04.12.2011 08:00 PM

Verdict

Harper steady. Layton chippy. Duceppe unsteady. Iggy?

Just fine. He did well. The overnights will show folks saying the Liberal leader did better than they’d expected.

What do you think?

119 Comments

  1. Mulletaur says:

    Iggy did well. We have us a race.

    • George says:

      If you mean that Iggy’s got a race between himself and the Layton I think you’re right. Against Harper? I don’t think so. Iggy lost focus too often and instead of his platform kept hanging on issues few care about enough to give him the nod. I think Layton may catch him.

  2. James Curran says:

    Sorry. Didn’t see that. Oh well.

  3. Robert W says:

    Perhaps my expectations were really high. I thought Ignatieff did very well considering this is his first time. Each of the other leaders has been there multiple times. For Duceppe this was debate #13.

    I was hoping for a more polished presentation, but I am glad he wasn’t too polished. Harper seemed arrogant, medicated and like he couldn’t be bothered.

  4. Ron says:

    you’ve had my comments all night
    Harper looked good and steady
    Iggy was good against Duceppe and Layton
    he tended to stumble with words when he went after Harper

    thought the best exchange was early on between Jack and Iggy
    iggy showed how well he can speak

    roger smith makes a good point on iggy
    could have been too much adrenaline
    might be correct

  5. Dennis Wilson says:

    Iggy’s voice is so grating it is difficult to listen to.

    • que sera sera says:

      I thought Iggy’s voice was lively, passionate, collaborative & engaged.

      Harper’s voice sounded like a robotic voicemail drone:

      “Press 1 to talk to the Leader
      Press 2 to talk to a Human
      Press 3 to Disconnect”

    • JS Rothwell says:

      Oh Dennis, after hearing you’re vocals on the beach boys catalogue I’d say you shouldn’t talk

  6. Cow says:

    I think Iggy did better than a lot of people expected. I don’t think he was the stellar new-Obama a lot of Liberals hoped. It seemed like he really started winding down around 8:30, like someone forgot to come out and turn the crank and wind him up again…but to be honest, for a first federal debate ever, that was a good performance.

    My “halfway through the campaign” prediction has C 135, L 95, B 48, N 29, I 1. And greens a big ol’ zero. We’ll see–the Liberals have really surprised me so far!

  7. Stuart says:

    I had high expectations for Ignatieff that he would absolutely destroy Harper, but unfortunately that didn’t get met. Maybe the issue was that my expectation was too high rather than his performance was necessarily bad.

    In the end I was disappointed with the whole thing. Just a lot of the same old attacks against Harper that we’ve heard before. I suspect most people had already made up their minds about all of the talking points long before the debate.

    • The Doctor says:

      I always thought that was a problem among Liberal supporters — practically expecting that Ignatieff was going to obliterate Harper in the debate. That was expecting a bit much.

    • Michael Reintjes says:

      I feel the same way….just a big waste of time…everybody will see what they want to see instead of being honest….If I was forced at gun point to pick a winner it was Layton as much as that pains me.Harper steady,not taking any chances at all,boring…Iggy too much finger wagging like a petulant child, Jack,funny quick,likable……Duceppe, Irrelevant.

  8. Michael S says:

    What I got was that Stephen Harper thinks democracy is annoying.

    • nic coivert says:

      But it is annoying when you’ve only got a minority in the house and less than that in popular vote and you can’t agree with anyone else.

      An annoyance is how Harper perceives anyone or group that disagrees with his narrow ideology.

  9. Roger says:

    Iggy….”All they know is they’re dead”………..wow….just wow

  10. Nasty Bob says:

    On a technical note – I think the audio may have given Harper a subtle advantage in that it was biased ( in a technical sense = equalized ) towards deeper voices. Note how when Pakin and Harper spoke there was less ambient echo than the others, who speak on a higher register. Leaves the impression that Harper was calm while the other three were raising their voices.

    • Mike says:

      Agree NB… that and the camera angles and majority of shots showing Harper centred on screen looking “presidential” — really weird.

      • nic coivert says:

        Everyone I heard while we watched the debate wondered why Harper avoided the camera. Answer: because he’s not telling the truth.

        When ever Harper was pressured into another lie he looked like a little boy appealing to his mother over his father, an untruthful little boy that is.

      • Nasty Bob says:

        I don’t think looking into the camera was a big plus and might be somewhat negative – many people saw it as strange.

        I used to tell my witnesses in jury trials to face the jury and not me when they answered my questions- that’s the conventional wisdom. Then I did a few mock trials and so many of the people who played jurors told me it was off putting when a witness did that. It didn’t seem natural and looked like they were trying to persuade them rather than answer the question truthfully.

        • nic coivert says:

          I can see that.

          Harper looks at camera
          but misses it with his lies.

        • catherine says:

          I found it strange. A couple times the camera angle showed Harper speaking to another camera while the other 3 leaders, including the one who’s question Harper was answering, were looking at Harper. That looked really weird. If they had done that more often, I think it would definitely have been a big negative for Harper. However, mostly they just stayed with the camera Harper was looking at, and then one was only vaguely aware that Harper wasn’t addressing the leader that had asked the question. So, how they chose to use the cameras saved Harper from coming off as totally detached from the questioner.

  11. Riley says:

    Nothing seemed to stick to Harper. Nothing phased him. He was coached to look very calm which made the other leaders look like they were constantly exaggerating. No flubs by anyone but my 12 year old daughter thought Harper looked the best even though she knows how bad his policies are and she would vote Green if given the opportunity. Those are just raw impressions from a young person with no real political perspective just what she “felt”. Things will have to get dirty from here on in.

  12. Michael Slavitch says:

    Ignatieff looked like a Prime Minister. Shades of Da Boss and PET there. In good ways and bad.

    Harper looked annoyed at the fact that he had to be there. He looked managerial.

    Duceppe is spelled D-G-A-S. In bar fights, he’s the guy with a knife.

    Layton reveals the deep NDP hate for the Liberals. Dippers hate Liberals more than they hate Conservatives.

  13. Peter says:

    Harper–B
    Ignatieff B-
    Layton–Between A+++ and epic fail depending upon your belief in pixie dust
    Duceppe–Réal Couette lives!

  14. fritz says:

    Harper – smug
    Ignatieff – uneven
    Layton – feisty
    Duceppe- aggressive
    I didn’t see a winner or loser; everyone had good and bad moments.

  15. Dennis Wilson says:

    Iggy took a standing eight count when Layton hammered him on his voting record. He was like a deer in headlights. The hardest blow of the night by far.

    • smelter rat says:

      I thought he shook it off very effectively. It was a stupid point to try to make. There are a hundred reasons why someone might not be there on any given day, especially the OLO.

      • Alfred E. Newman says:

        Yah, and Iggy must have used all hundred reasons at one point or another. He was visibly stunned by the exchange and in the post debate media scrum he literally ran away when the reporter brought it up, just up and left.

    • Dr.J says:

      100% agreement….that was the line of the night

  16. MississaugaLibPeter says:

    Harper took his Paxil and looked more prime ministerial than the others.

    Harper can now sail to a majority unless MSM saves us.

    I just don’t get why Ignatieff missed so many votes. Anyone?

  17. Michael Slavitch says:

    Oh BTW, pundits like us are usually wrong about who won or lost a debate. A lot of people are looking at the election for the first time, and the point of a debate is to see if a person is a Prime Ministerial talent. They don’t look at policy or debating points, they look at the person, and ask this question: “Can I put up with this guy for the next few years.”

    Ignatieff showed that. The attack ads are now a waste of money.

    Stephen Harper didn’t show why he shouldn’t be Prime Minister. But he didn’t show that he should, either. Facing Paul Martin or Stephane Dion? That was enough. Ignatieff? Dunno yet. If people want a change from Harper Ignatieff won. If people are happy with the way things are Harper won. Time will tell.

  18. bruce the painter says:

    I am pissed off! I think Iggy missed the boat. Why the hell didnt Iggy brow-beat Harper more? He’s not applying for a job as a diplomat. He seemed to be raising his hand off camera to Paiken as if to ask permission to speak and interject. Big mistake, it looked subservient. Also his voice was gratingly plaintive for long stretches. Irritating. Dammit he should have gone for the jugular on substantive issues. Harper has been increasingly deceitful in the last 5 years. That narrative should have been laid bare and then used to make Harper squirm. Duceppe was superb. I distinctly got the feeling Harper was crapping his pants everytime Duceppe spoke. Duceppe is masterful with delivering questions with an equal mix of accusation and simplicity. I dont think Harper was shaken by Iggy at all. Iggy needed to get a little dirtier – maybe its not in him.

    • kitt says:

      Why oh why should Ignatiff act like a Reformatory?

    • nic coivert says:

      Ignatieff is passionate, but he doesn’t have a killer instinct.
      Is this bad? No, not in somebody who could run a minority government, but it may not be so effective during a national debate of restricted interactions.

    • JStanton says:

      … and that’s Mr. Ignatieff’s Achilles heel – he has no killer instinct. He could have taken Mr. Harper down on his lousy record, history of deceit and embellishment, and ineptitude, but he didn’t or couldn’t.

      The only way to cut through Mr. Harper’s bullshit, contrived to impress the uncritical and non-thinking, is to expose him for the pretender that he is. Mr. Ignatieff failed to do so, and the result of it all is that the status quo is maintained, with Mr. Harper appearing to be on top.

      .

    • Michael Reintjes says:

      Duceppe is wonderful to watch because he does not give a shit.He will continue to argue for Quebec only and it leaves him free to make what comment he feels like making on national issues.He has nothing to lose on national issues which makes him fun and at times hilarious.largely irrelevant but still fun.

  19. que sera sera says:

    “avuncular voice of reason rOute.”

    The old Father Knows Best routine that went out with the sixties.

    Harper made it perfectly clear that anyone who doesn’t accept his unsubstantiated truths on anything are just “bickering” and being “unreasonable”.

    Harper made it perfectly clear that democracy and Parliament are mere impedipements to his agenda.

  20. student501 says:

    Looks like we are going to have another minority government.

    Harper – did poorly on the AG – G8 report questions and the planes, the majority/coalition thing just doesn’t help Harper (and for that matter doesn’t help Ignatieff either)
    Ignatieff – was caught with his pants down on the 70% absence in Parliament
    Layton – was unable to convince anyone that he could form a government, even a minority government.
    Duceppe – speaking to the unconverted did not improve matters for a party landlocked in one Province.

    I have a feeling that we are going to see 4 leadership conventions after May 2nd 2011.

    • JH says:

      That was only a rehersal for tomorrow night for Duceppe. He’s done the same thing before. I’ll lay odds he’s got a bunch of bilingual folks hooked up tmeasurement meters in Que, responding to his lines. This debate meant nothing to him.

    • JStanton says:

      I disagree. No Harper majority, but definately an arrangement between LPC and NDP.

      Unless, of course, they continue to allow Mr. Harper to set the agenda.

      .

  21. Dave M says:

    Iggy did well to stop trying to flank Harper on the right and finally move to the centre.

    My prediction:
    Harper remains steady in Alberta, loses a little support to the NDP in the prairies.
    Iggy gains support in Ontario at the expense of the Conservatives.
    Duceppe loses a little support in Quebec amongst anglos and immigrants, but keeps around the same number of seats in the province. (Picks some up from the Conservatives around Quebec City, loses some others around Montreal to the Liberals, and maybe one or two to the NDP.)
    Atlantic canada remains around the same.

    As far as the debate goes:
    Duceppe did horribly, Layton and Iggy pretty well (but Iggy had lower expectations from most people because of Harper’s attack ads, so comes out ahead), and Harper was pretty neutral. If you hated him before, you still do, and if you didn’t, you probably still don’t care.

  22. smelter rat says:

    Not once. He took a few hits on his alliance with Jack and Gilles in 2004 though.

  23. Robert Jago says:

    Layton seemed so plugged full of hackneyed quips that they spilled out of him like he had a bad case of ‘one-liner’ tourettes. His central argument in every instance was ‘Mr X, you used to be cool man, what happened?’.

    Harper was sufficiently neutered so as to keep old ladies and Ontarians at ease.

    And Ignatieff? I’ve seen him speak in person and was impressed with him – but while this actually wasn’t any different from what I saw in person, it came across differently. I don’t think it translated well to television. Maybe TV needs a more intimate type of conversation than what he was offering, but whatever it was, he came across as off-putting. I also think he failed to make his case effectively, he assumed too much knowledge on behalf of the viewer. I was watching with a ‘normie’ and she kept getting lost trying to follow what he was going on about. She understood Harper well (and hated him), and understood Layton (and loved him), but nada for Ignatieff.

  24. smelter rat says:

    Jesus…I can’t believe I’m agreeing with you Gord 🙂

  25. Chubsy Ubsy says:

    People will be talking about Jack Layton’s dig at Ignatieff about “Showing up for work”.

  26. Paul R Martin says:

    I watched the beginning and turned it off as all I was hearing was a repetition of the same old tired arguments. I tuned back near the end in and noticed Layton taking on Iggy over his voting record. I thought that Harper’s closing statement was the best of the four. I do not know who won the “debate” as I saw little of it, but Iggy certainly lost the post debate scrum. His body language during the scrum was bad.

  27. Mike London says:

    Layton was very good. Harper not looking at whom he was speaking to was weird and off-putting to me. I had hoped Duceppe would have been harder on Harper, but his performance was good. Ignatieff was as good as he needed to be, since the expectations, as set out by Tory ads, were terrible.

    Layton and Ignatieff are the overall winners. Harper is only ok because he showed up.

    • Patrick says:

      Forgive me Mike, but you’re not the first one to advance this “he exceeded the low expectations the CPC promoted” meme. He’s supposed to do that. Most people are smart enough to know all political ads are highly exaggerated. The language you and others are using to justify his relatively sub-par performance reads like a post-mortem. I don’t believe any of the other partisan discussion groups are conjuring post-debate material like this.

  28. Jan says:

    He’s the Con party rep on here – doesn’t every site have one?

  29. Ian Douglas MacKenzie Young says:

    Nope. Ignatieff was a total disappointment.

    He was far too blasé and his failure to amend his ‘no coalition’ comments are going to come back to rip the party a new one.

    Duceppe, aside from the complete-xenophobe-on-immigration thing, did the best job. Layton was a distant second.

  30. Roger says:

    so…no big red tent then?

  31. JS Rothwell says:

    Or you could be more concise Gord.

  32. fritz says:

    The Hill Times is reporting the Tories cut and pasted a positive Kevin Page quote that came from an earlier report on another subject into the Tory minority report on the G8 costs. This is the same report that included a 10 year old quote on another subject by the AG as approving of Tory spending on the G8.

    I imagine reporters & the opposition are proof reading all the recent reports the Tories have written to see how many more ‘errors’ they can find.

    You just can’t make up this stuff.

  33. George says:

    Harper did what he needed to do. Ignatieff didn’t. Jack did and then some plus provided comic relief. Layton delivered the line of the night re: Ignatieff’s attendance in the house. Duceppe had a nice suit and tie.

    If Harper was boring, Ignatieff was the angry dude who got on the same old horse of issues that Canadians don’t care about but still said little about himself and his party.

  34. Ray says:

    I don’t think there was a clear winner.

    Duceppe wasn’t as good as he usually is. Maybe his time is up.

    Layton was good, and he had a couple of quotables. Ignatieff kind of summed it up when he said they’d never be in power though, and I think that resonates.

    Ignatieff – well I think if you had high expectations, he didn’t live up to them. If you were conditioned by the Conservative attack ads, he passed with flying colours. In a way though, I didn’t seem like he was trying to necessarily win the debate. He was really conspicuous in trying to stay on message and keep it simple in terms of the differences between him and Harper, plus there were only two choices. I’m interested to see that resonates. (I’m thinking Rob Ford here)

    Harper – he was steady. I think a lot of times he looked fazed though – kind of uncomfortable when being attacked. He too did well staying on message, but a lot of things seemed to be “his version of the truth.”

    Overall, I think that’s what the decider is for this debate – whether Canadians found Harper untrustworthy or whether Ignatieff got his messaging acrossed. I’m way too obsessed with this stuff to have any idea what a normal person might think.

    • Foxtrot Bravo says:

      Harper didn’t once mention the fact that Ignatieff was just visiting, or out the country if 30+ years, or an elitist, or exaggerating his immigrant roots, so be honest, the Conservative ads had nothing to do with Ignatieff’s sorry performance … it was all Ignatieff. And the argument that it was his first debate? Come on guys, he was on TV for 9 years and a professional speaker and debater! I guess that Counts for zero.

  35. Ray says:

    p.s next time i’ll actually proofread before I submit a comment

  36. kitt says:

    Coyne gets millions from Harper for his rag mag

  37. Patrick Hamilton says:

    Harper came off as Teflon man, as per usual…..once, just once, I would like that man to show a little passion…..however, I suppose if he does, folks around him duck and shout “Incoming!”….not to mention it may mean furniture being destroyed……Not looking directly at the camera or the person he was debating at the moment was a little off putting as well. I have to give it to his makeup artist though….he almost looked airbrushed, and perhaps he had been…..

    While Iggy gave a good account of himself, I thought he could have mixed his patter up a bit from the same ol, same ol we’ve been hearing on the campaign trail…..not saying I dont like the message, just deliver it without the usual buzzwords…..and if he says “gonna” one more time I’m going to scream……

    I thought Jack Layton was the winner of the night…..humour, good jabs at his opponents, and conveyed his party’s views succinctly and with passion……

    Is it me, or is Gilles Duceppe’s english getting worse over time?…..In debates past, I often thought the winner M. Duceppe…..this time I found his attacks somewhat garbled….thought him the nattiest dressed however…..

  38. mamapeggie says:

    I thought the questions were definitely slanted to MR. Ifnatieff’s favor – when told to debate with JAck he chose instead to attack Mr. Harper – Is giles English getting worse or is that just my ears. Harper won this one hands down. The other three already look like a coalition all attacking the same guy.

  39. Raymond says:

    It was nice not having to listen/watch Lizzie May interrupt, step on, shout down, and wag her finger at everyone. I’m glad they left her out of this one…it seemed much more civilized.

  40. nic coivert says:

    Ignatieff looked Prime Ministerial, what he had to do.

    Layton looked like a yap-dog, as usual.

    Harper is a polished deceiver.

    Duceppe is not so good with the English.

    • JStanton says:

      … oh, his English is just fine. You understood everything he was trying to get accross. if your French was anywhere as good, you would be considered bilingual.

      .

  41. Pete says:

    If Iggy shows Harper looking straight into the camera and lying in some of his ads they will resonate. harper didn’t even blink when he said he wasn’t in a coalition after the 2004 letter was written.

  42. Patrick says:

    I can’t figure out why Michael had no come back to Layton’s attendance comment. I am sure an obvious point like that would have been covered in his preparation. When he doesn’t explain himself, people fill in the blank – maybe they assume he wasn’t there because he was too lazy to show up.

    • Ian Douglas MacKenzie Young says:

      Hard to have a come back when you’ve been torpedoed by the truth!

      Regardless of being Leader of the Opposition, his attendance record was abysmal. I’d be pissed if I was from Etobicoke-Lakeshore…

  43. Michael Reintjes says:

    good take Gord although I couldn’t help but like Jack….He’s good at this format.

  44. allegra fortissima says:

    Harper “diem perdidi”. Duceppe tres francais. Layton disappointing (surprised anyone?). Ignatieff “The greatest statesman is he who is the most humane” (Anselm Feuerbach).

  45. michael hale says:

    No knock out punches anywhere. the real point is made with Warren’s photo atop the post. For the first time, Iggy “looked” the part. Whether or not this makes a difference, i don’t know. But I think Iggy saved his job as leader, regardless of the outcome. and that’s not nothing. He showed something that could turn into “prime minister,” if not now then next time.

  46. Johnny Rapaport says:

    HARPER COUNTRY YO!

    Wish I got paid 4 that LOL

  47. Mike says:

    I thought Iggy missed some golden opportunities by staying too close to his talking points. When Harper talked about his fear of more elections, why didn’t he bring up that Harper forced the last two? When Harper talked about his stalled crime bills, why didn’t Iggy call him on his two prorogues plus the 08 election that all killed his bills. etc. etc. etc.

    There were chances to land some pretty solid blows that Iggy, frankly, missed.

    Did he do OK? I suppose. But I had hoped for better. He got his shots in, but I don’t think he advanced himself as looking more Prime Ministerial than Harper.

    • Mike says:

      Actually, let me ammend my comment by noting that I though Iggy did more to advance his case in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada. I thought he pinned Duceppe down pretty well a couple of times. If he can do as well in the French debate, we might pick up some seats there.

  48. JStanton says:

    … yeah, I stopped trying to reason with Mr. Tulk. He’s a bit too well-informed, while being extreme with his narrow, uncritical perspective. I believe “Jihadist” is the term recentley applied. His dedication to documenting a bizarrely extreme view that is so consistently at odds with common sense is creepy. I have seen this behaviour in schizophrenics – what appears to be the intelligent application of facts to solve a problem, is exposed, when analyzed critically, to simply be nonsense.

    Either that, or he’s just an ordinary Harperite trying his best to provide support for the person he admires. Regardless, his grasp on reality is tenuous.

    Its almost certainly best not to encourage him.

    .

  49. J.G. Love says:

    No clear winner to those predisposed. For undecideds I think ME won. Harper looked really uncomfortable in close ups when being attacked.

  50. No clear winner. Harper held his own, will hold his base and probably swing a few undecideds (who weren’t so open to the others either) over. Jack might slow down the vote bleed – he was solid as always, had some of the better quips. Loved the grenade he lobbed at Harper on building prisons – why do we need them, Harper’s criminals seem perfectly happy in the Senate. But I wish Layton wouldn’t smile, almost all the time, while talking about serious subjects.

    Iggy I believe had some very good moments; will they be enough to change opinions of him? Will Joe Six Pack and Mary Soccer Mom have caught those moments or did they happen while they were dipping back into the kitchen to grab a beer or cuppa tea? Dunno. I liked how Iggy kept going back to the original questions, often when the others had dragged the debate off track. From a policy perspective I liked him tying in education in a few spots, including justice. If people are actually willing to listen, I do believe he had the better “this is Canada” type moments of any of them. I was left thinking that even though Iggy had no true knock out punch (nor was I expecting it) he did well enough to hold his own.

    Given that, and given Harper is feeling very comfortable asking for his majority, one hopes that people will take a hard look at what is required to stop or defeat Harper and vote accordingly.

    I have to believe that in 08 some folks were put off voting for Liberal candidates that could win simply because Dion was at the helm. That hesitation shouldn’t be the case today. Is that enough to change the dynamics of some local races? Dunno. I feel pretty confident that the debate, nor almost anything else, will change anything on the ground in my riding – it’s going to stay NDP. Liberals can partly thank David Emerson for that.

    PS: Harper needs to be challenged better when he says “it simply isn’t true” when yes, the allegation simply is true.

    Double header tomorrow, French Debate and Canucks Game.

  51. Cow says:

    It just hit me. Ignatieff did way better than I thought.

    All of the pundits have the narrative wrong. Everyone on At Issue, for example, is down on him for not going harder after Layton, for not differentiating himself more from the opposition parties, etc. etc., as if the Liberals’ left is where he was going.

    He wasn’t. He hasn’t been. He’s going for the centre-right, and more subtly than the pundits I’ve read seem to notice.

    If I had to guess at what the plan has been all along, it’s this: Canadians in general are feeling good about the economy. It’s not great, and a lot of people would rather we not give money to giant corporations instead of to other things, but we’re doing better than the rest of the world. Where Canadians are wary is of the foreign policy stuff, the contempt of Parliament, etc–the Scary Harper, not Economist Harper.

    If that’s the case, Ignatieff basically wants to say, we’ll mostly stay the course on the economy (but fix a few of the really idiotic things, like US-style megaprisons), but really go after the other things. Two of my favourite moments in the debate were Ignatieff going after Harper about the nature of democracy (“that’s not bickering”) and going after Layton about Afghanistan.

    I actually think he nailed that approach. Nailed it really well. If I’m right, and if he’s right, and that’s what the voters actually want, he nailed it.

    Going to be some interesting polling over the next couple of weeks. (My other thought on this election: we’re not going to see the polls solidify until Easter and Passover. There’s going to be a lot of conversations around extended family dinner tables, all right before the election.)

  52. FiscalTim says:

    Iggy is the John Kerry of Canada. Eggheads like Iggy (Eggnatieff?) just don’t resonate with the common folk.

  53. MedEditor says:

    I rather liked the fact that Mr. Ignatieff worked hard several times to steer the debate away from talking points and back to the actual substance of the questions asked.

    Did anyone notice that Mr. Harper bragged about how Canada’s aid budget was now being spent on helping people and not on “conferences” and “endless meetings”, and yet NOT 20 SECONDS later he was bragging about all the multilateral meetings his government was participating in? Why did no one call him on that reversal right then and there???? Also, I found myself fracking well screaming at the TV over his insistence that only the party with the most seats can form government — otherwise, on to a new election. From whom did this guy get his high school lessons in civics and the parliamentary system??? He deliberately propagates those misunderstandings to keep his followers ignorant, to his personal advantage. I’m sure that he doesn’t believe a word of it himself. My parents taught me to abhor liars, and he’s the king of “butter wouldn’t melt in MY mouth.”

    And Mr. Layton has to stop being all image and no substance before I’ll ever contemplate voting NDP again. I can truthfully say that I’ve voted for all of the major parties — and some of the minor ones, too — at various times, depending on the candidates, the issues, and the riding I was residing in at the time, but the NDP’s been off my radar from the minute he took over the leadership.

  54. Bob says:

    Everyone should just all go to CTV.ca – have a look at the poll. The rest of the discussion is purely academic.

  55. R says:

    bell sympatica is not favor of Ignatieff
    overal Ignatif was talk good then it was jack layton and third was Ducepp then it was harper
    harper people more feel sorry for him because still he is PM but PM in not power
    people feel pity for him if they were in his shoes must be hard time for him in that stand out

    the only way harper become majoirty to listen to ALL points other 3 leaders said FULLY because they talke make sense
    and Harper do not repsect their view then he does not become majority again NO W

    Harper look good when he talked to camera with self confidence with people
    harper was differnt face of lack of self confidence and different angry may ignorant with other opposition when he refere to talk to them
    mostly he like to talk to camera than other opposition

    Harper like majority he does not know all those opposition leader are elected with majrity of people
    if all 3 are not like him and not trust him then harper is still going to trusted by majority
    Harper should not neglect majroity of people which mix of all 3 leaders point of view or public to those leaders
    if Harper look for majority he needs to listena nd respect thos 3 or at least 2 leader of oppoistion

    french guy said Harper has attitute when he talk to them by look of hate or look of he knows more than them never listen to good ideas

    Jack layton does not look healthy to me he lost lots of weight and may he put his health more endanger to go more to this PM job

    Iginiteff look lost weight good hair cut but bad hair color not uniq like Harper his eyse was tired and got smaller need creme to take more sleepy out he was not nervous but he was look sad to me he must show more self confidence and talk with happy face give hope for future

    french guy was look good but speak english accent trible to me hardly understandable to me and he talk quebec not Canada
    quebec is not country he is part of Canada he must talkmore canada to people like to trust him he look good and dress nice to me
    he talk with harper with hand too much point to him was not polite

    debate Harper was trible to me he could not win it the way he talked nonsense he talk like sock poper has chips in his head with no make sense of topic he only try to say PLEASE Save me I only wantg majrotiy because I hated my oppoistion and not interesgt to listen to canddate elected by majority of people he talk more like forigner come to canada and vote by group of rich and group of celberity or group of Israeli aMERICAN AND FRENCH AND more G8 and other g20
    he grow differnet from canadain people inside canada he listen to leader outside of Canada that is not make sense of what he said

    he supported blindly like computer man say what his party or big guy asked him to do

    he said about cut tax for high job thatis nonesen if high job is alwasy cut from tax of rich people then give high job and more job isnot linked to
    all kind of people low tax is not link with high job high job is cut from tax some doctor job not going to increase more employee if some one give them high reduce tax reduce tax to only people in spedific job can be caused increase job not all mjaority of job

    harper like to make suob for judge police not for center prevent crime in CANADA OR like to control gun control to allow more war to make some kind of money for US and other his freind

    in overal nothing harper said can made him majority he advertise himself for his freind to help him may illegally increase vote read I can see in real vote counting he can get PM in majority

  56. R says:

    morally and ethically Harper when he got the power more he will going to abuse it not trusted of know what he is doing
    no care about important environment information and he hate intellegent people

    he is more to celbrity entertainment that PM for Canada
    if we havre real PM and then harper was spoksperson of that smart pm IT WAS GOOD JOB FOR HIM
    HARPER DO NOT M AKE DECISION of his job this is clear some one make decision ofr him to say do or do not and ignore others

  57. R says:

    They asked Harper question he said he plan to spend it but you opposition wast $300 million dollar to ask Canadian go to vote again

    Harper spend 1 billion for G20 and not care and he is worry that Canadaian majority get or stop him to do what he wish to do without agrement of all Canadian elected people oppsotion in parlement

    he is very high risk to some one vote for Harper with that mentality of ignore all opposition
    he can not united Canada as he proof he can not be united with any opposition in any subject

  58. BC Voice of Reason says:

    I think that for 90% of voters that are not politically aware the big moment in this debate was Harper saying that Canadians are more interested in jobs and the economy and not the constant bickering.

    Ignatieff then lectured him on the fact that it is not bickering but democracy.

    The nominally engaged Canadian voter would overwhelmingly agree with Harper that parliament has been bickering since the 2008 votes were counted. They are not interested in speakers rulings, commons committee censures and contempt of democracy charges that Mr. Ignatieff was selling as the reason we needed an election.

    Really really big win for Harper. Gets his message of fiscal competence and economic stewardship out front and reduces Ignatieff to theoretical philosophical discussion on the theory of democracy (Yawn)

    Ironically the sound bite of Ignatieff’s lecture on democracy versus bickering is in the highlight reel as an example of Ignatieff scoring points.

    Every time it is played regular Canadians will be deciding to end the bickering and vote for a Harper a majority.

    Other point was that Layton and Ignatieff were too comfortable with Duceppe. Only Harper challenged him on his near racist comments on the ghetto causing policy of Canadian Multiculturalism.

  59. BC Voice of Reason says:

    I would have thought that a TV talk host would have been more teachable on the body language and posture required for the debates.

    The Liberal team knew the debates were coming and could have easily predicted what Harper was going to deliver, but Mr. Ignatieff looked awkward with jerky motions and impatient gestures… hands on hips, signalling to the moderator like he was a snob at a fancy restaurant.

    He also got tangled in his verbiage and looked like he lost his train of thought a few times and fell back to his comfortable repeated phrases.

    He has looked much better on the campaign where the media have been pulling for him.

    He looked 64 years old and that he knew better than his handlers.

    In 2008 Harper was the clear loser in the debates….. mainly due to the format and having two nothing to lose attack dogs after him. This year he was much better prepared for whatever Duceppe would throw at him.

    The fact that Duceppe so openly dislikes (hates?) Harper will gain Harper some votes in the RoC as he seems to scare the heck out of the separatists.

    I hope that Ignatieff figures out that the Liberals can win 7 extra seats in Quebec if he is able to stand up to Duceppe in the French debates.

  60. Northbaytrapper says:

    Gilles Duceppe was like a character in a David Lynch film. Crazy eyes, all ican say, crazy eyes.

    Harper looked PM’ish
    Iggy is a wonderful speaker when he is able to blow things up into a bigger picture, not sure that’s what’s on most Canadians minds though…seems everyone is looking in rather than out right now. i could be wrong, Lord knows it wouldn’t be the first time.
    Not jack’s best. Not used to being asked questions and was clumsy in avoiding pointed attacks. He didn’t get deep enough into his platform, didn’t sound credible. Huge points from me though for not saying “working families” ad nauseum.

  61. myntje says:

    Iggy didn’t do nearly as well as I expected. He was a television host and a lecturer. As such, he sould have sounded professional and in control. That wasn’t what i saw or heard. He’s lost ground.

  62. Yes – The half-life of Mr. Harper’s pre-packaged and uniform responses are practically zilch whereas the Liberals and NDP now have a few gems for their communications groups.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*