Canada Election 2021

[Jacob]

O'Toole - "I'll be straight up, we have to earn a bit of trust on climate change, so we're introducing a carbon savings account."

Blanchet - "We need to cap oil production or we're getting nowhere."

Trudeau - "Our plan is actually the best according to most experts in the field. Also, O'Toole can't convince his own caucus that climate change is real."

Singh - "O'Toole and Trudeau are both arguing about who of them is worst... friends, you can do better than both of them."

Blanchet - "O'Toole said in French 'no pipeline through Quebec' - will he please say that in English tonight?"

Paul - "Let's treat Climate Change like we did the pandemic, across party lines."

[Grey Fox]

Fun 10 mins of Quebec bashing from the moderator at the start too.

[Josephus]

The polling seems to indicate that the Conservatives are coming in about where they were in the last election - no big surprise there.  The big surprise is if they grew from that number.  And the Liberal support has shrunk down to where they were at the last election.

Their support is bleeding to the NDP.  So the question is going to be will Singh be able to convince enough liberal voters that he is the best bet for an ABC vote.

No. And as usual votes will split giving the Conservatives a way in.

Canada338 has my riding, for instance, with the Conservatives at 39 per cent; the NDP at 31 and the Liberals at 22. Guess who's gonna grab the seat? :-(

And yes, I know, that's the rules. Just saying, if the NDP and Liberals merged, it would really change our political landscape.

[Josephus]

The moderator just shut Singh down.

She was terrible. Any time something got interested she just shut it down. It was a terrible format of a debate.

[HVC]

Fun 10 mins of Quebec bashing from the moderator at the start too.

what'd they say?

[Grey Fox]

Fun 10 mins of Quebec bashing from the moderator at the start too.

what'd they say?

Kurl ask Blanchet to justify/explain Bill 21 & Bill 96. Paul also jump in because she's desperate to paint any other leader as a asshole too. The other 3 wisely didn't say anything.

If you want information on National Assembly bills pertaining to Quebec you should ask our provincial government not the leader of the Quebec based separatist party leader whose goal is to paint the RoC has anti-Quebec.

[Neil]

I voted.  The Maverick Party was not on the ballot, with the crazy quota being filled by the PPC.  The only other joke parties on the ballot were the Greens and the Communists. 

[Jacob]

Anyways, my take on the debates (gathered while while helping with grade 3 homework and minding a 2-year old beginning her I-don't-want-to-go-to-bed campaign a bit early, and missing the last 15-20 minutes):

Everybody did their job credibly, keeping in mind that they have different objectives going in. They all more or less made the impression they needed to do, with no massive oh-my-god moments either way.

O'Toole - tacked to the centre, making clear statements such as "I am pro choice" and the like; on things like climate change and affordability he maintained the line of "we take it very seriously, and we want realistic solutions that work for everyday Canadians" suggesting that the Conservatives take the topics seriously, while assuring his core voters that the boat won't be rocked too vigorously. O'Toole didn't have an answer for "how can you say you want to lead Canada to a 90% vaccination rate when you can't even get your own caucus to get vaccinated at 90%?" He was solid in hitting the main Conservative themes of "we are promising realistic things which we'll hit, unlike Mr. Trudeau who just talks," "Trudeau is an untrustworthy putz," and "we have a plan to get Canada working

Trudeau - main strategy was "we have in fact done a whole bunch of things very solidly. Yes we haven't reached everything we said we would do, but this stuff is not as easy as the other leaders are tryng to make out" and "we have made progress, and we'll continue to make progress." I think he did a credible job on that, but obviously it'll be more or less convincing depending on your own starting point. He landed a few jabs here and there - "your plan isn't costed", "your caucus is a mess", "your caucus is not vaccinated" etc, but they were generally light IMO. On the environement he leaned into "experts rate our plan as the best of the ones on offer, so yeah we're the best choice here" which was countered by "you set targets, but you don't meet them, so whatever", which then went back to "we did alright, you're being cynical which harms real progress." I think he did alright. He's not going to convince many people who aren't inclined to like the Liberals, but he did well enough to provide narratives for those who are.

Paul - went in with a clear agenda to be seen as the progressive choice. She hit Trudeau a bunch on Philpott and Wilson-Raybould. She also drove hard on "maybe things would be different if the decision makers weren't all white men" and "as someone who grew up sort of poor and definitely not white, I totally empathize." In general she was big on aspirational "we should all work together", "this is a massive crisis, we have to take real steps", and "green energy is an economic opportunity." She made a solid number of gestures on "the patriarchy" and "institutional racism" and the like, without getting into language that's directly off-putting to regular folks (I think). She made a solid pitch for the voters who care about such things, and definitely positioned herself as a left alternative to the NDP.

Singh - went with "we are here with real, believable policies that will positively impact regular folks" for most of it, but also got a "we should tax the very rich to pay for this stuff" which will sit well with his core consituencies. He definitely piled in on the "we can't really trust our boy Trudeau, can we" whenever the opportunity presented itself. One of his go-tos were "I believe Mr. Trudeau[ cares, but...", favouring a narrative that the Prime Minister is ineffectual rather than corrupt or manipulative. He didn't have much of an answer to "so hey, why don't you have a costed plan" but generally came across as both caring and credible.

Blanchet - came across as a solid champion for the people of Quebec, willing to compromise with other reasonable parties, and speaking truth to power. He said things like "to make an impact on climate change, we have to put a cap on oil production" which is pretty true IMO, but not something you can say if you're hoping to become PM of Canada... but he isn't. He had a bit of a quip about "can we talk about Francophones outside of Quebec" to which the answer was "no, the topic is affordability" which reinforced his image as the champion of Quebec and Francophones. He definitely wasn't afraid to jab at people from angles that are a little different from the standard discourse in Anglophone Canada. Unlike the other leaders, Blanchet did not pile in with any "here's why Trudeau sucks" arguments.

I didn't mind the moderation or the format, and I thought the questions from "regular Canadians" and journalists were fine. It wasn't perfect, but pretty decent and I enjoyed the whole thing.

[crazy canuck]

The polling seems to indicate that the Conservatives are coming in about where they were in the last election - no big surprise there.  The big surprise is if they grew from that number.  And the Liberal support has shrunk down to where they were at the last election.

Their support is bleeding to the NDP.  So the question is going to be will Singh be able to convince enough liberal voters that he is the best bet for an ABC vote.

No. And as usual votes will split giving the Conservatives a way in.

Canada338 has my riding, for instance, with the Conservatives at 39 per cent; the NDP at 31 and the Liberals at 22. Guess who's gonna grab the seat? :-(

And yes, I know, that's the rules. Just saying, if the NDP and Liberals merged, it would really change our political landscape.

In the ridings the Conservatives will win in BC, they would only hold 2 for sure if the NDP/Liberal vote was combined.  There is only one riding where there is a tight three way race.  There is one other riding where the Liberal and Conservative candidates are tied, with the NDP way back, if those NDP voters vote ABC the Liberal will win.

In my own riding the Liberal candidate will win even if the Conservative and NDP vote was combined.

[Josephus]

The problem with the debate is that it's all about the soundbite. Granted a debate between 5 people is hard to do, unlike, say, the American one.

But for instance.

Question: We have a very important question about affordability. Lots of people can't afford rent, young people will never be able to rent a home.
Mr. Trudeau you have 45 seconds on this very important subject, the rest of you can counter with 5 seconds.

Like, really?


I watched the whole thing. I doubt these things change anybody's minds do they?
I was impressed with Paul, actually. I can see women voting for her. There she was unable to get a word in with these four bullying guys around her. Her attitude was, "I can't keep repeating my mantra with these guys saying different things all the time."
I felt for Blanchet. He made a fair point about not having as much time. But quite frankly--what is he doing in a national debate? Most of the time his answers began with, "Well, I would do nothing for Canada."
The other three were exactly as I'd expect.
I thought Trudeau made a good point with Singh when he said that Singh doesn't seem to think it matters whether the Liberals or the Conservatives win. O'Toole came across as a nice, clean cut guy. Very WASPY. I'm sure both my parents will vote for him. Lots of vacuous statements like "we want to help all Canadians."
Trudeau looked like he was  struggling not to reach over and punch the shit out of both O'Toole and Singh-- and even the moderator. He was on the defensive a lot, but that's the norm for the incumbent.

I'm voting tomorrow.

[Jacob]

The problem with the debate is that it's all about the soundbite. Granted a debate between 5 people is hard to do, unlike, say, the American one.

Yeah the debates are about sound bites, about poise, about narrative, and about political spectacle. They'll suck if you want them to be something else. But far what they are, I think they're fine and valuable.

[crazy canuck]

Debates are also supposed to be about debating policies.  That was actually the stated purpose for this debate.  But the people who created the structure made that impossible.  It was worse than useless, it was detrimental because a candidate like Paul could talk all she wanted because no one had an interest in interrupting her.  Not so for the serious candidates.  Having 5 there makes no sense.  Let the I am only for Quebec guy speak in a debate that only involves Quebec issues (oh and never have a debate that only involves Quebec issues).  And get rid of the fringe parties that don't poll over 10% nationally.

[Zoupa]

Fun 10 mins of Quebec bashing from the moderator at the start too.

what'd they say?

It's worth it to listen to her loaded questions just to understand how QC bashing forms.

Here you have a supposedly neutral moderator, on probably one of the most watched tv program of the last few years in Canada, asking biased questions. It'd be as if the moderator asked Biden how come he supports murdering babies since he supports Roe v Wade.

Then you have a relatively uninformed public that rarely follows politics take it at face value, and the cycle continues.

Today Trudeau and even O'Toole criticized the moderator/questions. The damage is done of course. Business as usual.

[Jacob]

... and because noone wanted to be talked about as the guy who spoke over the only woman on stage.

Anyways, I disagree with you about leaving "the Quebec guy" out. The BQ has a large number of seats in Parliament, they absolutely should be heard. If you don't like their policies and priorities, that's no reason to exclude them.

Personally, I think it's good to have the smaller parties there. The whole FPTP system is already heavily rigged against alternative voices being heard, I don't think the debates should stifle them further.

As for the debates being about debating policies, which debate has been the best at achieving that in previous elections, in your view?

[Jacob]

On Quebec bashing - Zoupa, Grey Fox - just to make sure I'm clear on where you're coming from.

While folks often use Quebecs secularism laws as a bludgeon for Quebec bashing, it is possible to make good faith arguments that those laws are in fact racist without bashing Quebec, yes?

The Quebec bashing aspect of the question in the debate last night was about the timing (opening with it) and appropriateness (it's not really relevant to the Federal election) rather than the question itself, right?

Or is it your view that the secularism laws are racist inherently Quebec bashing, full stop?

I'm not looking to get into the weeds on the discussion here, but - as a member of what Zoupa calls "the relatively uninformed public" - I'd like to make sure I understand where you're coming from.