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

Brooke Jeffrey, Divided Loyalties: The Liberal Party of Canada, 1984-2008

As I write this review, Canada appears to be on the eve of an election call. It thus seems fitting to reflect on elections and campaigns past. For the past two weeks, I’ve been making my way through Divided Loyalties, Concordia political scientist Brooke Jeffrey’s account of the internal dynamics of the Liberal Party of Canada from the end of the Trudeau era to the selection of Stéphane Dion as leader in 2008. Unfortunately, there is little being written these days by academic historians about party politics, particularly with regards to the most recent decades, and so Jeffrey’s account is a welcome addition to the literature.

In some respects, Jeffrey’s account echoes Stephen Clarkson’s The Big Red Machine which effectively chronicled past Liberal success at campaigning from the left, and governing from the centre or centre-right. In detailing the internecine warfare of the Liberal party during the years of the Turner-Chrétien and Chrétien-Martin feuds, Jeffrey, a former research director for the party, is clearly sympathetic to the Trudeauvian left-wing camp of social liberals in the party, and generally critical of the business liberal camp that followed Turner and Martin. Yet despite this bias, she generally provides an engaging and perceptive account of why the party has encountered its various difficulties in the past three decades – and why it succeeded when it did. Although this is a weighty tome (at 621 pages), it is written in a largely accessibly manner, and is filled with proverbial palace intrigue to sustain reader interest.

Perhaps the most interesting analytical angle put forth by Jeffrey is that the split within the Liberal party was not only the highly publicized business vs. social one, but that the more important, and perhaps less easily reconcilable, division was over conceptions of federalism. In her view, the party has succeeded most when it endorsed a Trudeauvian centralist approach to federalism and put forth a vigorous defence of national social programs as a central aspect of its nation-building program. It is during these periods, she argues, that the party is closest to the beliefs of its core supporters, and that it fares best at the polls. However, she is dismayed at a growing trend, often endorsed by the business liberal camp, and particularly under Martin and his followers towards decentralized and asymmetrical federalism. Jean Lapierre, the Liberal-turned-Bloquiste-turned-Martinite is subjected to particularly vigorous criticism – and not undeservedly, in my opinion. It’s noteworthy that she believes both current party leader Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae to fall within the asymmetrical federalism camp – one which she believes does not tend to lead to a sufficient degree of Liberal voter engagement and support.

There is much in Divided Loyalties for the policy wonk. A former researcher for the party, it is not surprising that Jeffrey devotes such attention to the development of various party platforms and policies. At points, the level of detail regarding key personalities may become moderately overwhelming for those not intimately familiar with the party, but these sections are nicely interwoven with the overarching narrative of major constitutional and political events. Implicit in her argument is the idea that the party desperately needs a strong set of well-articulated and presented policies to maintain voter support, which she contends has been lacking since the end of the “Red Book” era.

There are some frustrating elements to the book. Jeffrey had access to many party insiders, MPs and Senators, and these interviews inform much of her analysis. However, many interviewees insisted on confidentiality, with the result that the book has as many anonymous “senior party officials” and “caucus members” as a series of Jane Taber columns. These insights are valuable, but the lack of attribution is frustrating for the historian. Although most of the book is incredibly detailed, this level of detail and analysis tapers off sharply almost immediately after Martin’s departure. After reading detailed analyses of the conventions won by Turner, Chrétien and Martin, it was surprising that the 2006 leadership race was scarcely touched upon, and the roles played by Ken Dryden, Scott Brison and Martha Hall Findlay barely mentioned. Given that the book was published late in 2010, it is also somewhat disappointing that the 2008 federal election was relegated to a footnote. Although academic publishing timelines may partly explain this omission, it was particularly upsetting given that the footnote referred to Jeffrey’s own published work with another press.

After 621 pages of detail and analysis, I had also hoped for a more satisfying general conclusion and broad-based reflection, rather than the two paragraphs that Jeffrey provides. That said, her contention that the party requires a more concentrated effort at regrouping and rethinking its priorities and policy directions, and that it needs to stop fighting and tearing itself apart in public, is highly instructive. Alas, if the polls don’t turn around quickly, I fear we will soon see a repeat of the electoral campaigns described in Divided Loyalties, with Liberal insiders, caucus members and “senior party sources” calling publicly for the leader’s head, rather than trying to pull together for the duration of the election.

I hope to be proven wrong.

Recommend this Post

Outremont - The Musical

Watching the hubbub over the Liberal party nomination in Outremont - a battle which Ignatieff has now declared in favour of star candidate Nathalie Le Prohon over former justice minister (and Outremont MP) Martin Cauchon, I am taken back to the two years I spent living in that riding.

The Liberals had trouble back then. Unfortunately, while I moved to Outremont when Cauchon was still my MP, I didn't get the chance to vote for him, although I enthusiastically would have done so. Paul Martin, the curse whose legacy still haunts the Liberals, decided to push aside Chrétien loyalists like Cauchon and Sheila Copps, making way for such luminaries as ex-Bloquiste Jean Lapierre. Not only did I not vote for Lapierre, I campaigned for the then no-hoper NDP candidate. Clearly many Outremont Liberals felt the same way about the changing winds in Liberal HQ. Lapierre's share of the vote plummetted, barely holding on to the seat. And as we see now, the Liberal lock on this safe seat was detached, making way for Thomas Mulcair.

I think this should have gone to an open nomination. But of the various opinions that I've seen on this fracas, my favorite, unsurprisingly, is Chantal Hébert's observation on her blogue at La Presse. She observes that "en laissant traîner les choses pendant une semaine, le chef libéral a transformé une bataille entre chats de ruelle en affrontement entre gangs de rue."

I think this is a rather poetic and dramatic image - the alley cat fight transformed into a street gang confrontation. Andrew Lloyd Webber, Stephen Sondheim and Luc Plamondon could make a new bilingual musical out of it, which could play at both Stratford and the Théâtre du Nouveau Monde.

I rather suspect it would have to be a tragedy.

Recommend this Post

Ignatieff: Alienating supporters of electoral and parliamentary reform one stupid declaration at a time

So, responding to Harper's latest skillful bit of bait, Michael Ignatieff has declared he will never enter into a coalition government.

Delightful. In an era of perpetual minority governments, and deeply fragmented voter intentions, Ignatieff has decided that making a working parliament that actually reflects the spectrum of voter opinion is a bad idea.

If he wanted to alienate supporters of electoral reform and voters who actually think a Liberal-NDP coalition might be a good thing, he's done a bang-up job.

I wonder who the NDP and Green candidates are going to be in Guelph...

ETA: I miss Jean Chrétien.

Recommend this Post

Of Home Renovations and Elections

Never let it be said that Stephen Harper is not cunning. I've known for a while that the much-touted home renovation tax credit had not yet received official sanction from the House of Commons. Not that you'd know this from all the television ads and every home renovation store touting purchases as being eligible under the program. But you'd figure that someone in the Liberal party had to know that they hadn't voted on this yet.

It figures therefore, that this is the poison pill that the Conservatives are hoping to make the Liberals swallow. At best, Ignatieff will be forced to back down on his threat to vote against the Harper government at the first possible confidence opportunity, and wait until a subsequent vote when the party's bravado has a little less force. At worst, his party votes against a wildly-popular tax credit, and then has to explain to middle-class Canadians how his government will re-introduce the program whenever the House gets around to sitting again after the election - which I'd bet would not be any sooner than December.

My advice: swallow your pride, vote for the reno tax credit, and don't risk losing Ontario seats in the 519-905 belt. It's better than letting the election be branded on the theme of how the Liberals don't care about the middle class.

Recommend this Post

Michael Ignatieff, the United Kingdom and the Conservative Party of Canada

I recently received my latest partisan get-my-blood-boiling free-mailer from the Conservative Party, courtesy of Gary Goodyear. It's part of the Conservative party's "Ignatieff: Just visiting" campaign, smearing the Liberal leader for having the temerity to become an internationally-recognized scholar with long-term academic postings in the UK and at at Harvard (quelle horreur!) and alleging that he is insufficiently patriotic to Canada.

Now, I suppose that reasonable people can disagree on Ignatieff's long-term commitment to staying in politics (and in Canada) for long if this gig doesn't pan out for him. But, the historian in me can't help but find it fascinating/amusing that the Conservative Party of Canada is attacking a Liberal leader for being too closely tied to the United Kingdom! John Diefenbaker, champion of all things British and Commonwealth, must be rolling over in his grave to witness the party he gave so much of his life to engaging in petty partisan attacks using "Britishness" as a club to beat its opponents with.

Recommend this Post

Liberal Leadership Race: The deep ambivalence of a non-partisan blogger

I recognize that political historians are perhaps not a key demographic for the Liberal party of Canada. We pay too much attention to what has happened in the past, and are less likely to forget speeches or comments made two to three years ago. However, I'm also a sometimes-Liberal voter who leans to the left. And so, I feel like I do have some stake in the federal Liberal leadership race. I'm not firmly wedded to the federal NDP - facial hair aside, Jack Layton doesn't really appeal that much to me. I'm looking for a leader who can put forth a vision of federal policies that I can get behind, preferably one without enough baggage to make her/him unelectable.

Here's my dilemma. None of the three leadership candidates come close to that for me. I still see Michael Ignatieff as the candidate who endorsed the Iraq war and was willing to contemplate torture. Domenic Leblanc has done nothing to develop a national profile - and as my MP for two years, he did little to grab my attention at the local level. Bob Rae is by far my preferred candidate on most policy grounds - he seems like the most thoughtful, pragmatic and left-leaning of the three. But he is political kryptonite in Ontario - it's been 15 years since the famed "Rae Days" and I still hear union members and teachers speak his name with venom - and they are his supposed constituency in this province. The man is unelectable as head of the party - particularly if the economy stays in a slump.

If I were a card-carrying Liberal, I'd be beating the bushes for a wild card candidate. Rae and Ignatieff might be the preferred candidates for Liberal party insiders, but I think the party will be in for a tremendous shock when either one faces the electorate. I wonder what Lloyd Axworthy, Glen Murray or Peter Mansbridge are up to these days...

Recommend this Post