The English Language Debate

[bcholmes]

Wow. For me, this was really hard to call.

First up, Layton was much better tonight than last night. He was on the attack a lot (which probably turns some people off), but I think that he got some key wins in the debate. I was a little irritated by his tendancy to go off into canned messages, but he definitely sounded more on-message.

For example: I think Harper made a misstep when he went into "my advisors don't want me to talk about this aspect of health care privatization" and Layton got to drill back: "a study was just released showing that that system is far more expensive." I also think that Layton got a lot of mileage out of making the Bush-Harper analogies.

I found that one-on-one debates between Layton and Duceppe made both parties look better. They were able to talk about what they agreed with, and didn't really feel much need to attack each other. (Could they ever form a government? Probably not)

When Martin mocked, "Did your handlers tell you to talk all the time?", I thought that Layton's comeback was strong. ("This is not a laughing matter, sir.") I think, though, that Martin scored a good victory when he turned Layton's charter of rights comment around. Layton accused Martin of avoiding taking leadership on same-sex marriage by hiding behind the Supreme Court and the Charter of Rights, and Martin replied: "*Hiding* behind the Charter of Rights? The Charter of Rights is a fundamental document for Canada." Up until that point, Layton did a good job of pointing out that Martin hadn't really taken a leadership role.

It was interesting that Martin didn't seem to be too adversarial with Jack. At one time, he said "I accept that criticism" with Layton attacked him on the "there are only two leaders to choose from" message. It was adroit that he could kinda play nice and still be dismissive at the same time.

Martin also got in a good point on Harper on national Child Care. Harper said that he preferred the "tax less" rather than the "spend more" model. Martin said, "but tax credits assume that they've got the money to spend. How is a single unemployed mother supposed to afford Child Care if she has no money to begin with?" I don't think that he ever quite landed the point about Harper's budget, but there it is.

Martin also got Harper to seem to be avoiding question on using notwithstanding and abortion. Harper tried to redirect it into another notwithstanding message -- about child pornography -- but that line never went anywhere.

Duceppe was, again, very well prepared, although I think that some of his speeches were muddied. His whole "I know that I will form the opposition" point missed the mark. And his point about viewing Quebec as a nation speech was messy. For him, last night's debate was far more important, so those weaknesses probably didn't hurt him much. Duceppe's opening statement about not forming a minority with either the Liberals or the Conservatives was a very interesting statement.

I was interested in the amount of discussion of Iraq and the relationship with the US. I thought Harper was quite eloquent when he said that governments often disagree, but that Canada must strive to not be disagreeable, as they sometimes were under Chétien.

All three non-Liberal leaders slagged Martin for being unclear about what he stood for. Conversation was littered with "Well, you and I disagree, but at least you're clear where you stand."

I do think, however, that Martin screwed up on his responses regarding the sponsorship scandal. I think he was too cavalier when he said "I could have swept this under the rug but I didn't." You want kudos for not lying to us? Hmmm....

I think that Martin had a good closing speech. It played up the concerns that Canadians have about Harper and just how socially conservative he might be. Layton's closing speech did the same with both the Liberals and the Conservatives. "Can't trust Paul? Can't trust Stephen? We're a viable alternative." I think that Jack is targetting the message that people will buy into: that a minority Liberal/NDP government will keep the Conservatives from running the government without fully endorsing Martin. The cost for Martin, however, is going to be proportional representation.

In the final analysis, I think I'd say Martin took the lead just a bit, and the other three were hard to distinguish.

Comments

Re: The English Language Debate

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

I think that Jack is targetting the message that people will buy into: that a minority Liberal/NDP government will keep the Conservatives from running the government without fully endorsing Martin. The cost for Martin, however, is going to be proportional representation.

that would please me quite a lot, such a government. a compromise on proportional representation would be awesome.

[futabachan.livejournal.com]

In the final analysis, I think I'd say Martin took the lead just a bit

I wouldn't go that far, but I do agree that Martin's closing statement totally saved his night. Duceppe rattled him for a few moments by putting him so firmly on the spot, but Martin cut through to the core of his message, and the last thing that everyone saw was Martin hitting his strongest points.

But Martin really needed to nail Harper tonight, and I don't think that he did. In too many spots, Harper came across as reasonable, level-headed, and in control. Surprisingly, so did Duceppe. I wonder what a federal government headed by Duceppe might have been like, if the Bloc had sympathisers in other provinces....

[purplepaisley.livejournal.com]

I wonder what a federal government headed by Duceppe might have been like, if the Bloc had sympathisers in other provinces....

Short lived.

:-)

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

I heard one commentator remark that for Martin, the only bad stuff that came up was stuff we've already heard many times (and maybe are desensitized to), but that the seeds of doubt had been raised for Harper. The commentator argued that the effect is that this could be the end of the downward spiral for the Liberals, and Martin now has two weeks to climb his way back up.

I think I'm sympathetic to that argument.

[futabachan.livejournal.com]

One can hope.

(Wait -- did I just root for Martin? Eww.)

[purplepaisley.livejournal.com]

Thank you for these precises. I had a business thing tonight and was unable to watch, as well as a personal thing last night - not that I'd follow the French well enough, anyway.

All three non-Liberal leaders slagged Martin for being unclear about what he stood for. Conversation was littered with "Well, you and I disagree, but at least you're clear where you stand."

It's late and I'm tired - is this a Martin quote? Pretty sad, if so. But this:

I do think, however, that Martin screwed up on his responses regarding the sponsorship scandal. I think he was too cavalier when he said "I could have swept this under the rug but I didn't."

...is shocking. That kind of arrogance doesn't go over well. Prat.

Martin had better pick up the pace. I'm going to be really disgusted if I get pushed into voting Liberal in order to keep the Conservatives out. Liberal/NDP coalition is what I'm hoping for. That has exciting possibilities.

[okoshun.livejournal.com]

I'd say that Martin took the lead only because he would ignore comments from the other debaters and keep pushing through on his own points and his own agendas.

At times, it almost seemed like he had his fingers in his ears saying "la la la, I can't hear you" while prattling on.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

I actually was really unimpressed with Martin last night, and when polled said that my opinion of him had dropped considerably. His tendency to laugh dismissively, to throw his hands up in the air and to portray through his body language that he wasn't taking either Layton or Duceppe seriously on any level didn't help the impression that he was a doddering old man who was mostly attempting to rest on his laurels, poorly. Harper, despite being my least favourite candidate there, did a great job of speaking as if every question was serious and should be addressed seriously. He gave a strong vibe of, "This matters. All of these questions matter. Your concerns are important." Martin gave the impression of, "I can't believe I'm slumming with you plebians. This is a waste of my time." It didn't look good on him at all.

I thought that Layton came across as a bit of a yappy dog, on the other hand, whose main message way, "Hey everybody, I matter too!" While he had some good things to say, his continual returning to the matter of being slighted by the remarks about there being only two parties got to the point of sounding like someone trying to convince themself almost, or trying to create a reality by insisting it's there. He did have some really good elements to his presentation, but he didn't treat himself as being on the same level as Martin and Harper, and so he didn't come across that way -- he came across as an aspirer, a hopeful.

Duceppe struck me as having the advantage of a person who is interviewing for a job just for the hell of it while already having a great, secure job. He had nothing to gain or lose in the debate, and so he was the most suave and at-ease. He seemed to be just taking shots and poking holes in the others' policies from an outside vantage. That worked well for him. Unfortunately, he stated his separatist message a bit too strongly on a couple of occasions, and he really hammered home the, "What's in it for Quebec?" theme, which makes sense for his party and their agenda, but makes him a complete non-player outside of Quebec.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

I have a lot of problems, though, with the idea of there being a "winner" or someone "taking the lead" in these debates. I was polled on who I thought "won" the debate, and I don't think it's a relevant or even useful way to view this kind of thing. It's not a debate that's won. You're asking a bunch of parties to basically expound upon their platform. They're not debating, and nobody is even attempting to convince others. There's zero likelihood of any of them saying, "Okay, I concede, my party's position on that issue is incorrect."

Even in terms of "who came off the best," there's a lot of opinion that can be levied, and of course, in my previous comment I left some of my own perceptions, but the majority of these will be highly perceptually biased. If somebody says something that makes sense to you, that's usually because it resonates on some level with your own thinking on the matter. In such a case, you'll conclude that they did a good job on that point. I think that everybody will conclude slightly differently who was best-presented in the "debate," but the idea of winning presupposes that these are debates at all, which they really aren't.

[commonperson.livejournal.com]

This is a very tough situation for the liberals. I'm more then a bit nervous. The shame is I think Martin could have done a good job, I think his goals were actually fairly noble. The thing is, if he had held out to get his ducks in a row a row and resolve the sponsership scandal and then held the elections down the road. The thing is he wanted a clear mandate and a fresh start so he wanted to get the election out of the way right away. Bad call, really unfortunate. Part of me thinks a lot of what's coming up is almost sour grapes on the behalf of Chrtiene's supporters. Ah well me and my conspiracy theories. :-P