Some people have emailed me asking what I thought about yesterday’s Liberal leadership forum in Toronto (Note: you can see it again at CPAC; this link will pop up your media player). Naturally, the blogosphere is rife with spin from all directions, so it’s hard to find any substantive analysis that isn’t tainted with the ultimate goal of pumping up their guy or gal. The only conclusions I draw below are whether the candidates improved their chances of picking up second ballot support, hindered their chances or was neutral (neither improved nor hindered their chances). While it should be noted that I like Gerard Kennedy personally, I believe this to be a fair assessment of all candidates; I leave it to you to decide. I begin with an overall assessment of the candidates’ performance, then follow with a brief commentary on the eight debate trios.

CANDIDATE ASSESSMENTS

Michael Ignatieff
Ignatieff was clearly on the defensive most of the night — from Rae’s attacking of his Mid-East positions, to Dion’s attacking Ignatieff’s claims that he is the leading environmental candidate, to Martha Hall Findlay attacking his Afghanistan vote. He handled himself well in the environmental debate, but not in the others, and overall came off more flat that many of his colleagues. He survived the onslaught, but also showed that he isn’t yet able to match his more experienced colleagues when under pressure. A decidedly mixed performance.
Conclusion: hindered his chances

Bob Rae
Rae demonstrated why he is a strong contender — he speaks well in both languages, is a good debater and can effortlessly combine wit and humour. He has started to talk about his past experience as Ontario Premier, which is probably a wise thing. I doubt his remark that he acted as NDP Premier out of compassion won over many Liberals, as some will see this as a typical NDP defense. But overall, a good night for Rae.
Conclusion: helped his chances

Stephane Dion
Dion had some good moments (like displaying his passion) and some bad ones (like when he sniped at Ignatieff for not knowing what he was talking about). On balance, I think Dion probably gained a few supporters because he showed some Chretien-esque feistiness, but he probably lost a few as well because he came off in a few places as arrogant and defensive. A net neutral.
Conclusion: neither helped nor hindered his chances

Gerard Kennedy
Spoke with clarity and passion and positioned himself as one who can unite the factions (implying that the Rae/Ignatieff battle is a re-play of the Chretien/Martin battle). But I’m not sure that Kennedy is winning anyone over with his talk of real renewal. Policy differences in this race are being increasingly displaced by electability. Kennedy may be right that the Liberals, and Canada, need a real renewal, but I don’t think most Liberals see it that way. The question for Kennedy is: can he beat Harper?
Conclusion: neither helped nor hinder his potential votes

Ken Dryden
Dryden deserves better. He is not a sound-bite, debate-oriented person. He afforded himself well with his calm responses and perhaps more so than any candidate, speaks from the heart. Often found himself caught in the cross-fire, and when he wasn’t, didn’t have many disagreements with his colleagues.
Conclusion: neither helped nor hinder his chances

Joe Volpe
Really didn’t offer much to the debate, delivering mostly platitudes. Came off as bitter in his conclusion and in the media scrum by saying that he shouldn’t have to defend his integrity.
Conclusion: hindered his chances

Scott Brison
Comes across as very articulate. A good balance of wit and substance, his range of topics is somewhat limited (bringing most topics back to the economy). Overall, a good performance and a likeable guy.
Conclusion: helped his chances

Martha Hall Findlay
Afforded herself well on several occasions, but also had several responses that lacked substance. Overall, she has impressed virtually everyone and will be a big part of the Liberal future. As the sole female candidate, expect many undeclared delegates to vote for her on the first ballot.
Conclusion: helped her chances

DEBATE TOPICS

Topic 1: Women in Politics
Volpe rambled on and added little substance. Hall Findlay played her position as the only female candidate very well, but I was surprised she didn’t offer specific measures to encourage more women to run (just the usual pladitudes about “encouraging” and “supporting” them, and a special fund to help women run - but I doubt the key barriers are financial). Dryden made a good point that you need to set an achievable goal and work incrementally to get there — he’s right. You won’t get 50% tomorrow, or even 40%. But 30% is the first step, then 35%, then 40%.
Conclusion: more platitudes than substance from all three; Hall Findlay played to the crowd, but Dryden had the only substantive comment about setting targets.

Topic 2: Homeless and Poverty (Social Safety Net)
Dion struggled here - couldn’t explain himself clearly, just explained that he/Claudette Bradshaw reached out to communities. He attacked Rae’s fiscal record in Ontario, noting that the Chretien/Martin governments tough fiscal choices gave them the resources to invest in social programs (the only problem is that they really didn’t invest in social housing or poverty reduction). Brison rightly linked homelessness with addictions and mental health, contrasted this with Stephen Harper’s cuts. He also touted using urban enterprise zones. Overarching theme: Liberals must continue to link economic responsibility and social progressivism. Rae touted his social housing record in Ontario (1985-95), in contrast to the Flahertys, Bairds that are in Ottawa now. Made a good point that Canada is the only industrial country in the world without a national housing policy — Feds need to get back into the game. Argued, with mixed results, that he did what he did because he had compassion.
Conclusion: Dion struggled, Rae did well, Brison did well.

Topic 3: Infrastructure
Hall Findlay’s opening was weak, but later linked the lack of infrastructure investment to poor health and environmental outcomes, and the need to work with provincial partners. Ignatieff lauded New Deal for Cities - would invest $1 billion/year for 10 years. A bit of a stretch linking the Laval tragedy with improving the Trans-Canada highway. But such projects are nation-building, link the people together. Need to use infrastructure to address regional disparity. Kennedy did well to emphasize the need to make gas tax money to cities permanent, so they can plan ahead. He also linked urban infrastructure to global competitiveness and border and port infrastructure to trade. Kennedy also countered Ignatieff by rightfully pointing out that the gas tax money alone is worth $2 billion/year. Linked infrastructure to pan-Canadian perspective of economy; not just about the dollars, but about measuring results.
Conclusion: Kennedy did well here, Ignatieff was a little flat, Hall-Findlay had one good point, but wasn’t a big factor here.

Topic 4: Environment
Dryden emphasizes connections between policies (i.e. environment and economy, environment and health). Ignatieff emphasizes the need for a national sustainable development act (SDA). Need to put a price on CO2 to get serious about climate change. Dion took exception to Ignatieff’s claim that he was first to propose cap-and-trade — Dion noted that it would already be in place if they had been elected in January. Dion came off as defensive here and won no points by lecturing Ignatieff on the need to “pay tribute” to past governments. Questions need for SDA; “just need to come back to power and regulate”. Ignatieff counters that “we didn’t get it done”, to which Dion responds “you don’t know what you speak about”.
Conclusion: Dion shows feistiness but is defensive; Ignatieff stong here; Dryden overshadowed by Dion-Ignatieff exchange.

Topic 5: Human Rights
Kennedy attacks Harper for creating divisions on the difficult issue of gay marriage. Brison humours the crowd since he is gay himself “my answer could lead to a same-sex divorce”. Brison takes Volpe to task for being against gay marriage in the past. Also says the Liberal Party should have been more pro-active about gay marriage instead of being forced to deal with it because of the courts. Volpe says he supported it because it was a human rights issue.
Conclusion: Not a very interesting debate; Kennedy was flat, Volpe was flat, Brison was best here.

Topic 6: Foreign Policy
Ignatieff defends his stance on Afghanistan, but Harper is “messing it up”. Hall Findlay responds by saying that’s why she would have voted against the measure (i.e. why didn’t he?). Ignatieff says it needs to be balanced. Rae plays to the crowd by noting that foreign policy reflects our values and that those values were clear when Chretien didn’t join the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Said we need to use our experience of living with differences to influence trouble spots in the world. Rae challenges Ignatieff that we need to speak more carefully about our foreign policy. Ignatieff opens up a can of worms by claiming that he doesn’t know where Rae stands on the issue, to which Rae quickly provides the quote of the night “for a guy who has changed his mind three times in a week with respect to the Middle East”. Ignatieff comes unglued at that comment and Hall Findlay acts a peacemaker.
Conclusion: Rae at his best here; Ignatieff defensive; Hall-Findlay overshadowed by Rae-Ignatieff exchange.

Topic 7: Gun Control
Dryden hates guns. Dryden and Dion downplay the cost overruns and say that gun registry works (compares to U.S.). Brison says he can’t downplay the cost overruns, but need to reduce irritants. Would ban handguns. Dion asks where are the RCMP officers that were promised? Dryden says we need to address the fear of crime, the public’s insecurity. All agreed that Liberals need to deal with root causes. Brison’s criticizes three strikes rule as failed U.S. Republicanism. Gets in popular line “if you want to know what Stephen Harper thinks about X this week, just look at what George Bush said about it last week”. Shouldn’t be cutting investments in child care, literacy — deal with root causes.
Conclusion: Not a very interesting debate; Brison did well here; Dion and Dryden were relatively flat.

Topic 8: Cultural Regulation
Kennedy says we need to reform CRTC. He notes that despite the cultural investments there are many voices not being heard; wants not only the big cultural institutions but the smaller ones supported too. Volpe jokes that he isn’t the guy to ask about regulating the press (given he is at odds with them these days). Rae says we need both small and large.
Conclusion: Not sure why this was an important enough topic to discuss (probably on the agenda because they were at Roy Thomson Hall). Not a very interesting debate.