English Language Debate - Oct 7, 2019

Gilles Duceppe was a master at debates. I miss him.

I am unkown here on rabble, but tend to vote either Conservative or NDP, as I see Liberal as only power hungry and believe in nothing.  I tend to agree with the Cons, but Feel the NDP are far better people...  (Intro done)

I think Singh Hit a home run tonight!   He was terrific.  And I was not a fan at all of his and considered him to be a huge mistake for the NDP.  Now I am seriously considering the NDP again.

May, Max and the Block leader are neutral in there performance for me.

Trudeau and Sheer were a disaster tonight.  They seemed like least qualified for the leader of this country!   With Trudeau being the worst...

I think of viewers who are open to changing who they'll vote for (a couple of dozen.. maybe), will likely be thinking seriously consider  NDP.

Sad this is it for the debates.  Should be at least 3-4 debates.

CaperDF wrote:

I am unkown here on rabble, but tend to vote either Conservative or NDP, as I see Liberal as only power hungry and believe in nothing.  I tend to agree with the Cons, but Feel the NDP are far better people...  (Intro done)

I think Singh Hit a home run tonight!   He was terrific.  And I was not a fan at all of his and considered him to be a huge mistake for the NDP.  Now I am seriously considering the NDP again.

May, Max and the Block leader are neutral in there performance for me.

Trudeau and Sheer were a disaster tonight.  They seemed like least qualified for the leader of this country!   With Trudeau being the worst...

I think of viewers who are open to changing who they'll vote for (a couple of dozen.. maybe), will likely be thinking seriously consider  NDP.

Sad this is it for the debates.  Should be at least 3-4 debates.

Hi Caper! Welcome to babble, and thank you very much for your comment. I have argued consistently that the NDP needs to find ways to talk to and win over Conservatives. The punditry and conventional wisdom is that the Conservatives would never vote NDP, but I cannot remember the NDP seriously making the effort to have that conversation. Your post certainly proves that attempting to dialogue with Conservative voters is not a wasted effort. I certainly hope you will stick around and continue to offer your perspective on such matters.

Singh clearly had a good night. Trudeau was not nearly as enthusiastic as in the debates in 2015, I'm guessing the War Room has resigned itself to a defensive campaign based on fear of Scheer, he seemed to swallow his line about Bernier saying openly what Scheer thinks privately. The format sucked, and like the format for Democrats seeking the nomination it allowed an enormous amount of airtime to an outlier (Bernier.) Trudeau was probably content to let Bernier burn the clock, but it really became obscene how he highjacked the segment on Indigenous issues. I thought Liz May and Blanchett both did well. Scheer is running on Trudeau's lack of credibility, and Trudeau is running against  Doug Ford. 

NorthReport wrote:

What do people think of the format?

I would prefer a more traditional debate format along the following lines:

1. 5 minute opening remarks by each leader
2. A question-answer-rebuttal format for the main portion of the debates, where every leader gets to ask one or two question(s) of each other leader.
3. Closing remarks by each leader.

Under this format, the moderators/hosts would not have any sway over what issues get raised -- that would be left entirely to the leaders. I think it's important to let the leaders decidde what issues to raise, so that voters get a better sense of what issues are the biggest priorities for each leader -- something you don't get when the moderators pick discussion topics and questions. It also eliminates biases that arise from how the moderators/hosts chose to frame various issues.

Two other big advantages of this format would be that it would eliminate the issue of the leaders talking over one another -- which winds up just being lost time because viewers can't hear what the leaders are saying. It also specifically includes rebuttal segments, which is the part of the debate when the leaders can most effectively deliver a "You had an option, sir!" moment (to reference Mulroney's knock out blow against Turner in the 1984 debate).

As for the participants, I would eliminate Bernier. Though I wouldn't do so because of his views -- I'm a supporter of free speech who believes that no one ought to be excluded from a leaders debate because of the content of their message -- but because the of the PPC's low polling numbers and zero proof that they can win any seat other than Bernier's.

I also wouldn't include Blanchette -- I've never supported including the Bloc in the English debates because they only run candidates in Quebec, and even then most of their Quebec voters are francophones.

I also would have only one moderator -- my format preference requires only one moderator -- and it would not be any of the moderators from this debate, since all of them have said and/or done things that make them appear politically biased.

I think all Quebeckers should have a chance to hear with the Bloc says, regardless of their first language- the Bloc needs to be there.

Singh came off the best but I do think Trudeau “won” (if there is such thing as a winner) in the sense that he probably was most successful in attracting or retaining voters.

I'm happy to say that Singh had a very good debate performance last night, to go along with his strong showing throughout this campaign. He's far exceeded my earlier negative assessment of his abilities as leader, and I'm impressed by him. He definitely won the debate, got his messages through, came across as human and likeable, and avoided getting into the mud with Scheer and Trudeau, but rose above them both.

I also thought May did well, and also came across as human, and appeared at times like an adult trying to supervise a kindergarten playground with Scheer and Trudeau's constant arguing going on next to her.

Trudeau probably survived the evening, which was likely his goal. He deflected and ignored most things he didn't want to respond to, which is probably what he needed to do. He came across as aloof and arrogant, but then he was right next to Scheer, who was even more arrogant and also rude, so Trudeau's demeanor by contrast might not come off so badly to the voters he needs. Scheer, from the beginning, avoided answering questions and acted like an attack dog, but I wish someone would wipe that smirk off his face.

Bernier is disgusting and incredibly rude, and deserves no further comment. Blanchet only cares about more $$$ for Quebec, but he was well spoken and I liked him more than past Bloc leaders.

ETA: I think the NDP will see an uptick in the polls, and likely the saving of a number of seats due to Singh's debate performance. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Breaking news: The Source just denied Singh the right to return his microphone under warranty. They claim evidence of misuse.

Wtf is this Sean?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Breaking news: The Source just denied Singh the right to return his microphone under warranty. They claim evidence of misuse.

Wtf is this Sean?

I suggest you go down to the discount store and buy a sense of humour.

It is with reference to dropping the mic multiple times.

****

People who can get over their extreme hostility might make their lives less bleak

****

Nah I do not expect an apology from you -- I know that is beyond your abilities.

oh sorry Sean i really didn't  get you were being funny.  and now you explained it is funny. oops.

Left Turn wrote:

I also wouldn't include Blanchette -- I've never supported including the Bloc in the English debates because they only run candidates in Quebec, and even then most of their Quebec voters are francophones.

There are more anglophones in Quebec (give or take allophones who speak more English than French) than there are in, say, Nova Scotia. And Preston Manning was in the 1993 French debate (with simultaneous translation) despite not speaking French or running any candidates in Quebec.

jerrym wrote:

This does not surprise me as he has allowed the party to select a broader and more diverse range of candidates.

Were Mulcair and Layton stoppping riding associations from nominating people from under-represented groups? Sure give Singh credit for encouraging people from such groups to seek nominations, but "allowed" is very much the wrong word to use.

brookmere wrote:

jerrym wrote:

This does not surprise me as he has allowed the party to select a broader and more diverse range of candidates.

Were Mulcair and Layton stoppping riding associations from nominating people from under-represented groups? Sure give Singh credit for encouraging people from such groups to seek nominations, but "allowed" is very much the wrong word to use.

I think that facilitating the nomination of a diverse candidate field is the way he seems to leading. He has very good listening skills and is using his lawyering techniques when he engages with people. To be a successful lawyer one must be able to listen actively to get the full story. When he was meeting with the group of young people talking about the brown face that is what really impressed me.

I always thought Trudeau was a phony and Mulcair was a liberal in the wrong party. Mulcair has turned out to be petty and vindictive which is rather sad to see.

The NDP is running against the Bloc and the Liberals in Quebec. I suspect that he voters they are looking to keep and attract would all be strong advocates for asymmetrical federalism. I also think that there are no arguments that the federal government can make that the current litigants can't or won't make so what is the point of the federal government intervening. I am not sure constitutionally that the federal government has a role to play, beyond showboating.

NorthReport wrote:

Anyone preaching hatred should NOT be on our national election debate stage

There is such a thing as community standards

Toronto restaurant closes after death threats arise from relative's involvement in Bernier protest

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/soufis-toronto-closed-bernier-protest-1.5313443

 

So former prime minister Stephen Harper who proposed the racist "barbaric cultural practices hotline" should've been barred from the debates in 2015?

The debate format did not serve voters well, regardless of their political orientation. Allowing Bernier in the debate when he barely registers in the polls and spews hate was highly problematic. Six candidates on the stage meant that almost no issue got significant debate, and when combined with five moderators whose change every 25 minutes or so was a recipe for a mess.

Having no penalty for talking over others and only the pleading of the moderator to stop this meant that politicians, who make their living by talking, would continually violate the rules. It also meant that even when issues were discussed for a brief period talking over each other meant that viewers often couldn't understand what was being said. Many viewers just gave up. When someone spoke out of turn or overran his time, his/her microphone should have been turned off. Five moderators also meant they had no sense of control of what was going on much like a substitute teacher.

Including nearly every topic under the sun in a single debate with people from every region of the country meant there was no continuity in what and how topics were discussed. 

Who did this benefit? Trudeau, because, both as the front runner and the incumbent, he would expect to be the #1 target of all the others. The process was set up to favour him from having a single English debate, where he faces more opposition than in Quebec, to having two debates in Quebec where he was hoping to use the wider audience of TVA  than Radio Canada to build support there. Refusing to participate in other English debates was not an accident as it meant that there was less opportunity to question his record in a single debate or to go into topics in any detail. Having set up the commission that controls the debate process, the Liberals set it up exactly the way they wanted it to minimize detailed examination of their record over the last four years. 

The debate organizaiton process needs to be taken out of control of the government, no matter the party. 

I also agree about the slight to Indigenous media. CBC and Radio-Canada wouldn't have improved and expanded their Indigenous media content without APTN's continued efforts to provide media coverage in both official languages and several Indigenous ones - the latter must still be augmented by  CBC/Radio-Canada and APTN alike.

Here in Québec it is important to have Blanchet, in English as well as in French. In my riding, the only serious competitors are the NDP and the Bloc. People have to hear from everyone in the fray - though Bernier has zero prospects outside his seat and is mostly a lightning rod for the often-violent far right, though as others have said here, most outside Québec's Meute hate the "French" as much as they hate the imaginary mass-migrants ... and the original inhabitants of what is now the Canadian State.

I'm disgusted at what happened to the little Syrian restaurant, as much out of a love for Syrian food as a hatred of racism. I'd actually heard of that place, and if I'm visiting Toronto would likely be staying with a friend who lives farther west on the Queen streetcar line...

Absolutely I agree with what Lagatta is saying. It is surprising that people still question the BQ's role in English debates. The role parties holding each other to account in debates is important to the process regardless if you can vote for all of them. The BQ have done a great job of that over the years. As well there are Quebec voters who speak English and want to see these exchanges. The poor French of some of the leaders is another reason Francophones who speak English may also want to see how these unilingual Anglophones try to answer the BQ in English.

All the leaders who provide significant choices to voters should be heard in both languages at debates.

I am not certain that the debates must be only about the leaders - if a leader in Quebec does not speak English well or a leader in English Canada does not speak French it may be better for them to be able to designate someone to manage the debate. It should not be just about the leaders. Yes, it would be a political issue of the leader does not speak both languages and that would have to be explained - including the role of the second language representative. However, leadership is too much about personalities as it is.

Formats could be adjusted to one-on-one segments when there are many leaders. I disagree with not letting people like Bernier in the debates as well. People need to hear how he stacks up becuase it is a chocie they have. I would ahve a very low bar: A new party who has elected people move to it are represented in parliament as Bernier is. The fact that it is registered as a party and has many candidates means he is not an independent. We need to confront the vileness of this party not sweep it under the rug. I think that becuase there are defectors from the Liberal party running, voters would have been well served by hearing one short segment to which they were invited and could speak. More information and not less is the direction voters shoudl go.

Perhaps the reliance on single day debate events is actually a problem. A series of taped one-on-ones put up on you-tube through the campaign may be better. This could allow voters to choose between the head to head debates that reflect the choices they want to make. If you narrowed your choice to say -- the PPC and Scheer why not be able to see a single head-to-head debate between them? If your choice is Liberal or Green or Liberal or NDP or NDP or Green -- the same thing. These do not have to be two hour slug fests. They could be 15 minutes long in a series of two people each series. they can be on different topics. They would be easy to schedule as you don't need the whole circus. Issues can centre on each one so they get attention and it is obvious if one is being ignored (like someone refusing to engage on Indigenous issues would be obvious if the debate was exclusively on the topic).