Roundup: A “debate” spectacle sans substance

Posted on by

It is now around day seventy-eight of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like the Ukrainians have made some gains in the eastern part of the country, pushing Russian forces out of four villages near Kharkiv. Meanwhile, a team of Ukrainian soldiers has been tasked with revisiting recent battlefields around Kyiv to gather the dead, and have recovered the remains of around 200 Russian soldiers thus far. It sounds like they may try to return these bodies to Russia in exchange for prisoners, but we’ll see if those kinds of deals hold.

Closer to home, it was the first official English debate of the Conservative leadership race, and it was…an experience. While it was not the hostile snipe-fest that was the Conference Formerly Known As the Manning Conference debate, it was a strange format where they tried to have limited engagements between candidates, to control the temptation to talk over one another, and then insisted that the audience not clap or boo, which…defeats the whole point of a live audience, and it was a real choice to try and control their reactions. And it had a sad trombone sound. No, seriously. Not every segment was on policy—some of it were personal, asking candidates what they’re reading, or the kinds of music they like, which is fine and humanizes them a little. (But seriously, Roman Baber choosing Amy Winehouse? Has he ever listened to what she has to say in her lyrics?)

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1524548247456559104

Some observation on each candidate, in the drawn order of their opening statements:

  • Scott Aitchison: While he is aiming to be the reasonable, middle-of-the-road candidates, there are plenty of places where he displays the intellectual heft of the truck commercial he launched his campaign with. A lot of what he offered is not really credible, particularly on environmental or resource development files.
  • Roman Baber: I’m not going to mince words. Honestly, this guy is a moron. He says a lot of things that he’s picked up in the online discourse, but none of it makes any sense, most of it is contradictory, and he’s utterly vacuous—but nobody would call him on that.
  • Patrick Brown: While he kept insisting that he’s the only one who can deliver the suburbs like in the GTA, Brown also made some particular missteps, like insisting he would advance a no-fly zone over Ukraine (essentially committing Canada to a shooting war with a nuclear power), or that the point of reconciliation with Indigenous people is so that we can build more pipelines.
  • Pierre Poilievre: Aside from just using “freedom!” in as many answers as possible, he opened by outright attacking the Bank of Canada and saying he would replace the governor if he were to form government, which is a pretty big bomb to drop. He lied and prevaricated about his previous statements and positions, particularly during the Bitcoin portion of the evening. But the longer the evening went on, the more it became clear that he was just going down the right-wing populist checklist and name-checking every item on it, whether it was saying he’s reading Jordan Peterson’s book, or that he wants to fight “government censorship.” He displayed no principles, just virtue-signalling to the crowd he is courting.
  • Leslyn Lewis: Mostly said a lot of hyperbolic things about how “divided” the country is because of COVID, and that she is somehow going to heal the divides between people who believe in science and evidence, and anti-vaxxers who don’t care how many people they infect because they refuse to wear a mask or stay home. How does plan to heal those divides? Who knows?
  • Jean Charest: Charest was more pugnacious and was willing to break debate rules in order to how do you do, fellow kids?, and insist that he’s the only one who can unite east and west…but he too made a bunch of fairly questionable pronouncements. Like private healthcare delivery could have avoided lockdowns (erm, you saw the States, right?) or that he would cut income taxes to fight inflation (which is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline).

It was an event that begged for booze (which I did not imbibe in, because I had this post to write). But I will leave you with Paul Wells’ suitably acerbic take on the event, which sums the lunacy of it up nicely.

Good reads:

  • Jean-Yves Duclos and Marci Ien announced $3.5 million in projects to expand abortion access in Canada (timed for today’s March for Life).
  • The government announced that they are revising draft firearms regulations to close a loophole around requiring a valid licence before a gun sale.
  • Omar Alghabra says that “rusty” travellers who have forgotten the rules and flight arrival bottlenecks are contributing to long airport line-ups.
  • The federal government is charting three flights to bring up to 900 Ukrainians to Canada from Poland.
  • The advisory group struck around the proposed online hate bill wants a very expansive regime of coverage, which the government is resisting.
  • Automakers want the government to be even more ambitious when it comes to setting up EV charging stations. (Erm, maybe they could do their part? Maybe?)
  • The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has criticised Canadian actions around the eviction of Wet’suwet’en pipeline protesters.
  • While visiting her hometown, Mary May Simon talked about the inequity for broadband in the north, and how Indigenous languages are marginalised.
  • The Bloc’s Supply Day motion to end the daily prayer in the House of Commons was resoundingly defeated in a vote yesterday.
  • Jagmeet Singh was campaigning provincially in Peterborough, and was accosted by protesters, who called him a traitor, among other things.
  • Inuit hunters are concerned that a proposed mine expansion will cause narwhale populations to decline even faster, which they rely on for food.
  • François Legault is demanding the federal government “close” Roxham Road because Quebec can’t handle the asylum claimants (what labour shortage?).
  • Mike Moffatt compares the Ontario parties’ promises around disability supports, and how inadequate they all are.
  • Kathryn May parses the latest report on how the civil service has become compromised and is afraid to speak truth to power.
  • Kevin Carmichael sits down with Bank of Canada senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers about the central bank’s lessons learned over the last two years.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

One thought on “Roundup: A “debate” spectacle sans substance”

  1. I guess Deez Nuts and Vermin Supreme didn’t meet the criteria for this mock GOP primary somehow. “Sad trombone” pretty much sums up the drain-circling calibre of this party. Might as well fix up Rideau Cottage with enough space for the Trudeaus to raise three sets of grandkids in.

Comments are closed.