English Debate

[August1991]

Martin

He won at the end with his burst to Duceppe. He has passion. The truly sad thing is that the passion was entirely created. No one gets to be PM or President with any passion other than pure ambition. Martin, like many before him, knows how to appear to truly believe what he says when he says it. (Detail: what was with the pen in the hand?)

Layton

Rather than feel he has to butt in, he should just say what he believes. There are many people who like the NDP. More important, the NDP is English-Canada's real Liberal Party. Layton should have said that he is the inheritor of Chretien, or some such.

Harper

Made a good effort to be prime ministerial but wasn't presidential enough. He must stand above the crowd, repeating in his mind - "If I were prime minister, how would I respond."

Duceppe

Has two objectives, sort of realized. First, win some votes in allophone Montreal. Second, prepare the ground in English Canada for future negotiations. He should not get involved in details. (In reference to gay marriage, he should have just said that the issue is resolved in Quebec.)

----

I like this format, it reminds me of Putin answering chat questions. The journalist follow ups are key. (Despite the format, I admired Layton's spunk to take on Martin. Was I alone to see Martin's disdain as arrogance?)

The French debate made a point of having questions from across Canada.

In the English debate, it seemed to me that Ontario (and Quebec) were the great disappeared. Only Red Deer, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Moncton - or some such. No one from Mississauga.

[Clopin]

Pretty sure there was one from Mississauga.

[August1991]

Pretty sure there was one from Mississauga.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Any from Toronto? Yet Toronto is about 20% of English-Canada.

[Clopin]

Don't recall any from TO. Watching rerun though (leg injury... slow night).

Anyone catch the white wrist-band on Jack's right wrist?

looked like he came into the debate right after hitting the gym, ready to kick some prime ministerial ass. heheh

[Bakunin]

I disagree but i understand your opinion.

I dont think a leader can win a debate without being honest. Paul martin isn't as honest as the other leaders, his whole strategy was based on scaring ppl about the conservative and at the end scaring ppl about the bloc, and a classic, plug parizeau in the debate .

Of course it is entertaining, was it passion ? it can't be, the liberal are the only one to blame for their poor strategy and "astuces" to reintegrate quebec to the federation.

[ssiguy]

I disagree but i understand your opinion.

I dont think a leader can win a debate without being honest. Paul martin isn't as honest as the other leaders, his whole strategy was based on scaring ppl about the conservative and at the end scaring ppl about the bloc, and a classic, plug parizeau in the debate .

Of course it is entertaining, was it passion ? it can't be, the liberal are the only one to blame for their poor strategy and "astuces" to reintegrate quebec to the federation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I far prefered the format. You could actually hear them and their platforms. It also helped you to disect the men from the boys.

Layton was a definate boy. He was always interrupting, talking after the alloted time, kept telling everyone to vote NDP like we didn't know that is who he was and acted like a little motormouth. I was very disapointed.

Duceppe seemed like the most likeable one of the whole lot. I don't think I'll be voting for him though.

Harper can across well and had the best closing statement but that said, I think surprisingly, Martin did the best of the whole lot.

[Bakunin]

I think it was funny to hear Layton constantly referring to broadbend, it felt like if broadbend was still the NDP chief and the one who took all the decision...

As for duceppe he was as useless as harper and layton in the french debate. He knows his stuff, hes a good debater but its problably pointless to try to explain quebec point of vue in an english debate.

I think it was boring because i don't think the candidate really explain their point of view, they only said what people want to hear such as "we will fix healthcare" ,"we will build a childcare system" ,"we will fight corruption" bullshit and etc...

I mean i think there is nothing more boring than that :/

In fact the more i think of it, politics may not be boring but politicians are boring...

[Riverwind]

Martin, like many before him, knows how to appear to truly believe what he says when he says it.

More likely he really believes it - many people in Canada feel the same way, there is no reason to believe he would feel differently.

More important, the NDP is English-Canada's real Liberal Party.  Layton should have said that he is the inheritor of Chretien, or some such.

What's that supposed to mean? The Liberal party is a centrist party that is capable of adapting policies as they are needed without being trapped by some rigid ideology. The NDP on the federal level has nothing to offer but tired old policies from the 70s.

Made a good effort to be prime ministerial but wasn't presidential enough.  He must stand above the crowd, repeating in his mind - "If I were prime minister, how would I respond."

He has made a complete mess of the SSM issue - he should have just shut up about. I wish he could have summoned some passion for the country - why is it that only Liberals are willing to take on the PQ/BQ at an emotional level?

Second, prepare the ground in English Canada for future negotiations.  He should not get involved in details.

I found him particularily arrogant (more so than Martin). He claims to speak for all Quebequers when in fact barely 50% (on a good day) support his vision of an indepedent Quebec.

[August1991]

I dont think a leader can win a debate without being honest. Paul martin isn't as honest as the other leaders, his whole strategy was based on scaring ppl about the conservative and at the end scaring ppl about the bloc, and a classic, plug parizeau in the debate .

Of course it is entertaining, was it passion ? it can't be, the liberal are the only one to blame for their poor strategy and "astuces" to reintegrate quebec to the federation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bakunin, I meant that English Canada might pick up on the one moment of "passion" in the English debate when Martin said to Duceppe, "This is my country... "

The fact of the matter is that someone like Paul Martin has no passion. He is simply pure ambition. IME, no one gets to stand as PM at a lecturn like that without a form of ambition few of us ever see. The ambition is so strong that it is "quiet".

Martin's comment was manufactured. This is a more common form of deceit. To believe what one says when one says it. Actors pretend this, successful bureaucrats achieve it.

It appeared that Martin really believed what he said about Canada. (You know what? If Canada became the 51st State, Martin could speak with the same sincerity about the Gettysburg address... )

----

This thread depresses me. I thought the two debates were serious and enlightening. If I were buying a car...

Federal taxes amount to about $5000 per year on average. You can get a decent car with $400 per month car payments. Yet, I bet most Canadians spend more time choosing what car to drive than what politician to vote for.

Listening to the debates, I realized that politicians are fools to get involved in complex debates. They should reassure, point to their fingers and speak of plans and solutions. I suspect most voters look for a "good image".

To be sexist, women are looking for a potential protector and men are looking for a potential team-mate. Voters choose a fantasy because the stakes are so low - it's only a vote. When we vote, we get to choose the car we want if we had access to other people's money. Voting is like buying a lottery ticket.

Indeed, the actual (secret) vote is irrelevant. How we tell others we voted matters. To say one votes NDP is like saying one is vegetarian.

I would prefer a system in which each Canadian were given a sum to spend on each political party. I would like this sum to be somehow connected to taxes, and a tax refund. Then, politicians would not be so dishonest. People would want to know what happened to their $5000 vote.

[kimmy]

I agree that all of the leaders did well in some respects.

Layton, I think, is by far the most polished speaker. Confident, good body language, good vocal tone, assertive, he always seems to have the words on the tip of his tongue. He seems very bright and very well prepared. I disagree that it was bush-league of him to keep saying to vote NDP. I think it was probably something that might have connected with some segment of the electorate. When a lot of people are disenchanted with politics in general and Canada's party politics in particular, Layton was trying to keep punching at the message that people have the option and tell them that their vote relates directly to having this or that NDP policy get pushed in the house of commons. I thought it was a good message.

For Harper, I think more than attempting to beat up on Martin or whatever, it was most important to be positive-- both in the sense of not seeming like the scary angry guy he's been depicted as, and also in the sense of showing that he has policies and goals and isn't just running on the platform of trashing Martin's record. I think for the most part Harper did a good job of being positive in both senses.

For Duceppe, I though during last year's english debate he felt no pressure to play safe, avoid mistakes, win friends, or whatever, and just came out in a manner that seemed straightforward. I think a lot of people outside Quebec were quite impressed with him at the time because his directness seemed like such a refreshing change from all the evasiveness we'd come to expect. This time around, I didn't feel as though Duceppe was quite as appealing, and he struggled with English more than I though he did last time. But overall, I think his goal was just to pummel Martin more on Quebec issues, like the "fiscal imbalance" and the sponsorship scandal, and I think he was probably pretty successful at that.

For Martin, I thought much of his debate tonight was pretty forgettable. Wishy-washy answers to some of the tougher questions, and for much of the other stuff, his answers were easily dismissed by Layton ("more broken promises") and Duceppe ("just more talk"). But the one thing I think that most people will remember from tonight's debate was how passionate Martin seemed when he talked about national unity. When people think back on the debate tomorrow as they drink their coffee and read their paper, I expect that Martin's emotional challenge to Duceppe is probably what most of them will remember. And so grudgingly, I think Paul Martin was probably the winner.

-k

[scribblet]

From all accounts I've been reading Harper did very well, Martin seems to be getting more excited and worked up all the time. Layton - well, he never met a camera he didn't like, but he does speak well, reminds me of a Jack Russell ratter, nipping at the heels all the time. Personally, I think Giles D. always comes off the best in these debates. He's a good speaker and can get his point across, if he were not a separatist I could learn to like him.

[sharkman]

Duceppe really has a quality that connects and makes you want to believe him. Martin, for all his passion at the end, has no such believability for me. He always says and acts the part (for instance, as 'defender' of Canada against the Americans, he play acts as if they're massing at the border) for the media, and this was no different.

[normanchateau]

To some extent, I think Harper won last night's debate. Layton and Duceppe's frequent and aggressive negative attacks on Martin made Harper look moderate. Harper conveyed a relatively positive message leaving it to Layton and Duceppe to focus on the negative. To the extent that this was Harper's goal, he was successful.

[southerncomfort]

Duceppe really has a quality that connects and makes you want to believe him.  Martin, for all his passion at the end, has no such believability for me.  He always says and acts the part (for instance, as 'defender' of Canada against the Americans, he play acts as if they're massing at the border) for the media, and this was no different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Martin is starting to sound frenetic or frantic, I'm guessing most people can see through his hypobole. Good strategy on Harper's part to let Duceppe and Layton hammer on Martin while he gets is points and policy across. I think he's finally starting to be heard and understood that he is moderate and not the boogabooga he's painted by the CBC and others.

[pharmer]

For Harper, I think more than attempting to beat up on Martin or whatever, it was most important to be positive-- both in the sense of not seeming like the scary angry guy he's been depicted as, and also in the sense of showing that he has policies and goals and isn't just running on the platform of trashing Martin's record. I think for the most part Harper did a good job of being positive in both senses.

It was interesting to see, and listen, to Mr Harper speak on his policies which, for the most part, he stood alone on for many issues. Over the course of the debate he was successful at communiticating the party's policy on each issue. Personally, this seemed like the best strategy as most Canadians wanted to see, first hand, what Mr Harper and the conservatives have planned. He showed good restraint in attacking Mr Martin which was impressive from my perspective.

Mr. Duceppe always debates with passion and commitment to his cause and if only a federalist leader could show such emotion freely...

The closest probably being Layton, on many issues he spoke with conviction and confidence. When Mr Martin tries to show emotion it seems forced and unconvincing (bad acting).

[cybercoma]

Duceppe surprised me with his resolve for having a seperate Quebec state.

Layton must've been getting paid for each time he said, "Ed Broadbent". Seriously, how many times did he name drop?

Harper may have gone too much into the same-sex issue; however, I feel he was the only one who laid out clearly what his party's platform is and what they plan to do while in office.

Martin just stopped short of burning an American flag and declaring war against Quebec. Probably not the best approach when you're trying to make "the other guy" look extreme.

[captaincanuck]

Unfortunately, the general public is not as well informed as they should be, and anybody watching these debates must either assume everyone is lying, or take everything as pure fact. However, when the leaders disagree it leaves the general public either lost or turned off - an example of this was when Harper was first to respond to a question about wait times and family doctors (access to health care), he started his response by saying:

"There are 1.3 million Canadians who do not have a family doctor."

Layton was next to respond to the same question, and he also decided to spew "facts":

"There are 5 million Canadians who do not have a family doctor."

Now, given that the sentences were worded exactly the same, except for the number, its hard to suggest they may have been talking about different things. So that explanation is out. So where does that leave the public? Which number is it? the difference between the two numbers is huge, 1/30th of the country not having access to a family doctor vs. 1/6th?

It was certainly enough for me to do a double take and then let out a long groan. The only person who won in response to that question was Mr Duceppe. The first two responses made both the NDP and the Conservatives look foolish, both having such wildly varying figures, and both responses were designed to heap blame for the lack of funding upon the Liberals. Mr Duceppe just said that healthcare is a provincial responsibility and the federal parties should stay out of the details and simply provide funding.

Aside from that example, I found Layton to be the most endearing, he is generally the best speaker, and the most charming. Mr Duceppe comes across as being very smart, and if he had a complete mastery of the english language i think he would have won hands down last night. His responses seemed to be the least vague and the most direct.

Mr Harper bored me to tears. In trying to avoid looking like the facist bush-prodigy he is often portrayed as, he has mellowed out to the point of not being effective. No passion, no anger, no feeling, no anything other than the same line over and over and over (the line "our top priority" or "our first priority" was repeated regarding 4 different issues that i can count, how many firsts can you have?).

Mr Martin is in a bad situation no matter what he does. If he seems genuine and sincere, people think he is lying. If he comes across as being cold or unfeeling, well......its a no win for him. His answers were better than most, but unfortunately he has to fight a war on 2 fronts, putting him at a disadvantage. Harper doesnt seem to care about the bloc's seperatist agenda, or about keeping canada whole, and Duceppe doesnt care about the west (traditional conservative canada), but Martin has to take it from both, and contend with both, with Layton being an opportunist, picking up whats left over after Duceppe and Harper are done pulling Martin apart.

Im still unsure about the format. I think it dumbs it down a tad too much, i would have liked hearing Harpers response to Martins challenge in the first hour, and the other way around when Harper challenged Martin. But, again, for the general public this might be better. Just have to take each candidates "facts" with a grain of salt.

(if this post seems to jump around a lot, im sorry, im at work and writing in short bursts between phone calls)

[cybercoma]

One other thing I wanted to mention about Harper...

I think there are two things he should be jumping on and is not. The first thing is transfer payments to Ontario. This was a sore spot only 3 months ago. Dalton McGuinty made a lot of waves by calling out Martin and the federal Liberals on this issue. I think if Harper wants to gain ground in Ontario he should re-open that wound.

The other thing is Quebec and although it's unlikely that the Conservatives will get any seats out there, they should still be trying. Harper should've made it a point to talk about how the Conservatives want to give the provinces more responsibility over their own affairs. This could possibly buy them some votes in areas where people aren't comfortable with their particular Bloc candidate. You never know.

Just an idea.

[Vancouver King]

Duceppe really has a quality that connects and makes you want to believe him.  Martin, for all his passion at the end, has no such believability for me.  He always says and acts the part (for instance, as 'defender' of Canada against the Americans, he play acts as if they're massing at the border) for the media, and this was no different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is testimony to Liberal's desperation that Martin chose to unleash his scripted

emotional sequence at Duceppe during the English debate, not during the previous evenings French affair. Why no interest in capturing the hearts and minds of Quebecers? Obviously the staged patriotism was to woo wavering Ontario voters and not an attempt to impress the single minded electorate of his home province.

[err]

I noticed in the English language debate that Harper held his tongue on delivery of medicare.... In the French debate, he first said that he didn't want a two-tier health care system... Then Harper stated that he didn't care if the delivery was public or private, but that the government should pay for it....

Last night, in the English debuate, Harper refrained from advocating private health care though....

It is important to note that Harper did advocate private health care delivery, because this is something that we, as Canadians, should strive to prevent...

[Vancouver King]

I noticed in the English language debate that Harper held his tongue on delivery of medicare.... In the French debate, he first said that he didn't want a two-tier health care system... Then Harper stated that he didn't care if the delivery was public or private, but that the government should pay for it....

Last night, in the English debuate, Harper refrained from advocating private health care though....

It is important to note that Harper did advocate private health care delivery, because this is something that we, as Canadians, should strive to prevent...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How soon we forget. The stated reason why Layton pulled the plug on Martins govt was this: Martin would not back public health care with meaningful sanctions against provinces that allowed for-profit care. If you are in favor of the public health system don't vote CPC or Liberal.

[hiti]

"There are 1.3 million Canadians who do not have a family doctor."

Layton was next to respond to the same question, and he also decided to spew "facts":

"There are 5 million Canadians who do not have a family doctor."

Both statements are wrong as the "truth reporters" after the debates said that most of those millions when asked weren't even looking for a family doctor. I would be counted as one of these who don't have a family doctor and don't want one and am not looking.

As for Harper's "health guarantees" he don't care who pays for them, public monies or his American friends. As Manning and Harris keep pushing for private health care, so does Harper. But right now he is mum on his true agenda. Harper was President of the NCC who's main purpose was to dismantle our public health care system.

In Nov 2005, a high-powered anti-medicare conference, euphemistically named Saving Medicare -- Strategies and Solutions was held in Vancouver. Sponsored by the Canadian Independent Medical Clinics Association, it featured the Who's Who of medicare's foes from Canada, the U.S., Europe, Britain and New Zealand.

Guests included former Reform party leader Preston Manning, Liberal Senator Michael Kirby, scions of the right-wing Fraser Institute like Gordon Gibson and Sally Pipes and privatization gurus from England, Europe, New Zealand and Sweden. (doesn't Harper refer to the Kirby plan?)

The conference was billed by The Medical Post as "another pivotal moment in Canadian history." With registration fees between $1,154.53 and $1,282.93, it was pitched to a small, select elite: lawyers, doctors, economists, insurance executives, financial planners, investment advisors and top health and health policy bureaucrats. Significantly, the Toronto Star was the only major newspaper to cover the event, sending its national affairs writer, Tom Walkom. The guests spoke freely and Walkom reported them all.

Charles Auld, former head of General Healthcare Group, Britain's largest private hospital chain, dismissed medicare's supporters as "tree huggers." He advocated a two-pronged approach to selling private medicine: present it as a partnership designed to strengthen medicare and label all medicare supporters as reactionaries. "Draw the teeth from the unions," he said. "Paint them as the voice of vested interests." But it was Manning's proposal that topped them all with its detail and audacity. Canadians love compromise, he said, so portray privatization as a compromise. Advocates of two-tier health care are always painted as extremists while medicare's champions are seen as moderates. Turn the tables, he continued. Paint the extremist as the moderate and visa versa.

Manning's privatization prescription borrows a leaf straight from the U.S. right -- political action committees, or PACs, supposedly non-partisan citizen groups who actually front for special, and often highly-political, interests. Politicians won't move, he said, until the public pushes them. And pushing the public will require a lot of money.

Once the war for the hearts and minds of Canadians is over, Manning would then move to his penultimate goal: to dismantle medicare and turn all federal health dollars into new tax room for the provinces.

If Harper can't be believed on his "guarantee health service" he cannot be believed on anything he says.

In my mind he was the biggest loser of the debate. His constant smirk and his cool aloofness was picked up by the tv camera's and he could not hide his distain for Canada.

At least Paul Martin loves Canada and wished us all a Merry Christmas, ( with the rest all following his line)

[scribblet]

I noticed in the English language debate that Harper held his tongue on delivery of medicare.... In the French debate, he first said that he didn't want a two-tier health care system... Then Harper stated that he didn't care if the delivery was public or private, but that the government should pay for it....

Last night, in the English debuate, Harper refrained from advocating private health care though....

It is important to note that Harper did advocate private health care delivery, because this is something that we, as Canadians, should strive to prevent...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does it matter who delivers the health care, or who puts up the bricks and mortar, as long as you all get 'free heatth care'. Harper has made it clear that he supports our system and the Canada Health Act for people to say otherwise is simply wrong and dishonest.

Even Jack Layton doesn't care about the growth of private health care, he said yesterday that he is not concerned with private clinics as long as they do not receive public money. Why does anyone care as long as it doesn't come out of your pocket.

However, I guess we should close down all those private abortion clinics, the very successful Shouldice Surgery in Toronto, and any others providing a needed service.

[hiti]

What does it matter who delivers the health care, or who puts up the bricks and mortar, as long as you all get 'free heatth care'.    Harper has made it clear that he supports our system and the Canada Health Act  for people to say otherwise is simply wrong and dishonest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It matters who delivers our health care.

Multiple studies on health care published by the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of American Medical Association, McGill University, McMaster University and the COnsumers Association of Canada conclude that private-for -profit clinics raise health-care costs.

A University of Toronto study, and studies in Britian and New Zealand, suggest private-pay tier systems lead to longer wait times.

The US spends 15.3% of it's GDP on health care, Switzerland 10.9%, Germany 10.7%, Canada 9.7% and France 9.5%.

Health Care premiums in the US are expected to be $14,500 in the US in 2006. Nearly 45 million Americans do not have health insurance, or 16% of the population. Health-care costs are the No. 1 reason for personal bankruptcy.

Privatization affects quality as confirmed by documents recently released by the U.S. Health and Human Resource Administration with deterioration in health care noted in almost all components of quality, such as effectiveness and timeliness and almost all condition areas, such as cancer and diabetes. Most notable was a 32 % increase in the proportion of patients who left the country's emergency departments without being seen and a 20% increase in the proportion of elderly patients with pneumonia who failed to receive their initial antibiotic.

-Joe Anglin, founders and principal of Anglin Stewart Investment Group Inc. www.anglinstewart.com

[scribblet]

This isn't the U.S. there is no comparison, using the U.S. as a bogey man doen't cut it, just a scare tactic.

We have provinces cutting out services to save money, we in Ontario now have to pay for eye tests among other things that were once covered.

The Canada Health Act, at least as it has been interpreted, prevents co-payment, user fees etc. but surely in some cases these would be preferable to taking services and cutting them completely out of the public system.

Personally I believe it is my business how I wish to spend my hard earned $$$ and if I wish to buy an diagnostic service I should be able to, without having to go to Montreal to do it, or the U.S.