The Liberals are complaining that Julian Fantino, the Conservative by-election candidate for Vaughan is playing “Peek-a-boo politics” by skipping all-candidates debate. For Liberals, they hope, this plays into a bit of a weak narrative of a secretive and scripted government that doesn’t want to engage “real Canadians”.
“This type of ‘peek-a-boo’ politics is straight out of the Harper playbook where scripted, invite-only photo-ops keep candidates safely out of reach of real people with real questions.”
All-candidates debates, while they sound great in principle, have very little value to the candidates themselves, especially if they represent mainline parties. If you’ve ever been to one of these events you know that each candidate brings their staff and volunteers and cheers and jeers and “engagement” with the “voting public” comes in the form of planted question after planted question. All-candidates debates sound good on paper, but in practice they’ve become farcical. All-candidates debates are more accurately described as “all-decided”.
In fact, when we used to train campaign managers (of all stripes) at the Manning Centre, we advised that all-candidates debates should actually be avoided if possible. Why? Because more accessible (leaning or undecided) voters are met at the door or on the telephone. A candidate’s time is much better invested knocking on doors or by doing telephone canvassing. All-candidates debates turn into a competition for fevered applause versus exaggerated boos for all candidates. The media is disappointed when a candidate is a no-show, of course, because these “debates” are a lazier opportunity for “getting the pulse” of the “electorate”. In fact, we used to advise candidates show to as few as possible in order to check the box for the media.
The Liberals should also be careful with the “Peek-a-boo” label as they’ve been guilty of their own charge in the past,
The weekend brouhaha at a meeting of Liberals from Ontario made it clear that Mr. Ignatieff is viewed as the leading contender, and that Mr. Rae’s first goal is to ensure his opponent does not quietly coast through the race.
On Sunday, Mr. Rae boycotted a leadership “forum” where candidates were to take questions from riding presidents and other party officials, after Mr. Ignatieff refused calls from his two rivals to open the session to reporters and cameras.
Mr. Rae accused Mr. Ignatieff of preparing a “peekaboo” campaign.
“There is a fray: It’s called a leadership race. And you can’t very well stay above it. If you want to stay above it, you’re not going to be in it,” Mr. Rae said outside the meeting at a Mississauga hotel.
“The Liberal Party is a political party. It’s not a private club.”
Juxtaposing comments from Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae from the same Globe and Mail interview given on the edge of Rosedale at a noisy cafe,
A grey-haired man wearing a tweed jacket and tortoise-shell glasses sitting at a nearby table overhears our conversation.
“Bob, can I ask you a question?” he interjects. “What I’m interested in is Afghanistan. The point is, it’s all tribal. They don’t give a shit about democracy, so what are we doing there?” he asks.
Mr. Rae proceeds to unleash a complex argument about the futility of military adventure, the importance of our long-term political interests and the violent history of Western civilization.
[Rae] firmly believes that the Liberals can defeat the Harper government, and cannot wait to take the Prime Minister down.
“It’s come to the point where you’ve got these 25-year-old jihadis in the Prime Minister’s Office. They are very, very focused on undermining, destroying. Attack, attack, attack. There’s no other way,” he complains.