August 07, 2015

Who won Maclean's National Leaders Debate last night?

Brian LilleyArchive

So who won last night's debate? I'm calling a toss up between Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair, both of whom worked hard to appeal to people beyond their respective loyal bases.

Justin Trudeau "had a couple of shaky moments," but did better than some expected.

In fact, it was a strategic mistake for the Tories to joke that Justin would get points as long as he "showed up with his pants on," even if it is a funny line.

And Elizabeth May? Well, she had no business being there in the first place.

SIGN UP FREE for exclusive Election 2015 coverage from The Rebel team!

JOIN OUR CROWDFUNDING CAMPAIGN to bring you fearless Canadian election coverage!

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-08-08 11:18:52 -0400
It is going to be great if Mulcair becomes Prime Minister – the doom and gloom on The Rebel will incredibly entertaining.
commented 2015-08-08 10:58:20 -0400
MAD TOM would like to have the left wing loons in the education system so they can brain wash from day one its a Saul Alinsky trick.
commented 2015-08-08 09:56:33 -0400
The three leftists on display should have been asked:
“Since smart leftist people like you always have all the answers, why
do your past elected to power provincial peers always wind up in
years of serial political and economic train wrecks before being
kicked to the curb like Bob Rae was. Is it because you have little to
nil talented bench strength to draw from, only a large group of pie
in the sky bullshitters even more divorced from reality than you are?”
commented 2015-08-07 22:57:16 -0400
as for Mulcair…how can he fear our ‘recession’ created (in his view) by Harpers’ Tories, the most frugal government in decades, and in the same breath demand we spend billions on day care for all of Canada, and thus create a massive bureaucracy that will burden the country well beyond our means and put us into eternal debt?

Does no one care what universal day care will do to a) the personalities of little children raised by strangers and b) our economy ,taxes and c) the future when all the adults thus raised will have no emotional ties to their heritage and will live in a constant state of “anomie”: “social instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values, personal unrest, alienation, and uncertainty that comes from a lack of purpose or ideals.”

Why are people having children if they don’t even want them for the formative years up to 4 years of age! This is a sick society and will become even worse with no cohesion or sense of family or roots…universal daycare is too expensive in every way. Only a communist state would call for such an order that would place children into the hands of the state for indoctrination…and deliberately alienate them from their parents so they become wards of and pawns of the state…and we would have it so???? Forget Stepford wives we will have Stepford children!
commented 2015-08-07 22:52:45 -0400
I know, you are an embalmer, they always have work.
commented 2015-08-07 22:50:27 -0400
Jimmy, I expect Harpers stance on legalization could be a hindrance to your livelihood.

Oh , forgive me, you said you were in the entertainment business.
Subsidies are a bitch when the well is empty , you may want to prepare.
commented 2015-08-07 22:43:07 -0400
Some ‘debate’…permitting Justin to continually speak over Mr. Harper so that Harper could not be heard, showing disrespect for our Prime Minister and for the office! Justin’s arrogance in sum: “This life, which had been the tomb of his virtue and of his honour, is but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” William Shakespeare.
commented 2015-08-07 22:29:17 -0400
“Trudeau, the son of the man whose legacy Harper is trying to erase.” Hah! Harper doesn’t need to erase that legacy…Justin is doing it all by his little self!
commented 2015-08-07 22:28:55 -0400

To make my point further – Harper in power actually impacts my industry negatively.
commented 2015-08-07 22:27:15 -0400

There is clearly a link at the bottom.

Please tell me how my business – which doesn’t rely on how well Canada is doing – would make it so that I would be living under a bridge if not for Harper?
commented 2015-08-07 22:15:08 -0400
Jimmy had Harper not been PM for the past 9 years, you would probably be living under a bridge where you belong. Canada came out in better shape than anyone. What is happening now, is global, and Notely(foreign) driven, and as pointed out, except for oil, Canada is in pretty good shape.

Did you compose all that yourself or did you just forget your "" to indicate cut and paste.
commented 2015-08-07 21:59:26 -0400
The leaders of Canada’s four political parties faced off in the first debate Thursday before a federal election in October, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper fending off attacks in the first three way race in Canadian history.

Analysts say Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, son of late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, needed to have a strong showing or risk falling further behind in the polls. A clearly prepared Trudeau aggressively attacked Harper and leftist New Democrat opposition leader Thomas Mulcair.

Harper spent most of the night under attack and acknowledged that Canada might be in recession. Harper blamed low oil prices for the slumping economy.

Analysts say the election is a toss-up and Harper’s Conservative party faces an uphill battle to form another majority government in Parliament. The election is Oct. 19.

Analysts say Mulcair and the opposition New Democrats have a chance to gain power for the first time after the party won control of the legislature in Alberta, Canada’s most conservative province, a few months ago.

Trudeau has trailed in third place in recent polls after Harper’s Conservatives have run repeated attack ads saying the 43-year-old is not ready for the job.

The vote on the left may split between the New Democrats and Liberals. The first televised debate was seen as a key test for Trudeau, the son of the man whose legacy Harper is trying to erase.

Former colleagues of Harper say his long-term goals are to kill the once widely entrenched notion that the Liberals — the party of long-time leaders Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien — are the natural party of government in Canada, and to redefine what it means to be Canadian.

Harper has managed to nudge a traditionally center-left country to the right since coming to power in 2006. He has gradually lowered sales and corporate taxes, avoided climate change legislation, supported the oil industry against the environmental lobby and increased military spending. He has also been a staunch supporter of Israel.

Nelson Wiseman, a University of Toronto political science professor, said Harper performed well in the debate despite repeated attacks and will hold onto his base support.

Few Canadians likely watched the debate. It wasn’t broadcast on the major networks and was held just five days into the campaign. Harper called the election in the dead of summer last Sunday, triggering an unusual 11-week federal campaign rather than the usual five-week campaign. The campaign will be the longest in Canada since 1872, but each party has been unofficially campaigning for months.

Read more:
commented 2015-08-07 18:34:55 -0400
Jimmy – He said the oil industry economy is in a recession but that the rest of the economy is growing. It was a little hard to hear because Mulcair was talking over him, but that is what he said.
commented 2015-08-07 15:52:53 -0400
Jimmy, you have your knickers in a twist. Go listen to the Debate again.
commented 2015-08-07 15:17:32 -0400
Why isn’t the The Rebel talking about how Stephen Harper acknowledged that Canada may be in a recession? Of course he won’t repeat such comments when asked about it again after the debate.
commented 2015-08-07 14:57:29 -0400
Don’t know if anyone “won” – but I can tell you who lost – Canadian taxpayers lost big with this lot putting them in debt slavery and depleting their meager saving with hidden producer and supply chain tax inflation spiral.
commented 2015-08-07 14:56:43 -0400
Maybe the debate should be judged on concrete statements, versus presentation and bafflegab. If that were the case, who would win? Did may say anything of substance? Did Trudeau? How about Muclair? (These three are professional word-mouthers that speak plenty and say little-to-nothing.) What about Harper?

Who said what of substance, and then compare the substances — whose was best?

Agreed about the afterward scrum. Again, who said what of substance? Or was it all politicalese?

Presentation and performance is just acting. What was real?
commented 2015-08-07 14:25:41 -0400
Before and after the debate, Harper all the way!
I was surprised at both Justin and Tom, though.
Justin was much better spoken than usual.
Tom was bordering on believable there.
BUT, what they were both saying is the same old lefty/liberal, socialist, anti-Canadian BS.
Can’t fact checking be done during the debate, or shouldn’t there be a ‘panel’ of non-partisan fact checkers confirming – or not – the ‘facts’ spoken during the debate, and then publicly call-out the liars and prevaricators?
It sure was a treat though not having the drift of thought broken up and distorted by having French intrude on the debate.
Oh, and thanks REBEL for providing a link to the debate – I don’t have, won’t have, TV…
commented 2015-08-07 14:10:19 -0400
“I think Mulcair’s wide-eyed, sloth-speak, Dali-style dreamscape image made him appear other-worldly, like a character from some UFOlogist’s imagination or some spectre kids might summon from the dead with a ouija board.” That’s funny! Thanks Joan!
commented 2015-08-07 14:05:41 -0400
Freudian slip by Trudope? Yeah, I would say so. That is the true intent of the Lieberals. The Greens, and the NDP!
commented 2015-08-07 14:04:36 -0400
I prefer someone who gets angry and as a result does something that gets results over someone who is passive and thinks everything is just peachy.
commented 2015-08-07 14:02:30 -0400

Harper and the conservatives have been in power for quite some time now and Canadians do not have more personal income – in fact they have less now than they ever did and the middle class is pretty much non-existent. So under Stephen Harper and the 9 years that he has been Prime Minister, when is this “more personal income” supposed to actually happen?
commented 2015-08-07 14:00:28 -0400
Joan, you are right. The Mulcair persona we saw at the debate last night is rather spooky. I would rather he be himself for all to see who he really is, barely under the surface temper, an angry man.
commented 2015-08-07 11:52:52 -0400
Don’t really need a debate to figure out:

a) lower taxes/more personal income = Conservative, b) higher taxes/less personal income = enn-dee-pee/liberal

The MSM continues to pump the “higher taxes are better for you” narrative. It really is a fkg sh*t-show out there with Canadian MSM. I read Canadian MSM and assume the opposite.
commented 2015-08-07 11:39:48 -0400
Macleans streaming kept going on and off and then was unavailable so wonder how many of us cutting down on expenses by eliminating cable television couldn’t see the debate.
All this talk of Pm Harper’s depending too much on oil and gas for our economy makes me wonder what do the opposition leaders suggest, besides high speed trains and national day care?
commented 2015-08-07 11:38:01 -0400
I agree that it was good to have an alternative-to-consortium-run debate, but what a snore!!

I disagree Mulcair tied with Harper. I think Mulcair’s wide-eyed, sloth-speak, Dali-style dreamscape image made him appear other-worldly, like a character from some UFOlogist’s imagination or some spectre kids might summon from the dead with a ouija board.

I prefer angry Tom to this new I-am-your-mummified-grandfather Tom.

And yes, Trudeau did babble somewhat but he did so in uncharacteristically correct grammatical form so it was a little harder to catch. I caught only one made-up word.

I think it is impossible to think in terms of who won the debate because it doesn’t work that way. I expect the debate to affect the polls. I expect Trudeau’s rstings to go up and Mulcair’s to go down somewhat. Harper’s will stay the same then gradually begin to inch up.

We’re still looking at minority government unless something happens. And we’re still a long way out to election night. The leadership is still up for grabs.
commented 2015-08-07 11:24:37 -0400
I agree, Brian, it depends on the subjective and objective eye of the beholder. Mulcair, may have done well in some objective sense but his subjective appeal and used car salesman smile left much to be desired. He has no charisma or passion. Only nerds will allow their hearts to be overruled by their minds about him. And, apart from painting pies in the sky, the viability of his platform was unmeasurable. Harper was great as usual., sticking to and elaborating the facts to dispel the leftist myths. To some small degree he may have lost his cool as the debate progressed and may have seemed to be protesting too much. I thought Justin did well though the timid look on his face made it difficult for him to sell his pie in the sky with authority. I hope he gets better to balance Mulcai’s lead. That’s how I saw it.
commented 2015-08-07 11:21:55 -0400
This debate was Harper versus The Three Stooges. Moe Trudeau, the obsessive-compulsive interrupter spewing insults and lies at Harper. Larry May, denizen of the lunatic fringe trying (and failing miserably) to show she has anything credible to say. And Curly Mulcair, the very scary far left socialist who’s economic plans (like those of Trudeau) would turn Canada into another Greece. One would have hoped for a neutral emcee, but he couldn’t help jumping on the anti Harper bandwagon. Harper did well against those four lefties.
commented 2015-08-07 11:14:51 -0400
Who cares about ridiculous debates? NDP have zero chance of getting my bot. I voted Liberal once when they promised to get rid of GST. We all know what happened don’t we.
commented 2015-08-07 11:05:25 -0400
why hasnt anyone mentioned the after debate scrum…where angry tom showed up refused to answer again about pipelines and then after another unheard question ran away from the mic?