Come on, get angry

Paul Wells on how, despite being chippy and accusational at times, Tuesday’s debate was nevertheless revealing

by Paul Wells on Friday, April 15, 2011 6:00am - 62 Comments
Come on, get angry

Fred Greenslade/Reuters

It was selfless of Canada’s broadcasters to showcase the political party leaders with an English-language debate that couldn’t possibly be mistaken as a showcase of the broadcasters’ own abilities. The show could not have been less impressively produced if the leaders had skyped their jabs and parries in from an Internet café. I spent the first three minutes of the debate frantically switching channels because I couldn’t believe the cavernous echo-chamber sound was the official audio feed from the floor.

As for the set: corrugated metal, beige ’70s colours—at last I realized why it all looked so familiar. The broadcasters had stationed the leaders of Canada’s political parties in front of the tour bus from The Partridge Family. A subliminal message, perhaps. The old TV comedy’s theme song—Come On Get Happy—was an extended warning against fratricidal bickering. “We have a dream, we’ll go travelling together / We’ll spread a little loving and we’ll keep moving on / Something always happens whenever we’re together / We get a happy feeling when we’re singing a song.”

Yeah, not so much. These four couldn’t bear the thought of travelling together much further than they’ve come so far. The tone was set in the first exchange by Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, in the pesky teenager role originally played by Danny Bonaduce. Stephen Harper answered one of the pre-recorded questions from an ordinary voter that have come to characterize these debates. “I would like to congratulate Mr. Harper for answering a question from a citizen,” Duceppe said, “for the first time in this campaign.”

That pretty much set the tone for the night: chippy and accusational. Later, Jack Layton, the New Democrat, asked Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal, why Ignatieff missed 70 per cent of the votes in the last session of Parliament. Layton mocked Harper’s tough-on-crime policies: “I don’t see why we need so many more prisons when the crooks seem happy in the Senate.”

Ignatieff asked Harper why ordinary Canadians have found themselves getting booted from Conservative rallies during this campaign. “What are you afraid of? Why are you afraid of the Canadian people?”

So the first serious news out of this debate is that the other leaders were so eager to tear a strip off one another, and so desperate to goad Harper into displaying his legendary temper, that the Prime Minister (for Harper is still that, and it will soon become an important detail indeed) was able to rise above the fray by refusing to take part in it.

Harper acted a little less like a talk-show host on Xanax than he did in the sit-down, everyone-at-the-same-table debates of 2008, at which he kept calling his opponents by their first names and fixed the Green party Leader Elizabeth May with the pleasantly dazed expression his advisers later called the “icy blue eyes of love.” That time he went so far overboard with his pacifist shtick that he seemed to have mentally checked out, and his polling lead in that election briefly suffered. This time he permitted himself to show a little flint now and again. But this was his fourth English-language leaders’ debate since he became leader of the united Conservatives in 2004. He has long since learned that he cannot win by shutting the others down, so he used this debate to explain how, at least in his view, he has run a moderate, collaborative government.

“Canada’s got the strongest economy on Earth and suddenly it’s plunged into the fourth election in seven years and nobody can say why,” he said at one point.

To say the least, that’s not how Harper’s opponents see it. Ignatieff accused him of abandoning Canadian families to spend billions on “jets, jails and tax cuts.” Layton wondered whether his wife Olivia Chow’s family could have immigrated to Canada if Harper had been prime minister then. The Conservative leader had to spend a large part of the night denying the premises of their attacks. “This is simply not true,” he said, and, “The contrary is the fact,” and, “I simply don’t accept the truth of those attacks,” and more of the same besides.

Bookmark and Share
  • Proud Canadian

    We need regional debates and lots of them!

  • Brianb

    Every day Harper sinks lower and lower, another day another scandal hits the headlines. Now i hear he's attempted/attempting to defraud (AGAIN – sponsorship scandal) the electoral system by flooding temporary foreign workers into Canada, which he planned to capitalize on by changing rules to let non-citizens in the country vote. Of course he wasn't allowed to do this because he's not trusted to be truly in charge of anything (the only good thing going for canada and canadians under his oppression), BUT you can be sure this is part of his long term plan for reinventing Canada into the dictatorship state he has wet dreams about every night.

    Bush tampered with voting machines, paid off a family member in the state of florida to look the other way, and stole a country out from under the people he was supposed to honestly and ethically serve. Harper is doing the same thing, need to win an election?…. buy it… can't buy it?… corrupt it with coercion of people, human beings…. and distortion of social structures which disgust him as much as he now disgusts all Canadians.

    This thing has to be divested of his power and any future potential for gaining it. Thanks to harper being a beacon of darkness, corruption, evil, moral ineptitude and everything that WILL NEVER BE PART OF A FUTURE WORTH GIVING TO YOUR CHILDREN.

    Harper. You're finished. Buster.

    • Spike

      Harper may be "bad", but Liberals have a well deserved reputation for their culture of corruption and misleading / revolked campaign promises–at all levels (lest we forget the Federal sponsorship scandal, or the Ontario Liberal string of broken promises).So if Harper is "bad", I'd hate to think what that makes the long history of liberal leadership.
      Harper has his annoying side for sure, an arrogance and a strong political drive that puts his agenda first at times. But his "sins" pale in comparison to any Liberal leader we have yet to have lead us. They certainly have cost us less.

      • Patchouli

        NO

      • Thwim

        How many jobs permanently lost in BC because Harper refused to let the NAFTA tribunals complete their work and gave a billion dollars to their competition in the US?

        Cost us less?

        You don't have a clue.

    • Holly Hawthorne

      It's as if nothing sticks to Harper. Every day another scandal, and still his numbers remain high. Either the people who trust him are too stupid to be allowed to vote, or Harper has the devil on his side. I will never understand how his lemmings can sell their souls in order to touch his hem. I can understand a few loyal, stupid ministers and underlings awed by his presence, but not a whole party. My God, what's going on? He is out to destroy this country, and if allowed, will cut out funding for the other parties, which means they will vanish from the horizon, and yet I hear not a word about this. Save Our Souls!

      • Old Abe

        Devil's in the details, so you were correct at your first assumption…. nothing sticks in an empty head, just echoes and bounces around… Harper's followers are probably the answer to the great question of the missing link in human evolution, that would explain their decreased intelligence, inability to evolve a cohesive social structure amongst their peers, and thus constant anti-social and sometimes violent subjugation of other living beings.

        In short, nothing sticks cause there is nothing 'to stick it to' this group of people never evolved the capacity to develop functional social hierarchy and thus they died out like evolution will do to all unsuccessful species….

        ….so don't worry, what goes around comes around, and if Harper followers don't kill themselves off, and we can't stop them, evolution will stop them dead in their tracks, writing is on the wall!

    • Mr Irrelevant

      I was not aware that George actually had to pay Jeb to steal the election. I always thought being bros would have been enough. Thank you for this fascinating and informative post.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    I think Iggy scored points with people who take seriously the notion that this election is about democracy. I doubt many Canadians are convinced.

  • W.B.

    Interesting that Wells didn't lash out at Ignatieff as the big loser in the debate, but seemed to take a more even handed no big winner approach. This opinion delivered, as he says, immediately after the event and before the party spin and herd mentality of the national media got rolling, contrasts totally with what the TV hosts, pundits, and panels have been trying to sell us in the last two days.
    They've settled in on an easy narrative based on very little evidence, that Layton is soaring, Ignatieff plunging, and Harper cruising to an easy majority.
    Well done Wells. Too bad all the pundits didn't have to write from a self imposed lock up.

  • danR

    .
    The spineless 'debater' wouldn't look his opponents in the eye when he answered them. I loved it when the camera director cut to a side-shot, leaving Dear Leader addressing a dead tube. I almost could swear he did it on purpose. Hopefully the guy won't lose his job. Seems, as with Guergis, that's something very easy for Dear Leader to arrange.
    .

    • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

      You mean the producer might have been a leftist agitator bent on embarrassing Harper? Interesting. Too bad it didn't work.

    • modster99

      And Guergis should still be in Cabinet?

      • KeithBram

        Certainly not the Cabinet. But back in the party? Maybe, given all the charges against her seem to have been groundless. After all, there's a criminal with mutiple convictions in the PMO, and four party members on elections charges, so by comparison she's squeaky clean.

        • modster99

          I still contend that the reason that she isn't there is that she and Jaffir would have caused a scandal in the future. Harper probably saved them.

          • modster99

            good logic. We slam him on any perceived thing, but if he tries to stop something from happening, we slam him and say 'would we even notice'.

            Sad.

          • modster99

            Fair enough

            humor and sarcasm are hard to put into the written word. :)

    • Jenahlin

      If he did it on purpose, he should be fired.

  • danR

    .
    The only move that really got my attention was Harper's eye-contact. He'd stare down the guy who was talking to him, but couldn't look people in the eye and answer them at the same time. Just talked to his hypnotized base on the tube. The others were talking to each other, to Harper, to the moderators. They were talking like human beings. As little as I like Ignatieff, sheesh, after that I'd even almost vote for Duceppe.

    A vote for Dear Leader is a vote for a jellyfish.
    .

    • LoveMusic

      A vote for Dear Leader is a vote for a THUG.

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

    I love the rules. One question, though: Aren't #3 and #4 basically the same rule? Opposition leaders, but their very nature, are going to seem more cranky than leaders.

  • Stewart_Smith

    For the youngin's there's a shot of the bus in this.

    [youtube bIuKtp3yCTw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIuKtp3yCTw youtube]

    Harper may want to switch to covering Cassidy rather than the Beatles, seems to work magic on angry people.

    • Patchouli

      Thanks for the link! Now I DO feel happy, seeing young David Cassidy, and remembering how in 1971, huge posters of him looked down on me as I danced in my room. And he made me feel all warm and queasy inside.

      • ColdStanding

        "…warm and queasy inside." Do you mean fuzzy or were you really sick to your stomach?

  • Anon

    1: For any given situation, Canadian politics will tend toward the least exciting possible outcome.

    For this election that might mean things will stay relatively unchanged.

    Maybe the LIberals will pick up seats but not enough to vault into first place and not enough for a majority with an accord (or whatever) with one of the smaller parties. So we would end up at status quo ante.

    2: If everyone in Ottawa knows something, it’s not true.

    I have no clue what people in Ottawa are saying right now … so I'm glad everybody is out on the road.

    3. The candidate in the best mood wins.

    Harper was angry the first week and a half but seems pretty chipper now. Michael Ignatieff still seems quite happy and Jack wouldn't on how to be down even if he were at the bottom of a well.

    The only one who seems fairly glum and low key is Duceppe.

    4. The guy who auditions for the role of opposition leader will get the job.

    Harper still is Prime Minister. Jack says he's running to be Prime Minister and Michael Ignatieff hopes to be Prime Minister. I guess Gilles Duceppe will be Leader of the Opposition then …

  • Lost All My Repect

    Harper reminds me so much of my ex-wife, who was an alcohol and other substance abuser and, although smart, also had certain blindspots of rationality. She was able to tell barefaced lies (or maybe I should say untruths, because she often seemed to believe them herself) and when confronted with counterevidence or a contradiction on her part, she would just repeat the untruth, not as an acknowledgement of being wrong, but as though the repetition somehow explained away the counterevidence or contradiction. The difference with Harper is that he repeats the "Big Lies" over and over as a Machiavellian strategy.

    • s_c_f

      Your prime minister is not supposed to be the one who cuddles with you in bed at night. You have an unhealthy attitude towards politics. You also seem to have the attitude of a typical know-it-all. You should try seeing things from others' perspectives sometime. But that might be very difficult for someone like you.

    • Jenahlin

      And you actually beleive the 3 Amigos are telling the truth?
      if you feel this way, tell us why the boys wont come clean on the Coalition? Why dont they tell Canadians the true story?
      Are they afraid to reveal the Truth?

      • Thwim

        Have you ever thought that they are and the truth is, you're just a paranoid hopped up on scare tales put out by the Chicken Party of Canada?

  • modster99

    Regardless what you call it, some of these folks will go off on tangents.

    It was good read, BTW.

  • modster99

    yup – lots of 'tards today.

    You can read Stewart, though. Don't agree, but at least he has thoughts.

  • bergkamp

    "It was a challenging night for Ignatieff, who has impressed observers with his performance on the road."

    Impressing no one, than, in other words. I read article other day about how unimpressive Iggy was at the debates and a quote about how it was out of character, didn't know what happened, because Iggy is so impressive 'on the road'.

    Libs have a leader that Canadians are not responding to, only time Iggy is praised is when no one can see him, when he's 'one the road'.
    ——
    "The polls so far suggest he’s in some danger of losing seats and declining in his share of the popular vote, for the first time since he became NDP leader in 2003."

    What's going on with NDP? Some polls have NDP declining, but I am also reading C Hebert columns that claim NDP eating Libs lunch in Quebec. How can both be true?
    —–
    “icy blue eyes of love.”

    I read this other day and laughed pretty hard. Told my missus about Harper's blue eyes of love and we laughed together imagining Harper flirting with Laureen and those blue eyes of love.

  • anon

    There is, of course, the inconvenient fact that Elections Canada has determined that the way this "poll" was set up wasn't necessarily kosher, and that they won't do it in the future (while allowing the votes to count, as they should, since it wasn't the voters' fault — it was Elections Canada's fault). And even the news report from Guelph said nobody laid a hand on the ballot box.

  • SunshineCoaster

    Paul, I don't see why some journalist doesn't challenge Harper's continued claims that reducing corporate income taxes will somehow result in huge investments in Canada and corresponding numbers of jobs. There is little to support this idea. Something similar was tried by Reagan decades ago. This "trickle down' theory was thoroughly debunked and ended up being called "voodoo eoncomics". Over the past decade or so, Canada's corporate tax rates have been consistently and dramatically reduced, but the most obvious result has been an increase of $80 billion in cash reserves held by large corporation. That $80 billion fundamentally came from ordinary Canadian taxpayers. The way these tax reduction are structured, there is no incentive for corporations to invest these funds with any benefit for Canadians whatever. They can easily use these cash reserves to buy up competitors or invest outside Canada. Let's hear something on this.

    • s_c_f

      It was never debunked. Lower corporate taxes got Ireland from the poorhouse to the first world. Not to mention the fact that Reagan reversed a decade of economic malaise into three decades of prosperity.

      Cash reserves held by corporations are not a bad thing. That's what they will use to hire new people and make new investments. It also insulates them default on their debts, which is of great concern in the recession. Having no cash on hand ensures there will be no job growth.

      • KeithBram

        Reality check: Ireland is now one of the biggest debtor nations in Europe, and being watched as another Greece or Portugal, with potential defaults on the horizon.

        And yes, "trickle-down" economics has largely been debunked. The US debt tripled during Reagan's reign, leading to the recession of the early 90s as Bush Sr tried to get it back under control.

      • Mrs. Anthrope

        " Lower corporate taxes got Ireland from the poorhouse to the first world.”

        Yes, multi-billion dollar equalization payments from the EU had nothing to do with the ‘Celtic Tigers’ short-lived success story, right?

    • daphne

      Reducing corporate income tax might not create jobs, but increasing them, as the NDP is proposing, would probably result in job losses.

      • Thwim

        Depends how far they're increased. Remember, we currently have one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. We have an exceedingly well-education population, are seen as extremely stable (even with the Bloc) and cover health care publically so corporations don't have to.

        Put all those things together and modest raises in the corporate tax rate are unlikely to cause any significant movement at all.

    • Jenahlin

      Have you ever seen a poor guy offering someone a job.

      • Thwim

        Have you ever seen a rich guy offering someone a job when there's no customers?

        Jobs are created when there's new demand.
        Giving money to those who have it doesn't create new demand.
        Giving money to those who don't does.

  • SunshineCoaster

    I liked the French language debate format even more. The journalist moderators tried to keep the debaterss focussed on the question that was asked, and posed some suplementary questions to bring out more detail. They actively prevented the debaters from talking over each other or avoiding the real intent of the questions.

    In addition I got the feeling that every time Harper made the statement "let me be perfectly clear" it was immediately followed by a statement that was fast and loose with the facts. Some journalist needs to line these statement up against a review of the facts. I think that would be enlightening.

  • truthintoronto

    Fresh of off of the failure to capture Candians' support by by viciously attacking Conservatives over meaningless process issues — the Liberals (and their supporters on this) have responded by…even more vicious attacks on Conservatives over meaningless process issues — this time in Guelph.

    "when a political party offers the voters ham and eggs and the voters say, 'No, thanks,' its first instinct is to say, 'OK then. How about double ham and double eggs"
    — David Frum, writing about conservatives, but applicable to all political parties.

  • SunshineCoaster

    Mr Harper's statments during the debates would suggest that he believes neither Canadians, nor the government can walk and chew gum at the same time. He claims that we must focus on the economy and any talk about democratic activity is completely distracting. I've got news for Harper; Canadians can nicely manage a health economy and a healthy democracy at the same time, but not while he is in office. Since he professes to BE an economist, he should know that an economy is nothing more than a word to describe real people working, buying and selling in their own interest, but the focus is PEOPLE.

    • Thwim

      True, it's always best to learn from the master.

  • SirJohn_Eh

    The Liberals intentions are to win. Ignatieff wont resign on election night because he is not a sitting PM nor at the end of his political career. If parliament doesn't have confidence in an elected Harper minority, I am sure that the party with the next most seats will try to govern by consensus.

    • modster99

      You are sure, but no Liberals are saying that is the future they see. . .

      If their intentions are to win, they have horrible intentions. Poorly thought out, and never going to happen. Just stating fact – they know that they won't win, they just don't want to see a majority CPC. Fact is, they might find they like the alternative even less. Layton is picking at Ignatieff in the polls, and doing well in Quebec. Be interesting if the two parties come out with a small difference in seat count.

  • Oma

    can't wash out scum with scum -irrelevant

  • KeithBram

    No; Liberal – center, CPC – right, and NDP – left. (Or so they claim)

    No wonder your posts are so confused!

  • LoveMusic

    Sorry but EC has confirmed that votes are valid. To bad for Steve and his party of thugs.

  • Blacktop

    Nonsense! Please explain the Nanos poll today showing Harper markedly out distancing all others in "leadership" and the CPC leading the nearest contender by about 10%. All this BS propagated over minor issues by all and sundry is obviously having no effect on the general population.
    http://www.nanosresearch.com/main.asp

    • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

      I was polled today, happening to be home, being an old guy with a landline, and was asked that question. I couldn't disagree that Harper is the best leader, but there is no space on the 'form' for the qualifications I made clear to the pollster calling. Most skilled, most manipulative, most devious, most distrustful, and most certainly not the person I wanted leading the country.

  • Blech

    Even bought-and-paid-for Liberal shill Rick Mercer noted how calm and cool Harper was. You noted he was borderline on Xanax in the 2008 debate, which leads one to ask: what is the factual basis for your claim in a recent post that Stephen Harper's instinct is to, and I quote, "snarl" and "bite"? There is no factual basis, you shameless Liberal hack, you're just providing "hate fodder" for your ultra-Liberal readership and commentariat.

    We've got millions of Canadians brainwashed by jacktards like you into believing that Harper is evil incarnate AND THERE IS ZERO FACTUAL BASIS FOR IT. Thanks, pal. Harper is actually a pretty cool guy, calm under pressure, likes to rock out to AC/DC, he jams, his policy wonk credentials are flawless, likes to chill with his kids…not at all the snarling, biting monster your narrative portrays him as.

    Here's an idea: be cool for a change and report accurately: harper's not the monster you make him out to be and he is running the cleanest government in at least a generation – you do not do your country any service by weaving such a polarizing false narrative.

    • DianeG

      flawless policy wonk credentials – say what?

      Harper is not a monster, nor is he the person who should be Prime Minister. AND he may not be the person who should lead his party. Watch the results on election night.

  • Diogenes54

    "I couldn’t believe the cavernous echo-chamber sound was the official audio feed from the floor."

    Somebody forgot to install the shag rug to deaden the echoes. They should have hired the folks who built Tony Clements $100,000 gazebo. ;-)

From Macleans