No KOs, but a few good jabs

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 28/08/2019 (2249 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

There were no knock-out blows, but Brian Pallister’s three political opponents took their best shots at the Progressive Conservative leader in what may be the only leaders debate of the provincial election.

Pallister, as the man to beat, faced most of the questions in the 50-minute televised debate Wednesday evening that no leader clearly won or lost.

Here’s how the leaders fared.

 

Brian Pallister (Progressive Conservative)

What he needed to do:

With a healthy lead in the polls going into the election campaign, Pallister didn’t need to land any huge verbal punches against his competitors. He just needed to avoid any gaffes, remember to smile at the cameras and remind voters of his party’s main accomplishments in its three-plus years in office, including lower taxes and a greatly reduced government operating deficit.

What he accomplished:

Sticking closely to his party’s talking points, Pallister was combative, challenging his main rival, Wab Kinew, without losing his cool or making any damaging mistakes. He also made some news by saying that a re-elected PC government would balance the books two years ahead of schedule — in Year 6, rather than Year 8 of being in government.

Best sound bite:

“Mr. Lamont, I just don’t share your pessimism about the future of Manitoba,” he said in answer to a question about how cutting infrastructure spending, freezing wages and cutting staff will grow the economy.

Post-debate spin:

Pallister seemed pleased with his performance and said he offered Manitobans a clear picture of where his party stands on important issues such as health care, balancing the books and keeping life affordable for taxpayers. He accused Kinew of not providing voters with that same clarity.

Asked why he didn’t prod Kinew about his criminal history — a line of questioning the Tories have been urging voters to contemplate — Pallister said he had other plans.

“I want to talk about the issues Manitobans care about. I think, thankfully, our records are more public than they were when the NDP covered up Mr. Kinew’s record and they helped him do that in the last election,” he said.

“I think my record is obviously out there and it was clear tonight that it’s open to criticism. And that’s fine, I accept that. But I hope Mr. Kinew would accept that as well.”

 

Wab Kinew (New Democrat)

What he needed to do:

In his first televised debate as a party leader, Kinew needed to present himself as a potential premier, while exploiting voter concerns over the pace and impact of health reforms and PC government cuts to programs. He also had to brace himself for a likely attack from Pallister on the former NDP government’s record — as well as questions about his past run-ins with the law.

What he accomplished:

Kinew appeared comfortable during the debate, zeroing again and again on the PCs’ health care record, using anecdotes effectively to make his points. He also repeatedly referred to an NDP plan to offer $350 in annual rebates to households on their Hydro bills. While the promise has been widely panned by critics and his opponents, voters may have taken notice.

Best sound bite:

“The reason we need a safer consumption site is because right now people are using the bathroom at Tim Hortons as their injection site, and I’d much rather see that transferred to a place with health care, with access to detox and treatment…”

Post-debate spin:

Kinew and the NDP were taking a figurative victory lap minutes after the four-party face-off ended, putting out a news release claiming they’d won the debate.

“What I wanted to do was share with folks a little bit of my vision for how we’re going to improve health care. (That’s) tough to do in 30-second chunks,” he said. “I also wanted to talk about our plan for the climate and to keep life affordable.”

“So I hope that was understood by Manitobans and I feel like what we did at the debate here tonight was a success in terms of getting our messages across.”

 

Dougald Lamont (Liberal)

What he needed to do:

Lamont, like Kinew, was being tested against his peers in a televised election leadership debate for the first time. He needed to forcefully and succinctly explain to viewers who may not have been paying much attention to provincial politics this summer why they should give his party a test drive in 2019. The Liberals have made a lot of promises, but can Lamont say how much they will cost?

What he accomplished:

Lamont appeared relaxed on stage and got his jabs in where he could at the two main party leaders. He got less air time as Pallister and Kinew focused their questions mainly at each other. However, when questioned by panelists or opponents he effectively enunciated his party’s platform.

Best sound bite:

“Now, now, gentlemen,” Lamont interjected during one of several times during the debate when Pallister and Kinew spoke over each other and no one could make out what either were saying.

Post-debate spin:

Lamont rated his performance as “all right” and joked that he hated seeing himself on TV, “so I’d have sympathy for anyone else who had to watch me do it, I’ll say that.”

Overall, the Liberal leader said he intended to show Manitobans there’s another progressive option available to vote for this election, rather than the “same-old” PCs and NDP.

“We’re not just offering something different. We’re offering solutions to a whole bunch of problems that have been basically neglected for the last 10, 20, 30, 40 years by the other parties,” he said, citing mental health investments and taking action on climate change as priorities.

 

James Beddome (Green)

What he needed to do:

Beddome, a veteran of these TV leaders debates having participated in 2011 and 2016, needed a solid performance to keep the momentum going for a party that has had successes in other provinces and has nominated a record 43 candidates in this election. The Greens’ big goal is to elect its first MLA to the Manitoba legislature. They almost did so in 2016, when David Nickarz came within 400 votes of winning Wolseley. Nickarz is back vying for the same seat, and Beddome could help put him over the top this time by effectively getting out the party’s message.

What he accomplished:

Looking nervous at times, Beddome scored points against Pallister on the PCs’ record on poverty and attacked Kinew’s Hydro rebate promise as being completely ineffectual in fighting climate change. He was the quickest of any of the leaders on his feet when each of the leaders was asked if his party would ban public consumption of cannabis edibles.

Best sound bite:

“In the last election you promised me that poverty was a priority issue for your government. Yet the only declines we’ve seen in poverty in Manitoba are largely due to the Canada Child Benefit,” he said in a preamble to a question to Pallister.

Post-debate spin:

Beddome was frank in his personal assessment of the debate, rating his 2016 performance as better than his 2019 showing.

“I think it was really unfortunate how often Mr. Pallister and Mr. Kinew talked over each other and I think that really undermined the value of the debate,” he said.

Beddome, who was flanked by the Green candidate David Nickarz (Wolseley) in the post-debate scrum, described the Greens as the “conscience of the election.” He was proud to raise issues like poverty and a basic minimum income in the leaders’ conversation.

Jessica.Botelho@freepress.mb.ca

Larry.Kusch@freepress.mb.ca