in true blogger form: sheep in wolve's clothing
I feel somewhat obligated, as an interested party of the internet community as well as a poli. sci. major with readings to put off, to comment on last night's leaders debate. O, what a sight I was, curled up on the couch, ranging from impassioned anger to hysterical giggling. Any bystander would've assumed I was watching a chick flick. The evening was made all the more enjoyable by my roommate's comments; her nature verges on reserved, but she can get so eloquently outraged. But I digress, onto my analysis.
The debate centered around the expected imbalance, Mr. Harper vs. The People. Almost every comment of the leaders was posed as a question for or accusation against the incumbent PM. Although I can see the motivation for such an attack, especially seeing as this approach imitates the entirety of the NDP campaign, it put way too much power in Harper's hands. Harper delivered a slew of well-scripted defenses with the poker face of a Las Vegas champion. Although the topics were officially directed by citizens' questions and moderator Steve Paikin, this focus on Harper allowed him to focus the conversation entirely on his agenda. However, this turned out to be something of a mixed blessing for Harper as it led the rest of the leaders to challenge him to present his party's platform which is, curiously enough, yet to be released.
As the debate progressed, the leaders seemed to clue into each others existence. It gave me great joy to see Layton address Dion directly, especially considering how little the NDP campaign acknowledges the Liberals. The affection and respect between Layton and May was palpable on a few occasions, with Layton showing May a certain degree of deference and how they ganged up on shared priorities. There was a portion of the debate where every time Dion had the chance to speak, his main points had already been presented, and as such, Dion was left to iterate Liberal slogans and affirm the promises of his commercials. This seemed to be when Dion was most calm and charismatic, because he was getting to the very heart of his intentions.
However, Dion was not calm at other points. Upon Harper's (mis?)representation of certain figures within the Green Shift Plan, Dion repeatedly called him a liar and urged the Canadian public to not listen to his claims (as far as my Maclean's tells me, the Conservatives have been lying about these figures by not factoring in certain tax credits, despite considering them in any Conservative plan calculations). Dion was adamant and as enraged as I've ever seen him as he looked into the camera on this point. It was both hilarious and inspiring, to be sure.
As for Duceppe, I was impressed. He managed to stay true to his Quebecois nationalism while showing genuine concern for issues across the country. When the table was asked "What is the first thing you will do as Prime Minister?", Duceppe cleverly responded "I know I won't be prime minister and three of you won't be prime minister, neither. Some of you know it, but you won't say it." And went on to say that wouldn't stop him from asking the PM to accomplish certain responsibilities.
As much as I love Dion's dedication to his country and values, and must respect Harper's deft political maneuvering, my critical acclaim is reserved for Elizabeth May. I know May best through the occasional glimpse of her on TV, usually carrying flowers and waddling ever so slightly or embracing a friend. Throughout the debate, she spoke concisely yet expressively, she was respectful yet vindictive, she kept on topic and answered questions in a reliably direct matter. You could tell she really does her research and gives her whole attention to the welfare of her country. She proved in every respect that not only did she deserve to participate in the debate, but that the debate and Canadian viewers would have been deprived of some fantastic political insight had she not been there. I was impressed in every way.
I was happy to see the leaders willing to show not only respect but civility towards each other. One of the few things that outrages me absolutely about Parliament is that so many ministers seem to believe that shouting over one another or making animal noises is conducive to running a country. Anyone who tried such a tactic in a courtroom or business meeting would be thrown out and denounced for it. The leaders were fairly respectful of their time limits and very rarely did they resort to bullying (such as Duceppe repeatedly trying to get Harper to admit one of his ads was incorrect, Layton saying Harper must either not care or be incompetent, and Dion asking Layton not to interrupt him as he had never interrupted Layton [this is a scathing remark, coming from Dion]).
All in all, I was enthralled. For once, a piece of "educational entertainment" actually delivered both.
---------------------------------------------------
The debate centered around the expected imbalance, Mr. Harper vs. The People. Almost every comment of the leaders was posed as a question for or accusation against the incumbent PM. Although I can see the motivation for such an attack, especially seeing as this approach imitates the entirety of the NDP campaign, it put way too much power in Harper's hands. Harper delivered a slew of well-scripted defenses with the poker face of a Las Vegas champion. Although the topics were officially directed by citizens' questions and moderator Steve Paikin, this focus on Harper allowed him to focus the conversation entirely on his agenda. However, this turned out to be something of a mixed blessing for Harper as it led the rest of the leaders to challenge him to present his party's platform which is, curiously enough, yet to be released.
As the debate progressed, the leaders seemed to clue into each others existence. It gave me great joy to see Layton address Dion directly, especially considering how little the NDP campaign acknowledges the Liberals. The affection and respect between Layton and May was palpable on a few occasions, with Layton showing May a certain degree of deference and how they ganged up on shared priorities. There was a portion of the debate where every time Dion had the chance to speak, his main points had already been presented, and as such, Dion was left to iterate Liberal slogans and affirm the promises of his commercials. This seemed to be when Dion was most calm and charismatic, because he was getting to the very heart of his intentions.
However, Dion was not calm at other points. Upon Harper's (mis?)representation of certain figures within the Green Shift Plan, Dion repeatedly called him a liar and urged the Canadian public to not listen to his claims (as far as my Maclean's tells me, the Conservatives have been lying about these figures by not factoring in certain tax credits, despite considering them in any Conservative plan calculations). Dion was adamant and as enraged as I've ever seen him as he looked into the camera on this point. It was both hilarious and inspiring, to be sure.
As for Duceppe, I was impressed. He managed to stay true to his Quebecois nationalism while showing genuine concern for issues across the country. When the table was asked "What is the first thing you will do as Prime Minister?", Duceppe cleverly responded "I know I won't be prime minister and three of you won't be prime minister, neither. Some of you know it, but you won't say it." And went on to say that wouldn't stop him from asking the PM to accomplish certain responsibilities.
As much as I love Dion's dedication to his country and values, and must respect Harper's deft political maneuvering, my critical acclaim is reserved for Elizabeth May. I know May best through the occasional glimpse of her on TV, usually carrying flowers and waddling ever so slightly or embracing a friend. Throughout the debate, she spoke concisely yet expressively, she was respectful yet vindictive, she kept on topic and answered questions in a reliably direct matter. You could tell she really does her research and gives her whole attention to the welfare of her country. She proved in every respect that not only did she deserve to participate in the debate, but that the debate and Canadian viewers would have been deprived of some fantastic political insight had she not been there. I was impressed in every way.
I was happy to see the leaders willing to show not only respect but civility towards each other. One of the few things that outrages me absolutely about Parliament is that so many ministers seem to believe that shouting over one another or making animal noises is conducive to running a country. Anyone who tried such a tactic in a courtroom or business meeting would be thrown out and denounced for it. The leaders were fairly respectful of their time limits and very rarely did they resort to bullying (such as Duceppe repeatedly trying to get Harper to admit one of his ads was incorrect, Layton saying Harper must either not care or be incompetent, and Dion asking Layton not to interrupt him as he had never interrupted Layton [this is a scathing remark, coming from Dion]).
All in all, I was enthralled. For once, a piece of "educational entertainment" actually delivered both.
---------------------------------------------------