Vancouver Debate (Canadian)

Vancouver Debate:
The Big Winner: Gilles Duceppe
The Slight Gain/Neutral: Paul Martin
The Moderate Loss: Stephen Harper
The huge Loser: Jack Layton

Gilles sounded entirely reasonable throughout the entire debate. He spoke based on his party’s existence: a party for Quebec. He didn’t beat around the bush at all; in fact, he even stated that his party voted based on one thing only: is it good for Quebec?

Gilles sounded entirely natural. He didn’t ask for votes, nor did he repeatedly point numbers. Instead, he spoke confidently that his party is there for Quebec. He made little mention of the Sponsorship Inquiry. If he ran a non-nationalist party that could be voted for here, I’d vote for him. He came off the better on this one, and he didn’t have to keep slapping to do it.

Martin did all right, but missed on a few points. He clearly laid the smack on Harper on US relations, as well as the daycare system and economy. For all the mud, he did pretty well. However, he came off as on the defense, which is not something you want to do. His defenses were solid, though. He lost no ground on most of the issues, and totally wrecked the Conservatives on many things.

However, he made no mention that the Sponsorship wasn’t his fault; quite the error, I think. The Liberals need to distance themselves from the Chretian era, and paint their party as a new gig, under a responsible leader. If done right, the whole Gomery argument, which Harper loves would be pulled clean out from under him. Come on Martin, you need to attack!

Stephen on the other hand was far too aggressive. He dodged a lot of questions, preferring instead to bash the Liberals. This left him totally vulnerable for the light pokes Martin made. Harper sounded fabricated; often, he would say, “we will make a plan” (i.e. we don’t have a plan, but we’ll poke anyway!). It looked like Harper wasn’t really into the debate.

Harper also really screwed up on daycare and American policy. He came off as pure Bush-mini during the NAFTA phase, and didn’t do much better on the other American phase. Of course, he kept prodding the Liberals, until even Gilles came in with a veiled criticism. He just sounded like a spy or something, since he would say, “we’re best friends”. Martin did the right thing and cited the PRoC and RF as trading partners instead of the Americans.

The big loser in all this was Jack Layton. The whole time, he was begging for votes. “Help me”, “we’ll do it”, etc. was the mainstay of his whole debacle. He fumbled in traditionally powerful NDP turf, and participated in Martin-blasting. He combined Harper’s elements with desperation, to a rather sad effect. Layton sounded robotic the whole time; vote me, vote me.

Layton lost ground, but what really hurt him was not that he lost ground, rather that he lost it in vital areas. Healthcare really should’ve been his; why he didn’t actually outline anything rather than the usual rhetoric is baffling. The screen was set, too. Vancouver is a city that favours the NDP/Liberal side.

Final mark:

Gilles Duceppe (BQ): A
Paul Martin (Lib): B+
Stephen Harper (Con): C
Jack Layton (NDP): D-

You may want to crosspost this in the Canada forum.

And welcome to DU! :hi:

...however, Duceppe was playing with the house's money all night, and had nothing to gain or lose in participating. Reminded me of some cocky foreign ambassador who has diplomatic immunity and knows it. And I didn't think it too smart of him to ask all Quebecers "without exception" to vote for the Bloc. Lapse of humility, IMO. Layton was exactly as you suggested, a beggar, a guy in a 700 dollar suit standing on a street corner trying to sell pencils. Sanctimonious as fuck too. Martin did a good job, very good at times. Thing with Martin, which always seems to be the case, he never does an outstanding job presenting his case. Mulroney could do that, Trudeau could do it. Harper....smarmy, talking-points up the ying yang....definitely not the prime minister in waiting he likes to think he is....