English leaders debate

[GORDBO]

Even though I've already decided who I'll vote for. I paid close attention to the debate. I was a little surprised how professional all leaders conducted themselves. I think they all had valid points, and it resulted in a good debate!

[PoscStudent]

This thread should have had a poll.

[Ayreonaut]

I'm not voting NDP, but I think Layton did the best.

[GORDBO]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

This thread should have had a poll.

not sure how to do that. can u set it up?

[Ayreonaut]

Originally Posted by GORDBO

not sure how to do that. can u set it up?

I think only mods can add one now.

[goodthings]

For me:

LAYTON:
Attack: 8/10. Hitting two birds with one stone!
Defense: 7.5/10. Nice defense, especially with immigration.
Attitude: 7.5/10. Somewhat calm. Not that of a loudmouth.
Formality: 7/10. He interferes sometimes.
Agenda: 8.5/10. Clearly stated the party's platform.
Overall: 7.7/10

IGNATIEFF:
Attack: 6.5/10. Attacks and attacks, but mainly Harper.
Defense: 7/10. Good defense.
Attitude: 6/10. A loudmouth. Not very classy.
Formality: 7.5/10 Good in debating format. But he was like yelling, but not as much as Gilles.
Agenda: 7/10. Agenda recognized, but not very clearly.
Overall: 6.8/10

DUCEPPE:
Attack: 6.5/10. Attacks and attacks, but mainly Harper.
Defense: 6/10. Focuses too much on attacks.
Attitude: 4/10. Another loudmouth. The leader that talks over the most. Not classy at all.
Formality: 6/10. He was like yelling.
Agenda: 8/10. Platform emphasizes Quebec.
Overall: 6.1/10

HARPER:
Attack: 6.5/10. Mainly defense. Hits three birds with one stone, but not as strong as Jack's.
Defense: 7/10. Avoids some questions.
Attitude: 9.5/10. I like his very calm personality. Never yelled.
Formality: 7.5/10. Took a lot of time. But lets others speak most of the time.
Agenda: 9/10. Really emphasizes the terms "economy" and "Tory majority" throughout.
Overall: 8.0/10

[flar]

Didn't watch the debate, but I added a poll.

[GORDBO]

Originally Posted by goodthings

For me:

LAYTON:
Attack: 8/10. Hitting two birds with one stone!
Defense: 7.5/10. Nice defense, especially with immigration.
Attitude: 7.5/10. Somewhat calm. Not that of a loudmouth.
Formality: 7/10. He interferes sometimes.
Agenda: 8.5/10. Clearly stated the party's platform.
Overall: 7.7/10

IGNATIEFF:
Attack: 6.5/10. Attacks and attacks, but mainly Harper.
Defense: 7/10. Good defense.
Attitude: 6/10. A loudmouth. Not very classy.
Formality: 7.5/10 Good in debating format. But he was like yelling, but not as much as Gilles.
Agenda: 7/10. Agenda recognized, but not very clearly.
Overall: 6.8/10

DUCEPPE:
Attack: 6.5/10. Attacks and attacks, but mainly Harper.
Defense: 6/10. Focuses too much on attacks.
Attitude: 4/10. Another loudmouth. The leader that talks over the most. Not classy at all.
Formality: 6/10. He was like yelling.
Agenda: 8/10. Platform emphasizes Quebec.
Overall: 6.1/10

HARPER:
Attack: 6.5/10. Mainly defense. Hits three birds with one stone, but not as strong as Jack's.
Defense: 7/10. Avoids some questions.
Attitude: 9.5/10. I like his very calm personality. Never yelled.
Formality: 7.5/10. Took a lot of time. But lets others speak most of the time.
Agenda: 9/10. Really emphasizes the terms "economy" and "Tory majority" throughout.
Overall: 8.0/10

Couldn't have said it better myself. I think your take is bang on!

[PoscStudent]

I don't think any of them won. Harper stayed calm but offered nothing to the voters and I doubt there are many who would switch their vote because of his performance. Layton is Layton, he did an okay job. A lot of people will say he won for the simple fact that they like him, I doubt his performance won over any Liberals. I think for it being his first debate, compared to third for Harper and Layton, Ignatieff held his own. If there were any Liberals on the fence or questioning his leadership I think he probably satisfied them. Duceppe was entertaining at times and did an okay, but for the most part he doesn't have a whole lot to contribute. I've heard people say he really smoked Layton during their mini debate and if he does that tomorrow night it could mean trouble for Layton in Quebec.

Originally Posted by goodthings

For me:

LAYTON:
Attack: 8/10. Hitting two birds with one stone!
Defense: 7.5/10. Nice defense, especially with immigration.
Attitude: 7.5/10. Somewhat calm. Not that of a loudmouth.
Formality: 7/10. He interferes sometimes.
Agenda: 8.5/10. Clearly stated the party's platform.
Overall: 7.7/10

IGNATIEFF:
Attack: 6.5/10. Attacks and attacks, but mainly Harper.
Defense: 7/10. Good defense.
Attitude: 6/10. A loudmouth. Not very classy.
Formality: 7.5/10 Good in debating format. But he was like yelling, but not as much as Gilles.
Agenda: 7/10. Agenda recognized, but not very clearly.
Overall: 6.8/10

DUCEPPE:
Attack: 6.5/10. Attacks and attacks, but mainly Harper.
Defense: 6/10. Focuses too much on attacks.
Attitude: 4/10. Another loudmouth. The leader that talks over the most. Not classy at all.
Formality: 6/10. He was like yelling.
Agenda: 8/10. Platform emphasizes Quebec.
Overall: 6.1/10

HARPER:
Attack: 6.5/10. Mainly defense. Hits three birds with one stone, but not as strong as Jack's.
Defense: 7/10. Avoids some questions.
Attitude: 9.5/10. I like his very calm personality. Never yelled.
Formality: 7.5/10. Took a lot of time. But lets others speak most of the time.
Agenda: 9/10. Really emphasizes the terms "economy" and "Tory majority" throughout.
Overall: 8.0/10

Is Harper's only agenda a majority and in general the economy?

[vid]

It took them 91 minutes to mention Aboriginal people, but just in passing. Aboriginal issues weren't discussed at all. Not very impressed.

I don't think Ignatieff was as loud as Layton. I watched online and kept getting distracted by my shitty internet connection and the tweets going by on the site. The best one was "Stephen Harper's speaking voice tonight brought to you by three beers and an Ambien". This aside, my opinion of Harper isn't any better than it was before.

Ignatieff didn't do too bad, but he stumbled a lot. A few times he seemed to start making a point, then forget what the point was and make another point.

Lastly, the "party with the most seats" doesn't have the "right" to govern. It isn't automatically appointed. The Governor General looks at the composition of Parliament after results and asks the leader of the party with the most seats to form government, because it typically has the best chance of getting the confidence of the house. If that government doesn't work out, then the Governor General has two options: The first, least used one is to give the second place party a chance to govern, if it can get support of the house. The second more frequently used option is the dissolve Parliament and call another election.

Now, Harper implying that this wasn't true is bad enough, but when no one else corrected him by explaining this, that just made me lose faith in all of them. Either the four leaders don't know how parliament works, or they're deliberately misleading us about how it works. I think that perhaps they didn't explain that because it is the explanation of Harper's 2004 letter to Adrienne Clarkson, reminding her of this option. So then, why he didn't explain it properly is a puzzle. It would have been a better explanation of his coalition letter than he gave at the start, by simply explaining that that is how the process worked and he wanted the GG to consider the first option before using the second one. If these guys don't know how Parliament works why are we letting them run it?

I really hope Harper gets a minority now. That is the best way to ensure that at least 3 of them are gone by the next election.

[Andy6]

I thought Ignatieff came across like a raw rookie who was surprisingly slow on his feet. He seemed to be firing wildly in every direction without taking careful aim or focusing on a coherent message. I can't see that performance appealing to middle-of-the-road voters who are basically satisfied with Harper. Harper's message was clear and compelling: focus on the economy + the only way to ensure this happens is to elect a Conservative majority. All the stuff about contempt motions and so on only played into his theme of the dysfunctionality of a minority House of Commons. Layton did a very good job as well. Duceppe used to be good in these debates but he isn't getting better with age.

[Coldrsx]

Layton as always. Amazing what you can do with little accountability.

[vid]

Layton and Duceppe did a good job of taking the debate off-topic. They know they won't win so they voiced their complaints, instead. I thought Ignatieff did quite well at keeping the discussion on topic but I find the constant repeating of the questioner's name kind of creepy. I think Harper sounded like a monotone broken record. I half expected him to be interrupted by a customer service agent, to whom my call is very important.

I've always though Duceppe less as a leader in the debate and more as a sort of well-informed average Joe who (usually) calls the others out on their bullshit. He didn't do that as well this time, though.

[Highinthesky]

If anyone actually came away believing that the contempt motions are a product of a minority government they shouldn't be allowed to vote

[Mister F]

The "party with the most seats" talk was awful. All of them making the very concept of a coalition sound somehow undemocratic, and Harper saying the only way to govern effectively is with a single party majority. What utter crap. That debate just makes me want Parliament reformed more than ever.

[Highinthesky]

Originally Posted by Mister F

The "party with the most seats" talk was awful. All of them making the very concept of a coalition sound somehow undemocratic, and Harper saying the only way to govern effectively is with a single party majority. What utter crap. That debate just makes me want Parliament reformed more than ever.

My thoughts exactly

[vid]

Originally Posted by Highinthesky

If anyone actually came away believing that the contempt motions are a product of a minority government they shouldn't be allowed to vote

It was easier to pass such a motion in the house in that situation--that should be pointed out--but if the other parties feel that the government, which can only stay in power with their confidence, is making it too difficult for them to support it by not releasing information they need to properly and responsibly do what they are elected to do, then certainly, they must call the government out on it. People do have to understand that this isn't really a legal decision. Aside from a possible bad election result for Harper there isn't really any punishment he will face from the motion's passing.

We had 7 years of minority parliament before that motion and have had minority parliaments in the past, as have other Commonwealth realms, and they have never been in a situation where the opposition felt the need to not only express non-confidence, but to charge the government as being in contempt of parliament, as well. That is serious. Harper's constant downplaying of a lot of scandals that have hit the party, while small, are not an attribute one wants in a Prime Minister. A lot of reasons I hear from Conservatives about why they hate the Liberals and Jean Chretien are quickly becoming my reasons to hate the Conservatives and Stephen Harper.

[Boris2k7]

I actually just decided to throw the replay on my other monitor while I work for a little while. Seeing my twitter feed in the last couple hours, according to others such as Michael Moore and Rick Mercer, Duceppe again displayed how he is the only party leader present who fully understands how Canadian parliament works.

Mayor Nenshi is tweeting, on the other hand, how he is watching the replay and finding it terribly painful.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by goodthings

For me:

LAYTON:
Attack: 8/10. Hitting two birds with one stone!
Defense: 7.5/10. Nice defense, especially with immigration.
Attitude: 7.5/10. Somewhat calm. Not that of a loudmouth.
Formality: 7/10. He interferes sometimes.
Agenda: 8.5/10. Clearly stated the party's platform.
Overall: 7.7/10

IGNATIEFF:
Attack: 6.5/10. Attacks and attacks, but mainly Harper.
Defense: 7/10. Good defense.
Attitude: 6/10. A loudmouth. Not very classy.
Formality: 7.5/10 Good in debating format. But he was like yelling, but not as much as Gilles.
Agenda: 7/10. Agenda recognized, but not very clearly.
Overall: 6.8/10

DUCEPPE:
Attack: 6.5/10. Attacks and attacks, but mainly Harper.
Defense: 6/10. Focuses too much on attacks.
Attitude: 4/10. Another loudmouth. The leader that talks over the most. Not classy at all.
Formality: 6/10. He was like yelling.
Agenda: 8/10. Platform emphasizes Quebec.
Overall: 6.1/10

HARPER:
Attack: 6.5/10. Mainly defense. Hits three birds with one stone, but not as strong as Jack's.
Defense: 7/10. Avoids some questions.
Attitude: 9.5/10. I like his very calm personality. Never yelled.
Formality: 7.5/10. Took a lot of time. But lets others speak most of the time.
Agenda: 9/10. Really emphasizes the terms "economy" and "Tory majority" throughout.
Overall: 8.0/10

Well said...

[haljackey]

Gotta say Layton won the debate in my opinion.

I like the Liberal candidate in my riding. Got a decision to make over the next little bit.