Hebert Speaks

About the debate debate:

The larger reality is that the federal leaders are only on a level playing field for the time of a debate or two.

But the options of a two-tier debate or a duel between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff both involve an even greater level of distortion.

A one-on-one debate between the Liberal and Conservative leaders would be completely divorced from the electoral reality of regions such as Quebec and the Prairies.

In a pre-election CROP poll, the Liberals barely beat the Greens for support in francophone Quebec.

In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, shifting votes from the NDP to the Liberals is usually a formula for electing more Conservatives.

Perhaps, if a one on one is inevitable, it should be broadcast on TVO and in the Atlantic Provinces, the only two places where a head to head race between Iggy and Harper mirror some sliver of reality. Or, they can keep things as they are, messy, just like our country.

Recommend this Post

Note To Jeff Simpson III

Jeff, may I call you Jeff? I have written you so much, I feel I know you. Jeff, you kinda flew off the rails, in this morning's offering.

Set the following criteria. Leaders whose parties get at least 15 per cent of the popular vote and/or whose parties have 50 seats (roughly 15 per cent) in the House of Commons can participate in the nationally televised debate in English in the main network.

Then, let there be one-hour interviews, or something of this sort, with the leaders of the other parties on prime-time programs on the specialty channels.

The same criteria could be used in French. Leaders whose parties commanded 15 per cent of the vote (in Quebec) can participate in debates on the main channels; interviews would be reserved for the others.

Of course, some people who support marginal parties will scream, claiming equality, equality, equality. But what's fair about allowing a party with no seats, or 10 per cent of the popular vote, to receive the same exposure to viewers/voters as parties with more than 100 seats, or 150 seats, and almost 40 per cent of the vote?

What you wrote seems reasonable, until someone reads it. What you are proposing to do is give a leader of a party with 33-37% support, 100% access to the media while giving a leader of a party with 10 to 14%, 0% access. What you are proposing is essentially overlaying the crazy distortions of our electoral system to the debates. Such a distortion is extremely undemocratic, because it presents the views of the party with 37% of the vote as the view of the majority. Whereas, the actual vote count shows this is simply not true. At the same time, your formula pretends that the views of 10 to 14% of the population do not exist at all. It is bad enough that our electoral system distorts the reality of the country. To overlay that distortion on the debates is unthinkable. Go back to the drawing board, Jeff. This proposal is a non-starter.

Recommend this Post

Friday Morning Quarterback

The morning after the night before. Harper muddied the waters (ie lied his ass off)enough to survive. He threw out statistics and programs out at random, without context, in order to give an appearance that his government is actually governing (which is in fact, the last thing it wants to do). Albertans should be proud of him. He defends their interests very, very well. On the other hand, he seemed quite indifferent to Ontario and Quebec's problems. Telling unemployed people to be patient while the economy changes is a charming theory, but for someone paying a mortgage, it is a bit too "Ivory Towerish" (and I think Layton scored some points for that Volvo plant in Goderich example). For someone trying to present himself as Joe Everyman, it seems an elementary mistake he could have avoided.

The others were about how you would expect. Dion was earnest, but difficult to fathom. He tried his best but when he got excited his english deteriorated quickly. Layton was strong in some ways, in command of his platform and his critique of Harper. On the other hand, he still has this thing about him. The only way I can describe it is by quoting the Simpsons. He "reeks of effort". He distances himself from the viewers by looking like he is trying too hard. It is hard to describe, but it is offputting. Maybe it's just me. I doubt he hurt himself with last night's performance.

Duceppe looked kind of bored last night. I continue to agree with most everything he says. If he could just get past that whole separatist thing, he would make a fine leader of the NDP.

May was great. She didn't take any guff from Harper. However, there were times (especially when she went off on the Green Shift) that she sounded like an ancillary Liberal leader. Ironically, her performance may cost the Liberals some seats, something she has said she would feel badly about. I think her worst fears are going to come true.

Overall, I think it was a good discussion. I wouldn't call it a debate. Harper didn't alienate his base, so he will still have around 33 to 36 percent of the vote. The rest of the parties will divide up the rest, probably more evenly than in previous elections. The magic of the FPTP system is about to be on display for everyone to see.

Recommend this Post

Pre-Game Silliness

I think the debates are cool and all, but the leaders are just sitting around a table and frankly they all are dreary white guys (except of course for Ms. May). They need some kind of gimmick to jazz up the experience for the viewer. So as they are introduced, I thought they could each have some theme music. Something that says something about them.

For Gilles Duceppe:



For Stephane Dion:



For Jack Layton:



For Elizabeth May:



For Stephen Harper:

Recommend this Post

The Poor Little Guy Who Holds All The Power (And Rules Like A King)

That is the name of Harper's forthcoming book. Not really, but it should be. It is hard to believe the guy is still playing the underdog after ruling for three years. I mean, he must have mentioned the fact that he didn't have as much fun as he wanted to, because they were all against him, about 3 or 4 times post debate. But hey, if the media is going to go along with that spin, why not, it has worked for the Republicans for 40 years. You just can't pay for headlines like Rivals Gang Up On Harper. His supporters will eat it with a spoon and my great aunt will feel sorry for poor, poor, Mr. Harper.

As for myself, I thought Dion will win the approval of the pundit class with his performance (at least in English Canada), Layton did fine, but the pundits hate him anyway so he will be judged a loser, Duceppe was his usual self, leaving me wishing he was a member of the NDP and May was cute as a button (I know, you are not supposed to say that, but she has this twinkle, you know?) and I agreed with her assessment that Harper was a fraud.

Update: It looks like Kinsella and I watched the same debate.

Recommend this Post