No knockouts, no surprises: leaders debate a draw

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 09/09/2021 (1651 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Here’s the thing about federal election leaders debates: they are fraught with risk but starved of reward. Thursday night’s English-language debate was an excellent case in point.

Debate dynamics in an election with a clear front-runner tend to be straightforward: attack the leader of the leaders’ pack with enough venom to score points and weaken their overall position. The front-runner’s job is to dodge the punches and not lose ground.

But when there is no front-runner — the Liberals and Conservatives are in a statistical dead heat in most polls — that structure no longer applies.

In this debate, Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet and Green party Leader Annamie Paul had almost nothing to lose and very little to gain. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh theoretically had a lot to gain.

But the stakes for Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau were much higher. Deadlocked in polls, both leaders shared the greatest potential for gains, and the greatest risk of losses.

How did they do?

Justin Trudeau

Throughout the night, Trudeau failed to answer the biggest question hanging over his campaign: why did he call the election? Despite the fact this decision has eroded Liberal support significantly during the campaign, in the debate he was unable to provide a credible explanation.

Beyond that shortcoming, Trudeau (as the incumbent) did an admirable job in blocking punches from the other leaders. His biggest debating flaw was also his greatest strength: his propensity to drone on when providing answers. You don’t score a lot of points, but you leave less time for followup questions.

Erin O’Toole

It did not bode well for O’Toole that he accepted some acting coach’s advice to smile like a model in a department store catalogue when he was being introduced. In the actual debate, O’Toole did OK. It’s unclear whether he will get the job done on Sept. 20.

If Trudeau was vulnerable on the election call, O’Toole was equally so on climate change. His performance in this debate was a reminder that no matter how much O’Toole tries to claim he has an effective policy on climate change, he continues to get dragged under by the albatross that is the party’s core of support in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh

There is a very good reason why Singh is frequently identified as the most likable federal politician. He exudes confidence and charisma, and speaks with a clarity that served as a salve to O’Toole’s disdainful attacks on Trudeau, and Trudeau’s hyperactive answers.

But the story of the NDP in this campaign, and Singh in this debate, is his inability to provide an idea to capture voters’ imagination. He is likable, but without a more impactful platform, he is a triumph of style over substance.

Bloc Quebecois Yves-Francois Blanchet

Blanchet is an excellent debater but we should remember that in this event, he is a gambler playing with house money. He got a national platform to sneer at the federalist parties. This debate can only help the BQ with the deeply split Quebec electorate.

Annamie Paul

The Green leader was arguably the most articulate and most intelligent of the bunch. It says something about the state of politics in this country that voters consistently pick the leaders of parties like the NDP and Greens as the most credible and capable. Why is it that the Tories and Liberals cannot attract leaders with the retail political skills that Singh and Paul demonstrated in spades?

It won’t do much to affect the outcome of this election, but Paul’s slap-down of Blanchet — after the BQ leader tried to weave a revisionist history about his rejection of the term “systemic racism” in a 2020 declaration by first ministers — was delicious. Blanchet tried to bully Paul; Paul quieted the bully with a gentle wave of her hand.

The format

It was an excellent idea to create a Leaders Debate Commission, to take the planning for debates away from the parties and broadcasters. However, this year’s debate was yet another reminder that it has yet to find a workable format.

From the outset of the debate, it was obvious it wasn’t a debate. Moderator Shachi Kurl from the Angus Reid Institute offered arcane opening questions to each leader, and then tried to bicker with each one when they didn’t provide the right answer.

From there, the event degenerated into a complicated, unintelligible format where it was unclear whether leaders could interject when other leaders were talking, or whether they were required to be quiet. Attempts to generate debate — by asking one leader to respond to another leader’s answers — were awkward and all too brief. Kurl seemed more interested in staying on schedule and had almost no interest in creating a moment for true debate.

The verdict?

To be honest, all the leaders get a B- for playing good defence and not absorbing any significant body shots, even if they did that at the expense of scoring points.

The debate commission, and its idiotic format, get an F.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca