federal debate

spaminator
+1
#1
its kind of like what happens on Canadian content. continuous fighting and no moderation.
 
harrylee
Free Thinker
+1
#2
They are all claiming victory.....lol

Seems with all those moderators, filling all the time, that not much got to be said. Probably just the way TrustFund-eaus boy Butts had it planned.
 
Mowich
Conservative
+3
#3  Top Rated Post
After Monday night, it’s time to fix the debates

The verbal bunfight that was billed as an election leaders’ debate on Monday night accomplished at least one thing: a national consensus on an important issue.

Which is that this debate was a mess, and for the sake of our democracy we have to figure out a way to do better. A lot better.

Six leaders, five moderators and a format that lent itself to anything but real debate. A bit of heat and some nifty zingers (Jagmeet Singh’s description of Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer as “Mr. Delay and Mr. Deny” on climate change was clever). But for anyone trying to get a measure of these people, it was an evening of frustration.

The national Leaders’ Debates Commission set up last year by the Trudeau government and chaired by former governor general David Johnston is due to produce a report suggesting how the process can be improved for the next time around.

Johnston would do voters a big service by proposing a fundamental re-think of how we do national debates.

He should start with the number of debates. Two (one in each official language) just isn’t enough. Our federal elections go on for five to seven weeks, plenty of time for at least two in each language. If the parties truly had voters’ interests in mind and not just their own partisan advantage, they’d have a debate a week.

Monday night showed there should be fewer leaders on stage. Maxime Bernier shouldn’t have been there — not because his ideological positions are so objectionable but because the People’s Party is a fringe group. Nor should Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet be included in an English debate when he doesn’t bother to run candidates in more than three-quarters of ridings. National debates are for leaders of national parties.

The format should encourage extended interaction among the main players, not 30-second jabs and rehearsed soundbites. Voters want to see the leaders with a real chance of holding power go at one another directly. That’s the whole point of a debate, after all.

It’s understandable that the moderators on Monday evening (all of them very able journalists) had to whistle down leaders who ran over their time. But that’s because they were trying to jam too much into two hours of TV time.

And enough already with the reach-out to pre-screened samplings of “ordinary Canadians.” We get the point; it’s a nod to the populist mood of the times and it plays well on TV. But it’s time-consuming and ultimately not very informative. Panels of regular voters should have their chance (as in the CBC’s town hall sessions with the leaders last week) but a national TV debate is the time for tightly focused, probing questions.

Finally, the debates must be held at a time when the maximum number of voters will see them. Scheduling Monday night’s event at 7 p.m. Eastern time meant it aired at 4 p.m. in British Columbia and 5 p.m. in Alberta — when people are on their way home or getting dinner. What better way to tell the West that this isn’t a truly “national” debate?

We know the networks don’t want to air debates later in the evening because it would mean losing more prime-time revenue. Well, too bad for them. It should be a condition of their broadcasting license that they air debates when the debates commission schedules them. Aside from minority government situations, this comes around only every four years.

That said, the polls show that a minority is a real possibility after Oct. 21. Which means another election may be upon us sooner rather than later.

Voters shouldn’t have to endure another debate experience as disappointing as this one. The debates commission should lose no time after election day in drawing up recommendations to fix this broken process.

www.msn.com/en-ca/news/elections/after-monday-night-its-time-to-fix-the-debates/ar-AAItZuw


I could not agree more. What a waste of my time. It would be interesting to hear the stats on how many people bothered to tune in. In addition, find moderators who actually know how to do the job and aren't in love with hearing their own voices.
 
Mowich
Conservative
+3
#4
Rex Murphy: That wasn't a debate. Nor was it national. It was tokenism, and feeble at that

From the perspective of simple utility, how it assisted voters to make up their minds, Monday night’s exhibition — the so-called debate — was a waste of time. I came away from it with one dominant impression: that the only purpose such debates may claim is to provide journalists with a once-in-four-years opportunity to over- and mis-use the most stale cliché in all reporting history — the “knockout punch.”

E.g., “Mr. Singh had a good line — Mr. Deny and Mr. Delay — but it wasn’t a knockout punch.” Or, “Mr. Scheer came on really strong against Mr. Trudeau in the beginning, but it wasn’t a knockout punch.”

Why journalists are addicted to a boxing metaphor — boxing being a competition between two fighters (obviously) fighting each other — for a spectacle involving six politicians firing over-scripted talking points at each other, while displaying their powers of equivocation and evasion — is a mystery not worth the effort to solve.

Throw in the presence of five — five — moderators and what you have is a jumble of crosstalk, interruption, pre-fab bullet points offered as spontaneous eloquence, and two hours of tangled posturing. Eleven people can’t “debate” anything. As everyone tried to grasp their few seconds of camera time, it triggered the image, frequently seen on television, of Japanese commuters being jammed by guards into already over-stuffed subway cars. Furthermore, they weren’t on stage to debate — it was far more a competition to see who could rhetorically wound one or another of the competitors than an effort to deal in any way comprehensively with the major issues of the election. This tactic, elegantly summarized in Bruce Carson’s The Morning Brief as “leaders who came with pre-planned attacks or ‘drive-by smears’ ready to unload,” is actually the essence, the core dynamic, of these encounters.

The format was a mess with far too many people on the stage, issues chopped down to fit the “segments” rather than the segments being open to allow depth to treat the issues, and a ludicrous tag-teaming of moderators, all bracketed by a Niagara of pre- and post-analysis and insta-judgments. As the noble Christie Blatchford put it: “I missed a Leafs game for this …”

OK. Having got the minor concerns out of the way, here are the real reasons this was a mess and an insult. First, it was just one debate, held in Ottawa, constructed within the purely Ottawa journalistic mindset of what is and is not an issue, and chewed over on television and the internet very largely from within that mindset.

This was the one and only debate for all the provinces and territories (outside Quebec, which gets two debates) to be conducted in English. The range of interests and issues in the regions and provinces of Canada were not and could not possibly be served by last night’s claustrophobic contest.

Let us go to the ever-worthy and oh-so-pious issue of “climate change” on which all the leaders (exception, Maxime Bernier) scrambled to be first and most conspicuous at the altar rail. The biggest question on this issue, and therefore not to be asked, is whether Canada should be tying itself into regulatory and taxation knots to do anything about climate change at all. Even if you accept all the premises of global warming, there is a kernel fact here that reduces every leader’s position — even Elizabeth May’s — to spurious pretence, the ultimate expression of policy commitment as aggravated virtue-signalling.

Canada, the country, is at best a minor, a minuscule contributor to climate change. Canada can do virtually nothing, nothing, to halt or stop it. And for all their talk of concern on the issue, and their deep promises to savagely reduce Canada’s carbon emissions, not one of the leaders (with the possible exception of May) dare commit to the reduction in quality of life that stopping all oil and gas development, and all industry that depends on reliable energy, would inevitably entail. The entire debate is a charade. We know it, and the politicians squirming to be front-of-the-line virtuous on this issue know it, too.

Now back to the leaders’ debate. How can there be a national consideration of climate change when Albertan interests, Newfoundland’s interests, and all the interests of those whose work and life revolve around ready energy supply, are not equally represented with those promising to “transition to net emission-free” energy by 2050 (a fantastical, impossible target). Translated, what that commitment amounts to is a pledge to change Canada’s entire industrial and domestic energy base in 30 years. It is a pledge to shut down the central economic base of at least two provinces. It is putting the whole province of Alberta on notice that “we’re shutting you down.”

Is this not a question that deserves its own debate, in the province most to be affected?” If all the leaders so invested in climate change believe what they are saying, should they not at least leave Ottawa and go out to the province they intend to shut down and hear from the people there? If there are two “national” debates for, and held in, Quebec, should there not be at least one for, and held in, Alberta? I would like to hear one good reason — good, I said — why there cannot.

Similarly for the North and all of the particular, endemic concerns of Canada’s northern peoples. Why not an all leaders’ debate in Whitehorse? Why not more than one held in primarily rural areas, in front of loggers or farmers or fishermen? British Columbia has a dynamic and diverse political culture. Why should we discuss, or more accurately skip over, British Columbia’s interests from within a museum in Ottawa?

I could go on (except I have a wise editor) but I’ll summarize the points. Monday night’s debate was not a debate. It was tokenism, and pretty feeble tokenism at that. The issues of this vast and highly differentiated country cannot be shoehorned into a two-hour shout fest, chopped down to 40-second nuggets, in front of a very select audience in no way representative of the nature of our country.

Leaders have weeks in a national campaign. There is no reason why, with all their various stops, each leader and each party could not put in a debate a week in all the country’s regions. No reason why they should not face the people who they are talking about. Calgary, Vancouver and St. John’s have as much claim on their presence as Ottawa or Montreal. And the rural areas of this country have as much claim as Calgary, Vancouver and St. John’s.

The reason we do not have these debates is that each party and each leader wishes to reduce their risks and stay away from any venue not organized and controlled by their campaign teams. To pretend what we saw last night was in any real sense a “national” debate is laughable. It was neither national, nor a debate.

nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/rex-murphy-that-wasnt-a-debate-nor-was-it-national-it-was-tokenism-and-feeble-at-that
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+3
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

Rex Murphy: That wasn't a debate. Nor was it national. It was tokenism, and feeble at that

From the perspective of simple utility, how it assisted voters to make up their minds, Monday night’s exhibition — the so-called debate — was a waste of time. I came away from it with one dominant impression: that the only purpose such debates may claim is to provide journalists with a once-in-four-years opportunity to over- and mis-use the most stale cliché in all reporting history — the “knockout punch.”

E.g., “Mr. Singh had a good line — Mr. Deny and Mr. Delay — but it wasn’t a knockout punch.” Or, “Mr. Scheer came on really strong against Mr. Trudeau in the beginning, but it wasn’t a knockout punch.”

Why journalists are addicted to a boxing metaphor — boxing being a competition between two fighters (obviously) fighting each other — for a spectacle involving six politicians firing over-scripted talking points at each other, while displaying their powers of equivocation and evasion — is a mystery not worth the effort to solve.

Throw in the presence of five — five — moderators and what you have is a jumble of crosstalk, interruption, pre-fab bullet points offered as spontaneous eloquence, and two hours of tangled posturing. Eleven people can’t “debate” anything. As everyone tried to grasp their few seconds of camera time, it triggered the image, frequently seen on television, of Japanese commuters being jammed by guards into already over-stuffed subway cars. Furthermore, they weren’t on stage to debate — it was far more a competition to see who could rhetorically wound one or another of the competitors than an effort to deal in any way comprehensively with the major issues of the election. This tactic, elegantly summarized in Bruce Carson’s The Morning Brief as “leaders who came with pre-planned attacks or ‘drive-by smears’ ready to unload,” is actually the essence, the core dynamic, of these encounters.

The format was a mess with far too many people on the stage, issues chopped down to fit the “segments” rather than the segments being open to allow depth to treat the issues, and a ludicrous tag-teaming of moderators, all bracketed by a Niagara of pre- and post-analysis and insta-judgments. As the noble Christie Blatchford put it: “I missed a Leafs game for this …”

OK. Having got the minor concerns out of the way, here are the real reasons this was a mess and an insult. First, it was just one debate, held in Ottawa, constructed within the purely Ottawa journalistic mindset of what is and is not an issue, and chewed over on television and the internet very largely from within that mindset.

This was the one and only debate for all the provinces and territories (outside Quebec, which gets two debates) to be conducted in English. The range of interests and issues in the regions and provinces of Canada were not and could not possibly be served by last night’s claustrophobic contest.

Let us go to the ever-worthy and oh-so-pious issue of “climate change” on which all the leaders (exception, Maxime Bernier) scrambled to be first and most conspicuous at the altar rail. The biggest question on this issue, and therefore not to be asked, is whether Canada should be tying itself into regulatory and taxation knots to do anything about climate change at all. Even if you accept all the premises of global warming, there is a kernel fact here that reduces every leader’s position — even Elizabeth May’s — to spurious pretence, the ultimate expression of policy commitment as aggravated virtue-signalling.

Canada, the country, is at best a minor, a minuscule contributor to climate change. Canada can do virtually nothing, nothing, to halt or stop it. And for all their talk of concern on the issue, and their deep promises to savagely reduce Canada’s carbon emissions, not one of the leaders (with the possible exception of May) dare commit to the reduction in quality of life that stopping all oil and gas development, and all industry that depends on reliable energy, would inevitably entail. The entire debate is a charade. We know it, and the politicians squirming to be front-of-the-line virtuous on this issue know it, too.

Now back to the leaders’ debate. How can there be a national consideration of climate change when Albertan interests, Newfoundland’s interests, and all the interests of those whose work and life revolve around ready energy supply, are not equally represented with those promising to “transition to net emission-free” energy by 2050 (a fantastical, impossible target). Translated, what that commitment amounts to is a pledge to change Canada’s entire industrial and domestic energy base in 30 years. It is a pledge to shut down the central economic base of at least two provinces. It is putting the whole province of Alberta on notice that “we’re shutting you down.”

Is this not a question that deserves its own debate, in the province most to be affected?” If all the leaders so invested in climate change believe what they are saying, should they not at least leave Ottawa and go out to the province they intend to shut down and hear from the people there? If there are two “national” debates for, and held in, Quebec, should there not be at least one for, and held in, Alberta? I would like to hear one good reason — good, I said — why there cannot.

Similarly for the North and all of the particular, endemic concerns of Canada’s northern peoples. Why not an all leaders’ debate in Whitehorse? Why not more than one held in primarily rural areas, in front of loggers or farmers or fishermen? British Columbia has a dynamic and diverse political culture. Why should we discuss, or more accurately skip over, British Columbia’s interests from within a museum in Ottawa?

I could go on (except I have a wise editor) but I’ll summarize the points. Monday night’s debate was not a debate. It was tokenism, and pretty feeble tokenism at that. The issues of this vast and highly differentiated country cannot be shoehorned into a two-hour shout fest, chopped down to 40-second nuggets, in front of a very select audience in no way representative of the nature of our country.

Leaders have weeks in a national campaign. There is no reason why, with all their various stops, each leader and each party could not put in a debate a week in all the country’s regions. No reason why they should not face the people who they are talking about. Calgary, Vancouver and St. John’s have as much claim on their presence as Ottawa or Montreal. And the rural areas of this country have as much claim as Calgary, Vancouver and St. John’s.

The reason we do not have these debates is that each party and each leader wishes to reduce their risks and stay away from any venue not organized and controlled by their campaign teams. To pretend what we saw last night was in any real sense a “national” debate is laughable. It was neither national, nor a debate.

nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/rex-murphy-that-wasnt-a-debate-nor-was-it-national-it-was-tokenism-and-feeble-at-that

Exactly , as eloquent as usual, Rex cuts to the quick .
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

After Monday night, it’s time to fix the debates
I could not agree more. What a waste of my time. It would be interesting to hear the stats on how many people bothered to tune in. In addition, find moderators who actually know how to do the job and aren't in love with hearing their own voices.

2 French debates and an English debate pretty much about South and South East Ontario and Quebec what a sham
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+2
#7
While I normally think that Rex is spot-on with his assessment of things, I have one issue here with him. He stated that Bernier should not have been there because the PPC is a fringe party. Fine, but based on that criteria, so are the Greens. The PPC has only 1 seat in the House while the Greens only have two. If you're going to let May take part in the debates, you pretty much have to let Bernier take part as well.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+2
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

Rex Murphy: That wasn't a debate. Nor was it national. It was tokenism, and feeble at that

From the perspective of....

This was the one and only debate for all the provinces and territories (outside Quebec, which gets two debates) to be conducted in English. The range of interests and issues in the regions and provinces of Canada were not and could not possibly be served by last night’s claustrophobic contest.

nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/rex-murphy-that-wasnt-a-debate-nor-was-it-national-it-was-tokenism-and-feeble-at-that

The two French Language debates are for Quebec in Quebec, but didn't the one English debate that Trudeau showed up for also take place in Quebec? In Gatineau Quebec specifically? That equates to Justin Trudeau only showing up for Quebec debates and skipping all others....

 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#9
Key moments from the final leaders' debate of the election campaign

Quote:

The six federal party leaders returned to the stage Thursday for the final debate of the campaign that saw the federalist leaders direct their ire at surging Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet.
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer urged Quebecers to reject Blanchet's advances and vote for a party that can form a government after Oct. 21.
Blanchet has improved his party's fortunes in the province after a well-received performance at the last French-language debate.
His better polling numbers have come at the expense of Scheer, who started the campaign with a plan to pick up more seats in Quebec to help secure a majority Tory government and make Trudeau a one-term prime minister. That plan seems to have faltered after a shaky showing by Scheer in the TVA debate. Trudeau has also seen an erosion in Liberal numbers in the province. A strong result in Quebec is also central to the Liberal Party's re-election plans.
Trudeau and Scheer have been in a battle for front-runner status since the launch of this campaign last month. The CBC News's Poll Tracker has the two locked in a statistical dead-heat for first, with both clocking in at roughly 33 per cent countrywide.
Singh, who was widely declared the winner of the last English debate, has seen an improved showing in national polls, although his numbers in Quebec remain low. In an effort to reverse that, he made a direct appeal to Quebecers Thursday saying he is a "francophile" who shares the values of Quebecers on abortion and women's rights.
Trudeau, Scheer take on Blanchet
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said his party is counting on Quebecers to return more Liberal MPs to Parliament on Oct. 21 so his government can continue the fight against climate change.
He said only the Liberal Party is well-positioned to take on Conservative premiers like Jason Kenney and Doug Ford, people he said who are beholden to "oil barons" determined to push through natural resources projects at any cost.
He said a vote for Blanchet would be akin to a vote for Scheer because opposition Bloc MPs will never be part of a pan-Canadian government with a mission to tackle the pressing environmental issues of our time.
"We need to keep going. We can't stop. It's important Quebecers, francophones and all Canadians be part of a government that wants to fight climate change," he said.
Trudeau said voting Bloc would simply bring more "Harperites" back to Ottawa, a reference to the former Conservative government led by Stephen Harper.
"A strong Bloc Québécois in Ottawa could not prevent Mr. Harper from doing nothing on the environment ... from cutting on culture. We need a strong federal government with great Quebecers part of it," Trudeau said.
Scheer said Blanchet likes to present himself as a "best friend" of Quebec Premier Francois Legault, the popular nationalist leader who has opposed efforts to re-open the separatism debate and yet Blanchet is a former member of a party that is determined to break up the country.
Scheer said electing Blanchet, a former member of a Parti Québécois (PQ) government, would revive old sovereignty debates at the expense of national unity.
"What is clear is that Mr. Blanchet's priority is to try and stir up sovereignty once again. He will work with the PQ to lead to a referendum — that's his priority and that's clear," Scheer said.
Blanchet said Scheer's attacks were "bizarre."
"Oct. 21 is not the day of a referendum, it's a federal election," he said.
Scheer said electing more Bloc MPs, who, by their very nature will forever be confined to the opposition benches, would deny the Conservative party the chance to form government.
Scheer's Conservatives compete with the Bloc in the more rural areas of the province and in mid-size cities like Saguenay. Trudeau's Liberals compete against the Bloc for seats in off-island Montreal suburbs like Longueuil.
Scheer accuses Trudeau of lying
Scheer continued his direct attacks on Trudeau on Thursday, calling him a "liar" on matters like the SNC-Lavalin scandal, but also on how he's characterized the Conservative tax cut plan.
Trudeau accused Scheer of wanting to hand tax cuts to "millionaires," by reversing some of the Liberal changes to the small business tax regime that closed some "loopholes" that allowed for income sprinkling among family members.
"You are lying," Scheer said on the charge that millionaires stand to gain thousands under the Conservative plan.
"Justin Trudeau continues the lie that the Globe and Mail story was false," Scheer said of the first media report about inappropriate pressure on former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould on the SNC-Lavalin matter.
Trudeau defended his actions on the file, saying he was concerned that the bad actions of corporate leaders could result in job losses for workers. He said other countries, including European partners, have deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) regimes in place, the legal mechanism some in government suggested Wilson-Raybould should apply to the Quebec engineering giant.
Scheer also said Trudeau has been an embarrassment on the world stage saying, after the Liberal leader's "disastrous" trip to India, leaders simply don't respect him any more.
Singh also launched an attack on Trudeau during the debate Thursday, saying he hasn't show the sensitivity required to help the people of Grassy Narrows, a northwestern Ontario First Nations reserve that is grappling with the effects of mercury poisoning.
At a fundraising event this spring interrupted by protesters from the reserve, Trudeau jokingly thanked them for their donation.
"You made fun of someone who's an advocate. It's incomprehensible how some could do that. If you had visited that community and saw the intoxication, the poisoning, it's incredible," Singh said.
Trudeau said his government has promised to make the funds available for a treatment centre. "We will make sure the funding is in place," Trudeau promised.
Singh says he's a 'francophile'
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he understands he looks different from many Quebecers, given he wears a turban, but he assured voters in the province that he shares their values on things like abortion, same-sex marriage and the equality of sexes...………….Read the rest in the link

 

Similar Threads

7
democratic debate and federal debate
by spaminator | Sep 13th, 2019
4
French-language Federal Debate
by mentalfloss | Sep 28th, 2015
12
debate...please help..
by chong | Jan 10th, 2007