The good news is that all four major parties were present at the debate. Won’t be tuning in for repeats, though. In the past these have also featured two or three people talking at the same time. No one came off badly, one interrupted much more often than others.
I watched and it was alright…I guess. The Green Leader seemed to come off best and I continue to be amazed at how short our memories of Doug Ford’s conduct prior to covid actually are. Which, I guess, is sort of a natural inflection point.
Del Duca wont win - the man can’t smile.
Andrea Horwath wont win - continues to be as uninspiring as ever
Mike Schreiner wont win - but would actually have made a decent liberal party leader. 
That’s not a bad synopsis. Del Duca can smile, sometimes, but the first time he was criticized he kept looking down and licking his lips, for like a minute, which was odd, although his bodily language improved afterwards.
But how should such a debate be moderated? They picked two decent and friendly milquetoast types. Good people, without doubt, but hardly able to stop everyone speaking at once as they tacitly acknowledged. I would not read to much into a debate anyway. Few watch them. Parties favour slogans over policy. Even so, the discussion mentioned more policy than I would gave guessed, particularly should you take up the offer to visit Liberal party websites.
I don’t bother to watch TV debates anymore; they are one-liner contests and convey no useful information.
Indeed. I do not want to “drink a beer” with an average politician unless something needs discussion. I do not care if they dress well or are entertaining. I prefer they be competent, honest, balanced and principled. I try to be all these things all the time.
A debate says a little, not much, about competence and being good at debating. This isn’t Nixon-Kennedy where millions tune in and body language decides anything. But the Green candidate came off well, Del Duca better and more thoughtful than in his commercials.
I actually like where the leaders sit down on their own against a panel and have to answer questions. A sort of thesis defence. I could see two rounds.
1st round would be effectively their platform defence with opportunities to address their opponents’ positions.
The 2nd would be the leaders rebutting their opponents criticisms.
I doubt many people would watch live but given you can simply post the sessions it could be watched anywhere. Given you don’t need all the leaders in one spot it wouldn’t impact the campaign. But it would lack the scrumming pundits and partisans seem to like.
Wondering about people’s thoughts on this article. Quebec language laws can seem like an overreach, especially in light of the constitution. I think French is quite important, accommodating it “keeps the peace” and respects our history, but this is a bilateral compromise. This article about proposed changes makes stronger claims than I have heard. Is it accurate?
I am curious as to why the Conservatives are so divided. More specifically, why the Federal Liberals are not. I cannot remember a time when there was less internal dissent. Is it just latent or underreported?
Both are broad based parties trying to appeal to people with a vast range of views. They disagree on much. Not all Liberals like unbalanced budgets, identity politics, cozy duopolies or the failure to live up to the platforms of previous elections, letting worthy bills fade away between elections and not addressing some issues of inportance. No one liked Covid. Trudeau has been mediocre on many issues, and bad at a few. Yet criticisms are vague, involving epithets, socks and teaching drama more than substance, of which there is plenty.
But there is no New Libs party, no Liberal Reform movement, no new broad left or centre party against vaccines, the establishment or elites. It is hard fir me to discount the effect of American politics. The Conservative leadership campaign has been largely personal attacks and supporting those more likely to vote for other parties. Even so, though many do not like Doug Ford he seems to have kept his party unified facing the same problems as Kenney, a hard task. Ford followed the science but tried to listen to business and did not seem to lose those unhappy with vaccines. How?
In my view, it is because while there are some differences of opinion in parties like the Liberals or NDP, there is not an insane wing that is divorced from reality. Conservative parties all over the world invited and embraced the crazy, the fascists, white nationalists, etc. (let’s just call it the crazies for ease of use) for short-term political gain thinking that they (the establishment) could control them. But now it has grown out of their control and makes up enough of the base that without the crazies conservatives parties cannot win. Can you imagine the CPC’s chances if every body in the crazy wing went PPC? It would be all over. They would lose massive number of seats including in strongholds. Left wing parties have (so far) not really embraced their crazy base. This isn’t to say it doesn’t exist, but it is not as large or powerful as on the right.
Yes.
While there are certainly some left-wing antivaxxers, they are not welcome in the Liberal or NDP parties. There is no room for their illogical anti-science ravings in these parties. There is no room for anti-gay folks, racists, or those who want to foist their religious interpretation on others either.
It’s only the CPC that has the need to embrace these kind of people in order to have a shot at winning elections. And this has proven to be a Devil’s bargain; They need these people to get enough votes, but these people drive away the middle, leading to fewer votes.
I’m afraid that the CPC will be the party of personal attacks and “we hate Trudeau with the passion of a thousand suns, and so should you” for the next few years at least.
A number of candidates from every major party have been chastised for previously stated views. I like the Prime Minister, but he is hardly immune from a history appearing insensitive.
It may seem appealing to state “there is no room” for certain views of certain people in a party. However, given that these views are less rare than one might hope, it is nonsense to say they do not exist in every major party. I agree they seem to be much more common in some places and parties than in others.
The sad thing is the amount of good science and obvious international comparisons (including a US death rate thrice as high as Canada) which very clearly show a benefit to vaccines. Amazingly, this willful blindness does not always apply to unorthodox treatments including worm medicine or bleach injections. 
I mean, on the bare face of it, yes: there are some whackos in any large political party. But in this day and age, the reality is there are (metaphorically) a couple of voters in Party A with views out of the mainstream, a few whacko voters and one or two whacko elected officials in Party B, and the lunatics have completely taken over the asylum in Party C and they’re throwing feces everywhere.
And some folks like to point to them all and say “there’s some in every party!” I personally don’t think that speaks to the present moment.
What I meant is that there is not that much room for smugness. I am not sure this fully explains all of the divisions in parties, even if your analysis is correct.
In some parties more than others, American-style politics and Covid seem to have worsened trends to be perpetually angry about tchotchkes, disrespect established institutions and authority and promote individualism over community, at high cost and without great alternatives. There are some reasons for dissatisfaction.
And this, at the present moment, seems to sum up right-wing philosophy rather succinctly. Together with “my opinion is just as valid as your facts”, and a little bit of Frank Wilhoit’s phrase
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Thankfully, there is less of the later sentiment in Canadian conservatives, compared to their American counterparts, IMO.
The latter seems not like a description of conservativism, as such, but a summary of how some view (correctly or not) some forms of libertarianism. This word is also fluid - I have a few mildly libertarian views (preferring less government), but not remotely like this.
Yes, it is. It’s a vile law.
New question.
Who might win in an election between Poilievre and Freeland and Singh? Why do you think so?
I hope to god it’s NOT Poilievre, as IMO, he’s a political arsonist and personal opportunist, who will be happy to burn down institutions that hold our country together, as long as he personally gains power and/or money. I could not hold a lower opinion of him.
I think we’d end up with a similar setup as now, with Freeland and Singh in a not-a-coalition partnership. The ratio of seats would probably shift a bit, but unless the NDP really starts to shine, or the Liberals become as bad as the Conservatives think they are, I can’t see anyone getting a majority.
Poilievre will probably harden the Conservative support in the ridings they already win with ease, but I can’t see him expanding their number of seats. He’s looking for more votes from two main groups: the people who jumped ship to the PPC because the Conservatives weren’t radical enough, and the people who jumped ship to the Liberals and NDP because the Conservatives were too radical. Appealing to one group will drive away the other, and it’s clear that Poilievre is going after the PPC voters. And I’m pretty sure they’re the smaller group, especially in the swing ridings he’ll need to win if he wants to form a government. I can’t see anyone who moved to the NDP or Liberals because they didn’t like Scheer or O’Toole going back because Poilievre appeals to them.
I really believe Poilievre has a good chance with the populist rhetoric. I do not want him to be PM, but I have a funny feeling he is going to win. He won’t pull in NDP voters, but he could get Liberal voters that like what he has to say, even if what he has to say is complete populist gibberish.