English Debates

[WCE]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

You prefer a party that bends over to the unions?

I agree with Shawnski. The NDP are a fringe party that will never govern, nor should they ever govern. We've seen way to many times what happens to provinces that stick themselves with the NDP. BC is only now finally emerging from the hole the NDP put them in.

Does it really matter? With the system the way it is and the atrophy of interest Canadians are expressing, does it matter which players are calling the shots behind the scenes? Oil Tycoons or Labour Unions?

All of them stink, and all have crippling flaws. The big money behind the party will have a significant say. Liberals get their share from big business, the NDP from unions and the Conservatives from big business and our friends below the 49th.

I am just looking for someone to pipe up and give me something to go on as I think the liberals need to clean their house before they are ready to govern again.

All I have seen from the major opposition is continued support of a leader who sent a letter in the Wall Street Journal apologizing for Canada not going into Iraq. Talk about ends justifying the means, eh Shawnski? I have seen nothing from either of the two major parties that make me think the issues I believe to be important will be addressed.

The voice of the NDP has come closest, and as such they will be getting my vote regardless of whether or not they are viewed as a fringe party in some parts of the country.

I have to vote for what I believe in even if I know that it means the party that I am not comfortable with will have it's chief opposition weakened.

Democracy moves on....

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

I think you might be surprised that many folk in Alberta DO want to find fruit in the green power alternatives. Conservatives included.

For example, you do realize that in Calgary, our LRT system is completely powered by wind power generated in the Southern part of our province?

I have spent countless hours pondering how to design and implement localized power generation here in Calgary. Having Conservative values does not mean that I do not see the merit in going green. But for any entrepreneur, without receiving government grants, it must be fiscally prudent. And I also must admit, that project is not a good fit within my experience and background... but the thought is ALWAYS in my mind.

"Put your money where your mouth" is then and vote Green.

[Hunter74]

Anybody else get the idea that Jack Layton has given up or never had any real aspirations of becomeing Prime Minister. He just seems more interested in getting as many seats as possible so that he can form a coalition gov with the Liberals like he almost had last time. The only thing Layton has is the little bit of influence(spending) he had on the Liberal budget which he and Martin are fighting over

Cutting the GST does help out people who are on the poor/middle side as there are still alot of things you need to purchase that has the GST on it. Plus 33% of Canadians dont pay Income tax (b/c they dont make enough money per year) so the GST reduction helps them out a hell of alot more than an Income Tax cut.

You guys make fun of Harper for his smile but have you ever seen Martins smile?

I thought Harper did a good job of deflecting alot of garbage and dissing out some good hits that werent to smearish. He walked the pest line pretty well and came out more clean cut than the others.


I dont like the idea of Ottawa running the provinces like Martin wants. I like Harpers balance on this one were he will give them the mone with a coupel strings attached. For example, gives provinces money for Education and its specifically says its for education and cant be used as a tax cut for the rich instead. How the Provincial education authorities decide to alocate that money is completely in the jurisdiction of the provinces/Universities and Ottawa should not be running that. You cant micro manage a country like this.

I think Harper came out the best b/c he got his main points across the most and didn't get caught in the typical traps the Liberals and NDP try to set for them. HOw they try to make his party out to be extremists.

[CaptainCrunch]

The only choice that Martin had tonight was to try to hit the hail mary or land the knockout blow in order to reverse the fortunes of his campaign and save his party. After being attacked by three parties, Martin cam across as pretty insincere, and flustered, and his attempts to cast dispersions on the American's and the Conservatives fell pretty flat, Martin didn't land any major punches, and actually didn't land a lot of jabs, if your going to declare a winner, you'd have to look at Ducceppe (sp?) which is actually a big negative for the Liberals since the Bloc cast blame pretty widely on Liberal efforts in the province of Quebec.

I'm beginning to think that the Liberal's next move will be the smear ads and negativity and the Conservatives have done a good job of preparing the voters for that to happen. I think this is now the conservatives election to lose, and I have a feeling that they're smarter this time around and won't fall easily into the Liberal's hopes of saying or doing something stupid.

Martin didn't look like a Prime Minister tonight, he looked like a exhausted, stressed out beaten man, and that was not the message that the Lib's wanted to distribute.

[Hakan]

The debate was alot better tonight than the previous one. There was substance and the moderator was far better. Infact, he was the best moderator I think I have ever witnessed in a leadership debate.

There wasn't a clear winner. I think Martin did surprisingly well considering the situation he is in. He made some striking points with regard to Conservative policies such as tax cuts and unity and answered the Harper's and Layton's attacks admirably. His performance at the debate shouldn't lose him seats, the corruption and antics in his cabinet will lose the seats.

Harper stuck to the line and provided the most comprehensive and well trained message I thought. Harper of course handled the criticism from Martin, Layton and Duceppe the worst of the candidates. He was exposed for some fibs and for some policy issues. I think Layton landed some good blows with healthcare and tax cuts and Martin got some shots in with regard to his relationship with the U.S.

Layton sounded really hokey with his contrived phrases but I think he probably did the best at reaching out to the undecideds which is ultimately what these debates are about. He communicated at a layman's level about the inadequacies of the two other parties while presenting his party as clearly distinct and relevant. The moderator called him on shooting for second place which was the most poignant criticism he received all night.

Duceppe is a joke and shouldn't have even been there. I especially disliked how he made his accent thicker for the purposes of appearing more 'Quebecois.' His accent is not nearly that pronounced and during his act he got himself caught in the game ruining phrases and points he was trying to make. The joke of it is that it doesn't matter one bit what he says in the English debates.

[Cheese]

I watched a few local programs after the debate to see what reaction was in and about Waterloo Ontario. I really thought that they would give Harper kudos...BUT...

37% say NDP won
33% say Libs won
30% say the Cons won

A little scary if you ask me.

[Hunter74]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Layton sounded really hokey with his contrived phrases but I think he probably did the best at reaching out to the undecideds which is ultimately what these debates are about. He communicated at a layman's level about the inadequacies of the two other parties while presenting his party as clearly distinct and relevant. The moderator called him on shooting for second place which was the most poignant criticism he received all night.

Last time there was an elecetion it was revealed at the last second that Layton and Martin were going to form a coalition government but the Conservatives won the last 3 seats the Liberal/NDP government would of needed in order to have a majority. I Think this debate really showed that Layton is more interested in just getting as many seats in the house and at the Conservatives expense.

After the debate CBC showed some stats from statisitics Canada which said that Harpers Tax Cuts were the best and would give low/middle/higher income earners the the best value.

I think one of the problems was that alot of the info provided durign the debate was way to confusing for someone who just started to follow the debate that night. Alot of the attacks and counter punches woudl of went right over teh majority of the voters heads. I wonder how many people even know what the fiscal imbalance is? Fiscal imbalance is the major reason the Liberal gov has had surplus after surplus. After cutting so much money to the provinces and leaving us for starving on so many issues (medicare, Childcare, infastrucutre) that the liberals could not have a surplus b/c its the money that should of been going to the provinces in the first place. Its just a slick trick to fool voters who dont keep up closly with politics. They took everythign away for teh provinces and then at election give it back and say "see we are giving theprovinces all the money they need for social programs" when in realitiy that money is just money that was taken away from us by teh Liberals to prop up ther gov. Its easy to take 43Billion out of health care and then put in 30billion and say we are the Champions of Healthcare and we are gonna save it form teh conservatives.

Now Im not saying that Canada's economy hasn't grown b/c obviously it has. Im just saying that its also being propped up by the tactics employed by the liberals. How can we have such a surplus in the federal gov but the discretionary income of the average family hasn't gone up in a decade? That imo is criminal that the country is so rich and people havent gotten richer alogn with it and on top of that have had to fight with inflation. We wonder people spend more now and save less. Well when your income doesn't grow but your expenses do you are forced to spend more in order to maintain your quality of life and family savings go down b/c of it.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I caught the end of the debates. Here's a few things that I noticed:


HOLY NATURAL EYE CONTACT BATMAN!!! I've never seen a debate on TV where all 4 participants freaked you out by staring directly into the camera and never blinking!

Duceppe: Annoyed me the least, as he seemed to be the most natural on stage despite having a French-English dictionary in front of him, and looking up every fourth word... how sad is that?

Layton: Read his closing statement word for word off the page infront of him, did your mommy write it for you?

Martin: I could understand what he was trying to say, but I'm a poli sci major working on a masters in public admin. I could finish his thoughts, but could Joe Blow Canadian? He got way to flustered with each question

Harper: move your upper arms, you'll look like you're speaking naturally. Otherwise you look like a robot under strict orders to smile when you finish every answer. His smile looked more fake than Pam Anderson's breasts. Also... is his hair plastic?


Just a few non-verbal things I picked up, that drove me completely insane. What's sad is if there was ONE charasmatic leader running he/she would have no problem trouncing the opposition and forming a large majority government. Even if their policy was to hang every white male in the county, then invade the USA and do the same to them.

While Martin and Harper are possibly two of the best policy guys in Canada today, neither are overly charasmatic and moving. Neither captivate a crowd, and neither will leave a leagacy for the Canadian people. No offense to either, I think both have very strong postive aspects about them (like them or no, they both have done some pretty great things for this country).

But really, can no party afford a public speaking coach? They're driving people like me insane. I just helped organize a high school debating competition last weekend, there were 14 year olds that would have mopped the floor with any of them.

That said, remember to vote... then again if you're reading this thread I'm probably preaching to the choir.

/end rant

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by WCE

Does it really matter? With the system the way it is and the atrophy of interest Canadians are expressing, does it matter which players are calling the shots behind the scenes? Oil Tycoons or Labour Unions?

Yes, yes it does. And it is not just important to have "big" business setting up shop in Canada, but also the continued support for small business. Jobs, jobs, jobs. And investment. R&D dollars. Very important.

If Labour called the shots, the number of businesses operating in Canada would steadily decline as they move to greener pastures (no pun intended.) And with them, jobs. This would be the same case if the Greens ever made it to the top, with their "We will alter the Charter to include rights of clean air and water." Wow, what a can of worms THAT would open up in the courts. First smog day in Toronto, the people of Toronto would launch a class action suit, which ultimately would have to name themselves, ironically.

Can't understand why people would waste a vote on the Greens. I would guess that those that would vote Green are most likely on my ignore list!!

Originally Posted by WCE

All I have seen from the major opposition is continued support of a leader who sent a letter in the Wall Street Journal apologizing for Canada not going into Iraq. Talk about ends justifying the means, eh Shawnski?

Ahh yes, the "Sorry we can't come to your party, ad". I still fail to see how this was a bad tactic to take. Apologizing to your neighbour for not supporting them. OK, I am sure that really ticked people off south of the border, eh? Not. Now, that ad was a win, win for Harper. HAD things worked out differently, and WMD etc, etc were found, he looks good. As it stands, IF there is another invitation by the US to be involved anywhere, he can say "Hey, I would have gone to your last party, but look how that turned out!", and the relationship would not be hurt further. My take on the politics of it anyway.

[MarchHare]

Ahh yes, the "Sorry we can't come to your party, ad". I still fail to see how this was a bad tactic to take. Apologizing to your neighbour for not supporting them. OK, I am sure that really ticked people off south of the border, eh? Not. Now, that ad was a win, win for Harper. HAD things worked out differently, and WMD etc, etc were found, he looks good. As it stands, IF there is another invitation by the US to be involved anywhere, he can say "Hey, I would have gone to your last party, but look how that turned out!", and the relationship would not be hurt further. My take on the politics of it anyway.

Except Canadians were overwhelmingly against sending troops to Iraq unless the operation was sanctioned by the UN. Politically, Harper and the Conservatives took a position that was decidedly against the will of the Canadian electorate all in the interest of appeasing our Southern neighbour and protecting our trade interests and strengthening our economy. Of course, not sending our soldiers to be killed in Iraq hasn't harmed trade with the US at all; Canadian exports to America are at near-record levels and the national unemployment rate currently sits at a 30-year low.

I find it kind of ironic that the CPC campaign slogan is "Stand Up for Canada" when Harper's position on the Iraq war was to sell out our national interest to the US.

[ernie]

Sun Media/Leger poll gives the victory to Harper by a hair.

Harper 34% (+6 from last debate)
Martin 30% (+1 from last debate)
Layton 19% (-2 from last debate)
Duceppe 4% (-1 from last debate)

Basically every one held their own with no knockout punches being thrown. The one thing the pollster said was this:

"The leaders' debate has permitted Stephen Harper to confirm his momentum," pollster Jean-Marc Leger said.
"The real question is: 'can I vote for Stephen Harper?' I think the answer was: 'Why not?'"


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics...9/1386545.html


Personally I think Harper won as the opposition (i.e. martin) completely failed in trying to characterize Harper and the Tories as scary and evil americans. I think most people are realising that the Tories are just as Canadian as any other party but have different policies. And that people are actually looking at those policies and many are finding quite a bit to like.


The Tories could really capitalize on their tax breaks getting the thumbs up over the Liberals by a couple of left-wing anti-poverty think tanks/groups. Hard to be portrayed as scary right wing extremists when you have left-wing folks giving your personal tax plan a pat on the back over the liberals plan.

[transplant99]

Personally I think Harper won as the opposition (i.e. martin) completely failed in trying to characterize Harper and the Tories as scary and evil americans. I think most people are realising that the Tories are just as Canadian as any other party but have different policies. And that people are actually looking at those policies and many are finding quite a bit to like.

But the Liberals dont do that!! We've been told repeatedly on this very forum that the whole "Cons are scary" thing was fabricated by the Cons themselves as a way of explaining defeat in the last election!!

LOL...too funny.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by transplant99

But the Liberals dont do that!! We've been told repeatedly on this very forum that the whole "Cons are scary" thing was fabricated by the Cons themselves as a way of explaining defeat in the last election!!

LOL...too funny.

I know first hand having spent the last election in the maritimes and talking to people in pretty good depth last campaign that the smear campaign by the Liberals worked (who the hell can forget the ad about "taking away a woman's right to choose" which was a blatant lie?). Talking to many people last campaign I know of several people who were intrigued by the Tory platform and even liked it but didn't give them a vote because "they didn't trust them" or that the had a "hidden agenda". The Liberal campaign fed off of it and fed off of it well. This time round they are trying to feed off of it again but are finding only scraps (from 10 year old speeches and other info from BEFORE he was leader). Mostly I think because the ridiculed BBQ circuit harper did actually worked out here. People got to talk to him and the stories in the papers was essentially a bunch of people saying "you know he's a nice guy not scary at all. A genuine guy." It of course also helps that his deputy leader comes from the maritimes and is well liked, respected and well isn't remotely scary. People are also figuring out that a party leader does not by himself set party policy and that he can not act on his own accord and do whatever he pleases just because like the liberals like to suggest.

If Harper can keep the Rob Anders of the party reigned in for another two weeks at a minimum it's a Tory minority. If the Ontario momentum continues it's a slim majority.

[mykalberta]

"The real question is: 'can I vote for Stephen Harper?' I think the answer was: 'Why not?'"

I think thats what is different this time around, the previous election Harper was kind of thrown into the fire, this time he has rangled in all his candidates to say nothing but the party line which is utter spineless bs, but thats what it takes in this country to win elections.

If the cons can pick up say +8 seats in the Maritimes, +3 in Quebec, +30 in Ontario, I think they will form the government. Maybe get +2 in Alberta (McLellan and the other dude) +3 in BC and +2 in Manitoba/Sask where there will be considerable vote fractioning on the left in all 3 provinces then there is hope for them.

In the last 2 weeks they just need to keep reiterating their policies, keep their more vocal supporters quiet (ie Klien) then they wont give NDP voters any reason to vote Liberal.

MYK

[MarchHare]

who the hell can forget the ad about "taking away a woman's right to choose" which was a blatant lie?

How is it a blatant lie? There was nothing in the CPC platform about banning abortion, true, but many Conservative candidates are openly pro-life and Harper himself was quoted as saying during the last campaign that if the CPC formed the government, he would allow a free vote on the issue if it was introduced as a private member's bill. This is where the so-called "hidden agenda" meme got started; even though it wasn't explicitly stated in the party's policy, it's obvious that many Conservatives hold anti-abortion views (by their own account) and Harper stated quite bluntly that a government led by him would permit a free vote on the issue.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by ernie

Personally I think Harper won as the opposition (i.e. martin) completely failed in trying to characterize Harper and the Tories as scary and evil americans.

Harper actually got a good shot in about this. When Martin announced his determination to remove the notwithstanding clause, Harper came back with his preference to continue the balance between the British parliamentary strong system versus the American system where the courts dictate the laws. So Martin is taking us down the road to Americanization with the removal of the notwithstanding clause?

And March, there was no "appeasing" the States, nor "selling out" Canada by the action taken by Harper. Nor was it the States alone that his comments were directed to... it was the coalition of many countries, including our two closest allies, let alone many others.

[transplant99]

How is it a blatant lie? There was nothing in the CPC platform about banning abortion, true, but many Conservative candidates are openly pro-life and Harper himself was quoted as saying during the last campaign that if the CPC formed the government, he would allow a free vote on the issue if it was introduced as a private member's bill. This is where the so-called "hidden agenda" meme got started; even though it wasn't explicitly stated in the party's policy, it's obvious that many Conservatives hold anti-abortion views (by their own account) and Harper stated quite bluntly that a government led by him would permit a free vote on the issue.

So...its NOT a hidden agenda then??

On top of that...lets be realistic about something here.

Even if some members are pro-life, there isnt a chance in hell they would ever be able to pass a law that changes the way women get access to abortions now.

Its BS that the Liberals have thrown out for years, and it is time its stopped.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How is it a blatant lie? There was nothing in the CPC platform about banning abortion, true, but many Conservative candidates are openly pro-life and Harper himself was quoted as saying during the last campaign that if the CPC formed the government, he would allow a free vote on the issue if it was introduced as a private member's bill. This is where the so-called "hidden agenda" meme got started; even though it wasn't explicitly stated in the party's policy, it's obvious that many Conservatives hold anti-abortion views (by their own account) and Harper stated quite bluntly that a government led by him would permit a free vote on the issue.

It was a blatant lie. It wasn't in the Conservative platform nor was it even an issue likely to be brought up for vote just in the past when private members have brought about the same bill (from both liberal and tory parties I might add) it gets killed. It was never ever an issue and it was a blatant lie Harper would have brought it up and that it would get party support.

And btw there are gasp liberals that are against abortion who have tried bringing in private members bills.

Yep Harper doesn't like abortion but then again neither did Chretien who when asked to comment on Day's belief that life started at conception said as a Roman-Catholic he to believed life started at conception. Neither do many many liberals, NDP or Tory supporters. Thing is one person in a party not even the leader makes party policy and it was never ever party policy. The liberals in plain language said he WOULD take away a womans right to choose. That was and is not the case at all.