Canadian Leaders' Debate

Offline

Well, what a sad state of affairs! Watched the leader's debate this evening, and I have to say I'm not happy with this election.

It was an odd exchange, with more attack than platform. My rating of performances (best to worst) would be:

1. May (Green Party)
2. Layton (NDP)
3. Duceppe (Bloc)
4. Harper (Conservatives)
5. Dion (Liberals)

This makes me very sad. As a long-time Liberal supporter, I'm very dismayed. I don't think Dion could manage a corner store, let alone a country. He was clearly handicapped by his dismal command of the English language. I'm sorry, but like it or not, English is the first language of the world. If you can't speak it with clear facility, you're not in a position to lead a country. He fumbled, was trying to be on the offensive, but almost looked mortally wounded when Layton laid into him. This is not a man I can see leading our country. While I appreciate the LIberal party was in a no-win situation in their leadership convention (a guy that had been out of Canada so long he probably forgot how to spell it, and an arrogant NDP opportunist as rivals to Dion), nonetheless the party clearly did NOT choose a good chief. As incredible as it sounds (even to my own ears), I kind of wish Chrétien was back. While we joked he couldn't speak either of Canada's official languages, I think we was more understandable than Dion. And clearly, despite tensions, a more effective party leader.

So where does that leave us?

Well, Elizabeth May was coherent, aware of what's going on, had good positions on issues, and demonstrated she could speak with intelligence and apparent integrity. However, I don't think the Green Party has a hope-in-hell in forming a government (do they have official party status yet?), so that's all rather moot. But if I had to choose one that I'd like to see in office, idealistically it would be her.

And then we have Jack. You know, Jack's been around the political scene for a long time. I've never really been sure of what Jack stands for, as he's always seemed to be a bit of a flag in the prevailing breeze. Nonetheless, he was 'on' tonight, and --- probably because he thinks that he might actually be able to form an official opposition, which might prove to be true given Dion's dismal show --- was laying into Harper the most of all the candidates. But everything seemed to end with, "...under and NDP government, with Jack Layton as Prime Minister". I've always wondered about people who refer to themselves in the third-person, but that notwithstanding, it just smacked of a bit too much self promotion. Call me crazy, but I've always thought that politicians should be public servants (as in, the serve the public... all of us... not themselves), and not act like 'kind of the hill'. To me, Jack was just coming across a bit too much like, "...under the NDP, with me, Jack, your King." Perhaps I'm being a bit too sensitive... :-)

Now Duceppe is an interesting creature. He pretty clearly didn't want to be there. He knows he'll never be PM. That the Bloc formed the official opposition at one point was in itself remarkable. But nonetheless, one must question the relevance of this party in todays global landscape. As countries are blurring their boarders (eg., the EU), I have to question any organisation whose purpose is to build walls around their territory. But I digress...

And finally we have Harper. We know Harper a bit now. Not completely, of course, as he's had his one hand a bit cuffed; he's not had complete control, although given Dion's and the Liberal's incredibly effective opposition, he almost had free rein. However, we have seen he doesn't keep promises (fixed election dates, government accountability, and others), DOES behave like the king of the hill, and likes to quietly erode things.

I found his comment on how somehow a $500 tax credit to families with kids was going to somehow magically translate into a wash for the millions of dollars being quietly cut from arts funding (pity his wife couldn't attend that little event after his comment on how arts was just black-tie events for the rich). Sure, Steve... yeah... that'll work... NOT! (And no, I'm not in the arts, but I do know that the arts provide both substantial economic benefits in the form of jobs and money coming into Canada, and they are critical to maintaining a Canadian identity. When you sleep next to the elephant, you need to make sure you know that, and at the same time make sure you don't get squished!)

Citing the reduction of the GST is almost laughable. Steve... baby... it was your party that brought it in (although I guess he could claim it was those nasty "progressives" that did it). So, instead of portraying a reduction as somehow a gift which frankly makes very little difference to most people and is only a campaign ploy, stay the course, suck it up, keep collecting the additional two percent, pay down the national debt, and maybe even do something good for the environment. Oh, right... you don't really care about the environment. Never mind.

I loved his response to the question about trust in politicians. To paraphrase:

• Questioner: You've all lied in the past. How can I possibly believe any of you now, and so why should I even bother to vote? What difference will it make?
• Steve: Ummm... well, you should vote. It's important, so you can choose which one of us you want to lie to you.

Good answer!

I don't trust this man. He's a bully. I've never liked bullies. And I don't like the US-Republicanesque tenor of his party.

So I'm really not happy. In twelve days I have to make a choice, and no matter what the choice, I think I'm going to get screwed... and not the way I like it either! We have no viable good leaders. I have no idea right now how I'm going to vote. Bugga.