Harper turns down one-on-one debate with Ignatieff

[Shwa]

For disappointed Senator and Leaf fans, this could have been the game of the year. But at this point, no-go says Mr. Harper. Also, I like the prominent use of the word 'coalition' by Mr. Harper. Nice touch! Apparently that concept is still game for the Cons.

Harper turns down one-on-one debate with Ignatieff

We were open to all kinds of options. Our first preference was a direct debate with the leader of the coalition. Mr. Ignatieff insisted that his first preference was to have his coalition partners with him at the debate, Harper told reporters during a campaign stop in Halifax.

Thats the format that was proposed. Weve accepted it, Harper said.

I wonder if Mr. Harper is afraid of taking Mr. Ignatieff on one-on-one. Sure looks like it.

I bet this isn't over yet.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Shwa

[bloodyminded]

It'll Be (coalition) over when the Liberals (coalition) stop mucking about and takes it (coalition) as seriously as do the Canadian people.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[Bonam]

I wonder if Mr. Harper is afraid of taking Mr. Ignatieff on one-on-one. Sure looks like it.

It's hardly a matter of being afraid, it is a matter of politics. What is the advantage to Harper of having a 1 on 1 debate? All such a debate would do is provide weight to the notion that there are just 2 viable options to vote for in the election: Conservatives or Liberals. Such a debate could potentially reduce the extent to which left of center votes are split, with more people feeling they need to vote for the liberals if they oppose the conservatives. From the conservative point of view, it would seem politically advantageous to have the liberals, NDP, and probably even the greens there, so that the anti-CPC vote is split as much as possible.

[ToadBrother]

It's hardly a matter of being afraid, it is a matter of politics. What is the advantage to Harper of having a 1 on 1 debate? All such a debate would do is provide weight to the notion that there are just 2 viable options to vote for in the election: Conservatives or Liberals. Such a debate could potentially reduce the extent to which left of center votes are split, with more people feeling they need to vote for the liberals if they oppose the conservatives. From the conservative point of view, it would seem politically advantageous to have the liberals, NDP, and probably even the greens there, so that the anti-CPC vote is split as much as possible.

There's little point to any of these debates, and yet it has become a fixture in most modern democracies. It hardly makes Harper look good to turn his back on this pointless debate, even if, from a certain point of view, it makes strategic sense.

[BubberMiley]

The CPC coalition talk is beginning to sound like a junior high school taunt. If there were anything to it, why are we even having an election? Wouldn't they just have taken control of parliament last week without the threat of a CPC majority?

[ToadBrother]

The CPC coalition talk is beginning to sound like a junior high school taunt. If there were anything to it, why are we even having an election? Wouldn't they just have taken control of parliament last week without the threat of a CPC majority?

It's been over two years since the last election. Precedent has already been set for nine months between elections (the 1974 elections in the UK and the nine month Joe Clark Tory regime here at home in 1979). It's highly unlikely that the GG would ask anyone else in Parliament to form a government this long past the last election, so there was no opportunity.

[BubberMiley]

It's been over two years since the last election. Precedent has already been set for nine months between elections (the 1974 elections in the UK and the nine month Joe Clark Tory regime here at home in 1979).

They could have tried sending a letter to the GG to look at them as an option, like Harper did with his coalition.

[Shwa]

It's hardly a matter of being afraid, it is a matter of politics. What is the advantage to Harper of having a 1 on 1 debate? All such a debate would do is provide weight to the notion that there are just 2 viable options to vote for in the election: Conservatives or Liberals. Such a debate could potentially reduce the extent to which left of center votes are split, with more people feeling they need to vote for the liberals if they oppose the conservatives. From the conservative point of view, it would seem politically advantageous to have the liberals, NDP, and probably even the greens there, so that the anti-CPC vote is split as much as possible.

Good points. But it still makes Mr. Harper look like a fraidy cat with a lot to lose. Harper's good ol' boy versus Ignatieff's Hah-vaud. The U of T drop out versus the U of T Professor. Hockey versus... I dunno, cricket? I mean Igantieff did spend some time at Cambridge and Oxford.

But it could be fun!

[ToadBrother]

They could have tried sending a letter to the GG to look at them as an option, like Harper did with his coalition.

Sure they could, but if the precedent has been set that a loss of confidence after nine months triggers new elections, I think the GG would go that route. An election is always the preferable way to deal with a no confidence situation, the only reasonable override being distance from the last one.

[scribblet]

The CPC coalition talk is beginning to sound like a junior high school taunt. If there were anything to it, why are we even having an election? Wouldn't they just have taken control of parliament last week without the threat of a CPC majority?

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2011/03/bloc-quebecois-platform-pro-coalition-if-minority-government-formed/

According to section 1.4.11 of the Bloc Quebecois platform:

“Dans l’éventualité d’un P arlement sans majorité parlementaire, le Bloc Québécois se réserve la possibilité de soutenir une coalition de partis politiques, et ce, dans la mesure où le respect des valeurs québécoises est garanti.”

“In the event of a Parliament with no majority, the Bloc Québécois reserves the right to support a coalition of political parties, as long as the respect of Quebec values is guaranteed” (p. 39)

[Shakeyhands]

Harper and his people came to their senses. It would have been a spank-a-thon.

[ToadBrother]

Harper and his people came to their senses. It would have been a spank-a-thon.

Maybe... but backing down carries it's own risks. Elections are like a thirty-odd day long series of playground taunts, challenges, fights and, sometimes, backdowns. And, like the playground, backdowns, while often sensible, diminish you.

Frankly, I only watch leadership debates with one eye open anyways. They're like the Question Period of elections, a lot spectacle but precious little substance.

Edited March 31, 2011 by ToadBrother

[M.Dancer]

The reason it was turned down was the Ignatieff team demanded that the questions and answers be formed in Iambic pentameter ...

[Saipan]

I wonder if Mr. Harper is afraid of taking Mr. Ignatieff on one-on-one. Sure looks like it.

Good. He keeps his cards close. He also knows liberal media would love to spin it. Lot of time yet.

I bet this isn't over yet.

Far from it.

[Shakeyhands]

Good. He keeps his cards close. He also knows liberal media would love to spin it. Lot of time yet.

Far from it.

Oh what bullshit. What better chance to hear what the man has to say with any spin, the media have nothing to do with it.

[bloodyminded]

It's not a "liberal" media anyway. That's the spin here, a cherished political fiction.

[blueblood]

The reason it was turned down was the Ignatieff team demanded that the questions and answers be formed in Iambic pentameter ...

It was turned down I believe, because if harper were to legitimately have a debate of substance with ignatieff, he would look like a jerk, because according to the centre left harper's policies are heartless.

Even though corporate tax cuts are good for the economy and create jobs, it is a lot harder sell to a largely economic illeterate base vs. Say a billion dollar daycare and billion dollar learning passports.

I'm sure harper would love to rip ignatieff in two about the economy. Given that ignatieff is a far better public speaker than harper, and harper having a cold image it would be better to take a pass. For harper to "win" the debate, he'd piss off the electorate.

Its always harder to sell a policy where there is a no involved, vs. A yes policy. For example the gst tax cuts (yes I will cut the gst vs no I won't cut it for xyz reason)

Edited March 31, 2011 by blueblood

[Saipan]

It's not a "liberal" media anyway. That's the spin here, a cherished political fiction.

The fact liberals are defending it tells the whole story

[bloodyminded]

The fact liberals are defending it tells the whole story

I'm not defending the media. I'm saying it's not a "liberal" media.

How is that a "defense"? It's just a fact.

[msj]

It was turned down I believe, because if harper were to legitimately have a debate of substance with ignatieff, he would look like a jerk, because according to the centre left harper's policies are heartless.

Even though corporate tax cuts are good for the economy and create jobs, it is a lot harder sell to a largely economic illeterate base vs. Say a billion dollar daycare and billion dollar learning passports.

I'm sure harper would love to rip ignatieff in two about the economy, given that ignatieff is a far better public speaker than harper, and harper having a cold image. For harper to "win" the debate, he'd piss off the electorate.

I don't know about Harper, but you look like a jerk.

[blueblood]

I don't know about Harper, but you look like a jerk.

And that's why I'm not in politics.

[bloodyminded]

It was turned down I believe, because if harper were to legitimately have a debate of substance with ignatieff, he would look like a jerk, because according to the centre left harper's policies are heartless.

Even though corporate tax cuts are good for the economy and create jobs, it is a lot harder sell to a largely economic illeterate base vs. Say a billion dollar daycare and billion dollar learning passports.

I'm sure harper would love to rip ignatieff in two about the economy, given that ignatieff is a far better public speaker than harper, and harper having a cold image. For harper to "win" the debate, he'd piss off the electorate.

Well, what's the alternative? Not tell the public the truth, Straussian-style, because the public can't quite face the harsh realities that their wisers and betters can do?

This leads to a rather undemocratic kind of sentiment, and I see no reason why it should be restricted to economic matters. I noticed this type of thinking during the run-up to the Iraq War; Christopher Hitchens made exactly this case, stating that "part of the charm" of the pro-war argument is that "it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed."

("Charm," Hitch, you elitist little bastard?)

This is an open embracing of deception, of...did I say undemocratic?...antidemocratic elitism, in which the chosen few must not tell us the truth...but rule with truth. Deceiving us for our own good, as it were.

In a sense, we can perceive this going on in politics all the timer; but when it's openly embraced, it becomes more troublesome.

Edited March 31, 2011 by bloodyminded

[capricorn]

It was turned down I believe, because if harper were to legitimately have a debate of substance with ignatieff, he would look like a jerk, because according to the centre left harper's policies are heartless.

Harper was wrong to open his yap about a one-on-one with Ignatieff. What that would do is give Ignatieff legitimacy in the minds of viewers and put Ignatieff on a equal footing with Harper as the front runner.

Even though corporate tax cuts are good for the economy and create jobs, it is a lot harder sell to a largely economic illeterate base vs. Say a billion dollar daycare and billion dollar learning passports.

I quite agree. Conservatives are literate when it comes to economic issues. The rest are quite happy to continue approving of social programs that keep them and their offspring on the government teat, and do nothing for long term economic growth.

[blueblood]

Well, what's the alternative? Not tell the public the truth, Straussian-style, because the public can't quite face the harsh realities that their wisers and betters can do?

This leads to a rather undemocratic kind of sentiment, and I see no reason why it should be restricted to economic matters. I noticed this type of thinking during the run-up to the Iraq War; Christopher Hitchens made exactly this case, stating that "part of the charm" of the pro-war argument is that "it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed."

("Charm," Hitch, you elitist little bastard?)

This is an open embracing of deception, of...did I say undemocratic?...antidemocratic elitism, in which the chosen few must not tell us the truth...but rule with truth. Deceiving us for our own good, as it were.

In a sense, we can perceive this going on in politics all the timer; but when it's openly embraced, it becomes more troublesome.

That's just the reality of it. Harper is in it to win an election. His policies aren't warm and fuzzy spend policies that make everyone feel good. If harper was to get into it with ignatieff about corporate tax cuts vs billion dollar learning passports on the fly with an eloquent speaker such as ignatieff that could be a disaster. The only way harper can make his policies palatable is in those canned soundbytes.

Chretien and martin didn't campaign on slashing spending and balancing the books, but once they did canadians bought into it and martin looks like a hero. I think that's what harper wants out of his time in office - the guy that did what was necessary and got the job done.

The usa is having a devil of a time dealing with their entitlement spending which is too much tax dollars on consumption. The administration which fixes this will be relegated into political oblivion because everyone loves their entitlement spending. For a fiscal conservative/tea party type, its maddening. The 1990s liberals had the ideal situation for dealing with the deficit: free trade, the bond vigilantes banging the war drum, people in the finance industry high up in the caucus (manley, martin, mccallum later on), the gst, and a right wing opposition essentially saying go further. That does not exist in the usa.

Edited March 31, 2011 by blueblood

[BubberMiley]

His policies aren't warm and fuzzy spend policies that make everyone feel good.

After that last budget, you can still say that with a straight face?