On a beaucoup parlé de la campagne libérale, de ses ratés et de son chef mais si la lecture des sondages est exacte, le grand perdant de cette élection devrait être le chef conservateur Stephen Harper.

Comprenons-nous bien : la performance de l’actuel premier ministre, quoique très ordinaire depuis le débat des chefs, n’est pas catastrophique. Dans la moyenne pour être exact. Mais ce n’est pas là-dessus qu’il sera jugé.

Les conservateurs, comme la majorité des mouvements de droite, veulent des résultats. Les coupures aux subventions dans le domaine culturel et dans le développement économique des régions sont des exemples bien réels de cette idéologie politique. Si le retour sur l’investissement n’est pas bon, on coupe ou on remodèle le programme. La logique peut tenir.

Stephen Harper a décidé d’utiliser un des échappatoires de sa propre loi sur les élections à date fixe pour se lancer dans une campagne électorale qui n’avait pour but que d’aller chercher les sièges manquants à une majorité conservatrice. L’opportunisme politique avec un grand O, quoique le seul reproche qu’on puisse lui faire est d’avoir voilé sciemment l’esprit de la loi qu’il a mis en place.

Le résultat net, en date d’aujourd’hui, est que le Parti conservateur a fragilisé sa place à la Chambre des Communes. Après avoir créé de toutes pièces le personnage de Stéphane Dion, il a laissé les autres partis redéfinir son image. Il les a même aidés, par exemple avec sa position face à la situation économique mondiale. On ne se donne pas de chances lorsqu’on dit aux Canadiens d’investir dans la Bourse, alors que ceux-ci ne cherchent qu’à se faire rassurer. Pas plus qu’en présentant une plate-forme électorale (qui, malgré certains bons côtés, avait plutôt l’air d’un plan B fabriqué à la va-vite)… après le vote par anticipation.

Que feront les militants conservateurs après l’élection? Attendons les résultats, mais Stephen Harper devra répondre de ses actes. Si le résultat net de l’élection est le retour à la case départ, c’est que le premier ministre aura échoué son plus gros test politique.

Whatever the result on Tuesday, this election continues the downward spiral of political discourse in Canada. Gone are the days of big ideas like Medicare, Just Society and Free Trade, where debate raged on the merits of the programs, and criticism of leaders was based on their actions, not their personality, physical quirks or “spin”character assassination. While in the past politicians may have disagreed on policy, and even disliked each other, they at least appeared to respect each other enough to be civil in public and when conducting the business of government. Partisanship is one thing, vitriol quite another.

Now politics and elections have degenerated to personal attacks and characterizations of leaders intentions, and sloganeering, with little substantive discussion of policies or ideas. As a result, respect no longer exists between opponents, the willingness to compromise is not evident, and therefore the government ceases to function effectively. Its no longer business, its personal. Why has this happened and what are the consequences?

We have not only imported negative campaigning from the US, but have taken to focusing on “the leader”. Except we are not electing a president, we are electing a party/team to run a government. No question the leader is important, but not to the exclusion of everything else. So we hear too much about Harper, Dion, Layton and May, which supports an environment for personal attacks, than we do about party policies and teams (Only the Liberals tried this for a short time when things were not going well). Combined with negative campaigning, where the focus is simply to attack your opponent as opposed to proposing solutions of your own, emotion is trumping reason, and the soundbite is trumping real information.

The consequences are 1) party leaders who have been denigrated to such an extent that all suffer from a lack of wide spread public respect and trust. As a result, many self-respecting individuals with ability decline to seek public office 2) voter apathy with 35% of the population not voting (although an unrepresentative electoral system also hurts)       3) 40% of the voters in Quebec have declined to participate in the governing of Canada by supporting the Bloc whose primary goal is to breakup the country 4) a media focused on the horserace (who is winning or losing) and trying to “even things out” to keep the race going, instead of critically evaluating  and communicating party policies to the public. This leads to soundbites and spin, as opposed to ideas.

The only way to stop this negativity is for voters to demand better. We need to encourage positive behavior from all participants (including the media) and challenge them when they do not meet our expectations and do their job. And I mean challenge all of them, those we support as well as those we don’t. The sooner we return civility and respect to our politics, the sooner we focus on ideas and not personalities, the better our country will be in the end.

As the Conservative ship is listing badly and taking on water, few will shed a tear other than the tears of frustration we’re now seeing on the anxious faces of the party faithful. Captain Harper, navigating between sea-monsters–on one side, the so-con Scylla, on the other, the latte-sipping, artsy-fartsy, vaguely treasonous Charybdis–has finally fetched up on the shoals of the economy.

His was a missed opportunity of historic proportions. Under our antique and undemocratic electoral system, the Cons only had to corral 40% or so of the votes of those who bothered to turn up at the polls (maybe a quarter of the electorate), to rule unimpeded for four ghastly years. The goal wouldn’t be easy to achieve, but it was hardly out of reach.

“Strong” (read autocratic) leadership, therefore, almost inevitably became a key issue. There are always people who seek the vicarious thrill of sadopolitics–jailing 14-year-olds, sending troops off to fight foreign wars, poking culture in the eye, sticking it to the CBC, dissing the “liberal” media, bullying and firing bureaucrats, and crushing anyone else who gets in the way. For the Conservatives there is no shortage of targets, as we have seen: it’s been high noon for nearly two years.

And then four things happened.

First, the handlers decided to let the Conservative basement kids loose. The results were some serious gaffes that could have derailed the campaign. The machine was soon back on track, and by itself this difficult start could have been overcome, but it left questions in many people’s minds. Nevertheless, the polls, if not the pollsters,* were looking pretty good, especially in swing ridings (now renamed “battleground riding’s” as our psychological deep integration with the US continues).

At the same time, though, the strategists decided to make Harper kindler and gentler, all blue sweater-vest and proud father. This was, as Citizen columnist Randall Denley pointed out at the time, a serious blunder. Nobody was fooled. His core constituency, in fact, didn’t want a kind, sweet man in charge. And his opponents were not taken in by the palpable insincerity of the new election-ad Stephen.

On the hustings, the real Harper has seemed even more tightly controlled than usual, almost paralyzed. His performance in the leaders debates was extraordinarily poor: he sat there, often speaking in an emotionless monotone, while his strategists hoped the other leaders would overplay their hands–which to some extent, of course, they did. But he suffered for it.

Debates don’t usually decide electoral matters, of course. But crises, on the other hand, test political leaders to the core. There is simply nowhere to hide. Faced with a cataclysmic economic meltdown, Canadians wanted clear, decisive answers, and they also needed a sense of connection.

But Harper failed spectacularly to connect with the public, musing aloud instead about buying up stock bargains. Yes, as he said defensively, keeping one’s head in a crisis in important; but at times like this, people want heart as well. He hasn’t done all that well with the head part, as it happens. But it’s the man’s utter lack of empathy, I think, that has sealed his party’s fate.

One can feel the ground shifting. The Globe and Mail, decrying his lack of leadership on the economy last week, today published a cartoon mocking his aloofness. The Ottawa Citizen went further: its cartoon portrays him as a child begging at the door. His supporters are resigned to another minority government at best–don’t be fooled by the brave rhetoric. They’re flailing mightily, but they know the awful truth.

Margaret Wente gave him a tongue-lashing this morning that would have brought a rhino to its knees. There’s an almost incredulous chorus of shock and disapppointment, and much grumbling and second-guessing, as the man behind the curtain is finally revealed. Even the conservative Economist now refers to his poor leadership on the environment and his “inner oilman.”

The polls indicate another minority government–possibly even a Liberal one. Harper has managed an impossible feat–making Stéphane Dion look good in comparison. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory–because another Conservative minority government is as much a defeat for Harper as a Liberal win–he has dashed the hopes of his party and his constituency. How much longer will he lead it?
_______
* Pollster silliness continues unabated. The CBC suggests that his decline in the polls has ceased, because the latest poll indicates a one-percent increase over the last one. The margin of error is 2.7%!

As we move forward with the last week of the campaign, for all those of you who fear the political discourse will be degraded by bitter partisanship, I’ve put together this little video to help you through it.

DemocraticSPACE a mis à jour ses données concernant ses prédictions pour les générales du 14 octobre. Les dernières semaines laissaient présager une remontée constante du Bloc Québécois, alors que les appuis au Parti conservateur se consolidaient, du moins à l’extérieur de l’île de Montréal. Les libéraux, quant à eux, ne parviennent juste pas à s’imposer, probablement au profit du Nouveau Parti Démocratique.

Dans Brossard-La Prairie, les chiffres balancés par l’ami Greg laissaient perplexes. Si ce comté, probablement le plus multiethnique à l’extérieur de Montréal, avait une tradition d’appui au fédéralisme depuis longtemps, il était à prévoir que la place acquise en 2006 par Marcel Lussier était un accident de parcours, largement dû aux répercussions catastrophiques du “scandale des commandites” sous le régime des libéraux de Jean Chrétien.

Et aujourd’hui, rien de cet ampleur ne peut aider le BQ à conserver sa place. Sauf peut-être une division du vote.

Et c’est ce qui se produit. Si les premières prévisions nous laissaient présager une chaude lutte entre le Bloc et le Parti libéral, il semble plus clair aujourd’hui que la lutte se fera… pour la seconde place. Les conservateurs, tranquillement mais sûrement, réussissent à s’approcher des libéraux.

Alexandra Mendes souffre un peu de voir son chef, malgré sa meilleure semaine de campagne depuis le déclanchement des élections, mener son parti au plus cuisant échec libéral depuis la débandade de 1984. Ce qui est un peu triste à observer par ailleurs.

Marcel Lussier n’est pas le plus flamboyant des députés bloquistes à Ottawa. Peu d’interventions à la Chambre des Communes, peu visible dans le comté, il bénéficie de la campagne nationale, qui a réussi (encore une fois) à démoniser non seulement le parti de Stephen Harper mais aussi ses collègues de l’opposition. La stratégie d’attaquer tout le monde et de ne pas cibler uniquement un adversaire (quoique c’est moins vrai depuis le débat), bien qu’assez audacieuse pour un parti qui peinait à expliquer sa raison d’être il n’y a pas un mois, a porté fruit.

Les comtés qui servent de baromètre sont-ils en train de basculer vers le Bloc?

On a déjà hâte au 14!

There has been so much spin about who won or lost the debates, I’m a little dizzy. So, cutting through the spin, here’s my take on the two debates (for what it’s worth):

Harper: By remaining calm, Harper seemed to weather the storm, although he was a deer in headlights when May called him on having no platform. It is a pretty remarkable thing to ask for a majority mandate without telling anyone what you plan on doing with it (which is what a platform does). Combined with a low-key french performance, it’s clear Harper’s goal was to demonstrate he was a cool customer under pressure, which he did.

Dion: He may well have won the french debate by asserting himself forcefully (it was really a draw with Duceppe). I seriously doubt Dion won the english debate as some partisans have suggested, although I don’t think he hurt himself either. While his (and Duceppe’s) english is not as good as the others, it was perfectly understandable. Any suggestion to the contrary is just spin. But no doubt, he was not as strong as he was in the french debate. I suspect he did well enough to avoid a blowout.

Layton: he did his thing, using filthy sound-bites to attack Harper. I found him a little overly aggressive and maybe a bit too angry, but he struck a populist tone, which should serve him well. I think Layton probably needed to reach out more to dis-effected Liberals, but by relying upon tried-and-true anti-corporate rhetoric, he probably did not make a lot of headway. I suspect he did his supporters proud, but probably didn’t win over many new converts.

May: she made some good points, although probably spent too much time attacking Harper instead of more time outlining her party’s policies. Clearly, she was more comfortable in her first language (although her french has improved). I think her use of data (citing courses) lent credibility to her arguments and demonstrated she isn’t just a one-trick pony.

Duceppe: he was his usual conversational and direct self, making good points. Clearly, Duceppe was in his element in the french debate, emerging in a draw with Dion. Certainly, he demonstrated that he is a champion of Québec. His english performance, of course, was a little more pedestrian.

This election is like no other. After two and a half years of a minority government, all the parties have been in campaign mode, always having had to expect an election call any day. This is probably why most voters had their votes already locked in even before the writ was dropped in early September.

Consequently, each party has held steady in the various polls, more or less, with Liberal leader Stéphane Dion finding it next to impossible to shed his negative image.

The televised debates, therefore, likely matter a lot less in this campaign than in any other. In fact, the debates are the least crucial factor determining the outcome of elections. The only exception came in the last election when out of sheer desperation, then-prime minister Paul Martin decided to make up new policy on the fly, vowing that he would scrap the notwithstanding clause from the constitution. It was then that his fate was sealed.

Jeffrey Simpson, of the Globe and Mail, notes in his column today that the debate format is inherently unfair and wrong – he calls it “lop-sided” and says that Harper “did as well as he could” under these circumstances:

One after another, the four opposition party leaders blasted Mr. Harper who, under the four-against-one format, was given relatively limited time to reply to the onslaught.

Predictably, the opposition leaders were mostly warm and cuddly about each other, while they were fierce about Mr. Harper. How any prime minister could emerge with a fair shake in such a one-sided arrangement wherein critics gets many, many more minutes than the incumbent remains a pressing question after last night’s gang-up.

The debate raised an issue no one wishes to address: how can any prime minister (leave Mr. Harper out of the question) get a fair debate under the circumstances that prevailed last night, wherein the leaders of small parties such as Green Leader Elizabeth May and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe get equal billing with the leader of a party with three or four times as many voters?

(more…)

Finalement, nous voici arrivé à l’heure du premier débat pour nos cinq candidats dans Vaudreuil-Soulange. Ce face à face aura lieu au centre communautaire de Hudson et sera modéré par deux journalistes du Hudson Gazette, Jim Duff et Matthew Brett. Je ne sais si les questions du public seront permises mais il est évident qu’il serait intéressant de connaître la stratégie des différents candidats en relation avec ce qui se passe au États-Unis et aux dommages collatéraux qui suivront. Ne me parlez pas d’aide aux jeunes ménages pour une plus grande accession à une maison. Cette attitude se traduit par un accès privilégié vers l’endettement. Ainsi, j’aurai la possibilité de filmer l’intervention et de probablement mettre les moments plus savoureux ici même sur ce blogue au courant de la semaine prochaine.

***************************

Avant de vous laisser pour le weekend, j’aimerais vous diriger vers un site très intéressant (cliquez ici). En effet, c’est un site qui regarde les possibilités de voter pour le parti Vert. Afin de vérifier s’il cela est possible, ils font la démonstration de l’état des choses dans toutes les circonscriptions du Canada basé sur tout le sondage effectué pour le comte de la circonscription. Ce regroupement indépendant fait l’analyse suivante : si dans votre comté, un candidat est assuré de la victoire, pourquoi ne pas voter selon vos convictions, car de toute façon, un vote contraire aura probablement peu d’impact sur le résultat final.

Or, pour Vaudreuil-Soulange, selon ce site, le risque que Michael Fortier passe le fil d’arrivé en premier reste encore possible, à deux semaines des élections. Ainsi, il est encore recommandé de voter de façon stratégique afin d’empêcher Michael Fortier de gagner la circonscription de Vaudreuil-Soulange. Le problème avec la situation potentiellement favorable pour Meili Faille est que certaine personne seraient tentée de laisser tomber, pensant que la victoire Bloquiste est acquise. C’est totalement faux. Une baisse de garde donnerait un avantage à Michael Fortier, qui récolte les votes de citoyens aux allégeances Libérale qui sont tentés par l’apparence de pouvoir et par la perte de confiance envers un Stephane Dion non-convaincant. Il est surprenant de voir, selon les derniers résultats, que madame Brigitte Legault prend place juste avant Michael Fortier. Je constate donc que le vote anglophone traditionnellement Libéral de la région ne se divise pas tant que ça. J’ai peine à croire que Fortier sera capable de remonter cette pente.

(more…)

Harper: Not bad considering he was being attacked by 4 leaders. Posture was better, but still a strange smirk on his face.

Duceppe: Not as effective in English. His arguments weren’t as clear as in French but were still strong.

Layton: Engaged Harper very well but only talked about corporate taxes & exxon mobil. That kind of talk is meant for socialist ears, not a good way to win Liberal-Conservative-Bloc moderate voters.

Dion: English skills were not a major problem, ideas were clear. Focused his own policies and let the others do most of the Harper-bashing, an effective strategy.

May: Very effective on policy matters tonight. Seemed to echo Dion a lot, maybe not the best idea for her own fortunes.

Tough to choose a winner tonight. I’d prefer to wait for polls to tell us that but here are my tentative picks:

1- Dion (got out the most policies the clearest)
2- Harper (emerged less bruised than in French debate)
3- May
4- Layton (would have won this if he had talked less about corporate taxes and more about other issues)
5- Duceppe

It was a helluva debate — and far more spontaneous, lively and revealing than that dull, scripted, teleprompter-type discourse that dominated the Biden-Palin debate south of the border.

I watched 90 per cent of the debate from Ottawa, and only a couple of minutes of the farce from St. Louis. It was enough. After that, I monitored online to keep track of the U.S. debate while watching our leaders.

The Canadian debate had everybody wondering whether Stephane Dion would be able to follow up his first-class performance last night in French. He didn’t, although he did manage to shake off that nerd look he’s often struggled with. Looked younger, almost eager.

Mr. Dion struggled with English in answering moderator Steve Paikin’s first question, outlining the 30-day action plan he introduced in the French debate. Stephen Harper struck back, accusing Dion of panicking by suddenly coming out with a new platform in the middle of the debate.

“We have not been following the same policies as the United States,” he added in response to remarks by Jack Layton. “Their policies have been irresponsible … we are still creating jobs … ”

“Yours is the only party that hasn’t put forth any platform to deal with the economy,” Elizabeth May charged.

“Your either don’t care or you’re incompetent,” Layton told the PM.

May kept hammering away at the PM. “You’re out of touch … your tax package cut the wrong taxes …”

Then it was Layton’s turn again. “How can you say people don’t worry about being thrown out of their jobs?” he asked the PM. “Take some responsibity here and don’t try to paper over what’s happening in people’s lives.”

The PM’s response: “We should recognize the strength of our economy. We brought in tax incentives for machinery and production equipment. ”

Gilles Duceppe threw a few haymakers, too. “I don’t know how you can say you’re helping the economy by cutting taxes on companies that aren’t making any profit, they’re not paying tax.”

As the debate went on, Mr. Harper appeared to become more defensive, although he recovered fairly strongly at the end.

The PM was harshly criticized for denying that people are suffering from job losses. “There’s a kind of cold-hearted attitude that we’re going to let everybody sink or swim,” Mr. Layton charged.

“We need to cut taxes on our savings and income and shift it (taxes) to pollution,” Mr. Dion said.

May a bright spot

Elizabeth May was at the top of her form. She demanded policies to reduce the Canadian dollar, and bring back jobs in pulp and paper, forestry, and the auto sector.

Mr. Dion’s English got better as the debate went on, but faltered toward the end, as he apparently tired.

(more…)

Vous retrouverez ici les répliques les plus marquantes qui ont été échangées par les principaux chefs de partis lors du débat en français.

Note : Malgré un effort certes louable de sa part, Mme May n’est pas présente ici en raison de la qualité déplorable de son français. C’est regrettable pour le Parti Vert et ses sympathisants, mais il y a des limites à vouloir être équitable ou, pour employer une expression populaire, à vouloir « accommoder raisonnablement. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Dion

À M. Duceppe : « Quand est venu le moment de reconnaître la nation québécoise, le bureau de M. Harper m’a consulté et nous avons fait cela de manière à montrer que l’on peut aussi faire partie de la nation canadienne; ce qui est un problème pour M. Duceppe. »

À M. Harper (à propos des mesures environnementales qu’il propose) : « Je pense qu’on perd notre temps à discuter du faux plan de M. Harper. Il n’y a pas un seul expert qui a dit que c’était un plan sérieux. »

À M. Layton (qui dit vouloir rapatrier les troupes d’Afghanistan dès maintenant) : « On a pris un engagement. Nos alliés comptent sur nous (…) C’est une responsabilité qu’on a, comme quand on a pris nos responsabilités pour Kyoto, c’est la même chose. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Duceppe

À M. Dion : « Nous avons proposé des projets, par exemple que le français soit la langue de travail dans les banques, les ports, les aéroports, les télécommunications. Le NPD nous a appuyés, mais pas les libéraux qui pourtant reconnaissent que la loi 101 est une grande loi canadienne. »

À M. Harper : « Tout ce que vous avez trouvé à faire ce sont des politiques qui enrichissent les pétrolières. Semble-t-il qu’aux dernières nouvelles, elles n’ont pas de misère à terminer leurs fins de mois. »

À M. Layton (qui l’accuse de vouloir privatiser la santé) : « Moi je veux que ce soit un système de santé publique, mais c’est au Québec de décider en tout temps. Je pense que les Québécois sont capables de prendre eux-mêmes leurs décisions et ils n’ont pas besoin du reste du Canada pour venir leur dire quoi faire. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Harper

À M. Dion : « Vous proposez d’augmenter les taxes avec votre nouvelle taxe sur le carbone. C’est une politique qui va détruire l’économie. »

(more…)

Dion’s best 2 hours of campaign. He performed well above expectations: relaxed, clear, emotional. Will ensure Montreal area seats lost in last election return to Liberals. (A)

Duceppe is a master in this format, smooth and well prepared. Solidified his credentials as defender of Quebec likely limiting Conservative gains in regions. (A)

Harper underwhelmed. Calm and priministerial is one thing, but passionless and sleepwalking is something else! Sure he was under attack from the other 4 leaders, but he seemed unprepared. That majority may have just slipped away. (C)

Layton did good job of presenting himself as alternative to Dion and Harper, but did not show distinction between NDP and Bloc, often citing they agreed. Perhaps ups his vote count with left, at worst reinforced that NDP is legitimate player. (B)

May was sometimes incomprehensible, was largely ignored by others, but effectively returned all discussion to environmental issue. Blunt attacks on Harper, cheered on by others. (D)

As for format, not really a debate, more a Q&A session with Harper doing all the answering. To be expected, but how do you distinguish between the opposition parties who rarely took each other on. For those who didn’t watch original French, French language fluency coincided with scores above. Need more one on one, or 2 minutes vs 45 seconds to give answers, and allow leaders to ask each other questions.

I’m at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto, listening to a discussion on the federal election led by two Maclean’s magazine writers, Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells. It’s the night of the French language leaders’ debate in Ottawa.

Andrew is his usual erudite self, while Paul continues to zip off amusing one-liners, as irascible as ever.

But what I find really interesting is how both are frustrated, and maybe feeling a little bitter, at how poorly the media are covering this election.

“We in the media are once again disgracing ourselves,” Andrew says. “We’re materially affecting the outcome, and we shouldn’t be doing that. We’re blowing it.”

Coyne goes on to discuss the need to radically change the way elections are run in Canada. “Tory demagoguery has been shameless. They hit the Liberal Green Plan but they don’t talk about their own plan.”

He says there’s no real difference in the cost of Dion’s Green Plan and the Tory Cap and Trade program.

Nobody understands either, because the Conservatives don’t want to talk about their scheme. Prime Minister Harper, Coyne adds, has no hidden agenda because he doesn’t have an agenda, period.

Paul rings in with a couple of zingers. He asserts that the quality of questions asked at an all-candidate meeting he attended “are way above what we ask at scrums.”

“The questions are policy-based, and the people feel strongly about the issues.” The journalists, Paul seems to be saying, don’t give a damn about the issues and merely want to ask “gotcha” questions that will stir up a meaningless headline.

The audience here is mostly university post-graduate PolSci students. They listen respectfully, and ask good questions.

Coyne makes the point that there’s little difference in the spending programs of the Conservatives and the Liberals.

“Over the next four years, total projected program spending by the Conservatives is $930 billion; by the Liberals $940 billion.”

Watching the Debate

I hurry out to catch the leaders’ debate on TV.

Harper goes out of his way to stress the different economic situation between the U.S. and Canada.

“The big challenge is to stay on the right track,” Harpert says in response to the first question, “lower our taxes and target our spending in the interests of most Canadians.”

Elizabeth May rings in with a strong denunciation of the PM’s financial management. Gilles Duceppe says we should re-orient the economy. Jack Layton says we need a government that understands the need to protect our jobs, savings and pensions. “The policies of Mr. Harper haven’t done that.”

Pretty good bunkum, no?

Harper concedes Canada is coming into an economic slowdown because of the situation in the U.S. “We’ve taken measures to ensure stability. In the U.S., people are losing their homes.”

Stephane Dion tells the Prime Minister: “You inherited the best economic situation of any Prime Minister. You don’t believe in the government playing a role in the economy.”

My impression is that all the leaders did pretty well. I’m not sure any voters were changed. Harper held his own against the rest; El;izabeth May shmowed well in her first outing. Duceppe, as always, is a forceful and effective advocate.

Dion has done well. He’s produced the only real headline of the debate: If he takes office, a Liberal government will launch a 30-day action plan to protect Canada’s economy from the crisis affecting the financial sector in the United States.

It’s said voters are more influenced by what they read and hear about a debate, than from actually watching it. An overnight Ipsos-Reid poll has Dion the clear winner, chosen by 40 per cent. Duceppe got the nod from 24% (I’m surprised it wasn’t higher), Harper 16%, Layton 11%, and Elizabeth May just one per cent.

The real test for Dion comes Thursday night, in the English debate. But I also want to watch Palin and Biden go at it!

Je trouve que la formule à 5 autour d’une table nous a démontré les limites de ce que peut apporter un débat avec 5 participants. On le comprend, les intervenants doivent être plus disciplinés et ça donne lieu à une discussion de salon. On aurait pu donner à chacun des chefs une bière tellement c’était lent et pénible.

Évidemment, tous les chefs se sont rués contre Stephen Harper. Ce dernier a été sur le défensive toute la soirée et n’a jamais vraiment fait de gros efforts pour attaquer ses adversaires, il est resté calme et s’est montré capable d’esquiver les questions trop compromettantes. Par exemple, pour justifier les baisses de taxes aux grandes pétrolières qui exploitent les sables bitumineux albertains, il s’en défenda en justifiant qu’il avait baissé les taxes pour TOUTES les entreprises. C’est sûr. De ce point de vue là c’est vrai que c’est juste pour tout le monde. Dans les faits, ça ne l’est peut-être pas, mais il a bien réussi à esquiver cette attaque.

Mme May avait tout à gagner avec ce débat. Elle s’est battue pour y être et pour avoir son mot à dire. Le résultat est un échec sur toute la ligne. Elle n’a dévoilé aucun élément de sa plate-forme, s’est fait doubler à plusieurs reprises par Stéphane Dion au sujet de l’environnement qui avait des arguments mieux ficelés et elle n’a fait qu’attaquer Stephen Harper, de manière assez maladroite. Il faut dire que son français était vraiment déficient et honnêtement, on s’en foutait de ce qu’elle avait à dire, c’était trop pénible à écouter. On n’avait que le goût qu’elle se taise. Je crois que pour les électeurs anglophones, dans le débat de demain, Stéphane Dion aura à combattre le même effet puisqu’il est probablement celui qui maîtrise le moins bien l’anglais.

Stéphane Dion est probablement le chef qui avait le plus à gagner dans ce débat. Il n’arrive tout simplement pas à enflammer des passions et à gagner la confiance des québécois. Je crois que des débatteurs ce soir, lui et M. Duceppe furent les mieux préparés. Stéphane Dion, d’ordinaire un peu trop cérébral et cartésien a réussi à mettre un peu d’émotion, et laisser une impression un peu plus favorable qu’à l’ordinaire. On sent qu’il connaît ses dossiers et qu’il amène des solutions crédibles. Le hic, c’est qu’il a dévoilé sa plate-forme plus tôt cette semaine, et on cette dernière les avait fait passer pour des pères-noël. Est-ce que les solutions proposées sont réalisables? Disons que M. Dion a peut-être réussi à faire changer l’impression générale qu’il est trop académique et sans leadership.

M. Duceppe a toujours le beau jeu dans ces débats, il peut dire ce qu’il veut, il ne prendra jamais le pouvoir. Ça lui permet d’être constamment sur l’offensive et d’attaquer ses adversaires. Au passage il a bien sûr revendiqué des droits au Québec. Moi ça ne m’interpelle pas, mais les souverainistes ont sûrement trouvé qu’il avait gagné le débat.

M. Layton c’est le grand-papa gâteau. Il vit sur un nuage et voit tout en rose. Il a bien donné quelques coups à Stephen Harper et Stéphane Dion, mais on l’imagine mal premier-ministre. Trop gentil. J’ai cependant bien aimé son jab à Stéphane Dion qu’il a accusé d’avoir appuyé les conservateurs lors d’un vote en chambre. Harper aussi a utilisé cet argument contre Duceppe.

Évidemment, un chef qui vote pour le gouvernement mais qui est contre les politiques pour lesquelles il a voté pour, c’est assez peu crédible. En ce sens, le NPD est le seul parti qui s’est tenu debout face aux conservateurs.

M. Layton aurait gagné a plus attaquer  M. Dion car je ne crois pas qu’il avait un quelconque vote à gagner des électeurs de M. Harper. La gauche est divisée entre les 4 partis de l’opposition. Il me semble que pour se démarquer des 3 autres, M. Layton aurait gagné à démontrer ce qui fait que le NPD serait plus apte à mener le pays que les Libéraux. M. Layton aura réussi à démontrer à ses électeurs qu’il n’aime pas M. Harper, mais ça, on le savait déjà. Il n’a donc marqué aucun point au Québec, j’en ai bien peur.

Dans l’ensemble, un débat drabe où on n’aura rien appris, à part peut-être quels sont les personalités de chacuns des chefs.

brem

Cet article est aussi publié sur mon blogue personel: martinbreton.com

It was a different seat for Stephen Harper this time around, being the incumbent PM and having to defend his policies instead of attacking others. How good a job did he do?

The beginning topic, the Economy, found Harper in general denial that Canada’s economy is anything but strong. As the subject of taxes on gasoline came up, Dion seemed to be intent on telling us how the demand from other countries would keep prices high, while Layton spoke about the need to help industries that are dependant on petroleum products to survive. Harper told us that he had done well by cutting the consumer taxes (GST), and Elizabeth May said this has done “nothing” for the consumer. My comment: “Yes, right, saving 2% on every litre of gas really deals with the incredible increase in the price per litre!”

There was a question about the listeriosis issue and food inspection. The high point in this part of the debate was when Gilles Duceppe asked Harper why the standards for exported foods were different (less frequent) for foods destined for distribution in Canada…

On the Environment issue, a questioner asked about having an independent agency created to deal with it. The overwhelming response from the others was about “leadership”, afterwhich May, Dion, Duceppe and Layton all complained about how Canada’s “leadership” on the issue is suspect among almost all other world leaders.

On Ethics in Politics and the House: This was the most fun part of the debate, that each one at the table look to the left and say something positive about the other potential leader sitting beside them and their experience with trying to work together. Poor Elizabeth May had Harper and had a difficult time trying to find something positive to say. The moderater had to cut her off, not because she was trying to be mean, but because she just came up empty. It was also entertaining to witness Steven Harper telling Jack that they had indeed found “some common ground”.

On Crime, the question was from a teacher from Dawson College, about gun control. While Harper, after fending off Layton on the issue, quickly changed the focus of the question towards his new crime bill, it set off another heated debate about the Conservative approach. Dion wanted to know HOW provinces would find the money to put more youth offenders in prisons, when there is already an issue over the number of prisons in each province lacking enough space and funding. May finished up by saying that it is funny that Harper wants to be tough on youth breaking laws, but he (Harper) only obeys the ones he agrees with. (She mentioned Kyoto and his own Fixed Election Law as examples).

On Healthcare: The debate became quickly about the fact that many Canadians do not have a family doctor. I guess this is the way to reduce hospital and emergency rooms problems. So all parties then focussed on the training and incentive issues for Canada to get more doctors. Elizabeth May brought up the issue of banning all chemicals which harm our health. Harper said he is on top of all of these issues. No one mentioned the issue for many immigrants to this country. How to make sure that qualified immigrants can efficiently cut through the present red tape to practice their professions when they arrive in Canada. This was a letdown for me….

Afghanistan: I do not think any leader said anything that has not been already heard a thousand times on this issue already.

Who won? Well I think it is sad that if you are a francophone in Québec, that if three out of five leaders are speaking in their second language, that some voters will pick the top two because of language. This language issue is what keeps dividing Canada, but it is also what makes us different than the United States, where debates happen in one language only. I love our bilingual and bicultural Canada! I love also, being a citizen of the World!

Harper: Defended well but his posture and awkward facial expression didn’t suit sitting at the table format.

May: Too aggressive. Performed well in French but where was the substance of her platform?

Dion: Clearer, more concise than usual. He attacked Harper enough but kept time enough for substance.

Layton: Too aggressive in his exchanges with Harper. Again, where was the substance?

Duceppe: Very comfortable in substance and style, strong performance.

My Rankings:
1- Duceppe
2- Dion
3- Harper
4- May
5- Layton

I have to say I very much like the new format for the debate. Having all the leaders sitting down at a circular table is much more conducive to debate and discussion, rather than having them each at a podium, facing an audience.

Their seating arrangement seemed to influence the patterns of their interaction, May and Layton seated next to Harper seemed to be turning to attack him most of the time, whereas Dion and Duceppe seemed to be off on their own to some extent.

On several occasions we saw Dion, Duceppe, Layton and May all seemed to gang up on Harper at times. If we do see a Conservative minority again (I doubt we’ll see a majority at this point), I do hope this is indicative of a potentially cooperative opposition. Or perhaps that’s just my own wishful-thinking.

Elizabeth May seemed to fit right in from what I could tell–though that’s not necessarily saying much. The bottom line, I think, is that she was there, and she did take part in the debate. She did manage to bring a number of issues back to the environment, especially when it came to Harper’s environmental policies and record.

Although Gilles Duceppe did display far more patience during the debate, and consequently did not get as many words in edgewise, when he did speak he managed to make it count.

As for Harper, he was put on the defensive most of the time, but he did maintain his awkward smirking (which I interpret to indicate a certain level of comfort on his part) throughout the event. His goal seemed to be to remain calm and and not get himself riled up in any way, and I must say he did achieve it.

Jack Layton did seem to get in a number of good points, especially when it came to Canadian artists and the need to support them, as well as issues on the economy. He also was able to interact more with the other party leaders compared to the last election’s leaders’ debates.

I think the accusations of plagiarism with respect to Harper’s 2003 speech regarding Iraq has helped to remind people how closely Harper’s policies align with that of the Bush government. That, I think, has the greatest potential to harm the Conservatives, and Layton did help bring that to light.

Overall, there were no clear winners, as usual. Here’s hoping the US Vice-Presidential debate doesn’t draw too much viewership away from the English debate tomorrow night.

Congrats to Layton and Harper for proposing more time to discuss the economy. Let’s build on this idea for future election campaigns: have 4 debates, one a week on a major issue. Fifteen minutes is not enough time to explain a policy on the environment, healthcare, etc. but 2 or 3 hours should be. Hold one debate in each of the different regions of the country with one French language debate in Quebec. Our democracy would be better for it.

One of the big disappointments of the campaign, given all the controversies over the past year, is the lack of discussion by the parties about our democratic freedoms slipping away. I am speaking of course about Canada’s so-called human rights commissions and their attempt to censor ordinary Canadians.

This isn’t just about Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, and Maclean’s Magazine. From small pub owners with heart conditions spending tens of thousands of dollars and potentially losing their business for enforcing a ban on marijuana smoking, to Christian pastors being silenced from the pulpit, to doctors being investigated for declining to operate when they lack the medical background to do so safely, Canada’s human rights commissions have created a culture of fear and distrust among ordinary Canadians

Canadians should be concerned with stripping away of our freedoms and civil liberties, which are the foundation of every vibrant democracy. With the federal election underway, I can think of no better time to discuss government censorship and Canada’s human rights commissions. It is time for our politicians to show leadership and insure the rights of every Canadian are respected.

Which is why Kathy Shaidle and I have today released a book on Canada’s human rights commissions, entitled Tyranny of Nice. Mark Steyn has kindly written the introduction. You can find out more about the book by visiting TyrannyOfNice.com.

Someone sent this to me, so I am passing it along.

There will be a 90-minute CBC Newsworld program tonight called “Canada Votes: The X Challenge” with Mark Kelley on Tuesday, Sept. 30.

The debate will be on the Canadian economy and will be televised at 7:30 and 10 p.m. on CBC Newsworld.

There will be an audience of approximately 100 Ontario voters who are leaning towards the 4 main parties running in Ontario in a percentage reflecting the CBC’s latest rolling poll.

There will 5-6 mini debates, each will commence with a question from a member of the audience. Each party will be given will be given one minute to respond, order for first debate drawn by lot. Each subsequent debate by order of vote total from audience in previous mini debate.

At the conclusion of the one-minute statements there will be a 2-3 minute freewheeling exchange between parties and audience.

Once the exchange is completed the audience will be asked, without regard for which party they are leaning towards, who they think did best in that section of the debate. Results will be revealed after the commercial break.

After 5-6 of the debate sections (all will be on the economy) each party will be given 30 seconds for a final appeal to the audience for their support for their party in the election.

The CBC will then take a final poll on voter intentions to see if any minds were changed. There will be a few minutes for final reactions and thoughts from all the parties and some of the audience members.