The French Language Debate

[bcholmes]

Tonight was the French language debate. My assessment of the leaders' performances:

• First: Duceppe (Bloc)
• Second: Harper (Conservative)
• Third: Layton (NDP)
• Fourth: Martin (Liberal)

Jack Layton (NDP) did a much poorer job than I expected. I thought that, in some areas where the NDP should have shined, Jack was sub-par. When Harper asked if "the traditional definition of marriage was a violation of Human Rights" Jack should have said, "Every time the government says that two consenting adults can't marry, it is a violation of human rights."

Harper (Conservative), sneakily, commented that he was okay with Gallant's comments because his party was open to diverse points of view, and asked if it was the same in the NDP. Layton should have responded, "The NDP is just like Canada: it is open, diverse, and welcomes healthy debate, but that human rights are a fundamental statement of direction that must be respected."

Jack seemed unprepared for Gilles Duceppe's point: "When it comes to things like health care, aren't you basically a federalist who would take decision-making power away from Quebec?" Jack fumbled for a response.

Jack was, however, quite prepared to debate with Martin (Liberal), and he did well on his one-on-one discussions with the Prime Minister.

Harper had the best closing speech (I'm sorry to say). His points were on-message and well-delivered (I don't like the message, but he was good about delivery).

Paul Martin did a lousy job. His entire debating style seemed to boil down to straw man arguments: "You've already said you're going to hike taxes..." and "Harper has said that his main priority is military spending." I'd say that Martin was the worst performer all and all.

I think the best performance, however, was Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Quebecois). Duceppe talked specific actions and details, and highlighted the differences between his party and the others almost solely on issues and party policy rather than using name-calling. Duceppe gave the best response to Harper's comments on same-sex marriage. Harper said that he wanted a free vote -- that he, personally, favoured the traditional definition of marriage but he would respect any decision that the majority of Parliament came to. When it was Duceppe's turn to reply, he said, "In Quebec, we already support same-sex marriage; and it's important to realize that the majority can't always make decisions on behalf of the minority." Again: on-message. First: talk about where Quebec stands on the issue. Then relate the whole issue to something that Quebecers relate to: being the minority.

This debate was primarily a debate between Martin and Duceppe. Neither the NDP nor the Conservatives are likely to win many votes in Quebec, and, frankly, the audience of the French Language Debate is Quebec.

Comments

Re: The French Language Debate

[tormenta.livejournal.com]

Interesting perspective.

*I* felt that Martin was sub-par... but in terms of keeping his cool, attacking with abandon, and speaking french fluently and comfortably, he did an excellent job. I also felt that, because most voters aren't capable of identifying straw-men fallacies, expecially when made about parties they don't know much about, his faulty, off-topic responses to questions probably came across well to the majority of people watching.

(I learned about this - "I call it the Used Car Salesman" technique of debate in high school. There waa a guy my partner and I never beat in the year we debated, and he was one of only 5 people we ever lost to. He did it by ignoring what you said and continuing with the straw-men attacks long after she should have been dead. And because he kept his cool and ignored what we were actually saying, he won. It was horrible - but effective. Martin was doing exactly that tonight.)

Harper showed well - kept his mouth shut when he needed to, spoke excellent french (in terms of expressing his ideas clearly using the language). He was proffesional and prepared.

Gilles Duceppe shone. He was prepared, he had well researched quotes framing all the other leaders as anti-Quebecois, and knew his stuff. He switched topics in logical ways that never seemes like he was dodging a question or deliberately switching to an off-topic subject to attack another leader, and he got his parties objective accross without sounding stuffed full of sound-bytes.

I'm an NDP suppporter and I was very dissapointed with Jack's showing. He stumbled over prepared speeches, was unable to respond to essential questions about the NDPs position, reverted to party lines rather than addressing specific questions asked - not logically linking ideas at all, wasn't able to defend against Harpers' gay marriage questions (which should have been the easiest thing in the world), never addressed Martins' constant accusations that the NDP is fiscally irresponsible, and his french seemed to me even poorer than Harper's. People were *handing* him opportunities to prove himself a federalist alternative to the Bloc, or to elaborate on the NDP perspective, and he missed them. I am hoping he will be better in english.

Fortunately the debate was civil, so he didn't get mauled... and there were some good points, where his confidence with the language seemed high and he got in salient points.

My assesment: Ducceppe, Harper, Martin, Layton, from best performer to worst performer.

Possibly I'm harder on Mr. Layton because I support his party. Possibly.



Overall, I'd rank as you

My ranking would be Duceppe, Har