So there was a debate. It was interesting. Actually, no, that's a complete lie. It was really, really boring. Except for when they yelled at each other. Stephen Harper didn't look directly at the camera or at the other leaders, stayed very calm, spoke in a patronizing tone, downright lied more than a few times, and said, "That's simply not true" a whole lot. Jack Layton was friendly, made some good points, called Harper out for having changed his ideals from when he first arrived in Ottawa, and basically turned out very well. Gilles Duceppe attacked Harper (his strategy this whole campaign), said a few things about Quebec that I could TELL the second came out of his mouth would be misinterpreted/misquoted, and got a bit angry which made his English a little bit sloppy. Michael Ignatieff did the best at bringing up youth issues, made some very insightful and incisive remarks about Harper's rule, and produced the most soundbites. Like he was basically speaking in soundbites. Very history prof. Obviously as a history student I approve, although he used a lot of what I call "essay words".
If there are awards, then Harper wins the one for cool-headedness. However he somehow managed to not really answer the questions put to him by the other leaders. He dismissed talk of his contempt charge, trust, and accountability, and shied away from talking about the Auditor General's report that he misquoted. He was also very dismissive and patronizing towards the other leaders, their platforms, and their points.
Jack Layton was definitely the most friendly and personable. Ignatieff called him "Jack" throughout the debate (maybe the other leaders did too but I didn't notice) and he somehow manage to seem more human and more normal than the other leaders. He also had a few good burns against each of the other leaders, especially Ignatieff's absence from the House of Commons and Harper's change of opinion since he came into power.
I personally love Gilles Duceppe, although he doesn't come across nearly as well in English as he does in French. I thought he seemed a little emotional in this debate--although I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, the idea that we should have unemotional and therefore impartial leaders is kind of a fallacy. He absolutely ATTACKED Stephen Harper with the 2004 coalition agreement, which shouldn't be a surprise for anyone who's been following him so far. Unfortunately Duceppe's comments about multiculturalism not working in the Quebec context were misinterpreted. It's important to remember that Quebec's model of integration is different from the model of multiculturalism in the rest of Canada, but IS NOT ASSIMILATION. (Sidenote: as the daughter of an immigrant I personally feel that integration works better than multiculturalism. The problem with multiculturalism is that everybody cares so much about what piece of the cultural mosaic you come from when you just consider yourself Canadian.)
Michael Ignatieff WINS on youth issues and WINS on women's issues and WINS on immigration issues and WINS on sound-bite production. But he did get a little bit passionate--as I mentioned before NOT A BAD THING. Also he didn't have a good response to Layton's accusation that he's absent a lot from the House of Commons, or any of the accusations that his platform has a lot of the same holes in it as the Conservative one. And while Ignatieff may have won on youth and women's issues, by being the only leader to actually bring them up (other than gang violence), he really didn't say that much on them.
Anyway. I wish they would have covered some different issues, or at least not always let each question turn into the same argument over and over again. I also would have loved to see them scream insults at each other but maybe that's just me.
Memes! Duceppe, Harper, Layton.
No comments:
Post a Comment