2nd English Debate: Who did the best

[Finder]

I've always Liked Layton. But if you ask me there was no winner or losser in this one. At least big one.

I was hoping for a haymaker from one of them.

Also I was hoping for electoral reform *shrugs* I guess you don't always get your issue talked about.

I thought Layton made a good statment by saying we had to change conditions in Canada and Quebec so the Assembly would sign the con.

 

[Jo Canadian]

:lol: I found that yesterdays election was a little more of the same old-same old. Although almost everybody there did have some improvements over the last.

Duceppe though bothered me too, but more for the same reasons as before. However this time I found something intrinsically funny about his position and couldn't help amusing myself...You see I wasn't on any drugs last night, or even alcohol But everytime I see the logo for the Bloc, it couldn't help remind me of a Butt farting a Blue angel.

So with that initial thought, It felt like the Bloc was using the symbol to "Fart in Our General directions" and Duceppe started to remind me of this guy:

 

[Jay]

I thought Layton made a good statment by saying we had to change conditions in Canada and Quebec so the Assembly would sign the con.

He is going to have a tough time of it because he clearly showed last night, he has no idea what the Quebec issues are.

 

[Jay]

I have to applaud Martins comment in regards to the NWC, it gives too much power to one governing body with no checks and balances. Everything else was politicians thinking about getting the most seats. The moderator won.

Envoking the NWC only gives a five-year respite for the government and society to adapt to a court decision. It does not give the government carte blanche to ignore the decision. On top of that, envoking the NWC cannot be done without serious political consequences.

It is funny though, Martin is supposed to be the Champion of the Charter, but now he wants to change it? How about we just scrap it altogether then....

 

[TenPenny]

Re: Winner: The Rt. Hon. Paul Martin

In my honest opinion, the Right Honourable Paul Martin "won" the debate tonight; his messages that the parties should return to the issues, rather than to continue to entertain discussion and debate on the workings of the Government of the Chrétien era, should resonate with many people of Canada.

For example, consider the ads aired on television by the Conservative Party of Canada — I would like to see an ad that contains something Conservative, rather than thirty seconds of out-of-context quotes from the Hon. John Gomery. I have yet to see them quote the passage that exonerated the current members of the Government.

That's all hilarious, in light of the ad I heard on CBC this morning, bringing up...MULRONEY. Maybe if Martin believes what he says, he should talk to his "registered agent" and have the ads pulled?

 

[DasFX]

Harper did what he had to do, in that he kept to his script and made no major errors. The fake smile he had all night was a bit much. Martin did okay, he seemed to fumble his words at time. He was strong in the national unity debate. In the end, I think he won’t be able to stem the tide of change and there have been too many scandals in the Liberal party.

Layton kept to the issues and was strong with his points, but he did sound like a broken record at times. As for Duceppe, aside from the national unity portion, he presented the same message as the NDP. I think he will “try” harder tonight.

 

[Jersay]

The three errors I saw was from Harper,

saying who would beenfit from his taxes, not mentioning the poorest people of Canada at all

Saying he would give large corporate tax cuts

and saying nothing about the social problems of crime.

And Martin, he looked totally false when he was discussing about the three kinds of scandals that is going on in his government right now.

 

[nitzomoe]

Most interesting of all.... in the CBC's coverage after the debate they produced calculations that backed up the Tories claim that they offered more tax relief in total, and the most of any party for lower income people. !!!!!

didnt watch the the afterparty but during the actual debate the moderator had some interesting details: scrapping the tax cuts for the poorest ppl who are taxed would eliminate 6 billion dollars form their pockets while puting at most $5 billion into their hands which would be mean they are actually worse off than with teh liberals, funny how these little details swing rite by during the debate.

 

[I think not]

I have to applaud Martins comment in regards to the NWC, it gives too much power to one governing body with no checks and balances. Everything else was politicians thinking about getting the most seats. The moderator won.

Envoking the NWC only gives a five-year respite for the government and society to adapt to a court decision. It does not give the government carte blanche to ignore the decision. On top of that, envoking the NWC cannot be done without serious political consequences.

The NWC can be re-enacted indefinately after it's 5 year expiration. I give Martin alot of credit for this, despite the fact he said it for his own political reasons. I am probably looking at this from a clearly American point of view in regards to checks and balances of government, I personally would of voted for him based on this alone . I've hopped around a few Canadian forums last night and noticed its the conservatives that mostly object to it, I am trying to figure out why that is the case.

 

[Triple_R]

The three errors I saw was from Harper,

saying who would beenfit from his taxes, not mentioning the poorest people of Canada at all

Saying he would give large corporate tax cuts

and saying nothing about the social problems of crime.

And Martin, he looked totally false when he was discussing about the three kinds of scandals that is going on in his government right now.

I agree on the first one, but disagree on the last two. Harper should have played up how income tax cuts would do diddly squat for the poorest 20% or so of Canadians, while his GST cuts would, in fact, help that group. Saying this could only help him, and possibly even further erode Liberal support.

The second may be bad public policy, but it's not bad campaign policy, since his chief opponent (Martin) is in the same position on the issue as he is.

The third may also be bad public policy, but Harper can't afford to commit himself to much more social spending right now. If he brings up the social problems that can help lead to crime, he'll then be expected to bring up a comprehensive spending initiative on the matter. He simply doesn't have the numbers to spare for that right now.

 

[Triple_R]

I think not - I don't think that Canadians are as trusting of Supreme Court justices as Americans are. I know that I'm not. Even the NDP have often attacked the Supreme Court of Canada for their ruling on Health Care.

I agree with Stephen Harper on this issue - we shouldn't put supreme power in politicians, but nor should we put supreme power in the courts.

If you want to alter the notwisthstanding clause so you can't use it indefinitely, that's fine. However, to scrap it altogether gives too much power to the courts, in my view.

 

[Jersay]

Is that because his budget ideas and promises are so fragile that it could lead to deficit if he does something?

 

[Triple_R]

Jersay - That is the weakness of his platform, yes. He hasn't left himself much wiggle room. I don't necessarily think that his spending promises will lead to deficits, but I do think that he's at least boxed himself in on what he can spend on beyond the promises he's made.

 

[Jersay]

Thanks.

Kind of surprising in this poll that 42% thought Jack Layton did a good job.

And with Harper, whose to blame but himself and the conservatives that run his program.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: 2nd English Debate: Who did the best

I think not - I don't think that Canadians are as trusting of Supreme Court justices as Americans are. I know that I'm not. Even the NDP have often attacked the Supreme Court of Canada for their ruling on Health Care.

I agree with Stephen Harper on this issue - we shouldn't put supreme power in politicians, but nor should we put supreme power in the courts.

If you want to alter the notwisthstanding clause so you can't use it indefinitely, that's fine. However, to scrap it altogether gives too much power to the courts, in my view.

I don't think it is a matter of trust as it is not to concentrate to much power in one decision making body. Americans by their nature don't trust any governmental body, hence the necessity of checks and balances. There are ways to even overturn court decisions. Like I said, I am probably looking at this from an American point of view, and I can understand the opinions vary between our people. Let's not forget in your Charter you have the term "good government" which inherently defines the expectations of the electorate, our Constitution pretty much strips the concentration of power from all branches of government inherently defining "no trust in government". But as I recall even Trudeau referred to the NWC as a "compromise", so I believe there is reason for Martin to bring it up.

 

[Jay]

It was a compromise to Quebec...hence bill 101. (the French language laws)

Martin wanting to change the Charter is laughable...typical Liberals. It’s all "the Charter is great" and now..."maybe we need to change it". He's an ass.

 

[TenPenny]

Re: RE: 2nd English Debate: Who did the best

I agree with Stephen Harper on this issue - we shouldn't put supreme power in politicians, but nor should we put supreme power in the courts.

So where do we put the supreme power, then? In The Queen?

What Harper and his Harperites don't seem to "get" is that the Supreme Court simply applies the rule of Law; the Laws as written by...Parliament. And Parliament has decided that, for example, the Charter of Rights reigns supreme (except when the Notwithstanding Clause is envoked); therefore, the Supreme Court is simply applying the rules as written by Parliament.

If Harper and his crew don't like the way the laws are applied, perhaps they need to understand this better when they write them. Perhaps, being politicians, they don't fully grasp the various consequences of each piece of legislation. If that's the case, they need better advisors.

 

[Calberty]

Doing the best means doing what you have to..so that is Harper. did Martin turn the tide? Layton pull off a miracle? No.
No clear winner is win for Harper. When you're ahead 5-3 of the Liberals after 2 periods of a hockey game, a scoreless third period means a win.

 

[Jersay]

Actually I think Layton did pull off a miracle, just judging by what my poll of you guys say. Followed by martin and harper in a dead tie and poor Duceppe at the back.

Oh, I almost forgot, there was a funny part in the debate where they were talking about leaders, and if Duceppe would either support Harper and Martin and then the moderator said he forgot totally about Layton.

It was so funny to me at least, because it shows sadly, that the NDP gets forgotten.

 

[yballa09]

Jersay, with all due respect, the NDP support on these boards easily outnumbers the support for any other party. What would be interesting is to see a nationwide poll on who won the debate.