Wading In

Well, I watched most of last night's debate, and I have to say that I'm not overly impressed. It felt too much like a series of commercials, rather than an in-depth exploration of any real issues. I still think that the Green leader should've been allowed to join in the debate. That said, when they released his policy, it seemed to be based purely on environmental issues - this isn't the case when you go to their webpage, I'm not sure why it's the case in the newspaper.

Here are some of my thoughts on each of the candidates.

Harper

Stephen Harper's math just doesn't add up. GST is a consumption tax by definition, hence the people who consume the most will benefit from it being cut. Most basics don't have GST attached to them, anyways. You don't pay GST on rent, most groceries or other essentials. So, how much is someone with a $8,148* income going to save, assuming they spend half their income on essentials? $40.74. All hail Stephen Harper, savior to the poor! Now we can buy a week's worth of heat for our house!

Someone with a $150,000 income who spends about 1/3 of their money on essentials and the rest on consumer goods, on the other hand, will save $495. I'd probably spend that money on scotch and cigars.

Finally, he didn't deny saying to American conservatives that they were "an inspiration for Canada" and that Canadians "were second rate." I'm not sure what the proper socio-political term is for that, but it scares the beejesus out of me.

* This is the basic personal exemption, and the income level that Harper said would receive maximum benefit.

Martin

"Mr. Martin, how many criminal investigations are going on in your government?"

I noticed that he didn't answer this one.

Paul Martin looked really nervous during the debate. He spoke fast, he stumbled over words, and generally didn't seem to be in control of the situation. On the other hand, his number actually added up. One of the benefits from being finance minister all of these years, I suppose.

The big issue for the Liberals this go around is the corruption charges. There has been quite the laundry list of charges this time around. Try as he may, Martin was unable to draw the debate away from the Gomery inquiry, the income trust investigation, and the newly published information on Option Canada.

His strong point was definitely national unity. I think he was able to stand up to Gil Duceppe, and make a very passionate appeal on behalf of the universal appeal of Canadian values. When asked to refer to Quebec as a nation, however, he looked a bit like a fish out of water. He didn't really know how to handle the question, and indecision is not going to help him win this campaign.

Layton

Jack Layton stood out as an intelligent man. He did his best to not get dragged into the personal attacks that were flying back and forth. However, if I hear the phrase, "You have a third choice..." one more time, I'm totally going to lose it. Ladies, what would you say if a guy came up to you at the bar and said, "I'm a really honest guy." Would you believe him? If Jack actually was a viable third choice, he wouldn't have to remind us every second sentence.

On a more serious note, I liked the way he called Harper to task for not getting much done as the official opposition. I also liked the way he spoke to national unity, although he didn't seem particularly passionate about the subject. I dislike the way Layton comes across as anti-business. It's one thing to be pro-working families, but he really comes across as being anti-corporate. I'm not saying large corporations are necessarily the nicest things in the world, but they do employ a lot of people. Taxing the snot out of them isn't going to be very good for the economy. That said, he deserves kudos for making education and health care a priority.

Duceppe

National unity issues aside, Duceppe handled himself very well. It's likely much easier to tailor your policy to your constituents when you have a smaller constituency. He clearly has done his homework on issues relating to health care, education, taxation, etc., etc. This has been ignored in the past, but it's the key to bringing Quebec back towards another political party.

The other political candidates need to speak to Quebecois values if they're going to make any headway. Emphasizing national unity is too much of a sound bite to really bring people over. Nationalists know that there's a referendum, so they can always shoot down sovereignty when the issue arises again.

When it comes to separatism, I think Duceppe hasn't really thought this one through. Quebec can separate from Canada, but Quebec itself is indivisible? That makes no sense. Yes, the Quebecois are different from "Canada". But, then again, so are Albertans. And Newfoundlanders. People in rural areas are different from those in cities, too. And, I'd be willing to water that the First Nations in northern Quebec are different from citizens of Quebec City. Surely you wouldn't deny them the ability exercise the same rights as the Bloc?

I'm still waiting for real substance in these debates. I think they've gone well so far, but they're really just scratched the surface in terms of what needs to be said.

French debate is on tonight (Jan 10th) at 8 pm ET.