Debate? What debate?
TORONTO – This being Easter weekend, I am inclined to be more generous than usual about our society, culture, political governance infrastructure and the individuals who propose to lead it. Forgive me if, in so doing my levity comes across as dismissive and condescending – it is not my intent.
That said, a friend once completely immersed in the business of politics (which, for the “communications industry” is grist for the mill), claimed that politics was/is simple: a game one plays with one’s friends in the promotion of one’s interests to defeat those of one’s enemies.
So, I watched intently Wednesday’s debate – in French, no voice over translation – to learn from the exchanges what the aspirants think might be in my interest. Clearly, this being both a visual and audio presentation, performance has an impact; as does composure, projection, precision and inflection, among other factors.
Alas, two other “ancillary players” to the process – enemy aliens at Elections Canada and Press/Media who conducted post-debate interviews. Journalists (and their chosen guests for commentary) from CBC/Radio Canada seemed to operate as if under instructions to ensure that public perceptions of who won were consistent with their own. Anyway, they made no secret of the fact that they were “miffed” that the extreme right wing of their profession – the ones that do not share in the benefits of $1.5 billion in government largesse that rains annually on the CBC garden.
Judging by their questions, it did not appear to me that those right-wingers were fans of Mark Carney. Not to worry, they appeared to be under the mistaken impression that the debate was obliged to produce iron-clad promises of benefits sometimes referred to as a “Costed Policy Platform”.
They tried to poke holes in the appearance of policies “contained in the sieve” of assurances coming the lips of all four candidates including Pierre Poilievre, Yves-François Blanchet and Jagmeet Singh. No comfort here. It seems policy platforms may be released Saturday, although associated with budgetary obligations will have to await the commitment of a yet-to-be-born generation.
Now, as you read this opinion piece, today -Good Friday – about a debate in French held Wednesday, please remember that yesterday [Holy Thursday], the Electoral Commission hosted the only English language debate. Because of Easter Sunday, we will not be able to provide you with appropriate coverage until Tuesday.
By then, you may have made up your mind based on the ‘benefit’ of whatever information the various contestants may be permitted to share. It is useless to complain that The Green Party or Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party were not part of the debate. Neither met the criteria of numbers and candidates.
The Commission was not impressed by the Greens’ “Misrepresentation” of the number of candidates they registered. It’s interesting because the Bloc Quebecois was part of yesterday’s debate, although it is not fielding candidates in “English Canada”.
Happy Easter!
