Impressions on the Debate
Jan. 9th, 2006 08:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dewlineI just watched the last big federal election Debate, and I've got some impressions to share here. They will ramble a fair bit, and may not make complete sense in parts. Some are important, some are trivial, and all of them are mine.
I am learning to hate ritualized debate. The formal approach, with timed talking points pre-scripted left, right and centre? It does not work very well for me right now.
As to specific issues and candidates?
To start: I wish that the Green Party had been given a podium at the debates this time out. It's an injustice that they were left out, because I do believe that they're part of the future of the House of Commons. It particularly rankles, given that I expect them to actually win at least one to five seats in this next edition of Parliament.
Harper cannot shake the habit of smirking when he tries to score a point off of Martin. The left corner of his mouth kept turning up time after time. I smelled "smirk". Not even when the tragedy in Mayerthorpe or the murders in Toronto came up, was he able to keep it off his face. It undercut so many points he wanted to make during the debate.
I liked the attention to concerns over influence-peddling on the part of all players, regardless of their motives. Especially given all the attention to Rosedale-High Park in the Greater Toronto Area(GTA), and the arguments over undue influence on the part of "Big Entertainment" and "Big Software" over Sarmite Bulte for the Liberals there, and Bev Oda on the New Conservative side elsewhere.
Harper's attention to entrenching "property rights" in the Charter raised my eyebrows. Again re: the IP law issues re: "Bulte-Gate".
Duceppe's staying on message, that message being "if it's federalist, it's corrupt." Which is crap, of course, but he thinks it can only help him dans la belle province pour la rève de la République. So he sticks with it, Hell or High Water. Harper's going along with it only as far as it helps him.
Layton...is not the only one making sense at times up there, but his push on electoral reform, particularly proportional representation, makes more and more sense to me. Particularly after reading an article on how different the House of Commons might have looked this past year in the Ottawa Citizen this morning.
I'm ambivalent on mandatory minimum sentences, for all the attention paid to it by all sides. I'm unconvinced as yet.
Health care? Martin held his own there. But Layton speaks to my gut here. Medicare as we've come to understand it, with some of the evolutionary steps proposed -- pharmacare, keeping the private sector's role somewhat contained in order to contain overall costs, home care, palliative care and leave, and so on.
The moderator surprised me by bringing the Notwithstanding Clause into the health care argument, although given this past year's Supreme Court decision, it was almost inevitable. Still, Layton managed to hold his own when it was invoked as a twist on the topic. Not sure what to make of his answer yet.
Trade: eh. I know the Heads of State and can quote the Disputes Historical. Not much really to incite me to care one way or the other, aside from my concerns over agriculture in general and mad cow in particular.
Tax cuts? I am unconvinced that Canada needs those just yet, much less whether or not the country can afford them.
"Indications are that the next government of Canada is going to be a minority government." Gee, Mr. Moderator, ya think? Talk about your obvious statements. Although, to be fair, I'm one of the people who thinks that Canada will in fact be best served for the near future by minority governments, no matter who gets to be the governing party of the day. It keeps the minds of all players focused on getting legislation that works and will hold up over the long haul (or at least as long as we actually need it to hold up). And it gives a decent chance of disposing of unworkable bills before we have to run the risk of needing the Supreme Court to intervene.
"Fiscal imbalance" came up again. Yet another phrase that's become a pet of what I've found myself calling the "Provinces' Rights" crowd, and never more so when Duceppe, Harper or any of the Premiers uses it. I am finding myself with less sympathy for "Provinces' Rights" as time goes on, honestly.
Layton scores on public transit funding.
Hmmm. The moderator threw Duceppe a curve linking Quebec independence to same-sex marriage: if he considers the latter settled with no need to revisit it(as Harper does not), how can he continue to see Quebec's place as "unsettled" after two referendae? Nice.
My remarks about ritualized, formal debate came back to haunt me. Particularly in exchanges between Martin and Duceppe. I get the sense that Martin, for all his flaws, actually gives a damn about keeping the country in one piece. But he kept getting cut off by "Sorry, your time is up." Annoying.
Layton scored again on the foreign aid front. For all that Martin used Bono and Geldof as props, he hasn't yet delivered on that front to the tune that Canada committed to back in Pearson's day. A minimum of .7 % of GNP devoted to foreign aid and nothing but.
In the end? No knockout punches by anyone at anyone else's expense. Those were pre-empted quite thoroughly by the rules of the debate. I remain dissatisfied by this, although I acknowledge the need for some sort of rules to prevent chaos and dirty trickstering.
Over to you, friends and neighbours...
I am learning to hate ritualized debate. The formal approach, with timed talking points pre-scripted left, right and centre? It does not work very well for me right now.
As to specific issues and candidates?
To start: I wish that the Green Party had been given a podium at the debates this time out. It's an injustice that they were left out, because I do believe that they're part of the future of the House of Commons. It particularly rankles, given that I expect them to actually win at least one to five seats in this next edition of Parliament.
Harper cannot shake the habit of smirking when he tries to score a point off of Martin. The left corner of his mouth kept turning up time after time. I smelled "smirk". Not even when the tragedy in Mayerthorpe or the murders in Toronto came up, was he able to keep it off his face. It undercut so many points he wanted to make during the debate.
I liked the attention to concerns over influence-peddling on the part of all players, regardless of their motives. Especially given all the attention to Rosedale-High Park in the Greater Toronto Area(GTA), and the arguments over undue influence on the part of "Big Entertainment" and "Big Software" over Sarmite Bulte for the Liberals there, and Bev Oda on the New Conservative side elsewhere.
Harper's attention to entrenching "property rights" in the Charter raised my eyebrows. Again re: the IP law issues re: "Bulte-Gate".
Duceppe's staying on message, that message being "if it's federalist, it's corrupt." Which is crap, of course, but he thinks it can only help him dans la belle province pour la rève de la République. So he sticks with it, Hell or High Water. Harper's going along with it only as far as it helps him.
Layton...is not the only one making sense at times up there, but his push on electoral reform, particularly proportional representation, makes more and more sense to me. Particularly after reading an article on how different the House of Commons might have looked this past year in the Ottawa Citizen this morning.
I'm ambivalent on mandatory minimum sentences, for all the attention paid to it by all sides. I'm unconvinced as yet.
Health care? Martin held his own there. But Layton speaks to my gut here. Medicare as we've come to understand it, with some of the evolutionary steps proposed -- pharmacare, keeping the private sector's role somewhat contained in order to contain overall costs, home care, palliative care and leave, and so on.
The moderator surprised me by bringing the Notwithstanding Clause into the health care argument, although given this past year's Supreme Court decision, it was almost inevitable. Still, Layton managed to hold his own when it was invoked as a twist on the topic. Not sure what to make of his answer yet.
Trade: eh. I know the Heads of State and can quote the Disputes Historical. Not much really to incite me to care one way or the other, aside from my concerns over agriculture in general and mad cow in particular.
Tax cuts? I am unconvinced that Canada needs those just yet, much less whether or not the country can afford them.
"Indications are that the next government of Canada is going to be a minority government." Gee, Mr. Moderator, ya think? Talk about your obvious statements. Although, to be fair, I'm one of the people who thinks that Canada will in fact be best served for the near future by minority governments, no matter who gets to be the governing party of the day. It keeps the minds of all players focused on getting legislation that works and will hold up over the long haul (or at least as long as we actually need it to hold up). And it gives a decent chance of disposing of unworkable bills before we have to run the risk of needing the Supreme Court to intervene.
"Fiscal imbalance" came up again. Yet another phrase that's become a pet of what I've found myself calling the "Provinces' Rights" crowd, and never more so when Duceppe, Harper or any of the Premiers uses it. I am finding myself with less sympathy for "Provinces' Rights" as time goes on, honestly.
Layton scores on public transit funding.
Hmmm. The moderator threw Duceppe a curve linking Quebec independence to same-sex marriage: if he considers the latter settled with no need to revisit it(as Harper does not), how can he continue to see Quebec's place as "unsettled" after two referendae? Nice.
My remarks about ritualized, formal debate came back to haunt me. Particularly in exchanges between Martin and Duceppe. I get the sense that Martin, for all his flaws, actually gives a damn about keeping the country in one piece. But he kept getting cut off by "Sorry, your time is up." Annoying.
Layton scored again on the foreign aid front. For all that Martin used Bono and Geldof as props, he hasn't yet delivered on that front to the tune that Canada committed to back in Pearson's day. A minimum of .7 % of GNP devoted to foreign aid and nothing but.
In the end? No knockout punches by anyone at anyone else's expense. Those were pre-empted quite thoroughly by the rules of the debate. I remain dissatisfied by this, although I acknowledge the need for some sort of rules to prevent chaos and dirty trickstering.
Over to you, friends and neighbours...
