Debates, Debates, Let's Have More Debates!

Most of my current students are too young to remember the now infamous election debate clashes between Brian Mulroney and John Turner. So I like to show them the Free Trade Clash from 1988 or the patronage kerfuffle of 1984. Both debates were widely acknowledged as game-changers for their respective campaigns, with Mulroney the winner of '84 and Turner in '88. Ever since those debates, pundits have longed for a return to this clear-cut era where there were fewer candidates on the podium, and thus a greater chance of a knock-out blow, or certainly longer periods of direct confrontation. (Lest I be accused of the sin of omission, both debates also featured NDP leader Ed Broadbent, a solid debater in his own right).

And so here we are in the same position as we were in 2008, debating whether Green Party leader Elizabeth May should be allowed in the Consortium-managed leadership debates. (Is it just me, or does Consortium sound vaguely ominous and evil.) And even if she isn't allowed in, should we perhaps also have an Ignatieff vs. Harper one-on-one debate, since most experts think these are the two most likely candidates to form the next government? Herewith, my two cents.

As a supporter of some variant of proportional representation, I support May's inclusion in an all-leader debate. Given that the Greens won over 900,000 votes in the last election, about 6% of the total vote, under pretty much any system of proportional representation or mixed-member proportional system they would currently have seats in the House of Commons. The fact that they do not hold an elected seat is the excuse being advanced by the Consortium for their exclusion. To my mind, the fact that our first-past-the-post system is an antiquated electoral model that ill-reflects actual voting patterns is not a valid excuse to exclude the Greens. This position, incidentally, is supported by Jean-Pierre Kingsley, former chief electoral officer for the country. It is a decision which only benefits those who are the current victors under the status quo. Moreover, if the Bloc, which doesn't even run candidates in three-quarters of the country's riding, is permitted in the national leaders' debates, then the Greens, which run in all ridings, definitely should be included.

That's my ethical, principled position. Now for the other side, which is how I feel as a television viewer. I found the five-leader debates of 2008 to be tedious and long-winded. Too much time was taken up with the initial series of statements about each issue, and then a number of, to my mind, tedious and dreary question exchanges between pairs of candidates who agreed with each other. The Dion-May and Layton-Duceppe interchanges, in particular, tended to drag on. With five candidates, and a limited time frame, there is not much opportunity for the front-runners to confront each other, but the time allocated to each exchange is not reflective of the relative standing of the parties in the polls (and, presumably, viewer interest). With this in mind, I'd love to see a series of one-on-one exchanges, such as the one that Michael Ignatieff was proposing to Stephen Harper. I think many voters might find these more compelling to watch, as they would allow for more sustained and direct interaction between the leaders. So by all means, I'd support having these types of exchanges in addition to the all-leaders forum.

Finally, with respect to the events of the past couple of days, I think Michael Ignatieff was smart both to propose the one-on-one debate with Stephen Harper, and to avoid the snare of accepting this encounter in lieu of the all-party debate. Ignatieff is going to be counting on soft NDP and Green support in this election, and will need to avoid looking like he is disdainful of those parties. But nor will I be surprised if Harper does not cave on this issue. It's to his benefit to limit the number of chances that the opposition leaders have to take him on directly. Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't back the inclusion of the Greens in the debate. Every minute that Elizabeth May gets on stage is one less that Layton and Ignatieff have, which only hurts them. The front-runner could have afforded to appear to be magnanimous, and it probably would have helped him in the long run (although perhaps not Gary Lunn).

Recommend this Post

Greens should be in the debate

The Green Party will be excluded from the leaders' debates after three of the party leaders - presumably Harper, Layton and Duceppe - threatened not to participate if Elizabeth May were allowed to participate. I don't buy the "Greens are Liberals in disguise" line that Harper has been spewing. It certainly isn't the case here in Guelph, where the Greens are a major challenger to the Liberals and critics of their policies. Frankly, I don't see why Gilles Duceppe should get to participate, as a regional candidate whose party only fields 75 candidates, and polls around 8% nationally, if Elizabeth May, who presumably will field more candidates and has similar polling numbers, cannot. The Bloc got its first MPs through party defections, just as the Green party did last week.

If nothing else, I'd like May to be in the debates so that Canadians can get a chance to see what her party actually stands for, and to see it subjected to critique by the other parties. I'm getting rather tired of seeing reports of high polling numbers for the Green party, when I suspect that most Canadians only have a vague sense of what the Greens are about. Frankly, I'd prefer to have them in the debates so that Canadians can make an informed decision, lest we wake up to find out that a number of voters made a "Hail Mary" vote for the party, only to wake up and find that they split votes in dozens of ridings, despite not having a clear sense of what they were voting for.

Moreover, if the Greens are just "Liberals in disguise", wouldn't this become clear in the debates?

I realize that this is now a moot point, but I'm disappointed in the cowardice of the networks. I don't believe that the other leaders would actually have skipped a leadership debate with May there. The potential bad publicity would have been very hard to spin. It also would have made for some fascinating television!

Recommend this Post

2008 Election Campaign Predictions - Hoping to be proven wrong

My plans to blog regularly on the 2008 by-election here in Guelph have unfortunately run aground on my vacation time and research trips out of province. However, the expert tea leaf readers in Ottawa seem to believe that this, and the other three by-elections, will soon become irrelevant as they are rolled into a general election for some time in October. So, unlike my students, I'm getting an unasked-for extension on my assignment! For what it's worth, I'm finding the jockeying for position over who is and who isn't willing to meet with whom by what arbitrary date to be ridiculous. But I never much cared for the fixed election date law, and so don't really care that it's being loopholed. (Although, to be perfectly clear, I do think that Stephen Harper is violating the spirit of his own law to get the election timing and optics that he wants.)

To get to the meat of this post, I am worried. I'm worried because the media reporting from inside the Ottawa greenbelt is spinning precisely the election narrative that the opposition parties don't need. I'm not sure if it's because the media is selectively reporting on what the leaders are saying, or if it's a true reflection of their rhetoric. But my own tea leaf reading based on reporting to date indicates that the opposition, and particularly the Liberals, are planning on wasting a good chunk of their campaigning time complaining about how the election was called. My hunch is that most voters could not care less. For a tidbit of evidence, witness the fact that they rewarded both the NDP and the Conservatives for prompting a Christmas election last time around with many additional seats. Nobody expected this gong show to go on for so long, and many will be glad that it's over. Furthermore, if I were a Liberal, I wouldn't want to open the door to the "antics in Parliament" sideshow, given how many votes they have abstained on in the past year.

There has also been a fair bit of speculation around the blogosphere that Harper's eagerness to rush to the polls might be to prevent more hearings in the ethics committee about "in and out" election financing or the forthcoming epic saga of Julie Couillard. Again, while both are fodder for the political junkie, I think that they'll have minimal impact on the campaign. The financing issue is too complicated for the average voter, and Maxime Bernier's dating woes are a non-event outside of Quebec. If there is a timing issue to consider, it's that this will conveniently ensure that our own election is completely overshadowed by the one to the south, which won't wrap up until November.

My take on the campaign - should it begin in a week or so - is that there will be some attempt by the Liberals (and perhaps the other opposition parties) to huff and puff about the timing and try to ressurect the scandals they were hoping to run on. Meanwhile, the US election campaign will be in full swing, and it will centre on their tanking economy. I think that foreign policy issues will be a factor too, but that this will mainly be an economy-centred election. And that debate over the economy will get cross-border coverage. I also think, unless the opposition moves very quickly, that this will sink the apparent attempt by all three opposition parties to make this a federal campaign about the environment. The signals have been up for a while that the Conservatives intend to debate the "Green Shift" as a carbon tax plan. The US economic woes will make this much easier to do.

To boil this down to numbered points, here's what I think the opposition parties think they can focus the campaign on:

1) The environment
2) Electioneering tactics
3) Election financing and ethics
4) Julie Couillard (and ethics)

Meanwhile, I think the Conservatives have decided to gamble that Canadians think all politicians are unethical (at least a little bit) and that Parliament is dysfunctional. They will therefore focus on:

1) The economy - particularly taxes
2) Crime
3) Their record to date
4) In Quebec - openness to provincial demands

To be sure, there will be sideshows like the cuts to cultural programs (again, an issue with little traction), and the "unborn victims of crimes" law (which, ironically, was killed before it was fully born). But I think this is a campaign which will come down to Taxes vs. Environment. And much as many people think that values have shifted, I still think that taxes will still win in the ballot box.

Jack Layton, Stephane Dion, Elizabeth May - please prove me wrong and don't let Stephen Harper dictate the terms of this election and claim the issue that voters will actually vote on. Show the leadership traits that Stephen Harper thinks you don't have. And for goodness sakes, pay attention to what is going on off of Parliament Hill!

Recommend this Post