The debate Thursday night, however early in the campaign, is looking like the only time we will see the 4 major Canadian party leaders in a single spot.
Green Party leader Elizabeth May chose not to shout over her opponents but that reduced the amount of time she got onscreen. May was sharp and knew a lot of material. Her strategy was to go back to things Harper had said in 2008, introducing a nice perspective to broken promises.
If being judged on style points, Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau have a few issues to work on. But this was the first debate for both of them, and their ideas were better than their performance.
Mulcair wasn't as smooth as he has been on campaign stops, often looking down and occasionally losing his place in what he was saying. Trudeau sounded like he had to cram in 1,000 words in the time allotment to say 800 words; just spoke really fast. TV counts, and TV perception is a factor.
Harper was smooth and didn't esoterically mess up. Then again, all the prime minister had to do was repeat bullet points, regardless of whether they made sense. Harper is a better debater than you might perceive him to be. In past debates, he looked sharper than he did Thursday night.
-
Rogers/MacLean's Canadian election debate leads off debate season
-
Stephen Harper calls very early election
-
Canadian politics coverage on CanadianCrossing.com
The Senate scandal didn't come up Thursday night. If you had "Mike Duffy" on a square, you didn't win that way in debate bingo. Mulcair and Trudeau mentioned the middle class so much, yet only May mentioned the poor, though Mulcair's proposed minimum wage hike would help the poor.
Was the debate any worse or better than the broadcast consortium debates? Having one moderator ask all the questions is a style the United States is using to its detriment. When you have a variety of questioners, you get more diverse questions. If this debate stood alone, it would come up quite short. Questions weren't particularly tough. Fortunately, for some of the candidates, there are more debates.
The segments from City News that served as breaks was my first real chance to see City News for myself. Not terribly impressed with style or substance; the CBC isn't the perfect model but has more substance.
---
Tom Mulcair said by the end of Monday that he would decide whether the NDP would participate in any more debates where the prime minister would not be there.
That didn't happen. If we were advising the NDP leader, we would suggest participating in any debate, anywhere. We understand the strategy to seem like a prime minister, but more people need to hear what the NDP would do if the party forms government. They need to know so they can do something the country has never done.
The wayward strategy also falls into Stephen Harper's trap of avoiding any debate where he might get questions he wants to avoid. Why didn't the MacLean's moderator ask about Mike Duffy or the Senate scandal?
If the NDP shows up at the broadcast consortium debates, the party can show more of a difference with the Liberals and the Greens, something the NDP needs to do to get a potential majority.
Of course, our main motivation is that democracy is rewarded when major parties participate in debates.
---
The Mike Duffy trial resumes Wednesday and we finally get to hear from the star witness: Nigel Wright, Stephen Harper's former chief of staff.
Wright paid Duffy $90,000 from his own pocket to repay Senate expenses. One of the charges against Duffy is receiving a bribe, i.e., the money Wright paid to Duffy. Wright has not been charged with sending a bribe, something that is still seriously confusing.
This scandal could be enough to send a message of change at 24 Sussex Drive. The meat of the trial is buried in August and by all accounts, the trial will be in another break around election time. This means the party leaders will have to bring up this scandal in order to get it in voters minds.
The news cycle is only interested in matters of the second. The CBC is far above the private news outlets in Canada, but the public broadcaster is wounded with budget cuts and hasn't been as aggressive as in years past. Maybe this time will be different but we aren't encouraged.
---
If you are a Canadian and have lived away from Canada for 5 or more years, you won't be able to vote in the Canadian federal election.
Donald Sutherland has been one of the very loud voices against this policy from the Harper Government. Even the BBC News wonders what is going on.
One puzzling question is how Canadians vote without a Canadian address. In the U.S., you can vote for president but not for Congress. In Canada, you have to vote in a riding to elect a MP.
Details for voting outside Canada for Canadians can be found here.
Comments