the differences between him and Duceppe on "reasonable accomodation" type issues is not that great. Harper is so disliked in Québec the race there has almost been over since before it began for him.