Leaders' debates: Confused?

A lot of noise yesterday about the leaders' debates -- so much, that you may be totally confused about what we're going to see during Campaign 2011. The problem is that we have three different debates about debates. Here, a handy guide to to the story so far: 

1. The traditional leaders' debates will take place on April 12 (English) and April 14 (French). These are the ones organized by a consortium of TV broadcasters -- CTV, CBC, Radio-Canada, TVA and Global are at that table.  As far as I can tell, these talks nearly went off the rails over two disputes yesterday, which have now spun off into what well may be other debates in this campaign. 

2. A one-on-one between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff. Both leaders seem to want a chance to face off, without the other leaders present. This of course enraged Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe and Elizabeth May (see below).  Listening to Harper and Ignatieff yesterday, I was under the assumption that they were organizing this encounter in addition to the traditional leaders' debate.

But a Tweet from Harper muddied the waters -- making it seem that the Conservatives wanted this proposal instead of the usual leaders' debates. Will the Conservatives still want an Ignatieff-Harper matchup on top of the April 12 and 14 events? We'll see.  Macleans' Paul Wells reported on Twitter yesterday that U of T and Rogers' cable network may try to make this debate happen. 

3. Elizabeth May seems to have been left out of the April 12 and 14 debates. Neither she nor her supporters are going to leave it there. If the TV networks and other parties stand firm, however, the other option may be to have yet another debate, which does include the Green Party leader. CHCH TV has made a formal offer to host that debate. We'll see where that goes. 

There. Hope that clears things up, a bit. All you need to know is that we haven't settled the question yet. Stay tuned. 

Comments

[C. A. I.]

It was disheartening to read the manner in which a possible debate between Harper and Ignatieff was reported, both in this paper and elsewhere, yesterday. The media got carried away, using jock terms like 'mano a mano' (the Globe and Mail) to cite one example) hyping the original into the equivalent of a boxing match. Harper's original statement (see elsewhere in the Star) commented in moderate language on the various combinations that could occur in the debate. The next thing that happens, some reporter, who clearly has watched too much bad US, TV trots across to the Ignatieff campaign, eliminates all the possible combinations except one, thrusts out the microphone, ramps up the language, and: "Harper has challenged you to debate..."

There has been much talk about democracy lately. The Press must remember that responsible reporting is an important pillar of the grand building.

[David Gagnon]

I sort of had a feeling that SH wanted a 2-person debate *in exchange for* giving up the all leaders debate. Typical approach. When he said "Debate the head of the coalition".

Paul Wells now suggests this is the case.

It would be nice to see a series of debates which demonstrate the leaders can do more than repeat talking points. I think a number of them can, in fact. Would be nice to see this required in the Elections Act.

[Sara-Anne Peterson]

I think Harper would love to eliminate Deceppe, Layton and May. Good try, Stephen, but it won't work.

[Matthew Hoyte]

The traditional one, all parties debate is far too limited and does allow for some to get away with repeating talking point, dodging questions and stump speeches. There should be a series of debates so that their positions can truly be flushed out. What is democracy about if it's not debating policy. It the only way to have a truly informed position when going into the voting booth. Of course some prefer and uninformed electorate....and I think we all know who they are.

[Inge]

Why is Harper identified as pmharper in his tweets? I thought that during an election campaign he is only referred to as prime minister when acting officially in that capacity, otherwise he is simply leader of the Conservatives.

[MCBellecourt]

"A miscue???" Ms. Delacourt, that video is VERY revealing! Election rallies are never really all that "cued"--I've been to provincial rallies, and they are anything but "cued"--the only thing set is the time the doors are opened!
Wow. Just. Wow!!

[MCBellecourt]

@Inge, you're right. When the non-confidence vote was done in the HOC, Speaker Milliken did not refer to Harper as "The Right Honourable Prime Minister", he referred to Harper as "the Honourable MP for..."

Harper, according to Parliamentary tradition, is only the leader of a caretaker government now, hence the Speaker's reference.