One Down, Three to Go
Mid-December. Snow coming down. Coloured lights on every house. Seasonal music playing on the radio. It can only mean one thing: It's election debate time! I watched the French language debate tonight from Vancouver, and was actually impressed with what I saw, at least in terms of the format. The media questions to all the party leaders after the debate dwelled on whether the chosen debate format was too dry and boring for viewers, as if our electoral process should be turned into just another entertainment choice. But it seems to me that this debate in particular (and the one tomorrow night in English) was in just the right format, because the people who take the time to pay attention to such things in the middle of the Christmas season are interested in getting information. That is, the ones who are still undecided. The vast majority of people who are politically engaged have already made up their minds, and probably wouldn't mind a little bit of back-and-forth fireworks - the political equivalent to a hockey fight. Since I'm not party-committed, I enjoyed seeing each leader present his version of the straight goods.
This was a national debate but, for all practical purposes, it was directed at voters in Quebec. And Paul Martin didn't do himself any favours toward his ambition to retain his Quebec seats. He looked weak when responding to the question from the lady in Quebec who called his bluff on the Bloc=Separation rhetoric. Instead of stepping back and admitting his error, or laying in the bed he made and campaigning strongly on the point (either of which would have made him look more respectable), he resorted to weasel words. Despite his gyrations and inflections, Martin did not do anything to sway anybody in Quebec who had doubts about him or the Liberal Party. And Quebec could turn out to be Martin's Waterloo once all the seats are counted.
Stephen Harper spoke in credible French, but he still seemed uncomfortable expressing himself in that language. For a man who is cardboard at the best of times, he appeared almost straight-jacketed tonight. He was not able to convey his sharpness and passion as well as he will tomorrow night in English. But he effectively communicated his platform and standard talking points - as did Jack Layton. The problem that they both have is that there is very little they can accomplish in Quebec at this point in time, other than perhaps planting some seeds. While they both like to tell Quebec voters that the government scandals are all about the Liberal Party, Gilles Duceppe has ingeniously conflated AdScam with all of Quebec's other grievances with Ottawa over generations. So while Layton and Harper pile on Martin over the sponsorship scandal, they are unwittingly helping the Bloc. The fact is that none of the federalist leaders had any answers on the issue of how to bring Quebec into the constitutional family or providing long term stability to Quebec in confederation. This would have been a great opportunity for Harper to talk about a Conservative vision of renewed federalism with de-centralized powers, but he played it safe. (In fact, a lot of the platform presented by Harper goes contrary to hardline Western conservative values, and even what he himself has advocated in the past. Was that a compromise in the merger with the PC Party, or cloaking of a hidden agenda?) The Conservatives might not pick up seats in Quebec, but any Liberal loss is a gain for them. The NDP probably have more upside in Quebec down the road if the Liberals are deemed party non grata.
Tomorrow night the focus will shift to the rest of the country, and it will be interesting to see how the leaders play to a different audience. It will also be interesting to see if Martin is challenged to explain his asinine remark that a cut in the GST would be regressive. I'll be out tomorrow but I hope to catch a replay later on CPAC. Then we can forget all about this stuff until after the holidays.
P.S. If they are debating in a studio without an audience, and fielding questions from Candians that were recorded on tape, why do they have to be in Vancouver?
This was a national debate but, for all practical purposes, it was directed at voters in Quebec. And Paul Martin didn't do himself any favours toward his ambition to retain his Quebec seats. He looked weak when responding to the question from the lady in Quebec who called his bluff on the Bloc=Separation rhetoric. Instead of stepping back and admitting his error, or laying in the bed he made and campaigning strongly on the point (either of which would have made him look more respectable), he resorted to weasel words. Despite his gyrations and inflections, Martin did not do anything to sway anybody in Quebec who had doubts about him or the Liberal Party. And Quebec could turn out to be Martin's Waterloo once all the seats are counted.
Stephen Harper spoke in credible French, but he still seemed uncomfortable expressing himself in that language. For a man who is cardboard at the best of times, he appeared almost straight-jacketed tonight. He was not able to convey his sharpness and passion as well as he will tomorrow night in English. But he effectively communicated his platform and standard talking points - as did Jack Layton. The problem that they both have is that there is very little they can accomplish in Quebec at this point in time, other than perhaps planting some seeds. While they both like to tell Quebec voters that the government scandals are all about the Liberal Party, Gilles Duceppe has ingeniously conflated AdScam with all of Quebec's other grievances with Ottawa over generations. So while Layton and Harper pile on Martin over the sponsorship scandal, they are unwittingly helping the Bloc. The fact is that none of the federalist leaders had any answers on the issue of how to bring Quebec into the constitutional family or providing long term stability to Quebec in confederation. This would have been a great opportunity for Harper to talk about a Conservative vision of renewed federalism with de-centralized powers, but he played it safe. (In fact, a lot of the platform presented by Harper goes contrary to hardline Western conservative values, and even what he himself has advocated in the past. Was that a compromise in the merger with the PC Party, or cloaking of a hidden agenda?) The Conservatives might not pick up seats in Quebec, but any Liberal loss is a gain for them. The NDP probably have more upside in Quebec down the road if the Liberals are deemed party non grata.
Tomorrow night the focus will shift to the rest of the country, and it will be interesting to see how the leaders play to a different audience. It will also be interesting to see if Martin is challenged to explain his asinine remark that a cut in the GST would be regressive. I'll be out tomorrow but I hope to catch a replay later on CPAC. Then we can forget all about this stuff until after the holidays.
P.S. If they are debating in a studio without an audience, and fielding questions from Candians that were recorded on tape, why do they have to be in Vancouver?
posted by Jaymeister at 12/15/2005 10:50:00 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home