Spare me another national leaders’ debate! Please!
Leadership debates are mostly a waste of time. Excruciating. Surely only masochists enjoy them.
There are few surprises. If you’re a partisan praying your favourite party leader won’t mess up, they’re grimly suspenseful, but usually a relief at the end, which always takes far too long to arrive.
If your fingers are crossed your guy will deliver a major put-down, hammering their chief opponent, you’re pretty well guaranteed to be disappointed.
Professional political strategists have developed coaching candidates how not to mess up into a near science – even real dummies can be saved from serious pratfalls most of the time. This ensures leadership debates are at the least boring, often stultifying.
Chances are good we’re never going to see another moment like Brian Mulroney telling John Turner that, “You had an option, sir,” in our lifetimes.
For that to happen, two factors are necessary: One candidate has to blunder badly; another has to be quick enough jump on it. This gets less likely each year as the methodology for drilling candidates not to say anything devastatingly dumb keeps improving. And as for candidates who are quick enough to respond, old video clips and social media posts will end most of their political careers before they start nowadays.
No, if you want to see a politician get creamed by another politician, go to a charity boxing match.
Anyway, one thing about those rare moments when someone actually does get smacked – “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy!” – is that if the planets do all line up, it’ll be played and replayed so many times that by the end of the week you’ll have it all memorized for the rest of your life anyway.
The conventional wisdom about the English-language debate last night in Montreal was that all Prime Minister Mark Carney had to do to win was not mess up. He didn’t mess up. In particular, he didn’t mess up on the question on all of our minds: How do you solve a problem like The Donald? Ergo, he won.
The conventional wisdom was basically right – the guy’s got serious dad vibe and the you’re-just-like-Justin-Trudeau shots slid off him like the proverbial water off the proverbial duck.
Beyond mere entertainment, if you view these things as a pedagogical exercise, you can spare us the civics lesson. They don’t have much educational value either.
There was Pierre Poilievre trying not to sound like a snotty political science sophomore with a mean streak and a cartoon villain’s voice. At this point in this campaign was anyone other than Conservative true believers going to be persuaded he was actually a grownup just because he mostly kept his worst instincts in check for a couple of hours? Probably not.
To tell you the truth, if I’d been his debate coach, I would have told him just to go wild and go for the throat, because at least that would have made better TV and persuaded his party’s base to resist the temptation to drift off to the PPC again.
Whatever happens on the 28th, Mr. Poilievre might as well have made a performance out of showing how he managed to piss away at 20-plus-point lead in the polls. Instead, he just set the stage for Mr. Carney to sound like Canada’s dad, smile gently, and explain politely that “you spent years running against Mr. Trudeau and the carbon tax, and they’re both gone.” (Sotto voce: …, Son.)
The faltering NDP’s Jagmeet Singh? Well, at least he had the decency on occasion to sound desperate – which, come to think of it, he should. He described himself as scrappy.
Yves-François Blanchet? I’m pretty sure the Bloc doesn’t have a candidate here in St. Albert, even if half the street names are French.
And then, this being the age of the pre-apocalyptic Internet, when it’s all over the various campaigns will carve out tiny clips of their candidates saying something reasonably coherent and play them over and over to their algorithmic silos on social media, the better to play Stop The Steal in the event they lose the election.
They’ll all say their guy won the debate, decisively. Which is fair, I guess, in a sport where they don’t give out attaboy participation ribbons. This is known as spin.
And then there are the organizers of these things, like the Leaders Debate Commission, which excluded one political party with MPs in the House of Commons at the last minute because it’s only running 232 candidates while welcoming another that’s running 78. Yah, I know about the percentage rule. Sorry, don’t care.
Well, at least that eliminates the danger of a powerful debate by a feisty amateur thespian whose party has no seats at all in the House turning the whole affair on its head and actually generating some interest, as happened in British Columbia in 1991.
Oh, and then letting hordes of pretend reporters working for mysteriously funded right-wing advocacy groups elbow out the real journalists from The Canadian Press and whatever else is left of the media, for heaven’s sake.
No, just spare us the pain. No Mas!
These election debates are so embarrassing to watch, when the leaders talk over each other, argue, and act like children. Not much civil discourse is present. Regardless of that, voting is important.
Well, I persevered through the French debate and came up with a little gem, which as you have alluded to, it’s making the rounds on social media– I was not the only one who caught it.
When the moderator asked the leaders what American products do you no longer buy?; Mr homegrown in Calgary Alberta ,said “beef”, I buy Canadian beef.
I had to do a stop & rewind and yes, I did hear that right.
Well as for social media, it’s being covered by>> Treads <>true story <<
Randi-lee: It depends how you define Canadian, I guess. There are two major slaughterhouses (whoops, beef processing plants) in Alberta. One is owned by Americans. The other by Brazilians. DJC
Why wouldn’t the full-time chef at Stornoway be in charge of buying food for the residents of the mansion?
Think the answer might lie in our food chain beef is a 50/50 americanadian blend cross shipped like autoparts .
There are high end local Alberta calf to steak butcheries that mister “of the people” could be shipping steaks from into Ontario.
DJC— well third time my comments have been cut…too late to retype, but wishing you a Happy Easter, long wknd, or at least 2 days of quiet.
And for all those who can, get out and vote…..Democracy is at stake.
Carney is just what the country needs now. Because father knows best.
https://youtu.be/sxyR_zOzW-s?si=SO09VrUGTK6VtxH6
Thank you, DJC, for watching the debate so that we didn’t have to. The highlights are enough.
I guess I must agree with you, David, in that I didn’t bother watching/listening, other than a few minutes when I had the radio on while I got changed.
Those few minutes were long enough for me to hear Pierre Poilievre talk about how his government will implement a three strikes and you’re out rule. A few days ago he also promised to reduce red tape by implementing a two for one policy: if you want to introduce a new rule you have to take two out, just like Donald Trump implemented in his first term. He has also promised to invoke the notwithstanding clause to impose consecutive life prison terms for people who commit multiple murders.
The same time he is doing this he is trying to convince people he is not a mini-Trump. Yes, part of his base may still have some Trump sympathies, but that evaporated 20 point lead you referred to are the people who were planning to support the CPC, until the combination of Trudeau’s departure and the emergence of a really wacky Trump 2.0 has made them change their plans.
The Clinton crime bill proposal is the most baffling one to me, one, it is WIDELY known as being adopted by MAGA’s favourite Democrat, it’s also widely known as being incredibly draconian and one of the reasons the UNITED STATES incarcerates more of its citizens than any country on earth (rather than having them contribute to society). Is he planning to use Canadians as slave labour ? Does he want to deport people to El Salvador ? Has anyone even bothered to do a back of the envelope calculation of the billions of dollars it would cost to even just build out the prisons ?
Incarcerating people doesn’t make society any more safe, if that was the case the United States would be the safest country in the world.
Throwing chunks of red meat to the most rabid and hateful demographic in the country that LITERALLY wants to destroy the country and turn it into a dictatorship sure was AN election strategy, one that I have LONG said would be a disaster.
I cannot wait for the swift death of Millhouse’s political career, I’ve already heard enough of his Weasley little voice to last me the rest of my life.
Sucks to suck Pierre.
I couldn’t agree more wrt Pierre’s swift departure, assuming they have an even more odious candidate (if that’s possible) lined up to replace him. However, I live in Aaron Gunn’s district and watched this area turn further and further to the right since the Trucker Convoy. With all that’s come out about this candidate I thought there was a good chance to turn things around but people seem to have galvanized around him as people sometimes do. All this to say BC seems to be gathering steam to become more open to this 51st State nonsense. I hope I’m wrong but I could see Pierre winding up in Alberta and joining Danni for a good ‘ol’ treasonous two step.
to push
Ot.. but has anyone noticed the similarity between the eyes of Poilievre and Lagrange? Creepy!
A song from some long gone Canadians.. https://youtu.be/1C_fVnE3xHY?t=1
Yes, the fight! Poor Senator Brazeau was carrying the weight of all the dreams of manliness of conservative men. He had the hair and tattoos conservative men wished they had, if only their wives and mothers would allow. Did anyone else think the Sun News commentary of the fight was creepy?
Creepy/Funny. Yes. I’m pretty sure that was Ezra Levant’s voice. DJC
Creepy commentary notwithstanding, had the referee not stopped the fight Trudeau would have laid him out permanently. Afterwards did Justin know he could plant a whuppin on anyone in the House of Commons and likely Sun News too?
Welp, Imma gonna respectfully disagree, here.
I think it’s the *level* of debate, that matters.
If a party is promoting their platform and the politicians are at all savvy and not just throwing talking point nonsense about–some points can be enlightened by sharp questions from the opposing parties.
It’s one thing to throw out say, the slogan, “Housing for All” or “Tax Cuts” but can they actually explain, in understandable terms to the general public, what they mean by that in concrete terms? Can another debater on the stage ask the questions or have enough information to detect flaws in that policy or invalidate those claims?
Now it would be lovely if we had a media landscape that would see it’s job as asking for precise outcomes from legislation or confronting the errors with it but in reality we have journalists who want to join the “access to power” Club and seem to lazy to bother.
Instead we’re stuck with everyone thinking up their next talking point or waiting to find a “gotcha” moment rather than objecting to flaws in arguments or selling their own agenda and ignoring pointed questions. The amount of re-framing and seguing into another rehearsed talking point sounds like rehearsed wiffle waffle.
Just wish some of these media people and politicians actually took a debating class to understand how it works…and why public debate can be an important tool for enlightenment rather than entertainment.
B: Respectful disagreement is always welcomed here. DJC
How to deal with the orange chaos shit gibbon – yeah, that is pretty much the crux of this election. Or at least half of it.
Serious dad vibe – IMHO, stability (inherent to the dad vibe) is requisite. The other thing I want to see is some proactivity. It is time to make Trump react to us. He already has proven track record of poor response when he has to be reactive.
Oh I’m with ya there, Gerald. Our biggest threat is the lunacy at our southern border.
I’m not a liberal but voting it, anyway. Not because Carney’s plans are making me leap for joy– but because he’s the adult in the room who is making actual concrete plans to deal with a neighbouring country that’s gone full-blown fascist now. At least he *has* plans.
They’ve been on their way for decades and we’ve been ignoring it while feeding their war machine with resources (what can we really do anyway, it’s like trying to stop a chronic drug user from using when we’re the resources supplier) and now we have to pony up for not diverting our resources elsewhere for the past few decades.
When the NDP banged on my door I was in the middle of an emergency and managed to spit out, “First you need some real leadership and second, stop being liberal-lite and produce some actual leftist policies. Sort that out and I’ll vote for you, next election. Now I have an emergency!” and slammed the door.
I feel like Poland without even the modicum of an army right next door to Hitler’s rise to power. What we really need is to build a defensive armed forces and foundations for an insurrection and civil defence, should it become necessary.
Carney “gets” it. Or seems to, anyway. Pollivier is poser. Can you imagine that fool leading the country if America keeps pushing? I like Jagmeet as a person but he sadly lacks as someone who can push left, give a shove against the Americans and he’s no policy wonk. We haven’t had an NDP powerhouse since Broadbent.
Sometimes you have to vote with what’s in front of you and just keep pushing to improve what you need improved. The whole point of being a lunchbox lefty is to improve the lot of the working class. And that won’t be improved if we get knocked over by the oligarchical nutbags in the administration, south of us.
Amen. I don’t usually watch them, but I did last night. all 2, painful hours. My mind didn’t change one bit, because I think our biggest problem is south of the border. If we can’t contain that problem, we’ll be in the same mess as the US.
I’m not certain we can protect and maintain our sovereignty, but there is only one candidate I trust to give it a shot. And that will never be a back bencher who has never had a real job. The debate, and campaign for that matter, reminded me of a man whose house is on fire, worried about what the firetrucks are doing to his lawn.
To which I might add, there is also only one candidate who has a doctorate in economics from a highly recognised university, not that followers of certain politicians understand the importance of learning, especially at a superb university like Oxford. Let’s be realistic. A basic arts degree from U of C doesn’t quite fall into the same category. On the plus side, I don’t think Skippy’s father bought the degree for him.
Surely I wasn’t the only one who enjoyed the moment when Pierre Poilievre said what sounded like “that I would be gay”, and Mark Carney put down his water glass, silently raised his eyebrows and gave a sideways glance to the other “contestants”.
Or how about the running discussion on X about Poilievre’s sudden growth spurt, unlikely given his well-past-adolescent vintage.
And what about Ezra Levant’s well-past-adolescent lack of impulse control that led to the post-debate scrum cancellation and videos of him being told to straighten up and fly right by others in the press room?
Somebody has to be Canada’s dad to the ancient adolescents.
I’m not sure if political debates change minds. Many have already voted by mail-in ballot or special ballot at Elections Canada offices, where business has been so brisk that one office had to use regular ballots as the supply of special ballots ran low; a power outage did not deter voters in the line.
Anecdotally, turnout at the polls seems to be very strong. Canadians are engaged in this election and ready to show up and be counted. If anything, this debate strengthened the resolve of those who know what they need to do: get out and vote if they want Canada to survive, even on Good Friday or Easter Sunday or any of the other advance polls days, by special ballot or on election day on April 28.
Abs: I waited in line to vote for a little over an hour and a half this morning with a huge throng of St. Abertans. Nobody bailed, that I noticed, despite the wait. The mall was packed, even though The Bay is gone and many of the stores were closed for the holiday. They were all there to vote. I can’t tell you how they planned to vote, of course, but I can tell you there’s a hell of a lot of interest in this election in this riding. DJC
Thank you for yet another excellent article. Although the debates are long, I imagine some in the Alberta Government are grateful from the distraction provided by the predominance of the election in the news cycle.
I am very interested in the dynamics of politics and enjoyed watching both debates and the interactions amongst leaders I am not likely to ever meet. I was impressed with their stamina and a lot can be learned about character from body language and poise. I got a better understanding of how these men behave and think under duress (despite being carefully prepared), about their priorities and about the ideology of the groups they represent.
It is time to vote.
I hope Canada will be a country that still cares for its people and forms partnerships through effective federal governance with provincial and municipal entities. The alternative is to continue enduring the eternal machinations of those working hard to disparage and dismantle that which protects Canadian identity, rights, unity and prosperity.
A majority win by a centrist party could allow for focused attention on coming together across the federation for the greater good of all rather than. There are far more important matters up ahead to deal with than partisan dreams to wedge or country apart.
All I got was whinge mister “for a change” is the only thing that hasn’t changed that I really wish would change. I really hope he loses and out come the con party long knives.
Tho I do bless his petty cringy soul for giving me a play on the “lost liberal decade” with “Alberta – the Lost Conservative Century”.
The whole debacle of fake media hogging the mics and then, next evening, starting fights inside and out of the media room has to be investigated.
Never forget: these are the shock troops of MAGA Maple.
The debate itself was not bad, but front runners do tend to play it safe and challengers tend not to get anywhere unless the front runners make a big mistake. One thing that really turned me off was the two overly aggressive leaders who would not shut up and let others talk when it was their turn. I realize they are getting desperate, but that sort of behaviour just reinforces the view they are not the quality of people who should be chosen to lead us. In particular, Poilievre interrupted Carney so much while he was trying to answer some questions, I think he spoke more than Carney.
I feel Poilievre tried to be more Prime Ministerial in the French debate where less was at stake for him, but I don’t think it is his character to be able to do that for long. In the English debate he reverted to his typical attack dog style that some like, but also turns off many. The debate had good questions and topics, but the participants did not rise to this.
While they can’t be blamed for the quality of the debate itself, the people organizing the debate should be fired for several other things: the chaotic last minute rescheduling of the French debate for a hockey game whose schedule was known almost a year ago, cutting out the Greens who have elected MP’s and are actually running more candidates than the BQ and letting in people who claimed to be journalists, but were not and who were really just trouble makers.
Why do negative, Dave?
Truth be told, Arnim, I have felt for years that leadership debates are a waste if time, and in many ways inimical to the democratic process. The reduction of policy making to three-word slogans, for example, is a fairly natural development of approaching policy disagreements as entertainment (viz., charity boxing matches). They are, moreover, profoundly unparliamentary, being based as they are in the American two-party system. They usually do not even demonstrate what they are supposed to show above all, the leadership qualities of the participants, emphasizing, rather, who shouts the loudest and interrupts the most forcefully. In this case, I am willing to concede that it wasn’t the loudest candidate who looked the most like a real leader. Be that as it may, it’s not negative to criticize an institution that has a negative impact, and humour is a way to make such points succinctly and memorably. I rest my case. DJC