Canada's televised leader's debates

[leira]

Originally posted by Tharzon
Except that's not how it happened.

"It became clear that if the Green party were included, there would be no leaders' debate," the consortium said in a press release.

"In the interest of Canadians, the consortium has determined that it is better to broadcast the debates with the four major party leaders, rather than not at all."

That came straight from the CBC. Does that statement from the consortium sound like they said "shucks guys, you're right"? Really doesn't sound like it to me.

[Tharzon]

Those statements were made after the leadership of the NDP and Conservatives threatened to pull out of the debate.

It wasn't even a question that anybody needed to comment on until the consortium was at least considering including them. If the TV stations had never considered it, what cause would the parties have had to threaten to not show up?

[leira]

Okay, I'm having a really hard time following your arguement, so I'm not sure what else to say.

Ultimately, the last people in the world that should have a say on who takes part in these debates are the people that have a vested interest in keeping people out of them. Maybe their reasons for wanting the Greens kept out were compelling. I don't care. It should -NOT- be up to them. They tried to force the broadcasters to do things their way, and that can't be tolerated no matter how pure their motivations may be.

[Jozep]

If they hold a televised leaders' debate, and nobody watches it, did it ever actually happen?

Leadership debates never prove anything and you never learn anything new. So who cares, really?

[Rilthyn]

Originally posted by Jidoe
I would just like to comment that having too many parties is counter-productive to their causes and to the government's stability. The way it works with our government, we have over 10 different parties, with the threshold being at around 2% (120 seats in the parliament) and the reigning Prime Minister has to constantly give money to the different parties (some times tiny parties) in order to gain their support for different decisions until the point it is just ridiculous.

Are there 10 different parties over the 2% threshold and holding seats? From the rest of this thread, I get the impression that there are 4 parties with seats (plural) and the Greens with a single seat.

That's not an 'oh teh noes' situation at all.

The Greens HAVE a seat, which is the requirement for the debate. If the circumstances around their having that seat mean that their position in the debate is uncertain, then the decision should most definitely not be made, or forced by the other parties. That is the issue that Leira raised, and the one that the anti side of this thread are ignoring.

As for the Greens supporting the Liberals, so what? Quite clearly Elizabeth May is not running for PM of your country, so why shouldn't she endorse a political ally?

A minor-party that wants to have an influence will try to become a part of a coalition with a major-party. That doesn't make the minor-party null and void.

[Tharzon]

Okay, I'm having a really hard time following your arguement, so I'm not sure what else to say.

Their basis for asking to be included in this year's debate is foolish and invalid in the opinion of many people.

They weren't invited before under the perfectly reasonable condition that you needed to at least have won a seat in the previous election to be considered the leader of a party worth hearing from.

A liberal MP was kicked out of his party, became an independant, and a month ago joined the Green party. I don't condsider that to be the same as "won a seat in the previous election" and as such, I don't consider the green party an eligable party to take part in the leadership debate.

It's a pretty straightforward position, I must have just been explaining myself poorly, I apologise.

[leira]

Okay, fair enough. You may have a point there, I'm not really sure. However, I think the FAR bigger issue is the established parties trying to force the broadcasters to do things their way. That shouldn't be allowed, and I find having somebody that might not be qualified included a far better outcome than having somebody that might be qualified being excluded.

[Snrrub]

Well, both debates are now over so I'm wondering what people thought of them. Unsurprisingly, I thought that Harper scored two easy victories, although I thought he could have been more aggressive. I suspect that his soft tone and general politeness was deliberate and is consistent with the image-makeover he's been trying to accomplish lately.

Dion did better than I expected, but I was surprised at how bad his English was - far worse than I had remembered. Personally I can't trust anything he says because of the say-anything-to-get-elected strategy that the Liberals have often employed.

Layton was... well, Layton. I intensely dislike his "corporations are the enemy" attitude, and I wonder how he can believe that raising corporate tax rates will encourage manufacturer's to stay in Canada. I also noticed how this time it wasn't just 'big oil' that cause all the problems, but also the 'big banks'. Some of his statements were downright contradictory, like when he complained that the average Canadian artist only makes between $10k and $12k / year, and then offered to give them a tax break - and this was immediately after attacking Harper's tax credit of being ineffective because most artists don't have sufficient income to pay taxes (which was itself a misrepresentation of Harper's policy).

May, as expected, wasn't worth her seat at the table, and came off as especially abrasive. She was chronically interrupting the other candidates and even interrupted the moderator when he was giving his closing remarks at the debate's completion.

[leira]

Just a couple quick thoughts, I'll try to say more later. Note that I only watched the english debate, as my french isn't good enough to gain anything out of the french one.

I don't think Elizabeth May did that badly really. I agree with your assessment that Dion didn't do particularly well. Harper came out of it looking somewhat sympathetic, as the bulk of the debate was the other 4 leaders gangbanging him, and as you said, he came off as really polite. Layton seemed to want to hit some points repeatedly, and I recall him stumbling a bit when the moderator asked him for specifics on the art funding issue.