NationStates Jolt Archive

So now you watched the leader's debate, who would you now vote for next month?

For those of you who missed the leader's debate, click here (http://www.cbc.ca/clips/ram-newsworld/debate_051216.ram).

Duceppe I could care less about. He's not even running a candidate in my riding, so what the hell is he doing on a national stage, other than taking up real-estate that could have been used by a party that actually is fielding candidates in all the ridings across Canada like the Greens.

I like what Martin has to say, unfortunately, his track record of saying one thing and doing the opposite (as pointed out by the leaders in this debate, especially on the issue of border control and health care) has lead me to lose all belief in what he's saying. He might as well be Charlie Brown's teacher for all I hear from him now, "Muh-wah Wah-wah-wah, Wah-wah-wuh-mwah."

Harper's views seem to be summed up in the sentence "Don't vote liberal!", he didn't answer one policy question straight up as far as I could see.. and I thought he was supposed to be the policy wonk? I mean, come on, a corrections officer says "poverty seems to be the root cause of crime, what are you going to do about it?" and the best Harper can come up with is "I believe the Conservative party has some policies that will address poverty, but what we really need are tougher sentences." He believes the party has some policies that might address it? Excuse me Mr. Harper, aren't you supposedly running the damn thing? If you don't even know what your party has in store, why on earth should I trust you with the country? Not to mention that the whole "get tough on crime" thing doesn't prevent crime -- by definition even, since it only happens after a crime is committed. And please, deterrence value? Newsflash -- criminals don't think they're going to get caught. Otherwise they wouldn't commit the crime.

So that only left Layton that I could listen to without shaking my head in disgust. Hardly a debate.

I like what Martin has to say, unfortunately, his track record of saying one thing and doing the opposite (as pointed out by the leaders in this debate, especially on the issue of border control and health care) has lead me to lose all belief in what he's saying. He might as well be Charlie Brown's teacher for all I hear from him now, "Muh-wah Wah-wah-wah, Wah-wah-wuh-mwah."

Looks like British and Canadian politics are more similar than I imagined!

bumpy

Duceppe I could care less about. He's not even running a candidate in my riding, so what the hell is he doing on a national stage, other than taking up real-estate that could have been used by a party that actually is fielding candidates in all the ridings across Canada like the Greens.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm thinking. :confused:
I like what Martin has to say, unfortunately, his track record of saying one thing and doing the opposite (as pointed out by the leaders in this debate, especially on the issue of border control and health care) has lead me to lose all belief in what he's saying. He might as well be Charlie Brown's teacher for all I hear from him now, "Muh-wah Wah-wah-wah, Wah-wah-wuh-mwah."http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7BED8D8127-7DFA-4DB8-899C-1690AB4D0C69%7D.gif

Harper's views seem to be summed up in the sentence "Don't vote liberal!", he didn't answer one policy question straight up as far as I could see.. and I thought he was supposed to be the policy wonk? I mean, come on, a corrections officer says "poverty seems to be the root cause of crime, what are you going to do about it?" and the best Harper can come up with is "I believe the Conservative party has some policies that will address poverty, but what we really need are tougher sentences." He believes the party has some policies that might address it? Excuse me Mr. Harper, aren't you supposedly running the damn thing? If you don't even know what your party has in store, why on earth should I trust you with the country? Not to mention that the whole "get tough on crime" thing doesn't prevent crime -- by definition even, since it only happens after a crime is committed. And please, deterrence value? Newsflash -- criminals don't think they're going to get caught. Otherwise they wouldn't commit the crime.Harper cannot be trusted. Period.

So that only left Layton that I could listen to without shaking my head in disgust. Hardly a debate.GO NDP!!! :D

Going into this debate, I was going to vote Conservative *dodges fruit thrown by the NDP*

I think Jack Layton did a very good job. However, I did not agree with his fundamental idea. He kept asking Canadians to vote NDP MPs into Parliment to let the NPD hold the balance of power. He never once focused on possibly being in line for the position of PM. After all, that is the goal of not only the NDP, but all parties. I think he would achieve more votes if he looked like a possible PM, or at least more like an international leader, and not as a protest group trying to "hold the balence of power"

Stephan Harper looks like he is reading from a script (again) and I think he's just told what he believes by a panel of political people (yes, that may be true about all the PMs, but I am sure there are some issues where the leader decides where the party stands) He needs to act like he cares about the issues, and that he will defend Canada's fundamental rights. His performance made me seriously want to change my vote to independant

Paul Martin I would say had the best line in the debate "I will not stand by while you tear my country apart. " Very pationate. He did a very good job defending his party against three attacks from three parties.

Lastly is Gilles Duceppe. How about you learn some english SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING! WE ARE A BILINGUAL COUNTRY, WITH ENGLISH BEING THE DOMINANT LANGUAGE! AT TAKE SOME LESSONS OR SOMETHING! He had some great comments, and if I lived in Quebec, I may have actually decided to vote for the Bloc. But if he wants to separate from Canada, he needs to convince the people of Montreal, where some of the major votes are from, and part of convincing them is to have a leader that can speak fairly good english as a leader in the national stage.

Speaking of the debate... i only caught about the last half of it and it really didn't seem like a debate to me. I don't think the new format for the debate is very good at all. It was mostly them just spouting out their policies/beliefs and if they challenged another leader on an issue, if the leader already spoke on the issue there was almost no rebuttal to defend their views (that I saw at least).

What do you guys think of the new format? I feel they took the debating out of the word debate... lol

So now you watched the leader's debate, who would you now vote for next month?

For those of you who missed the leader's debate, click here (http://www.cbc.ca/clips/ram-newsworld/debate_051216.ram).


Whomever has a pulse?

The NDP is the only party that wouldn't make me feel dirty for having voted for them. But I'm not sure if that's a good enough reason yet.

Even so, I live in probably one of the richest and most Conservative cities in Alberta (the whole country?), so the odds that the NDP will actually win here are remote.

Also.. I thought I'd say it here since maybe some people are not aware. The Green Party is not a viable leftist party alternative. Read their platform. They'd be like an environmentally-friendly Ronald Reagan if they held power. Doesn't mean I think they should be barred from leadership debates, but don't be deceived into thinking environmentalism = leftist policy.

I was pretty disappointed about the format of the debate to be honest. If the point of the debate was to keep them on topic, it was failed miserably.

What really annoyed me was the fact that the other parties kept avoiding the questions being asked. Stephen Harper was the only one who answered each question directly. He may has a personality of a block of wood with a smiley face draw on it, but at least he has substance.

Jack really did an amazing job for the first half an hour or so, going beyond the other parties. Then he started spiral into a downward spiral by sounding like some shady drug dealer in a back alley. Between fawning over Ed Broadbent and spouting off about "sending New Democrat MPs to Ottawa", he absolutely blew an otherwise golden opportunity to connect with Canadian voters and firm up the soft NDP base. In short, he didn't sound like someone ready to lead a nation.

Paul Martin went through the questions like cat to water: by avoiding them. For some reason, he mentions his father twice and anyone who actually followed him for the past year should know that Paul Martin refuses to answer questions are even remotely controversial.

I would like to also point out that if Paul Martin is so very concerned over "charter rights" when it comes to same sex marriage, then why does he cringe away from charter rights when it comes to the SCoC's decision on health care?

Then of course, Stephen Harper. The man who bears little to no passion or wit. He isn't exactly charismatic, but neither was Chretien and look what happened to him. The only thing I liked, and think most importent, was that Stephen Harper talked about the issues and answered things directly. He didn't try to change the topic like Jack nor did he avoid them like Paul Martin. He said exactly what I wanted to hear: What he will do if he gets elected, where he stands, and how.

Even so, I live in probably one of the richest and most Conservative cities in Alberta (the whole country?), so the odds that the NDP will actually win here are remote.Calgary?

Canada City']He may has a personality of a block of wood with a smiley face draw on it, but at least he has substancelol :D

BTW, why same-sex marriage is a touchy issue in the debate and not the adscam shit?

Lastly is Gilles Duceppe. How about you learn some english SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING! WE ARE A BILINGUAL COUNTRY, WITH ENGLISH BEING THE DOMINANT LANGUAGE! AT TAKE SOME LESSONS OR SOMETHING! He had some great comments, and if I lived in Quebec, I may have actually decided to vote for the Bloc. But if he wants to separate from Canada, he needs to convince the people of Montreal, where some of the major votes are from, and part of convincing them is to have a leader that can speak fairly good english as a leader in the national stage.
Funny, us voters from Quebec have exactly the same qualms about all the other three party leaders.

Stephen Harper's and (sadly)Jack Layton's french is *horrendous*. And Paul Martin's is little better; althought he may not have as thick an accent as the other two, he keeps using english turns of phrase that have no sense whatsoever in French.

Lastly is Gilles Duceppe. How about you learn some english SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING! WE ARE A BILINGUAL COUNTRY, WITH ENGLISH BEING THE DOMINANT LANGUAGE! AT TAKE SOME LESSONS OR SOMETHING! He had some great comments, and if I lived in Quebec, I may have actually decided to vote for the Bloc. But if he wants to separate from Canada, he needs to convince the people of Montreal, where some of the major votes are from, and part of convincing them is to have a leader that can speak fairly good english as a leader in the national stage.Weird, I find Duceppe's English perfectly understandable. He may have an accent, but he speaks clearly and not too fast.

Great name by the way, if most definately has a ring to it

Oh I miss Crouton. I miss his wholesale slaughter of colloquial english. We'll not see his like again.

I wish this reflected the actual voting results

ЖИВЕЛА НАЦИОНАЛНА ДЕМОКРТАСКА СТРАНКА

LONG LIVE THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY

I'm a real Commi BTW

Liberal.

The outburst at Gilles Duceppe cinched it for me. Harper was eerily calm, I can't stand that. Layton seems very smarmy to me, he stands there and delivers proclomations that make very little sense and acts as if he's brilliant for thinking them up. Gille Duceppe.... I would prefer if he had never been born, he's a brilliant man and it worries me how strong he's made the Bloc.

Keep Canada strong and prosperous....


VOTE LIBERAL

I didn't watch the debate terribly closely, and it didn't have any effect on my voting decision, but my impression of the varius leaders was as such: Jack seemed to be faking emotion though the whole thing, Paul looked kind of old and tired, Gilles seemed out of place (most of the questions had nothing to do with seperatism and hence nothing to do with his party) and Steve was so-so. I came away thinking that overall Steve did the best job, but I'm pretty hardcore Conservative, so I'm not exactly a fair judge.

My favourite part was when they anounced that the second question was on social issues and was coming from someone in small-town Saskatchewan. I was like "hmm . . . I wonder if it's about gun control." Then they cut to the video of the guy and it looked like he had about ten or twenty long-guns displayed behind him. It made me laugh.

Conservative, time for change...

May the NDP burn in hell with the Bloc...:headbang:

The Green Party is not a viable leftist party alternative. Read their platform. They'd be like an environmentally-friendly Ronald Reagan if they held power.

That is far and away the most convincing arguement for voting Green I have ever read.

EDIT: Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be valid. I looked up the Green's website and they say they are opposed to private healthcare, corporate tax cuts and proactive foreign policy. I can't say that I disagree with them on every one of those issues, but I hardly see how they could be compared to the late great Ronald Reagan.

http://www.ndp.ca/themes/ndp/images/ndp_logo.gif

nuff said.

Calgary?

St. Albert

http://www.ndp.ca/themes/ndp/images/ndp_logo.gif

nuff said.

As a recent Dilbert joke pointed out, promising to "get results" is stupid because regardless of what you do, something will result. Ah well, I guess it's still a better slogan than something like "NDP: with a little luck, we might be able to pull into second place for once!"

St. Albert

There's a city in Canada more right-wing than Calgary? :eek: :D

Canada City']Then of course, Stephen Harper. The man who bears little to no passion or wit. He isn't exactly charismatic, but neither was Chretien and look what happened to him. The only thing I liked, and think most importent, was that Stephen Harper talked about the issues and answered things directly. He didn't try to change the topic like Jack nor did he avoid them like Paul Martin. He said exactly what I wanted to hear: What he will do if he gets elected, where he stands, and how.
Too bad none of the other leaders where as direct as Harper. I also liked his ideas on vote senate/electoral reform. Other than that though, I disagreed with him alot.

As a recent Dilbert joke pointed out, promising to "get results" is stupid because regardless of what you do, something will result. Ah well, I guess it's still a better slogan than something like "NDP: with a little luck, we might be able to pull into second place for once!"Tell me what do the Conservatives accomplished besides trying to stop C-38, adscam, and bringing down government. "Stand up for Canada"? sure, soon they it's going to be "Stand up for the United States".

Tell me what do the Conservatives accomplished besides trying to stop C-38, adscam, and bringing down government.

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1978/

"Stand up for Canada"? sure, soon they it's going to be "Stand up for the United States".

Okay, so "Stand up for Canada" isn't exactly awe-inspiring. At least it implies doing something productive, unlike "Getting results for people", which sounds like the unholy union of meaningless corporate slang ("getting results") and socialist propaganda ("for people"), and which ends up being even more inane than either one on its own.

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1978/
I'm sorry but those are "will", not "accomplished". "Accomplished" as "did that, done that", not "going to do that".

These are the "accomplished" (http://www.ndp.ca/ourrecord).

I'm sorry but those are "will", not "accomplished". "Accomplished" as "did that, done that", not "going to do that".

These are the "accomplished" (http://www.ndp.ca/ourrecord).

So the NDP had their budget accepted. Good for them. Bad for the country, but good for them. That still makes them two accomplishments short of the list you yourself attributed to the Conservatives (C-38, Adscam and Bringing down the Liberal Party).

So the NDP had their budget accepted. Good for them. Bad for the country, but good for them.These ARE good for Canadians. What? You say lower tuition fee is bad? I rather have lower tuition fee than the one that explode my savings account.

That still makes them two accomplishments short of the list you yourself attributed to the Conservatives (C-38, Adscam and Bringing down the Liberal Party).

Not really:

C-38: NDP got it passed, Conservatives failed miserably to try stop this from happening. NDP: Mission Accomplished, Conservatives: Mission Failed

Adscam: Not really an accomplishment, just yelling and screaming mostly from the Conservatives.

Bringing down the gov't: Conservatives did that, the NDP did that too, so is BQ.

BTW, go to sleep. Ur like a few hours ahead of us. :D jk

These ARE good for Canadians. What? You say lower tuition fee is bad? I rather have lower tuition fee than the one that explode my savings account.

The government ran a surplus, which means that it collected more tax than was necessary. A lot of the tax that the government collects comes from corporate taxes, so the Liberals, caught in a rare moment of wisdom, wanted to give the excess money back. But no the NDP has to jump in and make up a budget where the excess money is used to increase the size of government via increased social spending. Just what Canada needs: a more corpulant welfare state!

As to the tuition rates: well, I guess as long as the government is handing out other people's money we students may as well get a share of the swag. Still, makes you feel kind of bad about the poor saps who are getting robbed so that guys like you and me can be granted the privalege of a higher education.

Not really:

C-38: NDP got it passed, Conservatives failed miserably to try stop this from happening. NDP: Mission Accomplished, Conservatives: Mission Failed

Adscam: Not really an accomplishment, just yelling and screaming mostly from the Conservatives.

Bringing down the gov't: Conservatives did that, the NDP did that too.

C-38: weren't there a lot of Liberal and Bloc MPs voting on the thing too? If it had been strictly NDP vs. Conservative, the Conservatives would have had their way. (Although I'm not sure if all the Conservative MPs were against C-38, so it may have passed anyway since the Conservatives have this lovely policy of not forcing their MPs to vote any particular way.)

Adscam: The Conservatives are the official opposition. When the reigning party does something illegal it's their job to yell and scream about it. Otherwise, the Liberal Party would have swept it under the rug like they did with Shawinigate and who knows what else.

Bringing down the government: I think we're in agreement on this one.

BTW, go to sleep. Ur like a few hours ahead of us. :D jk

Yeah, no kidding. It's closing in on four am here. Ah well, my sleeping habits have been a little eliptical ever since regular classes ended.

Even if Layton tends to look like a fish in a shrinking puddle that's proud of himself for escaping the sea, I think he's the best option there is. Let's see the basic track record of the only three parties that really have a decent chance (Since parties like the Green party, while having motivation, aren't likely to get more than a handful or so of seats):

Conservatives: Promise things that would REALLY adversely affect Canadians (Eg. Lower taxes -> less money going toward education, healthcare, etc., causing Canadians to have to pay multiple times as much to enjoy the same things we have now) in words that make them seem okay when they're not, and put them all through

Liberals: Promise things pretty close to what Canadians already have, and not put any of them through (The stack of labels on their Red Book must be a few inches high by now) even with a majority government

NDP: Promise things that will better Canada significantly (Eg. Lower tuition for students, more low-income housing) and put through as many of them as possible.

Even if the NDP doesn't accomplish all of what they hope to, Canada wouldn't be the same with the Conservatives in power; everything Canada's known for (Like the biggie, healthcare) would be obliterated or unrecognizable.

Fortunately, since I turned 18 a few weeks ago, I'll finally be able to express that at the polls. :D Every vote counts! (Except with voting fraud, but Canada's not big on that.)

Promise things that would REALLY adversely affect Canadians (Eg. Lower taxes -> less money going toward education, healthcare, etc., causing Canadians to have to pay multiple times as much to enjoy the same things we have now)


What proof? The fact that we have a huge giant surplus tells us that we are being taxed too much and the government doesn't need all that money to support our country. Besides, Harper is only going to cut by ONE percent, then another percent within three years. Plus the conservatives would get rid of Gun Registry, that billion dollar sinkhole, giving less expenses to economy.

I think Jack Layton did a very good job. However, I did not agree with his fundamental idea. He kept asking Canadians to vote NDP MPs into Parliment to let the NPD hold the balance of power. He never once focused on possibly being in line for the position of PM. After all, that is the goal of not only the NDP, but all parties. I think he would achieve more votes if he looked like a possible PM, or at least more like an international leader, and not as a protest group trying to "hold the balence of power"
He's just being realistic. He used the "vote Layton for PM" schtick in 2004, and it was just pathetic. He and everyone else knew that the party hasn't got the votes for that. Now he's giving voters a goal that is practical, possible, attractive, and reasonable - a lot of people were impressed by what was accomplished by the NDP 'holding the balance of power', even though they didn't actually have enough seats for a true balance of power.

I vote for the Liberals because I tend to vote for the known devil instead of the unknown devil! I believe that's what Ralph Klein has said about us Ontarians.

There's a city in Canada more right-wing than Calgary? :eek: :D

It's Called Lethbridge, Alberta where I live. The other candidates seriously do not even have to bother running candidates. I have yet to see one Liberal Candidate sign yet. Anyone except the Conservatives have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in my City. Plus we're right smack dab in the middle of Southern Alberta or Hick Country. By the way, Go Stephen Harper!!

I'm the only one who said duceppe? I don't know why, but I just really like the guy. If Quebec separates, I'd probably just move there, as they would take all of Canada's culture with them in one fell swoop.

I wish the Bloc ran candidates in Alberta :D :eek:
It'd be hopeless, but....

Oh, by the way, did anyone else think it was funny when duceppe was talking about how doctors from other countries come here and become taxi drivers, and then he quickly interjected, "not that I have anything against taxi drivers!"
I thought that was pretty comical for some reason.

Canada City']What proof? The fact that we have a huge giant surplus tells us that we are being taxed too much and the government doesn't need all that money to support our country.

Uh.. Have you looked at the state of our country lately?
It's pretty good, but it could be a darn sight better.

For me, the priority investment I'm looking to see any party promote is education. Post-secondary education especially, it's an investment that pays for itself. The average post-secondary graduate will make a million dollars more over his or her life-time than their non-graduated counterpart according to Stats Can. Even at the marginal rate of 17%, that's still $170,000 *more* in taxes. When the typical tuition & textbooks for four years of post-secondary education costs around 40K in Canada, you're looking at a four fold return over the typical 40 year working life, and that's at the bottom rate. Many will pay much more.

In addition, post-secondary graduates are more likely to start a successful small-business venture, (and so employ more people) and less likely to use any of the various other welfare programs our government provides, including health-care. In short, there shouldn't be a single person in Canada who has a second thought about the financial cost of an education. If they want it, it does us all good to provide it to them.

Sadly, it's not generally a sexy issue, so not a lot of resources seem to be devoted to coming up with good solutions to it.

As for a surplus, you could call it taxing us too much if we didn't have this horrendous debt to deal with. Surpluses in times of plenty are good, provided that they go to pay down the debt.

It's Called Lethbridge, Alberta where I live. The other candidates seriously do not even have to bother running candidates. I have yet to see one Liberal Candidate sign yet. Anyone except the Conservatives have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in my City. Plus we're right smack dab in the middle of Southern Alberta or Hick Country. By the way, Go Stephen Harper!!

Bah, Calgary re-elects Rob Anders, the true lightweight in the conservative party.

Seriously though, I thought Jack Layton did the best in the debate, not that I would vote for him...

Martin looked tired, Harper looked a little too unemotional and Duceppe is unimportant to me, I would rather see Jim Harris up there at least there is a Green candidate in my riding.

I will still vote conservative, for some of the reasons mentioned previously. My second vote is for the Green party, because they can use the cash.

1) When your government runs a surplus, where do they get the money from? Harper is all for cutting taxes to allow people to stimulate the economy their own way.

2) Harper has promised to allow more free votes so the MPs can vote the way their constituents want, not the way he or the party machinery wants.

3) Harper has promised more transparency in government and will have an independent ethics commisioner

4) He is giving people a choice in how to spend their money (parents of children under 6 get 1200/year) and he has shown that he believes Canadians are responsible enough to handle their own finances.

Now all I need is for the Canadian economy to reach the point where tuition in post secondary school is paid for upon successful completion.

Canada City']What proof? The fact that we have a huge giant surplus tells us that we are being taxed too much and the government doesn't need all that money to support our country. Besides, Harper is only going to cut by ONE percent, then another percent within three years. Plus the conservatives would get rid of Gun Registry, that billion dollar sinkhole, giving less expenses to economy.
But you also must consider how much he wants to spend on the military. IIRC, the budget he put out last election had the conservatives spending more than the other parties while bringing in the least through taxes.

Definitely Liberals. The others just plain stink.
http://www.liberal.ca/images/logo.gif

Definitely Liberals. The others just plain stink.
http://www.liberal.ca/images/logo.gif
You crazy German, you know nothing about our politics. Unless you read this thread, then you know less than nothing about our politics.

I will still vote conservative, for some of the reasons mentioned previously. My second vote is for the Green party, because they can use the cash.

Wait.. a second vote? Are you sure you're not American? :)

I have yet to see one Liberal Candidate sign yet.Same here, all I saw is the NDP sign and that Christian (Fundamentalist) Heritage Party sign.

Speaking of debate polls, call I please ask you guys to check out mine? I would like to see whether the debates actually changed anyone's mind, but I forgot to put Canada in the title, so I'm not getting many viewers...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=460046

I apologise for this shameless plug.

Weird, I find Duceppe's English perfectly understandable. He may have an accent, but he speaks clearly and not too fast.

Great name by the way, if most definately has a ring to it

If you ahve a good memory, you'll remember that during the last election's debate, Duceppe not only won the french debate, but the english debate too, completly crushing Martin. He has the most experience by far.

I am the only one who tought the debate was boring without direct interaction. It only looked like a free add time to me for every important party

I am the only one who tought the debate was boring without direct interaction. It only looked like a free add time to me for every important partyNo you're not the only one. I've seen a lot of bloggers and some main-stream press make this complaint as well.

There must be a happy medium between this format and the old one. What if they just made them real debates, like you have in college or highschool? Would that work?