http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/leaders-debate/#
Now I know my view is biased as I’m an NDPer (Jack won this debate, again haha), but this was fun to write and I do believe it provides some good insight.
Harper got to speak first (and finish last of course), but Duceppe attacked first. He began with, “I'd like to congratulate Mr. Harper for answering a question from a citizen for the first time during this campaign.” He called out the Conservatives for their corporate tax cuts and claimed that Harper was ignoring the forestry industry in Quebec. I have to say good for Gilles for taking Harper head on and getting right into it, although he strayed away from the actual question. But this was the main strategy of the opposition leaders, to turn their answers into attacks on Harper and call out all his shady dealings.
Jack Layton’s first comment was also about corporate taxes and he went right into attacking Harper. “Why are you reducing corporate taxes when so many people are suffering?”
Harper pretty much denied the corporate tax cuts and actually said, “There are no corporate tax cuts right now.” Alright Stephen, we believe you.
The leaders debated about the economy, and Layton quipped in with, “It’s the Conservative government that’s the problem with the economy here. It’s these right-wing proposals of deregulation and approaches to reckless policy that got us into the mess we’re in.”
Harper proceeded to claim that the Conservatives had “Balanced policies to move us forward.”
I knew someone would eventually bring up Canada losing the UN Security Council seat, and that was the first thing Ignatieff brought up in his answer to the second question. However, all the answers quickly turned from Canada’s role internationally to our declining democracy...because how can Canada support democracy abroad if it cannot uphold it at home?
Layton said that if we’re doing so well economically as Harper is claiming, then why did the Bill to send affordable drugs to Africa get blocked in the “Conservative dominated Senate?” I wonder about that as well.
The Afghanistan issue was the area where Layton appeared weakest, since the NDP wants to bring our troops home. It’s a difficult issue, because we cannot just leave Afghanistan and abandon helping them, yet we do want our troops home.
The G8 issue came up of course and Harper tried his best to deflect the allegations and comments the opposition leaders made. The Kairos “not” issue came up briefly and I kept thinking of how ridiculous Bev Oda’s scribbled “NOT” looked on the document. Obviously Ignatieff really hammered in the contempt of Parliament issue and I hope Canadians understand all of the lies that have been going on in Parliament.
Ignatieff’s most common saying was, “Anything you [Harper] can’t control you shut down.” Which I guess is true. Harper did prorogue Parliament twice.
When Layton brought up releasing the Auditor General’s report on G8 spending, the opposition leaders shouted “Bring it out!” while Harper tried to avoid it.
Ignatieff told Harper, “We’re having an election because you didn’t tell Parliament the truth.” He claimed Harper didn’t tell Canadians the truth and abused democracy. Harper’s rebuttal was that the other three parties ganged up on the government to force an election. Again, we’re not as ignorant as you think we are Mr. Harper, we understand how your party was found in contempt of Parliament and lost the confidence of the House.
I’d like to point out Jack Layton’s great point about the Senate. He said the Senate is packed with Harper’s friends and defeated candidates, some of who are up on fraud charges now, who defeat Bills like the NDP’s Climate Change Bill that got through the House of Commons twice. Layton called him out for subsidizing his friends in the big oil companies and not caring about climate change. Go Jack! He seemed to be the only one to care about the environment.
They continued “bickering” as Harper called it, talked about guns, talked about healthcare and discussed immigration. Harper called out Duceppe for wanting to have Quebec separate (as if we didn’t know that already).
Some more great quotes:
Ignatieff to Harper: “This is a democracy. … You keep talking about Parliament as if it's this little debating society that's a pesky interference in your rule of the country. It's not.”
Jack Layton: “Why do we need so many more prisons when the crooks are so happy in the Senate?”
Ignatieff on gun control: “Women across this country get killed all the time by long guns, short guns, they don't care they're dead.”
Ignatieff directed at Harper: “You haven't earned a majority. A majority is a thing you earn when you earn the trust of the Canadian people. You don't deserve a majority because you don't respect our democratic institutions.” Nicely done Iggy.
Layton: “So that when some trouble maker comes up and tries to tempt them into that life of crime with the bling and everything else that goes along with it.” He finished his point with “That’s been a hash-tag fail on this issue.” Nice twitter lingo Jack.
My biggest issue came up over the answers to the fourth question. Clearly Mr. Harper needs to go back to grade 10 Civics class.
Under the Constitutional principle of Responsible Government the Governor General will ask the individual most likely to receive the support, or confidence, of a majority of the directly-elected House of Commons to form a government. As a practical matter, this is often the leader of a party whose members have a majority, or a plurality, of MPs.
Ignatieff really focussed on the word TRY. I agree with him. The leader of the political party with the most seats in the elected House of Commons has the right to TRY to form a government that has the support of a majority of MPs. If at any time the government loses its majority support in the House, tradition requires that it resign. At this point an election would be called or, if there is a possibility that another party could put together a government that would be supported by a majority of MPs, the Governor General could call on the leader of that party to try to form a government. Hmm, isn’t this what happened in 2008? Did Stephane Dion not have a majority support of MPs?
I also want to recall the 1926 King-Byng Affair. In 1925 Prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King asked Governor General Lord Byng for an election. Arthur Meighen's Conservative Party won 116 seats and King's Liberals won 101 seats. However, counting on the support of the Progressive Party with its 28 seats to overcome the Conservative plurality, King (who had lost his seat in the election) did not resign and remained in office as head of a minority government. Strictly speaking, this was not a coalition government, as the Progressives were not given any Cabinet seats and were thus not a part of the government. Funny, because the Bloc were not given any Cabinet seats in the Liberal-NDP coalition either, they were just supporting them, yet Harper still tried to play the “separatists” running our government card.
By 1926 it appeared as though King would soon lose the confidence of the House, but Governor General Lord Byng refused King’s request for an election. He argued that the Conservatives, as the biggest single party in parliament, should have a chance to form a government before an election was called. Byng then invited Conservative leader Arthur Meighen to form a government. Although many Conservatives privately preferred an election, Meighen believed he was bound by honour and convention to accept Byng's invitation. Meighen thus formed a new Conservative Cabinet.
In the end the Conservatives lost the confidence of the House and King won a majority in the subsequent election. The point is, not only did King’s party govern without a majority or plurality, the Conservatives were also asked to form a government when King lost the confidence of the House. So a party that didn’t have the most seats formed the government first, and then another party was asked to form the government once King lost the confidence of the House.
Yet Harper said, “That’s not how democracy is supposed to work in this country,” and “The party that finishes first forms the government. If we don’t do that we’ll have the third and fourth parties deciding the government of our country, that’s not how our democracy is supposed to work.” Some other choice Harper quotes include:
“The party that wins the most seats forms the government. That’s how our democracy is supposed to work.”
“The party that wins the election HAS to govern, otherwise we will have a party dedicated to the break up of the country deciding who can or cannot form the government.”
“If you don’t win the most seats, you don’t get to form the government.”
“The party that wins the most seats will get to try first. Then you think you’ll all get together and vote against it and replace the government. That’s not how our system is supposed to work in this country.”
Alright Stephen, we get it. You don’t agree with coalitions or other parties without a plurality of seats forming the government. But when you don’t have a majority, you rely on the support of other MPs. When you piss off those MPs and they decide to form a coalition or just a group that can cooperate that is bigger than your’s, they now have the majority support of the House. Do you get it yet? Of course, when Members of Parliament try to work together, Harper vilifies it.
Harper also claimed he was never going to take power in 2004 and was not cooperating with the Bloc or NDP at that time. Duceppe seemed to be the most honest, saying there was another option in 2004 instead of an election. “The one who finished second could become the Prime Minister.” That would have been Stephen Harper as he was the leader of the main opposition party with the second most seats in Parliament. Duceppe says this was part of the letter all three signed. Layton claimed he was part of these discussions, but walked out as he was not ready to let Harper be PM, but Duceppe argued Jack signed the letter too.
Both Jack Layton and Duceppe claim Harper was ready to become PM with their support, and Harper finally admitted to signing a letter about cooperation, but was continued to claim he was never going to form a coalition. I do not believe him at all. I know he would have taken any chance he could have back then to become Prime Minister. Also, just google 2004 coalition and you'll find plenty of articles on it...Such as this one where it has what was in the actual letter. More lies, big surprise.
http://www.therecord.com/news/elections/article/507452--bloc-leader-says-harper-lying-about-2004-coalition-bid
Furthermore, Ignatieff said he does not support a coalition and would not form one even if the Conservatives won another minority. I believe him. He’s the reason the 2008 Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc dissolved in 2009 when Parliament resumed from prorogation. He even said, “A coalition is out.” What is so hard to understand about that Harper?
Finally Jack Layton brought up our flawed single-member-plurality electoral system. He said, “He [Harper] could do it will less than 50% of Canadians supporting him...there’s something wrong with the system.” He also brought up how the Green Party won 900,000 seats in 2008 yet did not have one seat, while the Bloc continues to win several seats only in Quebec. He also said the undemocratic Senate should be dismantled, especially since it’s full of Harper’s friends. Again, go Jack!
A few other things stood out to me, such as Duceppe’s pronunciation of words such as “development” (de-volpping?), “coalition,” (CO-lition) and “Panama” (Panma?). As well, Harper’s beady robot eyes not moving and just staring creepily into oblivion. Every time he spoke, even when addressing another leader, he just had this robot stare and stared at who knows what, because it sure wasn’t the camera.
Harper remained unnaturally calm, managed to get through the debate in one piece without losing his composure, and deflected (or avoided) certain issues such as the G8 spending. He did well considering the other three were out to get him, but they had every reason to do so. Harper's most well used line was, "That's simply not true." Duceppe didn’t have much to lose or gain in the English debate, and attempted to provide an honest check on the other leaders which was nice. I loved it when Harper, Layton and Duceppe were arguing about the 2004 non-coalition issue and Ignatieff just stood there smiling, probably enjoying the ridiculousness of it all.
In the end, Harper asked for “a strong, stable majority government to focus on the economy.” He framed it as he always does, his stable government that’s good with the economy vs. an unstable coalition that will raise taxes. So black and white, there’ so much more to it than that. Canadians should not buy into that assessment. Ignatieff framed the Liberals as the only alternative, which Layton quickly pounced on since there is also an “orange door.” Ignatieff threw out a “Well at least we get into government” line, which was kind of a low blow. I also missed Elizabeth May, it's not a real deabte until someone yells "Fraud!"
Ultimately, (as Ignatieff said) if Harper wins a majority, heaven help us all.
+ Lorelie
No comments:
Post a Comment