Last Night's Debate

I tuned in to last night's leaders' debate on the economy with little enthusiasm and low expectations; the exclusion of Elizabeth May suggested that there would be little fire and more of the same rhetoric I have come to expect in this campaign. While I wasn't entirely wrong, there were one or two surprises.

First, in the "no surprise' category, Stephen Harper continued with his references to the turbulence of world economies and his "stay the course" message - reassuring to his base, no doubt, but singularly uninspiring to the rest of us. When asked by moderator David Walmsley what new ideas he had since the economy has flatlined and things are bad for people, Harper answered by entirely rejecting the premise of the question. I guess when you are the Emperor, questions that displease are dismissed.

Thomas Mulcair performed as a prime-minister-in-waiting, repeating his promises for day-care spaces and modest increases in corporate taxation. Although by the luck of the draw he occupied the centre, with Trudeau on the left of the screen and Harper on the right, he seemed to have been aptly placed. He was evasive when asked about the costs of his carbon plan, but, in my view, made no mistakes. Harper light might be an appropriate label to affix to his lapel.

Justin Trudeau was the one who surprised me. Passionate when the others were calm, I got the impression that he was presenting the human side of politics, where the fate of the country matters more than for reasons of wanting power. As he pointed out, the record low rates at which the federal government can borrow money makes it the perfect time to invest in our woefully neglected infrastructure, a time when we can aspire to more than what the soulless Harper vision offers. He seemed to have some fire in his belly, whereas the other two appeared to have ingested mega doses of Maalox.

Here are a few highlights from Mr. Trudeau's performance:

The part I recall most vividly was when Trudeau talked through the camera to Canadians, asserting that he was being straight with them in proposing the measures he was outlining. With his earnest demeanour, he carried it off, in my view, quite successfully.

For more in-depth analysis and some fact-checking, here are the CBC's Susan Ormiston and Adrienne Arsenault: And finally, the At Issue panel weighs in:

Your Monday Morning Smile

I believe this is the cartoon Pamela was referring to in her comment yesterday:


H/t The Toronto Star

An Empty Podium

Given the firm rejection by Mr. Harper to join in the leaders' debates being arranged by a consortium of broadcasters, it would seem only fitting to have an empty podium onstage with his name attached, in case he changes his mind at the last minute, and to serve as a useful reminder of the prime minister's disdain (fear?) of honest and unbiasd formats.

With their usual perspicacity, Star readers offer their insights about this sad decision. All are excellent, but I am reproducing only a few below:

Confused about leaders debates? It's Harperology 101, May 16

I’m surprised Stephen Harper isn’t insisting the election debates be hosted by 24 Seven, his self-promoting video-streaming website. His heavy-handed refusal to participate in any debates hosted by a media consortium of CBC, CTV, ICI Radio-Canada and Global reeks of the fear he may not be able to exercise adequate control over the form and, perhaps, the moderator of those debates.

In assessing Harper’s decision, it’s worth recalling the under-reported episode this January when the PMO tried to stipulate that reporters submit their questions before interviews and press conferences. According to veteran reporter Robert Fife, both CTV and CBC unequivocally refused to comply.

Following fast on the heels of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, the government backed away from its stipulation — perhaps realizing that it was the wrong time to curtail freedom of the press.

If Harper wants to accept invitations to debate at events hosted by others, that’s up to him — though the decision of who is to moderate and the rules over any such debates should be carefully scrutinized by every single leader before going along with this scheme.

The debates hosted by the consortium Harper rejects out of hand have been free of biased moderating to date. I am unsure the same impartiality will govern in all other venues Harper favours.

Penny Gill, Dundas

In reference to the Stephen Harper Conservatives’ alternate plans on federal election debates, I urge the consortium to hold their debates as they planned and scheduled them and issue formal and public invitations to all the federal political parties. Whether the leaders attend or not is their problem, not the consortiums nor the voters.

An empty space at a federal election debate will give a very telling message on the interest, concerns and respect the absent leaders have for the people (voters) of this country. The control freak Conservatives must be shown that they are no better than anyone and they will be treated as equally as everyone else in the debates.

Canadians are getting very tired of their antics and this may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back if they continue on their path of arrogance and false sense of entitlement and superiority. I am of the considered opinion that the majority of voters would agree with and support my suggestion.

Gerald McIvor, Winnipeg

Funny how Harper loves to use the big networks to air his propaganda but fears participating in candidate debates hosted by the same group. This could however be a rare opportunity to salvage what’s left of our nation if Thomas Mulcair, Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May were to simply seize the opportunity and agree to participate in debates hosted by the CBC/CTV/Global consortium without Harper.

Each could explain why their party is the best choice to put an end to Harper’s destruction of our nation’s environment, democracy, economy, integrity, honesty and reputation while sparing us from having to listen to all Harper’s spin crap. If he chooses not to play – well so be it.

Randy Gostlin, Oshawa

......CBC, CTV and Global should go ahead with their plans to conduct debates. If Harper chooses not to participate, they should set up an empty chair so voters can see what he thinks of them.

Mr. Harper refuses to meet the press in regular news conferences, unlike most PMs and U.S. presidents. He doesn’t trust the media. If he refuses to debate on the “national” television networks, the feeling of mistrust may become mutual.

Joe Spence, Kanata