Debate night – media stars slam the media
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!
