Thoughts on the Leadership Debate

The leadership debate on Saturday, which I foolishlely assumed would be a key point in the contest, turned out to be a pretty dissapointing non-event.

First of all, it's all too apparent that with so large a field, meaningful debate is impossible. It looks ridiculous to the public, kills interest (as the field is so large), and further adds to the lack of actual policy discussion. Unfortunately, I don't see an end in sight.

As far as the debate itself there was far too little actually being said. While I appreciated the friendly tone most displayed, I emphatically agree with Stephane Dion's comment that actual details are needed. Nevermind it being a debate, if you are running for the leadership you need to share your ideas. This has gone on for far too long. I agree equalization is a complicated issue, but noting an intergovernmental discussion will be needed, as everyone but Dion did, is not good enough at this stage.

Volpe continued his cheap attacks. On that note, both him and Rae's statements implying Ignatieff's opposition to Kyoto are the kind of misleading attacks that seperate necessary differentiation from negative attack. He has clearly announced his support for Kyoto, and this chosing to voice one interpretation of a statement that has since been so clearly refuted seems an obvious attempt to trick or mislead the audience.

I thought Kennedy gave a fairly strong performance, and spoke well. However, he continues to very little concrete policy proposals.


Nonetheless, looking forward to the next debate in Moncton.

-Steve