Why not more provincial leaders debates?

Why is there only going to be one provincial leaders debate?

Leaders debates are important moments in election campaigns. They give voters the opportunity to hear from the would-be premiers about the future of our province, unfiltered.

Both Dalton McGuinty and Tim Hudak strike me as good and decent men who are in politics for the right reasons. They care deeply about Ontario, and they want to make it a better and more prosperous province for us all.

You would think these two gentlemen would relish the chance to have more debates.

So what’s stopping them?

It’s not voters. Ontarians are concerned about jobs, health care and the rising cost of living at a time when six in 10 Ontarians are living paycheque to paycheque. Voters would welcome the chance to hear directly from the party leaders about their plans for these and other issues.

It’s not the media. The broadcast consortium is hosting one debate. But other media would jump at the chance to host a debate too.

It’s not New Democrats. Before the campaign started, Andrea Horwath invited McGuinty and Hudak to join her in a series of debates. “I’ve never heard a voter complain there were too many debates or too many chances to hear ideas exchanged,” Horwath says.

So where does that leave us?

My best guess is that it’s the backroom strategists.

You’ve got Liberals telling McGuinty: “Dalton, you’re the incumbent. Stick to one debate. More debates are not in your best interest. Better to let the war room unleash some nasty attacks.”

And you’ve got PCs telling Hudak: “More debates are too risky. It’s not in your best interest. Better to blow the bank on negative TV ads and see where the chips fall. “

And McGuinty and Hudak, disappointingly, are toeing the line. Instead of standing up and doing what’s right, they’re allowing themselves to be prisoners to their parties’ obsession with being in power, no matter the cost.

It shows little respect for voters to allow them to see only one face-to-face encounter before they decide how to vote.

What do you think it would take to get McGuinty and Hudak to do what's in Ontarians’ best interest, and accept Horwath’s invitation to take part in more leaders debates?

- Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP

Response from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy: 

The Ontario election is already proving to garner healthy debate. 

Week One and the Ontario election is in the forefront of the press – a considerable feat in a week where kids were back to school, there was the 10^th anniversary of 9/11, and TIFF to distract the public. Mind you the debate may not be the issue that backroom liberal strategists dreamed of (education) but it is a debate nonetheless. 

The New Democratic Party is calling for additional televised debates because their leader, Andrea Horwath, does not have adequate profile. The NDP has been relegated to the sidelines; they seek to turn the channel.

The Liberals shouldn’t be concerned in having a debate over debates.

Not because they want to unleash attack, as Jeff describes, but because they should be out meeting voters, garnering support, talking about local issues, supporting local candidates. In fact, the Liberal campaign has been very positive in this first week focusing on their record and where they want to bring the Province.

Provincewide televised debates do not touch voters the way traditional campaigning does. Moreover in a time where broadcasters are competing with a multitude of channels and distractions I wonder what the appetite of the electorate for another televised debate would be. I’d say that is likely why the consortium only wants to host one.

Premier McGuinty has no reason to run away from a debate. In 2003 and in 2007 he out-performed his competitors and his numbers increased. Further, in a debate he has the opportunity to use his biggest card: his Premier-esque persona. While Andrea and Tim still look like the Premier’s unemployed siblings, the Premier looks, acts, and talks like a Premier.

The City of Toronto municipal election had over 100 debates. I attended over 60 of them. In those 60 debates I did not hear candidates deviate from their campaign messages (and yes, I heard the words “gravy” and “train” more than I would like to remember). 

I think the NDP should be more concerned with promoting the existing leaders debate, and preparing their leader for a lively discussion, than trying to wedge more debates in.

 

Response from Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper:

Jeff used the correct adjective to describe the most important aspect of the leaders’ debate: unfiltered.

Except for the tiny minority of Ontarians who will hear a leader speak in person, the debate is almost the only opportunity for voters to see and hear the party leaders unfiltered, unedited, and speaking for longer than newscast sound bites.

Pundits and reporters too often treat the debate like a boxing match. Who won and who lost? Was the match decided on points or by a knockout?

That’s entirely the wrong framework for evaluating the debate.

“Winning” and “losing” gauge the interaction among the candidates. Their interaction is secondary to the interaction between each candidate and the voters.

That’s why talk of knockout blows is often overrated and almost always misunderstood. What two candidates hear from each other is less meaningful than what the home audience takes away from the exchange.

That home audience is big. During the recent federal election campaign, an estimated four million voters watched the televised leaders’ debates.

Why then, do leaders tend to focus on the journalists and other politicians on the platform? Accessible votes aren’t in the TV studio. They are in Ontario living rooms.

This is the best, perhaps their only, opportunity of the campaign to converse directly with Ontarians, not in sound bites but in complete sentences. The successful candidate is the one who connects with the voters at home and cleanly delivers his or her message.

Accessible voters need to see what each leader is really all about. The debate allows him or her to look through the camera (eye contact is important) and speak directly to those ordinary Ontarians.

Typical backroom strategists usually focus more on the debate than the direct dialogue with voters. They do their candidates a disservice.