Thoughts on the Leadership Squabble

 

Watching the Leaders’ Debate coverage on Thursday, several thoughts came to me, any of which might be worth sharing.

1. No politician ever answers a question from the press. They just choose the most relevant talking point from their platform and ramble on. No news there, although the lack of decent issues in this election makes the practice stand out more.
2. Quebec has two parties competing in this election: the Bloc Québécois and the Coalition Avenir Québec. When the provincial premier can’t keep his nose out of federal politics, there’s something rotten in the state of whatever.
3. A problem with the debate format; the Bloc leader gained the most in this debate, but only because the moderator worded a question in a way that he could interpret as an accusation of racism. He played that one note all evening, and only Annamie Paul joined in the chorus with a racially-charged comment of her own.
4. Annamie Paul may be an admirable person, but she is the wrong leader for Canada’s Green Party. She’s the only one of the leaders that actually answered the questions of the press. And why did she? Because none of those questions were anything to do with the Green platform, which has mostly been stolen by the other parties. The questions were all to do with Ms. Paul’s own personal political views, which are aimed at the anti-black, anti-female and anti-Semitic problems of our society. All of which are perfectly good political objectives, but not for a leader who is trying to pull together a party of such disparate people as the Greens. Her stand on the Palestinian problem alone has cost her one MP already and possibly all the rest in the election. On Vancouver Island, the NDP is waiting in the wings, ready to take the stage.
5. There is always an uproar when a minority leader calls an election. It dies down when people get their teeth into the real issues. Not this time. Why? First, because no issues have arisen to spark the imaginations of the voters and keep their attention. Second, because the Liberal Party has a poor record for fulfilling promises, so the question, “Why did you call an election when you had so much left to do?” is a valid one. Trudeau never gave an answer to that question, because there isn’t one.
6. To be fair to the Liberals, I hope I don’t find myself in the same position in four years’ time, asking Mr. O’Toole why he promised everyone anything their hearts desired, regardless of ideology or financial practicality, and then failed to produce.
7. Best line: When Jagmeet Singh was asked the stupidest rhetorical question of the night, “Will you work with other parties to support a minority government?” his answer was, “If I am Prime Minister, I’ll work with everybody.”
8. To sum up the debate as someone on Social Media did lately, “New faces, same old bullszzt.” Which is why I adapted the graphic above from my 2019 debate coverage.

Talking to my sources since the debate (mainly my Friday hiking group), I have come up with the best-case scenario for the next parliament: a Liberal minority government supported by the NDP in some form or other. Second best is what we had before the election: a Liberal minority requiring the support of two other parties to govern. But that gives too much power to the Bloc Québécois, which is seldom great for Canada as a whole. The only way the Conservatives are going to get into power is a straight majority, because I don’t think any other party will support them in a coalition.

A point made by the At Issue panel on CBC. There is a great to-do on every debate night to decide who “won” the debate, but that result rarely has anything to do with who wins the election. Another indication that our artificial way of choosing leaders through a First Past the Post PR battle makes no political sense.