Thanks to all of you who took the time to share your views on our inability to get the Liberal and Progressive Conservative candidates to appear on The Agenda for an all-candidates' debate, in advance of the Toronto Centre by-election .

Let me respond to some of the comments:

We did discuss the notion of putting two empty chairs on the set, in place of the Liberal Glen Murray and the PC candidate, Pam Taylor.  But the fact is, The Agenda is not an officially sanctioned body with any force of law to require candidates to appear.  So putting empty chairs on the set was seen as being a bit churlish.

Those of you that pointed out that no candidate is obliged to appear are quite right. However, we invited all the main party candidates to attend on the assumption that they'd want to have a platform to debate the major issues of the day. 

We were wrong.

Robert Benzie of the Toronto Star reported that it was the premier's office itself that forbad Murray from appearing, so fearful were they that Murray's well-known loquaciousness would get him into trouble.

Some of you suggested scrapping the debate format and just giving the time over to 1x1 interviews with those candidates who cared to appear.  While that certainly was an option, it just seems that by-elections call for all the candidates to get out there and vigorously debate the issues.

Our view is, if the national party leaders can do it in both French and English with three million people watching and the stakes much higher, then surely four potential backbenchers can do it once when the stakes and viewership are a lot lower.

Again, I guess we were wrong.

As it turned out, the two debate-dodgers, perhaps coincidentally, did see their numbers suffer in the by-election. The Liberals still won the seat, although with a significantly reduced margin of victory.

George Smitherman won the seat in the 2007 general election by 27 points over the PC candidate (also Pam Taylor).  This time, Glen Murray only won by half that margin and Taylor fell to third place.  Some Liberals did privately express concern that there's a message in that reduced margin.

In fairness, there's an old expression in politics: a win is a win is a win. And this government, unlike so many others, has managed to do extremely well in by-elections. Despite having been prompted by opposition politicians to "send a message" to the McGuintyites, voters in St. Paul's and Toronto Centre kept those ridings Liberal red in the two most recent by-elections.

Finally, two other comments require some response.

One writer suggested in the days of Studio 2 (the TVO current affairs offering from 1994-2006) , no candidate would have dared avoid a TVO invitation. I'm not sure what that comment is based on.  Certainly not the facts.

The fact is, in the 1995 general election, the only party leader that appeared on Studio 2 for a 1x1 interview was Premier Bob Rae.  Both Liberal leader Lyn McLeod and PC leader Mike Harris declined our invitation to appear and take phone calls from viewers.

And finally, I would have thought that The Agenda's bona fides would have been apparent after nearly four years and several hundred programs. But one writer suggested there are no rules for Agenda debates and alleged for some reason, we would have subverted our normal practice of offering a civilized place for debate for our own sensationalist purposes.

Again, it's hard to see what this comment is based on. Certainly not the facts.

The Agenda hosts debates almost every night of the week --- among academics, journalists, stakeholders, would-be party leaders, and yes, politicians. Until the Toronto Centre by-election, I can't recall any politicians ever turning down an invitation to appear on the program. 

In fact, we've been told numerous times over the years that The Agenda is one of the better places to appear for a debate, precisely because participants know they'll get a fair shake without the usual Jerry Springer chair-throwing.

The suggestion from one viewer that our debate "would have been anything but even-handed" is supported by neither the facts nor any other previous participant that I can see.

But, of course, let's not let the facts get in the way of a more interesting, if wrong, allegation.

Thanks for the feedback. Feel free to send more.