Harper, Duceppe, Ignatieff and Layton faced off for a second night in a row, Wednesday. The party leaders seemed more spirited sparring in French than they did at yesterday's English debates, according to newswatchers polled immediately after the match.

Who do you think won round two of the election debates? Did anyone redeem themselves after a poor performance last night? Sound off below.

Corina Milic

Was there a clear winner in Tuesday night's English federal election debate?

Gilles Duceppe got out the first zinger and Jack Layton was full of spunk, taking shots at both Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff.

Post debate discussions with the talking heads on TV seemed to suggest what really happened was that nobody lost and everyone stuck to their game. 

But with the subject of the G8/G20 spending and the leaked auditor general's report getting so much air time during the debate, we could go out on a limb by saying the media can at least claim a win. It was a news story from the Canadian Press on Monday that added a new twist to what until then was a pretty dull campaign. 

Judging by the comments MSN.ca received during the live debate blog, everyone has some thoughts on who won the debate Tuesday. Leave your comments below.

 Christine Diemert

To quote one TV talking head: For political junkies, federal election debates are like the Stanley Cup playoffs.

That might be so for political junkies, but the rest of the population doesn't get quite as excited. (In fact, the French debate was moved to Wednesday night so it wouldn't be in conflict with the first playoff game between Montreal and Boston.)

A lot of journalists fall under the political junky umbrella. During campaigns they work long hours and listen to the same political talking points over and over. These days they also have to be on top of things 24 hours a day as everything plays out in real time with smart phones, Twitter, Facebook, blogs and 24-hour news websites.

But it's also thanks to these advances that the world has opened up to the other political junkies, who until Twitter, Facebook, blogs and comment capabilities on those news websites, were not able to give voice to their concerns and observations.

Another great innovation is Cover-it-Live, a live discussion tool that has been embraced by news organizations looking for ways to bring online news audiences into the discussion. MSN.ca is going to do the same.

So tonight, as the leaders square off on your favourite television network, we've opened up our site for a live discussion as the event unfolds. It's simple, requires no registration, just a click to add a comment and send it to us.

Here's the url: http://blogs.news.msn.ca/.

Christine Diemert

Politicians are wrapping up week two on the campaign trail. Now, more than ever, citizens are paying attention to what their politicians have to say. They want answers to questions on policy and politics so they can decide who to elect as the next prime minister.

So when Conservative leader Stephen Harper announced he would only take a total of five reporters’ questions per day, some of those reporters were indignant. They say it was on behalf of Canadians.

“[The policy] amounts to a gross disservice to the public,” read a Toronto Star editorial, Sunday.

"The Conservatives came to power promising more accountability…Those principles matter the most in an election, when people need as many answers as possible to make an informed choice.”

The Star, like many newsmakers, believes the journalist’s role is to serve as the eyes and ears of a public that can’t follow every detail of a campaign.

No other party leader has put similar restrictions on reporters.

Harper runs a tight ship at the best of times. It’s no different now: From rally registrations to controlled photo-ops, it’s expected.

To each politician his own. This regulated approach works for the Conservative Party that has managed to stay in power despite a global recession and multiple minority governments – no easy feat. (For more on that, check out our election blogger's post)

But should the line be drawn at limiting the public’s ability to question political leaders?

In response to Harper’s five-questions-a-day rule, reporters have begun asking him why he’s limited the number to five. Harper’s mostly kept mum on his reasoning. But Maclean’s Paul Wells suggests it’s part of a campaign strategy to deflect harder queries concerning the real issues – such as his record as prime minister.

“I’m pretty sure that part of the reason [he doesn’t take more questions] is because it keeps the travelling pack feeling frustrated and, therefore, comically self-obsessed, so we will…ask even fewer questions about his record and projects,” writes Wells.

Should Harper answer more questions, or is the press being too tough on him? Do you think the press represents you?

Corina Milic