Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

The Commons: Take your pick

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, April 12, 2011 10:35pm - 242 Comments

First and foremost, apologies are probably due to Robert from Newmarket, Veselka from Mississauga, Sam from Mount Pearl, Jade from Montreal, and Patti from New Glasgow—the Average Canadians tasked with leading this debate. Each asked good, worthy questions. All were more or less ignored after about 30 seconds of the ensuing discussion. Only Len from Gibsons, who asked about justice policy, seemed to receive something like a proper and full statement of positions—an odd twist given how insipid the discussion of crime is often made to be.

So perhaps Len is to be declared the winner of this first debate of the 41st general election.

Alas, you cannot vote for Len. You must pick—in at least an existential sense—one of these men. So what might you have learned from these two hours? More specifically, what might you have seen of these men?

Mr. Duceppe was the mumbling, sarcastic troublemaker in the corner. He delighted in reminding Mr. Harper of their discussions in 2004 about cooperating to replace Paul Martin’s government. He gripped both sides of the lectern, begged incredulity at every opportunity and swaggered with a certain take-it-or-leave-it air.

Mr. Layton was smiling and self-righteous, eager to scold Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Harper, well-stocked with a choice of one-liners to ensure he was not left out of the late night newscasts. Asking Mr. Harper what had become of him—”You’ve become what you used to oppose. What happened to you?”—he made a convincing show of seeming truly saddened.

Mr. Ignatieff began like a man who had been waiting a long while for this moment. After months of attack ads, after months of seething at Mr. Harper from the left side of the House, Mr. Ignatieff had his first opportunity on the national stage in prime time to say what he thought needed to be said and refute what he felt needed refutation. And with so much to say, he could barely figure out at first where to start. So at the outset he hesitated and stumbled and struggled to get his words out. He settled slightly as he went, but he was still the most eager for a fight, moving around in his spot, gesturing with his fists, staring down Mr. Harper with that impressive brow. He dared at one point to put his right hand on his hip. Nationwide, image consultants screamed in unison at their television screens.

Mr. Harper sought apparently to look past his counterparts. When answering questions, he spoke directly to the camera in front of him, directly to the people he hopes will be more forgiving. He adopted a pleading tone, begging for reasonableness. He only passingly made reference to the dreaded coalition he otherwise laments at every opportunity. He never once voiced his party’s frequent questioning of Mr. Ignatieff’s patriotism.

Perhaps what distinguished him most was his gall. It is perhaps what most distinguishes his entire time in power—a willingness to stand in his place and dare his opponents to call him on it.

He lamented that different versions of the Auditor General’s report were circulating around Ottawa, never minding that his own side is the source for one of those drafts. He reported that the Canadian Labour Congress supported his government’s most recent budget, never minding that the CLC has deemed such claims “misleading.” He managed to lament for partisan bickering without descending into giggles. He dabbled in subjective constitutional theory, claiming that only the party that wins the most seats gets to govern, despite his not seeming to have believed this until he became prime minister. (When Mr. Ignatieff dared not agree with him entirely, Mr. Harper’s backroom operatives screamed that here was proof of a coalition.)

If Mr. Harper slipped once it was in reply to a list of democratic abuses alleged by Mr. Ignatieff. “I don’t accept the truth of these attacks,” Mr. Harper pleaded.

Indeed.

The contempt of which his government was found guilty three weeks ago was referred to here as “so-called”— a simple matter of Mr. Harper having fewer votes in the House of Commons than the opposition parties. All the more reason, apparently, to give him a majority.

Parliament, Mr. Harper said at one point, was not a court of law. In fact, and in fairness to Mr. Harper, it is not. It is actually more powerful than that. The only power higher is the direct vote of the people. Indeed, Mr. Harper sought here to suggest that all of it was now placed before the population for judgment.

“We are asking Canadians to make a decision,” he said.

This was the most indisputable point made all evening. So over to you Robert, Veselka, Sam, Jade, Patti and Len.

Bookmark and Share
  • Olivier

    So Ignatieff blew it eh?

    Darn

    • Atchison

      I was surprised at how devasting Layton's attacks on Ignatieff were. Iggy seemed almost shocked as his head frantically shook from side to side almost as if Layton had physically slapped him. I have to say Layton did very well.

      • jonatwitan

        Yep. Layton's attack on Ignatieff's attendance in the HoC was easily the most devastating of the night. Iggy's response: "How dare you lecture me, young man!".

    • AEK

      Iggy was getting pretty theatrical at times, almost losing his temper, constant whining and physical wriggling.

      He looked un-prime-ministerial, a somewhat unstable, ranting idealogue.

      At times, he seemed only his next breath away from his own Howard Dean moment ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc ) except in his own bitter, cynical way.

      Sorry Liberals, I don't want Ignatieff as my Prime Minister.

  • KeithBram

    “I don’t accept the truth of these attacks”

    I like that; he doesn't deny the claims are truthful; he merely says he refuses to accept the truth.

    • Jan

      Harper is the truth artbiter.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Bottom line: I don't think this debate changed the election dynamic one bit.

    • chet.999@gmail.com

      I don't know about that Dennis. Vis Harper and the Libs, maybe not, but vis Layton and the Libs perhaps so. Layton looked far more the standard bearer for a movement from the left than did Iggy, and Layton landed some real haymakers on him.

      This also seems to be the emerging consensus.

      • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

        It's an interesting point. The only thing that has made this election's result an uncertainty is bleeding of NDP support to the Liberal party. Did this debate change that? If it did, then a Conservative majority might well be in sight.

        By the way, as I'm typing this, Nanos on CTV is saying that Harper survived the debate unscathed, Layton impressed, and Iggy fell short of expectations – as low as they were.

        Personally, I thought Layton was often flip and, as usual, came across as a used car salesman. Iggy's tone and body language were awkward. Harper was cool and above the fray. Duceppe was oddly anxious and desperate – for a change.

    • Not Stephen Colbert

      This is probably true. A lot of people seem convinced that everyone else will react to it the way they themselves do, but that's just not likely to happen, especially when all the leaders pretty much behaved as they always do. So, for example, people like you might see Harper's performance as calm and statesmanlike, whereas people like me will see it as an infuriating ball of dismissive arrogance and transparent lies, but none of us are going to change our minds, because if we were going to we probably would have done so a long time ago when he was already acting more or less exactly like he did tonight. Ditto for the other leaders.

      • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

        people like you might see Harper's performance as calm and statesmanlike, whereas people like me will see it as an infuriating ball of dismissive arrogance and transparent lies

        But that's just it. Only the Harper haters already see Harper in that light. Near majority levels of voters have not for a now unprecedented period of time for Conservatives. And, in my opinion, tonight's debate only cemented this dynamic for Harper.

        This election is about whether or not people want to end the partisan brinkmanship with a Harper majority. If Harper doesn't capture own dynamic after this debate, he never will.

        • ajb

          "Near majority levels?" 38 isn't awfully near a majority.
          Actually, that brings up a question I have for Stephen Harper: given his oft-repeated claim that the choice in this election is between a Tory majority and a coalition, does that mean that he will refuse to form a minority government should he fail to receive a parliamentary majority?

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Most polls I see have had the Tories at about 40% for at least a month now. When has that ever happened before? And I suspect Harper will form the government if he wins the most votes, but as Iggy said in the debate last night, he'll only let him "try", which appears to be code for toppling Harper and forming some kind of a coalition shortly thereafter.

        • Not Stephen Colbert

          But that's just it. Only the Harper haters already see Harper in that light.

          And only the Harper lovers don't, and here we are right back where we started. My point here isn't about which of us is right; it's just that there's no reason why any of us would change our minds about it after tonight, since what we saw tonight is pretty much exactly what we've been seeing for years now. I suspect that the status quo won tonight–which is good for Harper, but not as good as he'd like.

          • Not Stephen Colbert

            And for the record, I was very disappointed in all four leaders tonight, not just Harper. I just focused on Harper because I'm a jerk and I like annoying you.

        • http://twitter.com/pekoe_j @pekoe_j

          "Only the Harper haters already see Harper in that light." Dennis, I think you should re-read what Not Stephen Colbert said….

          Also, it is important to remember that over half of the country isn't even showing up to cast their vote. So slow down there before you declare Harper Mr. Charisma.

      • chet

        None of us will, to be sure. But we are partisans. The question is will it move the independent/apolitical voters. My reading was that Layton seemed to have "the left" to his own. Duceppe looked unhappy to be there (not surprising after all it's the French debate that's his thing) and as for Iggy? Putting aside his delivery (which seemed off putting, angry and at times contemptable towards others), it was hard to discern any clear message for the country.

        • Not Stephen Colbert

          But my point is that there was nothing at all that would be likely to move the independents (whose numbers include me, BTW). How did Harper perform? The same way he always does. How did Ignatieff do? Same as always. Layton? The same. Duceppe? Pretty much the same, except perhaps drunker. How is any of that going to convince anyone to move in any direction?

        • John_Edgar

          Well I'm non-partisan and watching them confirmed my dislike of them all. In a sense that's not fair, but they've so clearly been coached not to say anything that might lose them votes that they, Harper and Ignatieff in particular, said nothing at all. Honestly I find it hard to believe that anyone could reasonably make a decision who to vote for by watching the debate*.

          *And of course they shouldn't they should read the party platforms.
          Footnote1 – I didn't watch the whole thing as I had a prior engagement
          Footnote2 – my 15 year old son was very unimpressed with any of them

  • Leo

    "He lamented that different versions of the Auditor General’s report were circulating around Ottawa"

    Yes, and Iggy tried his best to make it look like it was Harper that was withholding the report, not the AG – nice try but didn't quite fly.

    • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

      That's a good point. Iggy specifically called upon Harper to have the report released. If he really cared about the niceties of Parliamentary democracy, as he claims, then he would have known that the prime minister has no control over the tabling of the AG report. That line was a whopper.

      • OriginalEmily1

        Except Harper has the report.

        • DPT

          prove it.

          • OriginalEmily1

            The PM gets the report first.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            You Liberals now say you respect Parliament, but obviously not on the AG report. Harper can't release anything. You either know that, or you're ignorant. And desperate. Which is it?

          • Andrew (not PorC)

            They already released the second draft.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            So? They have no power to release the final draft. Are some of you simply ignorant of this fact? Or just desperate to score hypocritical points against a prime minister you can't knock down?

          • OriginalEmily1

            a) not a Liberal

            b) the speaker says it's up to the AG

            c) Harper has a copy.

            d) dilute your koolaid.

          • Leo

            That was such a blatant spin by Iggy, playing on people's ignorance, that it proves he has become a product of his Liberal handlers.

          • Jameshalifax

            Hmmm…couple new polls out.

            One has Harper's folks 21 points ahead…

            Ekos has conservatives at 6 points ahead.

            I think I'll wait til May 2nd before I take any polls seriously.

    • Trudeau lover

      Yeah, American Iggo was demanding the PM break the law… Silly Adscammer.

  • Ethos

    That anyone could stand up in front of the people today and claim that trickle down economics actually works has to be the most offensive thing I 'd seen in that debate. As if making money wasn't the entire point of business, and if you give them more profits they will turn around and raise wages or hire more employees out of charity.

    Giving tax breaks to corporations when you already have among the most competitive tax rates in the world is absurd. Its not going to attract new businesses to Canada, and its not going to create new jobs… why? Because we have one of the weakest domestic markets in the world. They won't come here because they can't sell here, and the won't hire and build more here for the same reason.

    If you give money to the people it will all go into businesses revenue streams, but it actually makes them work to get it. When giving corporate tax breaks the only one being 'trickled' on, is the workers and its not money thats being trickled on them.

    • Ethos

      And as was mentioned in the debate you can reduce taxes on the businesses that actually matter, and drive this economy, without reducing taxes on the corporations that will just get out of paying anyway by sleight of hand accounting.

    • Mike T.

      In many ways, harper has been spending the last five years testing the gullibility of his supporters.

    • Blech

      Heterosexuals don't use the term "offensive" in that context. We typically don't get offended by much, least of all dry economic theory.

      I'm just sayin'.

      • Jan

        Who says – you the democrat?

      • Thwim

        The hell? Where'd the heterosexual bit come from? Just thought you'd throw some bigotry in there for the hell of it?

        • modster99

          nicely said. :)

      • harebell

        So that's where the idiot son went.

      • Andrew (not PorC)

        You stay classy.

    • Marv

      Amen!

  • hosertohoosier

    I like how every immediate post-debate newspaper headline predictably says the same thing: "no knockout blow, not clear who won". Hedging your bets till the "who won" polls come out, are we guys?

  • Pilgrim

    So if Layton slays Iggy, I guess that means more Harper gov't. Thanks a lot.

  • OriginalEmily1

    Parliament IS a court of law…in fact it's the highest court in the country.

    • Pilgrim

      Agreed. It's the court that makes the laws.

    • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

      Is Jack Layton the bailiff?

      • OriginalEmily1

        ??? He's one of the chief lawmakers.

    • Blech

      Then why did Chretien get a supreme court reference on gay marriage? because parliament is NOT supreme in Canada, the unelected supreme court is. That 's different from UK and other Commonwealth countries btw, where parliament really is supreme. If parliament were supreme we would still have an abortion law in this country; we don't because the unelected supreme court ixnayed it.

      We clear? parliament is not a court and if it were it would be subordinate to supreme court.

      • OriginalEmily1

        Parliament makes the laws…the Supreme court only interprets them when an individual question comes up, and they do so in light of all previous decisions because that's their job.

        If Parliament so chooses, it can make or reverse any law…and the court has to follow it's lead.

        • modster99

          . . or deem the law unconstitutional, and throw it out. SC highest court in the land.
          Arguing about different things here – parliament is not a court.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Parliament is the highest court in the land.

          • sourstud

            Executive, Legislative, and Judicial make up the government. Legislative is not Judicial. Parliament is not a court.

          • OriginalEmily1

            I guess you don't remember when people had to go through Parliament to get a divorce eh?

            Parliament makes the laws…they can also subpoena…and they can punish

          • modster99

            nope – Emily has said it numerous time, so it must be true. This is how the left works – reality is an abstract that only needs be ignored.

          • SocialLiberal

            Are you implying the court wrote the constitution?

          • modster99

            That's the point – different levels of gov't. Courts don't write laws, and parliament isn't a court. It is called a division of powers.

      • harebell

        hmm how can I say this… you are wrong.
        That seems right.

    • hosertohoosier

      No, it isn't, and any right-thinking liberal democrat should know better. Parliament is an important institution, but it is not a court. Indeed, we need for courts to be above parliament in order to defend individual rights from the tyranny of the majority. Do you really think a simple majority vote should be enough to reverse fundamental human rights, enshrined in the charter? I didn't think so.

      • Blech

        "Do you really think a simple majority vote should be enough to reverse fundamental human rights, enshrined in the charter?"

        Absolutely, anthing less is repugnant to the concept of democracy. The thing is, who decides what is a "fundamental human right"? Unelected courts? What if they're just wrong? For example, zero jurisdictions outside of Canada have adopted Abella's "pay equity" as a fundamental right and it has been a "right" in Canada for many years now. Maybe she just got it wrong?

        Only a majority can decide what is and isn't a right. Rights, ultimately, are arbitrary. To allow a "vanguard" or small # to decide what is a right is tyranny, by definition. Majorities, by definition, cannot be tyrannies. You're either a democrat or you are not, and you clearly are not, I am.

        • Jan

          So individuals don't have rights like freedom of speech? Are you sure you've thought this through?

          • Blech

            Refer to The Rule Of So: any argument beginning with the word so generally sucks.

            Who decides what is a right? God? No. A small minority of unelected judges? No. A majority? Yep, that's democracy baby. Anything else is tyranny, undemocratic, and a violation of human rights.

          • Jan

            So you do believe in human rights? And how are they to be guaranteed? (put your finger over the so if you don't like it.

          • Blech

            You didn't answer the funamental question: who decides what is a right? You? No.

            We just had an Ontario court strike down Canada's law on marijuana, passed by the peoples' legislature. A tiny elite class imposing their freak values on the rest of Canada, even going so far as to veto the laws of their duly elected reps.

            I'll tell you what a human right is: democracy. The right of the people to pass laws and not have extremist freakazoid unelected judges veto those laws. As Pierre Trudeau once said : "And if we don't live in a democracy, then let the revolution begin!"

          • Andrew (not PorC)

            I think you have a distorted view of what the court does. They interpret the law. Laws can always be changed to reverse court decisions. It might require a constitutional amendment, but it can be done.

        • OriginalEmily1

          If all of parliament decided to revoke a right…the people could stop them.

          However all of parliament never would…they've infringed on a couple…but cannot revoke

          Majorities do not decide rights….or we'd still have slavery

          • Thwim

            Actually, they do. And a majority of people decided we shouldn't have slavery. Believed in that concept so firmly that they fought and died for it, and there were more of them willing to fight and die for the right of all people to be free than were willing to do so for the right of people to own slaves.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Um…no. Britain banned it throughout the empire.

            What country are you in??

          • Thwim

            Think why that might be. Might it have something to do with it being what a majority of the people wanted?

            Hmmm…

          • OriginalEmily1

            No. It was a movement….what we call a 'special interest group' now…same way most other things have happened. The 'majority' of people didn't get asked, nor did the majority own slaves.

            MLK had the civil rights movement….and it took his death to get much of it accomplished….but that certainly hasn't eliminated racism in the US.

          • Thwim

            I submit to you that if more people had wanted slavery than not, we'd still have it.

            For racism, more people don't want it than do, so we have the right to be free from racism. Does that mean we *are* free from racism? Of course not. Simply because society has decided upon a right doesn't mean that decision is never violated.

          • OriginalEmily1

            "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." – Margaret Mead.

          • Thwim

            Yes. By convincing the majority.

          • OriginalEmily1

            No, the majority never vote on these things.

          • Thwim

            Don't confuse laws with rights.

            Society never formally votes on rights, we just decide them, whether consciously or unconsciously. Legislation and votes may follow, but certainly don't always, and sometimes legislation tries to define rights, but if the majority doesn't agree, as with prohibition, it is the law that fails, not the decision of society.

            Society shifts because the opinions of the majority shift. If not in favor of the idea, at least far enough away from opposition to it that not enough people will fight to keep it.

          • OriginalEmily1

            'Society never formally votes on rights, we just decide them, whether consciously or unconsciously'

            Oh I see. Sorry, I was unaware you were counting on magic.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Exactly.

        • lenny

          "…anthing less is repugnant to the concept of democracy."

          We had a vote and decided we're taking possession of your house to be used for neighbourhood bar mitzvahs, bbqs, badminton tournaments, etc.
          You've got 2 days to pack your things (we're keeping the appliances) and get out.
          Failure to comply will be considered repugnant to the concept of democracy.

          Yours truly,
          The Neighbours

          • Blech

            Oh hi neighbours, you'll note that the Charter only pertains to that which is proscribed by law, so this example, sadly, doesn't fly. Additionally, your example was found to be excessively flamboyant and hysterical by the Peoples' Committee For Accountability and you've been asked to leave the country, we can't have anti-democratic freaks like you destabilizing our democracy. Peace the eff out, b, and best of luck in North Korea.

          • lenny

            "…the Charter only pertains to that which is proscribed by law."

            No.

          • Thwim

            I see you've been watching what's going on in Iraq.

      • OriginalEmily1

        Yes, my dear it is…the highest court in the land, and the direct voice of all the people.

        Parliament could indeed change the constitution…and the only thing higher that could stop that….is the people

        PS…I am not a liberal democrat…that was your first mistake

        • Blech

          "Parliament could indeed change the constitution…"

          Could you stop bothering the adults sweetie? When I was ten I knew that parliament cannot change the constitution, no excuse for you not to know that.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Actually they can, and have done so.

            Try to keep up.

          • harebell

            holy crap Em
            As an immigrant I actually passed an exam on this, maybe the home grown Canadian needs to do likewise before they can vote. Clearly there is a lot of ignorance involved in decision making nowadays.
            Tard doesn't quite cut it.
            Stay strong.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Thank you!

            I think some of them are from the Craig's list rent-a-mouth crowd…and maybe some are 'just visiting' from the US

            I can't think of any other reason for this kind of ignorance…so that's my best guess.

          • SocialLiberal

            Civics in highschool isn't mandatory. It should be.

        • Curt

          10 provinces might have a say in that assumption Emily.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Actually it's 7….and I believe…at least the last time I looked….that they had people

          • hosertohoosier

            The amendment formula depends upon the part of the constitution being changed.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Yes, and you can discuss the niceties all you want….but the constitution can, and has been, changed.

          • Blech

            Certain sections, such as that pertaining to mobility rights, cannot be overridden by notwithstanding clause, so we see how you are even more wrong,

          • SocialLiberal

            Unless they change the whole document. Just stop anonymous coward.

          • OriginalEmily1

            It has nothing to do with the notwithstanding clause.

      • harebell

        Parliament is a court.
        Parliament in the UK tried, convicted and executed a king.
        The Canadian Parliament grew out of Common law that oversaw this process.
        Parliament enacted the charter, the law courts enforce it. Parliament could overturn or amend it tomorrow.

        • ColdStanding

          Only the most broad (sloppy) reading of the definition of court would call parliament a species of court. The Crown convenes parliament to advise the Crown, but this isn't anything like a monarch holding court or the sitting of the courts. It might have been historically, but in point of law or fact is certainly is not now.
          A court was set up at the behest of the British parliament, the High Court of Justice, for the trial of Charles I, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Charles_I, so he was not tried in parliament.
          The Canadian parliament did not grow out of the Common law, Canadian Jurisprudence grew out of the Common Law. Canadian parliament didn't grow out of anything. It was brought into existence by an act of the British parliament. One day it wasn't there, the next day it was. It shares heritage with the Mother Parliament, but that is an entirely different matter.
          The Crown enacted the Charter when it gave royal assent. It was an act of parliament, yes, that was enacted by the Crown. The parliament can not overturn or amend it tomorrow, as the parliament deals mostly with statutory law. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is significantly more resistant to such amendments.

      • ColdStanding

        Quoting from this document: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentV…

        In an vain attempt to clarify if the Canadian Parliament is construed as a court:
        "The extensive power to punish contempts has a judicial flavour and origin in the United Kingdom, yet in reality the English Parliament in the twentieth century is not a court."

        Also per the document: "It is also true that, in the medieval period, the English Parliament had a judicial role, where Parliament was seen primarily as a court of justice, the High Court of Parliament, a court of last resort consisting of the King and the lords temporal. [243] This role has all but disappeared in the United Kingdom. [244] The Canadian Parliament has never had a judicial role. [245]"

  • Anna

    The very best part of the debate was when Jack Layton attacked Iggy with the fact that he had been absent for 135 days of the year and had missed voting on 70% of the bills Mr. Harrper tried to put through. Mr. Layton also stated that if Iggy was trying to be Prime Minister, he should then start showing up for work. Priceless
    Iggy looked like he had a mouth full of sh– and could not talk.
    Being attached by Layton, put Iggy in place and shut him up for a while.

    Way to go Mr. Layton. It is about time someone put him in place.

    • OriginalEmily1

      You've just been convinced there is no coalition….and you didn't even see it coming. LOL

      • Atomic Walrus

        No – you just saw evidence that the NDP isn't going to just roll over and die for the Liberals.

        • OriginalEmily1

          Which, golly gee, means the entire country just saw there is no coalition.

    • Jan

      Mansbridge says the number Layton used was wrong. If you're going to that kind of attack you better be accurate.

    • SocialLiberal

      Why do you hate on that guy so much? Is it his policies? Or do you just not like how he looks/stands.

      • Mummer2

        remember Dion and the Poopin Puffin!?….they "hate" on anyone who isn't like them…..or Liberal

  • OriginalEmily1

    I see the Con spin team is out in full force….LOL

    Although who they think they'll convince on here is anybody's guess.

    G&M viewers btw put Iggy at 61%, and Harper at 25%

    • chet

      I encourage the Liberal party to follow the opinions of partisan Liberals who swarm the G and M site.

      An insulated echo chamber is just what Iggy needs right now. "Bravo Iggy, you were flawless!!!"

      • OriginalEmily1

        Well then why aren't you on Blogging Tories?

        All koolaid drinkers over there…you'd fit right in.

        • Blech

          I take back all the accusations of you being shamelessly partisan Wherry. At least you concede the obvious: Iggy didn't do very well in this debate. He didn't flop, he was just…flat.

          Sadly, many media outlets are reporting that he won the debate, or rather, more sneakily, are running articles along the lines of "group of 18 year olds watching debate declare Ignatieff winner". Ignatieff's "Riot Grrrrrl" gang of groupies over at the CBC – Kady, Barton, and the rest – are making excuses left and right for his performance, as one might expect.

          So kudos, brother, at least this one time you reported what happened.

          • sammmie

            Really? most analysts pointed out on CTV and CBC that the PM won.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Your personal Con belief is irrelevant….what matters is the opinion of the rest of the audience….the voters.

            And Wherry didn't anything about Iggy not doing well. He said Harper had a lot of gall though.

          • Blech

            What matters is that Harper is going to win a third consecutive election, likely a majority. Sucks to be you sweetie.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Well since I've said Harper getting in with a smaller minority would likely be the best thing for the country….you must have confused me with someone else.

            Here's a hint though….it doesn't do your party any good to talk like you're an 8 year old in a schoolyard. It sounds like you're trying to force something on people that they don't want. Therein lies the makings of dictatorship.

          • Blech

            Oh, right, raving about dictatorships is really working for you sweetie. Enjoy 4 more years of losing, loser.

          • OriginalEmily1

            I think you've played the 'drinking game' for too long….get some sleep.

          • hosertohoosier

            Oh my God, when Ignatieff talked about democracy, I just melted. Finally he is talking about an issue that will resonate with ordinary Canadians like me. When I look for a government, I don't want a lot of fancy policies or economic statistics. At the end of the day, what I want is a PM with a well-developed abstract sense of the meaning of democracy. Isiah Berlin lectures in every pot!

          • OriginalEmily1

            Gosh…and to think people died for that abstract idea.

          • hosertohoosier

            Sure, and air is important too. If we lack oxygen, we die. The thing is that our access to oxygen, and the survival of our democracy do not face tangible threats.

            Do you honestly think Canadian democracy is under threat, should Harper retain power or win a majority? If you were Ignatieff, is that really the issue you would run on? Because I would say that in the aftermath of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, there are probably other things people are more likely to care about – like their jobs, like whether Canada is in a housing bubble, and like the 56 billion dollar deficit.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Actually, our democracy faces a real and present danger….and if you don't realize that, you're part of that danger.

            Are people more concerned about jobs and houses than democracy?

            Well, they were in Germany, and look what happened.

          • Trudeau lover

            Germany? You mean when that national Socialist Hitler was running the show? He's the guy that fancy pants Trudeau admired so much right?

          • OriginalEmily1

            No, and no.

          • Thwim

            I honestly do believe that Canadian democracy will be under threat should Harper retain power or win a majority, yes. He's shown that he's entirely willing to use every loophole in the book to get what he wants, no matter what anybody else wants.

            With a majority, his ability to do this becomes all the greater. That's not democracy. Democracy is supposed to be about what we, the collective we, want. Not just one guy.

          • lenny

            Well, if you don't want any statistics, Harper is probably your man.

      • noob_goldberg

        I don't agree with you often, chet, but I'll back you up on this. The Liberals are definitely guilty of spending too much time navel-gazing and not soliciting external opinions. Wells and Coyne wrapped it up nicely the other day, when Wells (I think) mentioned how the Liberal braintrust was operating under the assumption that Canadians were undergoing a temporary vote rebellion, and would soon swoon back toward their natural, Liberal roots. If that's their assumption, the party has a lot more navel-gazing to do yet before it should be let out of purgatory.

        Of course, don't get me on the issues I see with the current iteration of the Conservative Party of Canada.

      • sammmie

        The very same thing happned with hapless Dion. Look what happened there.

        • Andrew (not PorC)

          He had a nice bump in the polls after the debate, until CTV released a video they agreed not to in order to make Dion look foolish.

    • Anders

      Most of the coverage I've been watching and reading seems to show two things:

      1. All the participants did reasonably well, with most of the political pundits agreeing that Harper performed better than Ignatieff, and that Layton delivered the best one-liners (CBC, CTV, NP, G&M).

      2. Despite the points above, most of said pundits also agreed that the debate will likely have only a minor effect on the outcome of the election.

      • OriginalEmily1

        LOL I think that's your hearing going on ya.

        • Anders

          Ignoring for the moment your rather ridiculous overuse of internet slang, did you not see the "At Issue" panel on CBC's "The National"? Or any of the following articles:

          G&M: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/otta…

          NP: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/12/ch…

          Global: http://www.globalnews.ca/decisioncanada/story.htm…

          As I noted previously, most pundits seem to agree that the debate likely won't change the outcome of the election very much, and that Harper's performance was a bit better than Ignatieff's. You're free to disagree however.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Internet slang??

            If you mean the LOL…it's in the Oxford dictionary chum

            And what pundits think is irrelevant….it's not like they're ever right.

          • Anders

            "Ain't" is in the Oxford Dictionary as well, but that doesn't mean it's proper or particularly intelligent sounding.

          • DPT

            you should take that to heart you impersonate one every day. Oh BTW LOL you silly old woman act your age.

          • OriginalEmily1

            My goodness, Cons are bitter tonight. ROFLMAO

            Now my 'internet' slang offends you…oh and of course my age.

            You two are young fogeys, that's all.

            100 years olds are sky-diving these days….keep up.

            Tells me who really won the debate though. Heh.

          • Anders

            "Offends" is too strong a term. Rather, I just don't see how you expect to be taken seriously when you overuse things like "LOL", regardless of your age. But perhaps you don't want to be, and if that's the case, mission accomplished.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Well, Miss Priss….lay in a supply of smelling salts and get used to it.

            Because I'm afraid the world has moved on from the Victorian Age.

          • Anders

            Trust me, individuals like yourself serve as a constant reminder that decorum is in short supply these days.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Yup. Get over it.

          • SocialLiberal

            I've seen you personally attacked twice on one page Em, once for being a woman, and once for presumably being old.

            I think I know how they vote. With the party of fear and hate!

          • OriginalEmily1

            Yeah, it happens a lot…and for any reason they can think of…even when they have to make it up.

            They're a fugly bunch of teabaggers.

          • Holly Stick

            Well, frankly, sometimes your claims are incorrect, Emily, but I often vote you up anyway because often the ones who argue with you are so obnoxious.

          • OriginalEmily1

            LOL damned with faint praise.

            My 'claims' are not incorrect, you just disagree with some of them. It's an assumption on your part that you are right, and I am wrong.

            But thanks for the support anyway. ;)

          • Holly Stick

            Sometimes it's merely an assumption, but sometimes it's knowing that I'm right.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Must be comforting.

          • Holly Stick

            Keeps me warm on chilly spring nights.

    • Turd_Ferguson

      And at the National Post, Harper leads Ignatieff 67% to 18%, so what's your point? Besides shilling for the Liberals.

      I think this was Ignatieff's moment to shine and show Canadians the real Ignatieff. Well, we saw it, and he was less then impressive.

      • OriginalEmily1

        The NatPost is a small rightwing paper that's never made a profit.

        Also I'm not a Liberal.

        You are less than impressive….but you picked the perfect name.

        • hosertohoosier

          I just checked on the globe and mail website. Harper leads 39-35 there (not that it matters in a statistically unrepresentative poll). Why do you lie about something that can be so easily verified?

          • Turd_Ferguson

            I am beginning to think she's a patient in a mental hospital.

            I’ve never seen someone is such deep denial of their own reality before.

          • OriginalEmily1

            No, you're just being a Con.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Sorry m'dear….they had a vote, on the live blog…and those are the numbers

            Ever occur to you there would be more than one set of numbers?

            Stop calling people liars….think first.

          • Holly Stick

            Yeah, I saw the poll Emily is talking about on the liveblog. It was fairly early in the debate, when Harper was getting ratled and I hoped he would lose his temper, but then it looked like his medication kicked in and he spent the rest of the debate in a creepy miasma of smirking lies. G&M did not have another poll on the liveblog last night, though maybe they have added one since.

            Meanwhile the Edmonton Journal has Ignatieff winning:
            http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/decision-cana…

        • Turd_Ferguson

          Nice, you stay classy.

          Try not to foam at the mouth too much when the Liberals come in a distant second yet again.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Hey babe…you picked your name, I didn't.

        • DPT

          yes we know, you're a 30 year supporter of the PC party blah blah blah

          • OriginalEmily1

            There is no PC party, dude. Hasn't been for years.

            Gawd you're behind the times.

  • Jan

    And while we were watching the debates, yet another little problem with the Cons has come out – this time they mis-quoted Kevin Page in a report on the G8/20.

    • OriginalEmily1

      LOL no, Cons deliberately lied about both the AG and Page

      How many others have they lied about I wonder?

      • Jan

        Next up – re-writing some Supreme Court decisions?

        • OriginalEmily1

          I wouldn't put it past them….I really wouldn't.

          Just inserting a '^ not' here and there.

          • Karma

            Try to imagine how little the average voter cares about Kevin Page!

          • Holly Stick

            The average voter doesn't like liars. Conservatives are liars.

  • noob_goldberg

    Was this debate earlier than the 2008 debate? I found myself really busy getting the kids through the bath and in bed during the entire debate, and only caught 50% of it. I wonder if I wasn't the only one in that position, and if that might have impaacted the ratings and total viewership. It was certainly quite early for the Westerners…

    • sammmie

      I spoke to my SIL in BC, it began there at 4.00pm.Thats not good timing at all.

      • noob_goldberg

        It was terrible timing for the Westerners, and I assumed the transmission would have been delayed until 7PM for them. I suppose holding it much later and Atlantic Canada gets screwed, but I remember it being an hour later last time, at least.

        • KeithBram

          At 7 pm ET, it started at 8:30 Nfld time. I'm sure there are replays out west…

    • Jan

      I think so because it was on at 4 out here on the west coast and I don't remember it being that early. Means a lot of people would be able to see it. It's repeated later on CPAC though.

    • SocialLiberal

      You can watch it again on watch.ctv.ca

    • rufusrastas

      For the liberal media, Canada ends at the boundaries of Toronto.Beyond that point there be knuckledraggers.

  • sammmie

    Harper won easily He kept his cool. Iggy, he needs to beef on policy! any policy, he was terrible.He held his own, but thats not saying much. Why only30%? Layton took hat knock punch to him and I loved it.

  • Pilgrim

    Curiously, Harper was the one participant not wearing a wedding band.

    • noob_goldberg

      Harper maximized his allowable bling with the tiny Canadian flag lapel pin.

      • OriginalEmily1

        The others know what country they're in….Harper always thinks he's in the US

  • john g

    Ipsos polling has Harper and Layton as the winners.

    This question really jumped out at me though:

    Before: Which party leader do you think is the most visually attractive?
    Stephen Harper 29%
    Michael Ignatieff 9%
    Jack Layton 35%
    Gilles Duceppe 8%

    Don’t know 18%

    After: Which party leader do you think is the most visually attractive?
    Stephen Harper 31%
    Michael Ignatieff 9%
    Jack Layton 38%
    Gilles Duceppe 10%

    Don’t know 12%

    It's sad that this matters…but it does matter; especially to someone trying to turn a lot of voters his way.

    • OriginalEmily1

      Ipsos had Harp 20 points ahead when the election was called too.

    • Mr. King

      What? Ignatieff no more attractive than Duceppe? That's crazy! I mean, I'm just a straight guy, but that doesn't mean I'm blind, and Iggy was the handsomest man on that stage (unless Paikin counts).

    • Crit_Reasoning

      On a related note, Andrew Potter described Ignatieff as "Canada's sexiest cerebral man" in 2003.

    • John D

      No way, Duceppe is dreamy

    • Terence

      Yes, and if visual attractiveness really mattered one bit we'd have more women in politics. Nice question!

  • BGLong

    A view from the Least Coast ….

    http://contrarian.ca/2011/04/12/the-clear-winner-…

    but, then, he is Contrarian ..

    • Blech

      See? this is what I mean, Wherry is King friggin' Solomon compared to some of these Liberal partisan nutters claiming Iggy won.

  • hosertohoosier

    I think the real takeaway from the Ipsos poll is not the "who won" question. It is the "what issue mattered most" question.

    Before the debate
    Ethics and accountability: 16%
    Economy: 27%

    After the debate
    Ethics and accountability: 15%
    Economy: 35%

    If Ignatieff wanted to run on an accountability platform, fine, but he needs to convince people that this is what the election should be about. This poll, and my gut instinct would suggest that he failed on that front. And if this election is about the economy, it is problematic that Ignatieff had so little to say on the matter.

    • Crit_Reasoning

      Hey, didn't you make some sort of debate prediction? How did that turn out? :-)

  • JMarcus

    Most Accurate Transcript of the debate you'll find http://www.pointsofinformation.ca/archives/indivi…

    • Crit_Reasoning

      Definitely the funniest transcript! Seriously, I encourage everyone to read the transcript linked to above. It's hilarious.

      BTW, does anyone know if a real transcript has been posted somewhere?

    • http://halooverride.blogspot.com/ Halo_Override

      Awesomeness. :)

    • SanDiegoDave

      Thanks for that. Brightened my morning.

  • EvInOz

    Let's be honest, the debate was entirely uninspiring. Harper sounded like a whiny child who hasn't got his way, with his high pitched, defensive tone (I didn't want this election, boo hoo hoo). Ignatieff stumbled through the debate, and didn't seem prepared for Layton's attacks. Duceppe was as out of place as ever. Layton seemed almost angry through the debate, as if throwing up his hands and saying "what must I do to knock these guys out". Maybe the winner was the absent May, who called it a "sad spectacle".

    Really, if I had to choose a winner, I'd say Layton. At least he threw out some policy in the debate. I liked when he made a reasoned proposal for proportional representation, Harper seemed ready to rebut, but the moderator gave the podium to Ignatieff and the manner was never addressed again, which I think was very unfortunate.

    If these jokers are the best we have, I hope for all of us that the status quo is maintained in this election, and all parties are forced to get new leaders, and we can try again next year.

    • SocialLiberal

      Layton wins all the debates, but never wins elections.

  • danby

    Stephen Harper was solid; a good performance.
    Best knockout punch? Jack Layton on Michael Ignatieff – it may even tilt the Conservatives to a majority. Wait for the ads.

    What this demonstrates to me is that a divided "left" will never succeed against an organized "right".

    • André

      "Stephen Harper was solid; a good performance."

      Don't you mean a safe one? As Not Steven Colbert said above, the status quo won last night, and as Andrew Coyne said, Harper needs to bring the undecided center right votes to his side. Timid references to the Liberal's past(none of which applies to Ignatieff), vague notions to describe the NDP's platform, practically ignoring the Block's vote base, changing the subject on his own past crimes as PM… none of it will achieve that.

      • danby

        Like him or not, Stephen Harper made no major gaffes, absorbed the body blows, kept his cool and looked prime ministerial; a good and safe performance. Will it deliver a majority? I hope not, but it's hard to say. If he gets a minority and manages to stay leader of the party, then the incremental change starts anew. FOX/SunTV will be starting up and I do think it is a key part of the equation – mass messengering.

        As long as the left splits their vote, a safe/good performance might be good enough

    • Marv

      Please – you guys who view the world (and voters) as only "left" or "right" are the same as those kids who throw scud firecrackers into the night sky. Merely spouting pejoratives achieves nothing.

  • Barb Sharp

    The state of canadian politics never changes. The Bloc were an embarrasment to Canada….again. The Green party would have added intelligence to this debate versus the bloc.

    Harper was pre-programmed and sooooo boring while stayoing on message. Jack was at least engaging and brought up valid points. Liberal leader failed yet again to garner any enthusiasm or demonstrtae any leadership.

    Sadly….harper won the night and we continue to be bullied and talked down to by the supreme leader.

    When will we have the opportunity to vote for a leader versus some party hack who we never hear from again.

    That's Canada….got to love it eh

  • albert

    No, Ignatieff looked animate, in sharp contrast to Harpers plastic, tight lipped, pinched butt.

    • Atchison

      Yea, Ignatieff looked like he was animated by Jim Henson. He is clearly a muppet.

    • Marv

      Maybe this explains where his wedding ring was. lol

  • bergkamp

    "First and foremost, apologies are probably due to Robert from Newmarket, Veselka from Mississauga, Sam from Mount Pearl, Jade from Montreal, and Patti from New Glasgow…… "

    I thought this was excellent example of how political parties/pols don't actually give a toss what public think or want.

    I find it remarkable that none of the leaders, or their handlers, thought that Canadians asking questions deserved something more than being treated as stage props.

    Canadian pols made it obvious it is all about them – this was good example of why some Canadians are turned off by politics – and think of Canadians as little more than potted plants, there to make pols like Statesman like or somesuch.

  • chet

    And how many times did Iggy say

    "You will shut down anything you cannot control!!"

    This over the top rhetoric is sadly something we've come to expect by highly partisan commenters on blogs. But a purported statesman?

    Angry and petulant is not something Canadians want in a leader.

    • BCer in Mtl

      "Angry and petulant" describes Harper to a T

    • daphne

      Ignatieff relies too much on these "all or nothing" simplified generalizations. He's a smart man and must realize that such sweeping generalizations can not be supported by facts. I wonder if he feels guilty when he uses them as required by political rhetoric?

      • SocialLiberal

        To what all or nothing simplified generalizations are you speaking of?

        Perhaps tax cuts and services? Well my friend, you can't have both, unless you borrow the money from overseas. So a smart man would say you have to choose, and another would lay their credit card down and worry about it tomorrow.

  • SamDavies

    This debate was such a yawner. Isn't it time that the political parties work harder to attract more diversity in their leadership? Honestly – This was 4 privileged white dudes working their scripts. This is exactly why the rest of Canada feels little interest or attachment to Canadian politics. May should have been included just to bust up the sausage fest.

    • Blue

      I don`t think even May could have saved Ignatieff last night.

      • SamDavies

        I don't follow your logic. Wait – I get it.. You took my posting as an opportunity to pull out your hyper-partisan knife. Typical.

    • SocialLiberal

      I really don't think lack of interest in politics has anything to do with the leaders and politics in general.

      The reason people shy from politics is because they find it difficult to understand and boring. They can only pay attention to the pattern of someone's tie or how they present themselves rather than the issues.

      Ripping on everyone is much easier. Corporate lackeys. Soulless robots. Stuffy old men. This is easier to understand and speak on as if you know something about it than to make the effort to truly understand the system and it's players.

From Macleans