Who's fit to lead the nation

[TheRightWing]

Now I'll start off with my philosophical deference in this subject, this is not a question of qualification... This question comes up quite often especially in debates about american presidents... Bt i don't believe for myself that anyone is "qualified" to lead the fate of millions and arguably billions with their decisions...

So... I would say of the 3 (technically 4) candidates for the prime minister, harper is by far the best fit to lead the nation. He's been prime minister for 5 years, he's kept Canada in a strong position even after a global economic downturn that hit everyone pretty hard and for all his failings he's a politician who isn't perfect.

If not him, interestingly I'd pick Layton over Iggy (who biasedly I'd admit i dislike very much) and i certainly wouldn't pick a traitor of a nation a prime minister (Duceppe).

All in all.

Harper will remain unless there's some major scandal or revelation and in view he hopefully remains minority, while i think Harper should remain prime minister, i don't want to see a conservative majority either.

Your thoughts?

[TimG]

Harper will remain unless there's some major scandal or revelation and in view he hopefully remains minority, while i think Harper should remain prime minister, i don't want to see a conservative majority either.

Any minority will likely lead to a coalition (once they are elected there is nothing that can stop them from making a deal to take power). There will be no renewed Harper minority so if you want Harper to stay PM you better hope for a majority.

[BC_chick]

I don't think anyone else is going to win but Harper either. We are in the middle of another political shift where people are comfortable with the leadership that they know. It's interesting though that the support doesn't seem to be able to reach previous levels of 'comfortable leaders' like Chretien, Mulroney and Trudeau.

And I agree with the jist of what you're saying. The tide will not change until CPC does something drastic and even then the Liberals won't 'win' so much as the Conservatives will 'lose'. It's the same thing that happened in 06 with the sponsorship scandal, people didn't want to take chances on an unknown like Harper (vs. a former finance minister) until the Liberals lost the election for themselves.

That's the cycle of politics fortunately, the pendulum swings both ways or else we would have a oligarchy.

I do find it interesting though that you don't want a Conservative majority. I remeber I didn't want a Liberal majority in 06 because I felt they didn't deserve it. So a Liberal minority would have been a wake-up call for the Liberals without bringing on a new government with whom I can't relate on any issue.

The biggest gripe amongst 'right-wingers' is that Harper can't seem to do anything in a minority government. He hasn't had a chance to really show his true colours, it doesn't make sense that you wouldn't want to see him fully in control.

Why?

[betsy]

If the polls on friday or at least 2-3 days after the debate show no further movement....I'm betting a majority for Harper.

Harper did so well on that debate - downplayed by the media of course. All the other 3 (which were all fortunately bunch together as the 3 amigos - which is good subliminal message to viewers of a coalition) did all sorts of personal attacks on Harper. A lot of adhominem drive-by shooting from the three. Furthermore, they dug up and threw everything at Harper from Bush, to hidden agenda (such as re-opening of abortion and capital punishment), to rightwing Reformers among other things....which are really irrelevant in a debate whose focus should be on important things that truly matters.

I thought Ignatieff was going to launch a Browning poem when he started the passionate "flowers blooming" line...

Harper was the only one who refrained from personal attacks. He addressed the nation, and was very eloquent and articulate in his explanations.

He displayed true statemanship, befitting a leader of a nation.

[Bryan]

I thought Ignatieff was going to launch a Browning poem when he started the passionate "flowers blooming" line...

Ignatieff was quoting Chairman Mao. Not his brightest moment.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2011/04/12/17972976.html

[ba1614]

If the polls on friday or at least 2-3 days after the debate show no further movement....I'm betting a majority for Harper.

Harper did so well on that debate - downplayed by the media of course. All the other 3 (which were all fortunately bunch together as the 3 amigos - which is good subliminal message to viewers of a coalition) did all sorts of personal attacks on Harper. A lot of adhominem drive-by shooting from the three. Furthermore, they dug up and threw everything at Harper from Bush, to hidden agenda (such as re-opening of abortion and capital punishment), to rightwing Reformers among other things....which are really irrelevant in a debate whose focus should be on important things that truly matters.

I thought Ignatieff was going to launch a Browning poem when he started the passionate "flowers blooming" line...

Harper was the only one who refrained from personal attacks. He addressed the nation, and was very eloquent and articulate in his explanations.

He displayed true statemanship, befitting a leader of a nation.

Browning poem? That was Mao my friend.

[ba1614]

Ignatieff was quoting Chairman Mao. Not his brightest moment.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2011/04/12/17972976.html

oops, beat me to it.

[Keepitsimple]

If the polls on friday or at least 2-3 days after the debate show no further movement....I'm betting a majority for Harper.

Harper did so well on that debate - downplayed by the media of course. All the other 3 (which were all fortunately bunch together as the 3 amigos - which is good subliminal message to viewers of a coalition) did all sorts of personal attacks on Harper. A lot of adhominem drive-by shooting from the three. Furthermore, they dug up and threw everything at Harper from Bush, to hidden agenda (such as re-opening of abortion and capital punishment), to rightwing Reformers among other things....which are really irrelevant in a debate whose focus should be on important things that truly matters.

I thought Ignatieff was going to launch a Browning poem when he started the passionate "flowers blooming" line...

Harper was the only one who refrained from personal attacks. He addressed the nation, and was very eloquent and articulate in his explanations.

He displayed true statemanship, befitting a leader of a nation.

I thought Harper was very, very good as well - from beginning to end. Ignatieff didn't do badly but in the end was just one of the gang of three - trying to beat up on the government. Surprisingly, Ignatieff never went into his recent wooly statements about compassion and caring and all that Liberal warm and fuzzy stuff - the marshmallow and candy-cane Red Puptent.....he was all about attacking Harper. But at least he didn't look like a vampire.

[Moonbox]

Surprisingly, Ignatieff never went into his recent wooly statements about compassion and caring and all that Liberal warm and fuzzy stuff - the marshmallow and candy-cane Red Puptent.....he was all about attacking Harper. But at least he didn't look like a vampire.

I thought that Ignatieff did a pretty good job of bashing Harper and landed a good number of zingers on him. I also thought he was very well spoken. His problem was that he spent the entire time bashing Harper to the exclusion of all else and didn't make any effort to advance his own agenda. Jack Layton did this VERY well and Harper did it alright too.

If I were to guess about the results of the debate I think I would say that Layton won at the expense of the Liberals and Harper and Duceppe basically treaded water.

[William Ashley]

Harper is a selfish jerk who doesn't lead Canada, he uses it for his own objectives. Canada doesn't need a dictator, it needs representation and someone to follow those representatives wishes. The PM is suppose to represent the person with support of Parliament to run the government -- Harper for the last 5 years has fought every inch of the way against parliament... he clearly doesn't represent the ideal of just and supported government.

He's not a leader - he is an oppourtunist. A leader of a minority is not a leader if they don't have the majorities support. It is a clique, not government. It is non representative and undemocratic.

The Governor General can appoint anyone PM it doesn't make them any more representative of the people, or produce a mandate. He is a nutbar to insinuate this stuff.

Edited April 13, 2011 by William Ashley

[TheRightWing]

Harper is a selfish jerk who doesn't lead Canada, he uses it for his own objectives. Canada doesn't need a dictator, it needs representation and someone to follow those representatives wishes. The PM is suppose to represent the person with support of Parliament to run the government -- Harper for the last 5 years has fought every inch of the way against parliament... he clearly doesn't represent the ideal of just and supported government.

He's not a leader - he is an oppourtunist. A leader of a minority is not a leader if they don't have the majorities support. It is a clique, not government. It is non representative and undemocratic.

The Governor General can appoint anyone PM it doesn't make them any more representative of the people, or produce a mandate. He is a nutbar to insinuate this stuff.

Oh noes Harper is evil Harper is evil! /sarcasm

[cybercoma]

I don't know who is the best fit, but Harper is easily the worst fit. Any prime minister that refuses to answer questions from voters and the media is not fit. Any prime minister that's willing to prorogue parliament to avoid answering to the democratically elected representatives of the people is not fit to lead a nation. Add to that a prime minister that's willing to put into place unelected, crony senators to crush a bill that was passed by the elected House, that's not a prime minister that I see fit to run the country. To be honest, I would rather see a monkey wearing a fedora run the country than a prime minister that has such blatant disrespect for our political institutions. Harper is the least fit person for prime minister that this country has ever had.

[ToadBrother]

I thought that Ignatieff did a pretty good job of bashing Harper and landed a good number of zingers on him. I also thought he was very well spoken. His problem was that he spent the entire time bashing Harper to the exclusion of all else and didn't make any effort to advance his own agenda. Jack Layton did this VERY well and Harper did it alright too.

If I were to guess about the results of the debate I think I would say that Layton won at the expense of the Liberals and Harper and Duceppe basically treaded water.

If there is a winner, it was Layton, but since this debate was Harper's to lose, at the end of the day he held his own. Iggy did okay, but not good enough for me to declare him a winner. Duceppe actually came off kind of whiny to me this time around, I found him kind of tedious.

Frankly I don't think the debate is going to have any long-term influence. It was a pretty dull affair after the first half hour was done. In no small part because I think the questions were broad and stupid.

[Pliny]

I still don't know what Iggys plans are once he has seized power but power seems to be his main objective. Layton seemed a little relaxed knowing it is his last kick at the can and indiscriminately landed a few blows on Ignatieff.

I think the simple point Harper made that most people can see and make sense of is that raising taxes kills jobs and weakens an economy. The senseless "tax the rich" slogan is getting a bit hackneyed since the average income earner has realized he is not immune to taxation and knows what higher taxes means - he's a little poorer. The increased cost of higher taxation, if it is too unreasonable, means the rich just move - Which is why we need a one world government, so everyone gets taxed equally and there is no place to move...

In the end to answer Iggys question about who you can trust to lead the country. He didn't seem to be more than the barker at the red tent.

[Saipan]

i don't want to see a conservative majority either.

Little will be accomplished before we get majority.

[GostHacked]

Four elections in almost 8 years? Harper has had 4 no-confidence votes triggering 4 elections.

I don't trust Harper, toss Iggy out on his ass, and but a muzzle on Layton. Do we have anyone else we can maybe elect? Can't be worse than this current band of bandits.

[cybercoma]

I think the simple point Harper made that most people can see and make sense of is that raising taxes kills jobs and weakens an economy

This is not true. Lowering the taxes did nothing to create jobs. Analysts have come out and shown that most of the stimulus spending was banked by large companies. The thing you fail to mention is that they want to raise the tax levels to pre-2008 levels. They're not trying to cripple companies. In fact, both Layton and Ignatieff declared that they would not raise the corporate tax above the US tax rate, keeping us competitive. It's a lot more complicated than "raising taxes kill jobs".

[cybercoma]

Four elections in almost 8 years? Harper has had 4 no-confidence votes triggering 4 elections.

I don't trust Harper, toss Iggy out on his ass, and but a muzzle on Layton. Do we have anyone else we can maybe elect? Can't be worse than this current band of bandits.

We don't elect a Prime Minister. The Prime Minister isn't even our head of state. It's time to focus on the parties and their policies and not the person claiming to be the party.

[Saipan]

Four elections in almost 8 years? Harper has had 4 no-confidence votes triggering 4 elections.

Because liberals are sore losers. They actually believe they are "the natural party", entitled to govern.

Can't be worse than this current band of bandits.

Way worse. If we got Chretien again.

[blueblood]

This is not true. Lowering the taxes did nothing to create jobs. Analysts have come out and shown that most of the stimulus spending was banked by large companies. The thing you fail to mention is that they want to raise the tax levels to pre-2008 levels. They're not trying to cripple companies. In fact, both Layton and Ignatieff declared that they would not raise the corporate tax above the US tax rate, keeping us competitive. It's a lot more complicated than "raising taxes kill jobs".

And the declining unemployment rate is a figment of my imagination

[GostHacked]

We don't elect a Prime Minister. The Prime Minister isn't even our head of state. It's time to focus on the parties and their policies and not the person claiming to be the party.

True we don't get to elect the Prime Minister. But the leader of the party is the one we will eventually 'elect' in because of the party we chose. To bad we can't really focus on the rest of the party and what they do.

But what we need to do is throw the vote. Don't vote liberal, conservative, ndp, bq, .... what's left?

[g_bambino]

Four elections in almost 8 years? Harper has had 4 no-confidence votes triggering 4 elections.

What? Harper has only been prime minister since 2006; that's five years, not eight. This is now the second election since he was appointed PM, and the only one triggered by a vote of non-confidence.

[Smallc]

If I were to guess about the results of the debate I think I would say that Layton won at the expense of the Liberals and Harper and Duceppe basically treaded water.

Canadians disagreed with you. Harper won:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/decision-canada/Four+debate+viewers+think+Harper+poll/4605023/story.html

[ToadBrother]

Canadians disagreed with you. Harper won:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/decision-canada/Four+debate+viewers+think+Harper+poll/4605023/story.html

Um, the very title of the article says "4 in 10 debate viewers think Harper won".

Last time I checked, 40% isn't a majority. You can say a plurality of Canadians disagree, but you can't use Canadians as a whole, because apparently 6 in 10 viewers thought Harper didn't win.

Frankly, I don't think anyone really won in the sense that there were any killing blows. It was about as pointless a debate as I ever saw.

[Smallc]

Um, the very title of the article says "4 in 10 debate viewers think Harper won".

He got better results than everyone else, and his image was improved by the results. He won the debate. A plurality of Canadians seem to think so, more than the number that thought any other won. You're playing with semantics, even though, technically, you're right - I was wrong in my description.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Smallc