Thursday, October 16, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Apocalypse nowabouts
Good loses seats in all cases. Evil gains seats in all cases. Evil fighting evil for Edmonton-Strathcona. Depressing night. Garth Turner loses. Possible coherence tomorrow.
Update: Further sign of the apocalypse: Paul Wells wrong. Dion has to go. If he'd broken, say, ninety seats, I would have said that he should stay on, for the reasons that Wells lists (especially the one about in effect having to prop the Conservatives up). But the defeat was just too thorough, and he is now so drenched in the stench of loserhood, that he will never win. Canadian voters, in their twisted little illogic, will continue to reject him because the fact that they have rejected him before proves that he should be rejected. In a just world, he'd fight another election on the Green Shift and win it. He won't. It isn't a just world.
Update: Further sign of the apocalypse: Paul Wells wrong. Dion has to go. If he'd broken, say, ninety seats, I would have said that he should stay on, for the reasons that Wells lists (especially the one about in effect having to prop the Conservatives up). But the defeat was just too thorough, and he is now so drenched in the stench of loserhood, that he will never win. Canadian voters, in their twisted little illogic, will continue to reject him because the fact that they have rejected him before proves that he should be rejected. In a just world, he'd fight another election on the Green Shift and win it. He won't. It isn't a just world.
Coyne collection
Things I didn't know until just now: apparently every prominent Canadian named "Coyne" is related. James Coyne is the father of Andrew Coyne (and also of actress Susan Coyne, who I've never heard of) and the uncle of Deborah Coyne (and therefore the great uncle of Sarah Coyne). Far out.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Fun facts, predictions, etc.
Here's an interesting fact: seven times in Canadian history, minority governments have gone into elections: 1926, 1958, 1963, 1965, 1974, 1980, and 2006. The mean lifespan of the minority governments in question was about sixteen and a half months. Six of those elections resolved the minority situation, either by throwing the government out or by giving it a majority. The two exceptions were 1963 and 1965, when incumbent Lester Pearson was as unable to win a majority as Diefenbaker was to take his old job back (interestingly, these two exceptions also comprise the longest minority governments in Canadian history - removing them, the average falls to less than a year).
While I'm leery of ascribing motivations to Canadian voters collectively (if they get together in advance of elections to decide what message they want to send and to coordinate their voting accordingly, as seems to be the belief of so much of the pundocracy, they've somehow forgotten to invite me), it seems reasonable to draw some conclusions from this: Canadians are not generally hesitant in their evaluations of minorities, and seem to dislike minority situations enough that they'll vote for stability, even after a relatively short trial period.
Which brings us to this election, which gives every indication of deciding absolutely nothing. At the beginning of the campaign, I predicted an increased Conservative minority, which still looks like it will be the case, but I was thinking something on the order of 145 seats. Now, it appears that they'll struggle to break 130. Moreover, it seems very unlikely that any party will see their seats change by more than ten in either direction from what they held at dissolution (in the net, the Liberals are likely to lose a handful of seats to the Conservatives and New Democrats).
I've played Prime Minister Forever, an election simulation game that's more fun than accurate, a few times. In it, each party is given a goal, which I suspect corresponds roughly to the parties' actual goals going into the campaign. Not a single one of the pan-Canadian parties is poised to reach its goal from the 2008 scenario.
Two questions emerge from this: first, when will the next election be? The popular money right now says "soon" (unless, as Lawrence Martin quite incorrectly suggested, there's some possibility of the Conservatives being replaced by either a Liberal minority or a coalition government without an intervening election), but the popular money isn't the smart money. In January of 2006, I bet no less a light than Edmonton City Councillor Don Iveson that there wouldn't be another federal election in 2006; to say that I won that bet would be understating it. I made that bet because minority Parliaments are, for their first couple of years especially, giant games of chicken, in which each party wants to appear to be taking bold action regardless of how it might play with opposing parties, but each party is also desperate to avoid being seen as responsible for a new election, and indeed desperate to avoid triggering such an election absent some indication that it will improve its standing in it. I don't pretend to know exactly how the Harper government will survive another two years or so, but it will find a way (or, more accurately, the opposition parties will find a way to allow it to). If the Liberals unwisely engage in another leadership campaign, it suddenly becomes pretty easy, but that's by no means a prerequisite.
Speaking of leadership campaigns, the second obvious question is, given that every federal leader (Gilles Duceppe doesn't count) will have failed to achieve his/her objective, who pays? Stephen Harper, in my view, is safe for at least the duration of this next government; his leadership brought the Conservatives to government from a place where it seemed an impossibility, and there aren't a lot of saviours waiting in the wings anyway. But he's the only one.
Elizabeth May is likely to be gone, unless she can win a seat in a by-election quickly. She probably could have had her pick of at least a dozen ridings winnable to her solely on the strength of her status as Green Party leader; she chose to run in a different one. The Greens will enter this post-election period in no better shape than they entered the last one, and responsibility for that is primarily May's. The Greens have already remained a viable national party for longer than anybody else has done so without winning a seat; one has to wonder if the ghost of Mel Hurtig will be beckoning for it soon.
Dion, too, will probably be ousted, though this would be a mistake. I believe that he has established himself as an alternative to Harper in the minds of enough Canadians that, if the Conservatives should falter early in their new government, the Liberals would be better off with him at the helm than with a vacuum (that faint praise wasn't intended to be quite that damning, but there you are). It would be easy to note that only the Liberals will win fewer seats than they did in 2006, but it would be more useful to compare their election day performance to their standing at dissolution than to their 2006 performance. By that comparison, I think Dion has the Liberals on the upswing. Besides that, his baggage has been checked; the same is not true of Rae and Ignatieff.
This leaves us with Jack Layton. On the one hand, he will (for the third consecutive election) increase the NDP seat count. On the other hand, the New Democrats were hoping for a breakthrough in Montreal and to at least challenge the Liberals for the title of Official Opposition. Neither will occur. It looks very much like the NDP is very close to its plateau under Layton and, for the first time in a while, there's an heir apparent in Thomas Mulcair. Back on the first hand, polls consistently show that Layton is (inexplicably) more popular than his party, and this is not a party that has historically been quick to turf underperforming leaders. My bet is that he'll stick around for a while as well.
All of that said, here are my predictions:
* Conservative: 130
* Liberal: 90
* Bloc: 51
* NDP: 35
* Independent: 2
While I'm leery of ascribing motivations to Canadian voters collectively (if they get together in advance of elections to decide what message they want to send and to coordinate their voting accordingly, as seems to be the belief of so much of the pundocracy, they've somehow forgotten to invite me), it seems reasonable to draw some conclusions from this: Canadians are not generally hesitant in their evaluations of minorities, and seem to dislike minority situations enough that they'll vote for stability, even after a relatively short trial period.
Which brings us to this election, which gives every indication of deciding absolutely nothing. At the beginning of the campaign, I predicted an increased Conservative minority, which still looks like it will be the case, but I was thinking something on the order of 145 seats. Now, it appears that they'll struggle to break 130. Moreover, it seems very unlikely that any party will see their seats change by more than ten in either direction from what they held at dissolution (in the net, the Liberals are likely to lose a handful of seats to the Conservatives and New Democrats).
I've played Prime Minister Forever, an election simulation game that's more fun than accurate, a few times. In it, each party is given a goal, which I suspect corresponds roughly to the parties' actual goals going into the campaign. Not a single one of the pan-Canadian parties is poised to reach its goal from the 2008 scenario.
Two questions emerge from this: first, when will the next election be? The popular money right now says "soon" (unless, as Lawrence Martin quite incorrectly suggested, there's some possibility of the Conservatives being replaced by either a Liberal minority or a coalition government without an intervening election), but the popular money isn't the smart money. In January of 2006, I bet no less a light than Edmonton City Councillor Don Iveson that there wouldn't be another federal election in 2006; to say that I won that bet would be understating it. I made that bet because minority Parliaments are, for their first couple of years especially, giant games of chicken, in which each party wants to appear to be taking bold action regardless of how it might play with opposing parties, but each party is also desperate to avoid being seen as responsible for a new election, and indeed desperate to avoid triggering such an election absent some indication that it will improve its standing in it. I don't pretend to know exactly how the Harper government will survive another two years or so, but it will find a way (or, more accurately, the opposition parties will find a way to allow it to). If the Liberals unwisely engage in another leadership campaign, it suddenly becomes pretty easy, but that's by no means a prerequisite.
Speaking of leadership campaigns, the second obvious question is, given that every federal leader (Gilles Duceppe doesn't count) will have failed to achieve his/her objective, who pays? Stephen Harper, in my view, is safe for at least the duration of this next government; his leadership brought the Conservatives to government from a place where it seemed an impossibility, and there aren't a lot of saviours waiting in the wings anyway. But he's the only one.
Elizabeth May is likely to be gone, unless she can win a seat in a by-election quickly. She probably could have had her pick of at least a dozen ridings winnable to her solely on the strength of her status as Green Party leader; she chose to run in a different one. The Greens will enter this post-election period in no better shape than they entered the last one, and responsibility for that is primarily May's. The Greens have already remained a viable national party for longer than anybody else has done so without winning a seat; one has to wonder if the ghost of Mel Hurtig will be beckoning for it soon.
Dion, too, will probably be ousted, though this would be a mistake. I believe that he has established himself as an alternative to Harper in the minds of enough Canadians that, if the Conservatives should falter early in their new government, the Liberals would be better off with him at the helm than with a vacuum (that faint praise wasn't intended to be quite that damning, but there you are). It would be easy to note that only the Liberals will win fewer seats than they did in 2006, but it would be more useful to compare their election day performance to their standing at dissolution than to their 2006 performance. By that comparison, I think Dion has the Liberals on the upswing. Besides that, his baggage has been checked; the same is not true of Rae and Ignatieff.
This leaves us with Jack Layton. On the one hand, he will (for the third consecutive election) increase the NDP seat count. On the other hand, the New Democrats were hoping for a breakthrough in Montreal and to at least challenge the Liberals for the title of Official Opposition. Neither will occur. It looks very much like the NDP is very close to its plateau under Layton and, for the first time in a while, there's an heir apparent in Thomas Mulcair. Back on the first hand, polls consistently show that Layton is (inexplicably) more popular than his party, and this is not a party that has historically been quick to turf underperforming leaders. My bet is that he'll stick around for a while as well.
All of that said, here are my predictions:
* Conservative: 130
* Liberal: 90
* Bloc: 51
* NDP: 35
* Independent: 2
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Subjects that none in the media, and few elsewhere, seem to understand
Margins of error. Hey, media, here's a multiple choice question for you: if Party A leads Party B by 4.99% in a poll whose margin of error (95% confidence interval - i.e. "nineteen times out of twenty") is 5%, what is the chance that Party A is, in fact, ahead of Party B?
a. 50%: because the poll difference is within the poll's margin of error, it's a statistical tie, so there is equal chance of either party being ahead.
b. a hair under 95%: because a difference of 5% gives a 95% certainty of Party A being in the lead, a difference of very slightly under 5% will give a certainty very slightly under 95%.
c. it's impossible to say
(The correct answer is in the comments section, though I like to think that my limited readership is smart enough that it won't need to check.)
a. 50%: because the poll difference is within the poll's margin of error, it's a statistical tie, so there is equal chance of either party being ahead.
b. a hair under 95%: because a difference of 5% gives a 95% certainty of Party A being in the lead, a difference of very slightly under 5% will give a certainty very slightly under 95%.
c. it's impossible to say
(The correct answer is in the comments section, though I like to think that my limited readership is smart enough that it won't need to check.)
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Stealing Paul Wells' links again
Exactly.
Now, the New Democrats are pretty sure that all economists are out to feast on the flesh of the poor, Swift-style (and it's not just economics they distrust - some of them are pretty sure that the underlying math is itself right-wing), so I wouldn't expect them to get this, on acount of ignorance and prejudice. But Harper's got no such excuse to be getting this so monumentally wrong.
Now, the New Democrats are pretty sure that all economists are out to feast on the flesh of the poor, Swift-style (and it's not just economics they distrust - some of them are pretty sure that the underlying math is itself right-wing), so I wouldn't expect them to get this, on acount of ignorance and prejudice. But Harper's got no such excuse to be getting this so monumentally wrong.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Rankings now, commentary tomorrow maybe
1. Harper
2. May
3. Layton
4. Duceppe
5. Dion
6. Palin (and I don't mean Paikin - seriously, she was just awful)
2. May
3. Layton
4. Duceppe
5. Dion
6. Palin (and I don't mean Paikin - seriously, she was just awful)
Le lendemain
As you may or may not know, I gave Stéphane Dion a hundred bucks back when he was running for Liberal leader (several of my ND friends gave me hell for this; none of them have since recanted and thanked me, strangely). I'm an admirer of his going back to the Clarity Act. I would very much like to see this election result in a Liberal government (minority, preferably), though the chance of that is pretty well at zero. In light of all this, I thought there was some danger that I might go too easy on Dion in my debate reporting. Turns out I might have gone too hard on him. In the debate aftermath, he's gotten the biggest increase in media coverage, and it's been almost entirely positive.
An Ipsos-Reid poll found that 40% of respondents felt that Dion won the debate, well ahead of Duceppe in second at 24%. More significantly, twenty percent of respondents said that the debate changed their mind about who to vote for. That's a significant number. Also interesting is this (desk pound to Paul Wells for that one), which shows that viewers reacted overwhelmingly positively to most of what Dion (and Duceppe) said, and overwhelmingly negatively to most of what Harper said (though a commenter on Wells' blog points out that these reactions took place almost as soon as the leaders in question opened their mouths, suggesting that participants in the study had made up their minds before they actually listened to what the leaders had to say) (Update: Not so, apparently: this is a pie chart showing the participants' political allegiances going into the debate).
Granted, Dion isn't going to perform as well tonight, and granted it's too late for him to win a plurality of seats. But he might be able to salvage the election, and maybe even his leadership, in sort of the same way that John Turner did in 1988. Turner, recall, lost the 1984 election (in fairness, that bit was probably inevitable), with the most enduring moment of the campaign being his telling Mulroney during the leader's debate that "[he] had no choice" but to make a series of patronage appointments. From 1984 until 1988 he was pretty much a lame duck, being plotted against by forces loyal to Jean Chrétien. During the 1988 election, though, fought on free trade, John Turner belatedly emerged as a leader. He lost then too, of course, but he did it with some measure of self-respect and dignity. I believe that 2008 could be Dion's 1988, and carbon emissions could be his free trade. And I even think that if the gap between the Liberals and the Conservatives is less than, say, twenty seats, he might get another chance. But it's possible that I'm being naive here.
Update: Of course, not all the news is good. Don Martin, inexplicably western Canada's most prominent national pundit, suggests that Dion's performance didn't matter, since only the Conservatives and the Bloc have a chance of winning a majority of Quebec's seats. I'm not sure where he's getting that the Conservatives have a chance at winning a majority of Quebec's seats, but they plainly do not; electionprediction.org currently has the absolute best case scenario for the Conservatives as being 21 Quebec seats. Personally, I suspect they'll wind up with as few or fewer than the Liberals. But this is the same Don Martin who went from touting Stockwell Day as the Great Right Hope (from an Alberta base, recall - he had no excuse for ignorance) to complaining that he was all media-pleasing sizzle and no steak, without apparently considering what this said about his own susceptibility to sizzle.
An Ipsos-Reid poll found that 40% of respondents felt that Dion won the debate, well ahead of Duceppe in second at 24%. More significantly, twenty percent of respondents said that the debate changed their mind about who to vote for. That's a significant number. Also interesting is this (desk pound to Paul Wells for that one), which shows that viewers reacted overwhelmingly positively to most of what Dion (and Duceppe) said, and overwhelmingly negatively to most of what Harper said (though a commenter on Wells' blog points out that these reactions took place almost as soon as the leaders in question opened their mouths, suggesting that participants in the study had made up their minds before they actually listened to what the leaders had to say) (Update: Not so, apparently: this is a pie chart showing the participants' political allegiances going into the debate).
Granted, Dion isn't going to perform as well tonight, and granted it's too late for him to win a plurality of seats. But he might be able to salvage the election, and maybe even his leadership, in sort of the same way that John Turner did in 1988. Turner, recall, lost the 1984 election (in fairness, that bit was probably inevitable), with the most enduring moment of the campaign being his telling Mulroney during the leader's debate that "[he] had no choice" but to make a series of patronage appointments. From 1984 until 1988 he was pretty much a lame duck, being plotted against by forces loyal to Jean Chrétien. During the 1988 election, though, fought on free trade, John Turner belatedly emerged as a leader. He lost then too, of course, but he did it with some measure of self-respect and dignity. I believe that 2008 could be Dion's 1988, and carbon emissions could be his free trade. And I even think that if the gap between the Liberals and the Conservatives is less than, say, twenty seats, he might get another chance. But it's possible that I'm being naive here.
Update: Of course, not all the news is good. Don Martin, inexplicably western Canada's most prominent national pundit, suggests that Dion's performance didn't matter, since only the Conservatives and the Bloc have a chance of winning a majority of Quebec's seats. I'm not sure where he's getting that the Conservatives have a chance at winning a majority of Quebec's seats, but they plainly do not; electionprediction.org currently has the absolute best case scenario for the Conservatives as being 21 Quebec seats. Personally, I suspect they'll wind up with as few or fewer than the Liberals. But this is the same Don Martin who went from touting Stockwell Day as the Great Right Hope (from an Alberta base, recall - he had no excuse for ignorance) to complaining that he was all media-pleasing sizzle and no steak, without apparently considering what this said about his own susceptibility to sizzle.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
And now for something completely different
Despite the fact that I follow American legislative politics moderately closely, I'm always surprised by how many prominent people I've never heard of. For example, today I was looking at the Senate roll call on the bailout package, and I thought to myself "Who the fuck is Byron Dorgan?" What's more, he's apparently been in office since 1992. Crazy.
Liveblogging the French leaders' debate
This live bloggery is likely a pointless exercise since a. I don't have any readers, least of all readers who are refreshing my blog every five minutes, and b. I don't think many of my readers (many of the zero, that is) will actually be watching the French debate. That said, I don't believe I've ever liveblogged anything before, and I might as well cut my teeth while nobody's watching (normally I excuse myself to the washroom to cut my teeth). Also, in a futile effort to recapture past glories, I'd like to try to put together a faux transcript of the English debate, like I did last time (seriously, (re)read that: I'm pretty awesome).
In any event, here are a few quick predictions about tonight:
1. Dion will win the debate. It won't do him any good.
2. Either tonight or tomorrow, Dion will make an ill-advised policy commitment during the debate, since it worked so well for Martin last time. It will probably be tomorrow, but in case it's tonight I want to be on record as having predicted it.
3. Jack Layton will come across as a grinning, sanctimonious jackass.
4. Elizabeth May will keep things classy.
5. Everybody but Harper will mention Afghanistan at every opportunity, which I will find frustrating because it will remind me that the parties with whom I agree on other issues are completely wrong (flippantly so, too) on Afghanistan.
6. Harper will hold is ground. In strict terms, he'll probably perform worse than Dion and Duceppe, but it won't affect his seat count much.
7. Duceppe will continue the process of saving his essentially anachronistic party for another election. This will cause Dion to breath a sigh of relief.
All times are Atlantic time.
Anyway, let it begin:
8:50 - The stupidity gets started early, as a caller to CPAC's pre-debate coverage asks why immigrants each get $1800 upon arrival in Canada. Also there are kids killing kids in school. Also, somebody (she used the pronoun "they", and I'm not sure who she's referring to) doesn't care about the Canadian people. Quote: "I'm very upset." You don't say, maniac lady.
8:58 - I know I'm about a decade behind on this one, but Bernard Lord would have made a fantastic Conservative leader.
8:59 - Liberal strategist: "People will pay taxes as long as you provide them services." Also, as long as you have the coercive power of the state requiring them to.
9:00 - Okay, debate's about to begin. Switching to the French feed now, as the need for authenticity trumps my need to watch this in a language that I haven't completely lost due to atrophy. Apparently.
9:01 - Harper looks like he's ready to kick some ass, and looking forward to the opportunity. Layton looks like a grinning, sanctimonious jackass. Duceppe looks really uncomfortable. Of course, he always does.
9:02 - "Thank you to all leaders for courageously agreeing to this debate." Also, in one case, threatening a lawsuit if you weren't included.
9:05 - Best line of the night so far to Duceppe: "There are two conflicting visions in this election: Mr. Harper's and Quebec's." Hey, I said "so far" - we're only five minutes in.
9:06 - Layton: "Canadians are very worried about the economy." Grinning smugly.
9:07 - Question: Are the leaders concerned about their family's retirement savings? I'll vote for whichever party's leader says "No, I've got a fat MP's pension lined up."
9:09 - Hmm - the video feed's cut out for me. I still have the sound, but I guess this means the end of my snarky remarks about Layton's facial expression.
9:10 - No, it's back. Just in time to see Layton grinning smugly.
9:12 - Advantage Harper so far. Layton's been the only opposition leader to get himself any speaking time, and Harper's won those exchanges handily.
9:13 - Duceppe accuses Harper of favouring Alberta over Quebec. I'm briefly disgusted with his willingness to fan the flames of regional tension for the sake of political points, but then I remember that that's sort of why he's in politics.
9:14 - Elizabeth May speaks French like the Steve Smith of 2008, and the Steve Smith of 2008 isn't winning any French language debates.
9:17 - I'm not sure precisely what metric I'm using here, but Harper and Dion both look like Prime Ministers. The others, not so much. And I'm willing to bet a fair bit that Dion won't look like a Prime Minister tomorrow night.
9:18 - I missed the explanation of the format, but whatever it is it's working really well. The leaders are the limiting factor on the quality of debate, which is as it should be.
9:23 - Dion's plan is to produce more, consuming fewer resources in doing so, and have the whole thing run by super intelligent flying monkeys.
9:24 - Man, I hope I'm not using up all my good lines before the mock transcript.
9:26 - Layton's beating the low gas prices drum again.
9:27 - Dion: "Oil prices went up forty-five cents per litre while Mr. Harper was in power, but I don't have the demagoguery to pretend that it's his fault. It's because there are a whole bunch of Chinese who are starting to drive cars."
9:29 - To my surprise, the cheapest dig of the night so far comes from May, when she accuses Harper of stealing hisenvironmental platform sales tax policies (thanks Neil!) from John Howard.
9:33 - Dion is on. I suspect he's sugar-coating the price of lowering greenhouse gas emissions (if cutting greenhouse gas emissions increased economic growth in the short run, which is essentially what he's claiming, more governments would be doing it).
9:34 - Are you satisfied with the Canadian food inspection system? My guess is the straw poll comes back 80% no.
9:35 - Duceppe's doing pretty well too.
9:36 - I think I've nailed down the problem with Layton: he's a Ph.D. in political science and a former university professor, but he thinks he's Tommy Douglas. Leaders shouldn't be afraid to be elitist; some of us *want* to be governed by elites.
9:37 - The moderator just actually forgot about Dion. Ouch.
9:38 - Remember what I said about the format working really well? I take it back.
9:40 - Do they not take a break this debate? I have dishes to wash!
9:42 - To judge by facial expression, Layton just couldn't be happier about the Harper government's failure to implement Kyoto.
9:43 - Okay, I promise: no more cracks about Layton's facial expression until at least 10:30.
9:44 - Dion just said "economy of the twenty-first century". No posts for the next few minutes while I dig out a shot glass.
9:45 - When Elizabeth May speaks French, she has basically the same inflection as Asian Reporter Trisha Takinawa.
9:46 - For anybody who was wondering, my immigrant girlfriend has just advised me that nobody gave her $1800 upon her arrival in Canada.
9:48 - Harper hit Dion with the Liberal environmental record, and Dion didn't respond with "You think it's easy to make priorities?" Thank goodness for small miracles.
9:49 - Apparently my girlfriend had to pay $1800 to come here.
9:50 - $250 was to have a seventy year old man hit her on the knee with a hammer, and then yell at her from across the room to test her hearing.
9:51 - Harper seems to be enjoying himself. Dion seems very relaxed for a guy about to become the first Liberal leader since before Laurier to fail to become Prime Minister.
9:52 - Apparently the civil service worked very hard on the government's greenhouse gas plan. We certainly wouldn't want to hurt the civil service's feelings by criticizing it. Harper certainly never did anything like that when he was opposition leader.
9:53 - The guy asking the question about leadership looks a lot like Mr. Bean. Great question, though ("say something nice about the leader to your left"). I hope to hell all of the candidates give legitimate answers. Least likely to is Layton, on Dion, followed by Harper on Layton. Then Dion on Duceppe.
9:55 - Duceppe does well, but he also had it pretty easy. Apparently May is strong on the environment - who knew?
9:56 - Layton starts off strong, calling Dion a smart and honest man, but then he goes off about how he (Layton) will be happy to work with the leaders of all parties when he's Prime Minister.
9:57 - Harper's speaking about Layton with something approaching genuine affection.
9:58 - Dion disappoints - he pulls a Layton, starting with genuine praise for Duceppe's commitment to his cause and willingness to cooperate with his fellow opposition leaders, but then says that he lacks ambition in saying that the Conservatives needed to be held to a minority.
9:59 - Man, May can't think of anything nicer to say about Harper than that he's a good father to his children. And he's committed to his beliefs, but behaves like an autocrat. Wow - worst answer of anybody. I didn't call that one.
10:01 - Tip to the moderator: asking, in essence, whether it's important to treat your opponents with respect isn't a real question, least of all as a follow up to that last one.
10:02 - In answering, Jack Layton quotes Ed Broadbent. May reminisces about Broadbent's last speech. This is sounding increasingly like a eulogy.
10:04 - Harper assures us that he doesn't believe in personal attacks. Either he's completely divorced from his party's ad strategy (which is possible - I don't pretend to know how knee-deep party leaders are in this sort of thing) or he has a very narrow definition of personal attacks.
10:05 - Dion calls him on it (though he nails Harper on a set of personal attacks that weren't against him, which is probably wise).
10:05 - Now Dion and Harper are getting in a shouting match about who's responsible for debasing political discourse in this country.
10:06 - Now Duceppe's calling Harper on having called Bloc MPs a waste of salary. Harper's denying it - no idea who's telling the truth here.
10:07 - Will the parties entertain the possibility of a coalition? Layton assures us that as Prime Minister he will frequently consult all opposition leaders. He's sort of coming across as playing make believe.
10:09 - Did they have to have the gun control question against the backdrop of Dawson College?
10:11 - Dion's kicking ass, but he's coming across too much as the most effective opposition leader, when he needs to come across as the Prime Minister in waiting. Not that Layton's attempts at that are working either, mind you.
10:12 - Recognizing that Duceppe, as the guy with the narrowest constituency, has in many ways the easiest job, he's still easily the least wishy-washy guy up there. Though I've actually been pleasantly surprised at how little equivocating there's been from anybody - not a Paul Martin in the bunch.
10:14 - Duceppe and May are tag-teaming Harper on his ridiculous criminal justice proposals - good on them.
10:16 - Moderator: "Mr. Harper, if you're returned with a minority government will you be prepared to make your criminal justice proposals a confidence motion?"
10:16 - Harper doesn't want to predict the future.
10:17 - Moderator: "Mr. Layton, if a minority government presented this to you as a confidence motion immediately after the election, would you be prepared to defeat the government over it?" Yes.
10:18 - Apparently the worst thing Dion can think of about Harper's proposal is that there's no room in the jails for all those fourteen year olds. Weak.
10:19 - Layton's French is deteriorating over the course of the debate - weird.
10:20 - Duceppe's talking about how, if the Bloc doesn't like a law, it will vote against it. That's a golden opportunity to go after Dion, and he's not. That's not a good sign for the Liberals.
10:21 - Question from the public: "Concretely, what does the recognition of the Québécois mean?"
10:22 - Harper: The recognition was a good thing, and he thanks Québécois for their enthusiasm.
10:23 - Dion: I'm proud to be a member of that nation, and I thank Mr. Harper for involving him in the process of its recognition. Dual identity is a good thing, but my fellow Québécois need to be fully engaged in Canadian affairs.
10:24 - May: I'd like to recognize a whole bunch more nations!
10:25 - You can probably figure out on your own what Duceppe has to say on the subject. Among other things, he's upset that Québec doesn't have a seat at UNESCO. Hey, dinkwallet: section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 - read it.
10:26 - Layton: Arts cuts = bad (in my experience, that's how New Democrats talk).
10:27 - Apparently when Harper wanted to move the nation motion, he sent Duceppe an inaccurate copy of the resolution. This is interesting.
10:28 - Harper doesn't deny it, just accuses Duceppe of denouncing him unfairly for trying to recognize Québécois.
10:29 - Dion says Liberals will double the arts budget. In his defense, that's almost the first fistfull of dollar bills he's flung about this debate, but still.
10:30 - Layton's still smiling like a jackass.
10:31 - Moderator: "Mr. Harper, are artists lazy?" No. Moreover, the Conservatives have apparently increased arts funding.
10:32 - The grin momentarily vanishes as he asserts that most Canadian artists live in poverty. This is apparently the most solemn moment of the debate.
10:33 - Dion asserts that artists are also important to the economy of the twenty-first century. Shot!
10:35 - The moderator accuses the candidates of looking at their watches, but Dion's not wearing one! Comedy!
10:39 - Layton's accusing Harper of opting for tax cuts over fixing health care. Somewhat surreally, Harper responds by touting his tax cuts.
10:42 - Dion seizes control of the health care section of the debate, by actually proposing a plan (which is throwing money at it, but throwing money at it in a specific way, rather than the general way that Layton's advocated so far).
10:43 - Harper blames the provinces for not working with him on health care, and emphasizes that health care is a provincial responsibility (there's a guy who's read the Constitution Act, 1867!).
10:44 - May points out that, division of powers notwithstanding, Harper promised a wait times guarantee last election. She must be a Paul Wells reader.
10:45 - Duceppe on health care: the problem "c'est cette attitude de 'Ottawa knows best'".
10:46 - Layton to Duceppe: will you protect public health care, or can only the NDP be counted on to do that? As Duceppe attempts to provide a nuanced answer, chaos reigns.
10:47 - Question from the public on Afghanistan: why withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011, and how will Canada do so without losing face? Afghanistan hasn't been mentioned until now, blowing away my prediction.
10:48 - May: The current mission is ineffective and politically-motivated. A new (and unspecified!) approach is needed.
10:48 - Duceppe: The Afghanistan mission isn't properly balanced - too much money on the military, not enough on development. Also, Harper would have put us in Iraq. Then he gives Layton hell for not supporting a Bloc motion to pull troops out in February 2008 (I'm going to have to look into that).
10:49 - Layton to Deceppe: "The NDP's the only party with a clear position on Afghanistan, and you know it." This belligerence between the NDP and the Bloc is a new thing (I don't think Layton and Duceppe disagreed on *anything* in 2006's debate). I guess this is what happens when the NDP smells Quebec seats.
10:50 - Dion defends the Afghanistan mission pretty eloquently, but says that we need to give our allies notice that it's time for somebody else to put up.
10:51 - Moderator: Karzai has said that he wants to negotiate with the Taliban, which has killed many Canadian troops. How does that make you feel?
10:52 - Dion: This is a decision for the Afghan government to make. Harper says that he'll pull out in 2011. Harper also said that he wouldn't dissolve Parliament early.
10:53 - Based on the Layton grin-o-meter, Canadians dying in Afghanistan is a far more delightful topic than poor artists.
10:54 - May: There are problems with the Afghan government, and the mission has exacerbated these. We need to work for peace, and you can't get peace without talking to your enemies.
10:55 - Duceppe is the first to bring up the 0.7% of GDP figure for foreign aid, and claims that Canada has actually backslid to 0.27%. This breed terrorism. "If the economy's so strong, Mr. Harper, why are we giving less to international aid?"
10:56 - Layton's back to agreeing with Duceppe.
10:57 - Dion: "The reason that Mr. Duceppe will never be Prime Minister is what he just said." It turns out that he means Mr. Layton; there's an entirely different set of reasons that Gilles Duceppe will never be Prime Minister.
10:57 - Layton to Dion: "The difference between you and me is that when we're going in a bad direction, I'll reverse course. You said that 2009 was the latest withdrawal you'd accept, and then you made a deal with Harper."
10:58 - Dion to Layton: "Because Harper hadn't taken the preparations to get us out. I wasn't going to endanger the lives the Canadian troops are protecting before arrangements were made to replace them. That's the difference between you and me."
10:59 - Harper: "I find it ironic to hear Mr. Dion speak about respecting international obligations, given his record on Greenhouse gas emissions as environment minister."
10:59 - Duceppe and May to Harper: "You opposed him every step of the way, going so far to call Kyoto a socialist plot." This is the best exchange of the night.
11:00 - On balance, great debate. Good format. I wouldn't have thought to eliminate opening and closing statements, but I guess there's never really much of substance in there anyway. Dishes now, analysis to follow.
11:01 - No, wait - CPAC's about to do an internet poll on who won. I can't miss that for dishes.
11:02 - For what it's worth, I'd say in terms of actual performance, it went Dion-Duceppe-Harper-Layton-May, but in terms of good they did to their cause, it would be Duceppe-Harper-Dion-Layton-May. We'll see if CPAC viewers agree.
11:03 - This just in: Liberal talking head thinks Dion performed well, and that Harper was on the defensive the whole time. I wonder what the other talking heads will think?
11:04 - New Democrat talking head thinks that it was a good debate, but that it would have been better if Harper hadn't been afraid to respond to Layton's questions.
11:04 - Ooh, here's the Green guy; let's see if he can claim with a straight face that May won.
11:05 - Nope: the environmental focus means that *everybody* won (i.e. not just the leaders). Which is probably fair. But now he's giving May credit for steering the debate towards the environment, which is laughable since i. May didn't steer shit, and ii. the debate was carefully segmented into issue-based sections. He acknowledges that her French was the weakest, though.
11:06 - They replaced Bernard Lord with a different Conservative. Didn't catch his name, but he wouldn't have made an awesome Conservative leader.
11:07 - Duceppe holds a presser. Was he surprised to agree with Dion on so much? "No, I knew there was a fair bit of agreement on issues between the two of us. Between Harper and me too, actually, though there are major policy differences as well - Harper's out of touch with Quebec on a lot of issues, and the Bloc is the only party that can hold him back from a majority." Good debate, though.
11:09 - I can't find the poll on the CPAC site. Can anyone else?
11:11 - Duceppe clearly feels good about his performance, so he, at least, seems to agree with my analysis.
11:16 - Harper's doing his press conference, and seems to be taking aim mostly at the Liberals. Which is odd, because I don't think there's a single mostly French riding in which the Conservatives and the Liberals are competing hard against each other.
11:18 - Dion's turn. He's an entirely different politician in French.
11:21 - Trolling the internet for debate coverage, I stumbled across this Elizabeth May quote: "I'm not going to pretend at the end of the next election I'll be prime minister. I'll let Jack do the pretending." Har.
11:22 - Okay, I'm pretty sure that last comment no longer qualified as part of a live blog, so I'll wrap this up. Thanks for readingeverybody Neil.
Update: Shockingly, the Maclean's liveblog of this thing was better than mine. Check it out.
Update: Wells thinks my second prediction came true. Frankly, I don't see it - in Wells's own words, the plan amounts to "hold a lot of meetings", which isn't quite on the order of removing the Notwithstanding Clause from the federal arsenal.
In any event, here are a few quick predictions about tonight:
1. Dion will win the debate. It won't do him any good.
2. Either tonight or tomorrow, Dion will make an ill-advised policy commitment during the debate, since it worked so well for Martin last time. It will probably be tomorrow, but in case it's tonight I want to be on record as having predicted it.
3. Jack Layton will come across as a grinning, sanctimonious jackass.
4. Elizabeth May will keep things classy.
5. Everybody but Harper will mention Afghanistan at every opportunity, which I will find frustrating because it will remind me that the parties with whom I agree on other issues are completely wrong (flippantly so, too) on Afghanistan.
6. Harper will hold is ground. In strict terms, he'll probably perform worse than Dion and Duceppe, but it won't affect his seat count much.
7. Duceppe will continue the process of saving his essentially anachronistic party for another election. This will cause Dion to breath a sigh of relief.
All times are Atlantic time.
Anyway, let it begin:
8:50 - The stupidity gets started early, as a caller to CPAC's pre-debate coverage asks why immigrants each get $1800 upon arrival in Canada. Also there are kids killing kids in school. Also, somebody (she used the pronoun "they", and I'm not sure who she's referring to) doesn't care about the Canadian people. Quote: "I'm very upset." You don't say, maniac lady.
8:58 - I know I'm about a decade behind on this one, but Bernard Lord would have made a fantastic Conservative leader.
8:59 - Liberal strategist: "People will pay taxes as long as you provide them services." Also, as long as you have the coercive power of the state requiring them to.
9:00 - Okay, debate's about to begin. Switching to the French feed now, as the need for authenticity trumps my need to watch this in a language that I haven't completely lost due to atrophy. Apparently.
9:01 - Harper looks like he's ready to kick some ass, and looking forward to the opportunity. Layton looks like a grinning, sanctimonious jackass. Duceppe looks really uncomfortable. Of course, he always does.
9:02 - "Thank you to all leaders for courageously agreeing to this debate." Also, in one case, threatening a lawsuit if you weren't included.
9:05 - Best line of the night so far to Duceppe: "There are two conflicting visions in this election: Mr. Harper's and Quebec's." Hey, I said "so far" - we're only five minutes in.
9:06 - Layton: "Canadians are very worried about the economy." Grinning smugly.
9:07 - Question: Are the leaders concerned about their family's retirement savings? I'll vote for whichever party's leader says "No, I've got a fat MP's pension lined up."
9:09 - Hmm - the video feed's cut out for me. I still have the sound, but I guess this means the end of my snarky remarks about Layton's facial expression.
9:10 - No, it's back. Just in time to see Layton grinning smugly.
9:12 - Advantage Harper so far. Layton's been the only opposition leader to get himself any speaking time, and Harper's won those exchanges handily.
9:13 - Duceppe accuses Harper of favouring Alberta over Quebec. I'm briefly disgusted with his willingness to fan the flames of regional tension for the sake of political points, but then I remember that that's sort of why he's in politics.
9:14 - Elizabeth May speaks French like the Steve Smith of 2008, and the Steve Smith of 2008 isn't winning any French language debates.
9:17 - I'm not sure precisely what metric I'm using here, but Harper and Dion both look like Prime Ministers. The others, not so much. And I'm willing to bet a fair bit that Dion won't look like a Prime Minister tomorrow night.
9:18 - I missed the explanation of the format, but whatever it is it's working really well. The leaders are the limiting factor on the quality of debate, which is as it should be.
9:23 - Dion's plan is to produce more, consuming fewer resources in doing so, and have the whole thing run by super intelligent flying monkeys.
9:24 - Man, I hope I'm not using up all my good lines before the mock transcript.
9:26 - Layton's beating the low gas prices drum again.
9:27 - Dion: "Oil prices went up forty-five cents per litre while Mr. Harper was in power, but I don't have the demagoguery to pretend that it's his fault. It's because there are a whole bunch of Chinese who are starting to drive cars."
9:29 - To my surprise, the cheapest dig of the night so far comes from May, when she accuses Harper of stealing his
9:33 - Dion is on. I suspect he's sugar-coating the price of lowering greenhouse gas emissions (if cutting greenhouse gas emissions increased economic growth in the short run, which is essentially what he's claiming, more governments would be doing it).
9:34 - Are you satisfied with the Canadian food inspection system? My guess is the straw poll comes back 80% no.
9:35 - Duceppe's doing pretty well too.
9:36 - I think I've nailed down the problem with Layton: he's a Ph.D. in political science and a former university professor, but he thinks he's Tommy Douglas. Leaders shouldn't be afraid to be elitist; some of us *want* to be governed by elites.
9:37 - The moderator just actually forgot about Dion. Ouch.
9:38 - Remember what I said about the format working really well? I take it back.
9:40 - Do they not take a break this debate? I have dishes to wash!
9:42 - To judge by facial expression, Layton just couldn't be happier about the Harper government's failure to implement Kyoto.
9:43 - Okay, I promise: no more cracks about Layton's facial expression until at least 10:30.
9:44 - Dion just said "economy of the twenty-first century". No posts for the next few minutes while I dig out a shot glass.
9:45 - When Elizabeth May speaks French, she has basically the same inflection as Asian Reporter Trisha Takinawa.
9:46 - For anybody who was wondering, my immigrant girlfriend has just advised me that nobody gave her $1800 upon her arrival in Canada.
9:48 - Harper hit Dion with the Liberal environmental record, and Dion didn't respond with "You think it's easy to make priorities?" Thank goodness for small miracles.
9:49 - Apparently my girlfriend had to pay $1800 to come here.
9:50 - $250 was to have a seventy year old man hit her on the knee with a hammer, and then yell at her from across the room to test her hearing.
9:51 - Harper seems to be enjoying himself. Dion seems very relaxed for a guy about to become the first Liberal leader since before Laurier to fail to become Prime Minister.
9:52 - Apparently the civil service worked very hard on the government's greenhouse gas plan. We certainly wouldn't want to hurt the civil service's feelings by criticizing it. Harper certainly never did anything like that when he was opposition leader.
9:53 - The guy asking the question about leadership looks a lot like Mr. Bean. Great question, though ("say something nice about the leader to your left"). I hope to hell all of the candidates give legitimate answers. Least likely to is Layton, on Dion, followed by Harper on Layton. Then Dion on Duceppe.
9:55 - Duceppe does well, but he also had it pretty easy. Apparently May is strong on the environment - who knew?
9:56 - Layton starts off strong, calling Dion a smart and honest man, but then he goes off about how he (Layton) will be happy to work with the leaders of all parties when he's Prime Minister.
9:57 - Harper's speaking about Layton with something approaching genuine affection.
9:58 - Dion disappoints - he pulls a Layton, starting with genuine praise for Duceppe's commitment to his cause and willingness to cooperate with his fellow opposition leaders, but then says that he lacks ambition in saying that the Conservatives needed to be held to a minority.
9:59 - Man, May can't think of anything nicer to say about Harper than that he's a good father to his children. And he's committed to his beliefs, but behaves like an autocrat. Wow - worst answer of anybody. I didn't call that one.
10:01 - Tip to the moderator: asking, in essence, whether it's important to treat your opponents with respect isn't a real question, least of all as a follow up to that last one.
10:02 - In answering, Jack Layton quotes Ed Broadbent. May reminisces about Broadbent's last speech. This is sounding increasingly like a eulogy.
10:04 - Harper assures us that he doesn't believe in personal attacks. Either he's completely divorced from his party's ad strategy (which is possible - I don't pretend to know how knee-deep party leaders are in this sort of thing) or he has a very narrow definition of personal attacks.
10:05 - Dion calls him on it (though he nails Harper on a set of personal attacks that weren't against him, which is probably wise).
10:05 - Now Dion and Harper are getting in a shouting match about who's responsible for debasing political discourse in this country.
10:06 - Now Duceppe's calling Harper on having called Bloc MPs a waste of salary. Harper's denying it - no idea who's telling the truth here.
10:07 - Will the parties entertain the possibility of a coalition? Layton assures us that as Prime Minister he will frequently consult all opposition leaders. He's sort of coming across as playing make believe.
10:09 - Did they have to have the gun control question against the backdrop of Dawson College?
10:11 - Dion's kicking ass, but he's coming across too much as the most effective opposition leader, when he needs to come across as the Prime Minister in waiting. Not that Layton's attempts at that are working either, mind you.
10:12 - Recognizing that Duceppe, as the guy with the narrowest constituency, has in many ways the easiest job, he's still easily the least wishy-washy guy up there. Though I've actually been pleasantly surprised at how little equivocating there's been from anybody - not a Paul Martin in the bunch.
10:14 - Duceppe and May are tag-teaming Harper on his ridiculous criminal justice proposals - good on them.
10:16 - Moderator: "Mr. Harper, if you're returned with a minority government will you be prepared to make your criminal justice proposals a confidence motion?"
10:16 - Harper doesn't want to predict the future.
10:17 - Moderator: "Mr. Layton, if a minority government presented this to you as a confidence motion immediately after the election, would you be prepared to defeat the government over it?" Yes.
10:18 - Apparently the worst thing Dion can think of about Harper's proposal is that there's no room in the jails for all those fourteen year olds. Weak.
10:19 - Layton's French is deteriorating over the course of the debate - weird.
10:20 - Duceppe's talking about how, if the Bloc doesn't like a law, it will vote against it. That's a golden opportunity to go after Dion, and he's not. That's not a good sign for the Liberals.
10:21 - Question from the public: "Concretely, what does the recognition of the Québécois mean?"
10:22 - Harper: The recognition was a good thing, and he thanks Québécois for their enthusiasm.
10:23 - Dion: I'm proud to be a member of that nation, and I thank Mr. Harper for involving him in the process of its recognition. Dual identity is a good thing, but my fellow Québécois need to be fully engaged in Canadian affairs.
10:24 - May: I'd like to recognize a whole bunch more nations!
10:25 - You can probably figure out on your own what Duceppe has to say on the subject. Among other things, he's upset that Québec doesn't have a seat at UNESCO. Hey, dinkwallet: section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 - read it.
10:26 - Layton: Arts cuts = bad (in my experience, that's how New Democrats talk).
10:27 - Apparently when Harper wanted to move the nation motion, he sent Duceppe an inaccurate copy of the resolution. This is interesting.
10:28 - Harper doesn't deny it, just accuses Duceppe of denouncing him unfairly for trying to recognize Québécois.
10:29 - Dion says Liberals will double the arts budget. In his defense, that's almost the first fistfull of dollar bills he's flung about this debate, but still.
10:30 - Layton's still smiling like a jackass.
10:31 - Moderator: "Mr. Harper, are artists lazy?" No. Moreover, the Conservatives have apparently increased arts funding.
10:32 - The grin momentarily vanishes as he asserts that most Canadian artists live in poverty. This is apparently the most solemn moment of the debate.
10:33 - Dion asserts that artists are also important to the economy of the twenty-first century. Shot!
10:35 - The moderator accuses the candidates of looking at their watches, but Dion's not wearing one! Comedy!
10:39 - Layton's accusing Harper of opting for tax cuts over fixing health care. Somewhat surreally, Harper responds by touting his tax cuts.
10:42 - Dion seizes control of the health care section of the debate, by actually proposing a plan (which is throwing money at it, but throwing money at it in a specific way, rather than the general way that Layton's advocated so far).
10:43 - Harper blames the provinces for not working with him on health care, and emphasizes that health care is a provincial responsibility (there's a guy who's read the Constitution Act, 1867!).
10:44 - May points out that, division of powers notwithstanding, Harper promised a wait times guarantee last election. She must be a Paul Wells reader.
10:45 - Duceppe on health care: the problem "c'est cette attitude de 'Ottawa knows best'".
10:46 - Layton to Duceppe: will you protect public health care, or can only the NDP be counted on to do that? As Duceppe attempts to provide a nuanced answer, chaos reigns.
10:47 - Question from the public on Afghanistan: why withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011, and how will Canada do so without losing face? Afghanistan hasn't been mentioned until now, blowing away my prediction.
10:48 - May: The current mission is ineffective and politically-motivated. A new (and unspecified!) approach is needed.
10:48 - Duceppe: The Afghanistan mission isn't properly balanced - too much money on the military, not enough on development. Also, Harper would have put us in Iraq. Then he gives Layton hell for not supporting a Bloc motion to pull troops out in February 2008 (I'm going to have to look into that).
10:49 - Layton to Deceppe: "The NDP's the only party with a clear position on Afghanistan, and you know it." This belligerence between the NDP and the Bloc is a new thing (I don't think Layton and Duceppe disagreed on *anything* in 2006's debate). I guess this is what happens when the NDP smells Quebec seats.
10:50 - Dion defends the Afghanistan mission pretty eloquently, but says that we need to give our allies notice that it's time for somebody else to put up.
10:51 - Moderator: Karzai has said that he wants to negotiate with the Taliban, which has killed many Canadian troops. How does that make you feel?
10:52 - Dion: This is a decision for the Afghan government to make. Harper says that he'll pull out in 2011. Harper also said that he wouldn't dissolve Parliament early.
10:53 - Based on the Layton grin-o-meter, Canadians dying in Afghanistan is a far more delightful topic than poor artists.
10:54 - May: There are problems with the Afghan government, and the mission has exacerbated these. We need to work for peace, and you can't get peace without talking to your enemies.
10:55 - Duceppe is the first to bring up the 0.7% of GDP figure for foreign aid, and claims that Canada has actually backslid to 0.27%. This breed terrorism. "If the economy's so strong, Mr. Harper, why are we giving less to international aid?"
10:56 - Layton's back to agreeing with Duceppe.
10:57 - Dion: "The reason that Mr. Duceppe will never be Prime Minister is what he just said." It turns out that he means Mr. Layton; there's an entirely different set of reasons that Gilles Duceppe will never be Prime Minister.
10:57 - Layton to Dion: "The difference between you and me is that when we're going in a bad direction, I'll reverse course. You said that 2009 was the latest withdrawal you'd accept, and then you made a deal with Harper."
10:58 - Dion to Layton: "Because Harper hadn't taken the preparations to get us out. I wasn't going to endanger the lives the Canadian troops are protecting before arrangements were made to replace them. That's the difference between you and me."
10:59 - Harper: "I find it ironic to hear Mr. Dion speak about respecting international obligations, given his record on Greenhouse gas emissions as environment minister."
10:59 - Duceppe and May to Harper: "You opposed him every step of the way, going so far to call Kyoto a socialist plot." This is the best exchange of the night.
11:00 - On balance, great debate. Good format. I wouldn't have thought to eliminate opening and closing statements, but I guess there's never really much of substance in there anyway. Dishes now, analysis to follow.
11:01 - No, wait - CPAC's about to do an internet poll on who won. I can't miss that for dishes.
11:02 - For what it's worth, I'd say in terms of actual performance, it went Dion-Duceppe-Harper-Layton-May, but in terms of good they did to their cause, it would be Duceppe-Harper-Dion-Layton-May. We'll see if CPAC viewers agree.
11:03 - This just in: Liberal talking head thinks Dion performed well, and that Harper was on the defensive the whole time. I wonder what the other talking heads will think?
11:04 - New Democrat talking head thinks that it was a good debate, but that it would have been better if Harper hadn't been afraid to respond to Layton's questions.
11:04 - Ooh, here's the Green guy; let's see if he can claim with a straight face that May won.
11:05 - Nope: the environmental focus means that *everybody* won (i.e. not just the leaders). Which is probably fair. But now he's giving May credit for steering the debate towards the environment, which is laughable since i. May didn't steer shit, and ii. the debate was carefully segmented into issue-based sections. He acknowledges that her French was the weakest, though.
11:06 - They replaced Bernard Lord with a different Conservative. Didn't catch his name, but he wouldn't have made an awesome Conservative leader.
11:07 - Duceppe holds a presser. Was he surprised to agree with Dion on so much? "No, I knew there was a fair bit of agreement on issues between the two of us. Between Harper and me too, actually, though there are major policy differences as well - Harper's out of touch with Quebec on a lot of issues, and the Bloc is the only party that can hold him back from a majority." Good debate, though.
11:09 - I can't find the poll on the CPAC site. Can anyone else?
11:11 - Duceppe clearly feels good about his performance, so he, at least, seems to agree with my analysis.
11:16 - Harper's doing his press conference, and seems to be taking aim mostly at the Liberals. Which is odd, because I don't think there's a single mostly French riding in which the Conservatives and the Liberals are competing hard against each other.
11:18 - Dion's turn. He's an entirely different politician in French.
11:21 - Trolling the internet for debate coverage, I stumbled across this Elizabeth May quote: "I'm not going to pretend at the end of the next election I'll be prime minister. I'll let Jack do the pretending." Har.
11:22 - Okay, I'm pretty sure that last comment no longer qualified as part of a live blog, so I'll wrap this up. Thanks for reading
Update: Shockingly, the Maclean's liveblog of this thing was better than mine. Check it out.
Update: Wells thinks my second prediction came true. Frankly, I don't see it - in Wells's own words, the plan amounts to "hold a lot of meetings", which isn't quite on the order of removing the Notwithstanding Clause from the federal arsenal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)