If I was a young person - or someone who had never voted before - I am not too sure if last night's debate would have done anything to get me fired up. But the debate could have done exactly that if the 3 opposition parties had been cleverer.
By picking on him, Mike, Giles and Jack made Steve look like a cool calm rational leader. With the exception of a handful of comments (mostly it seemed to me by Jack) there were few policies statements that would provide a clear alternative to the present government. By frequently ganging up on Steve, the three other leaders not only looked like they were picking on him, but they also missed the opportunity to provide a real alternative. (Canadians have this natural affinity for the underdog - which last night -appeared to have been Steve)
There are of course differences. But it seemed to me that they didn't want to talk a lot about the specifics. All of the leaders were at best disingenuous for much of the debate. For example - there was a reason why the Liberals supported the Conservatives for 2 years....they were not ready for an election. They did not want to force an election and lose badly. That is the honest answer and one that many/most folks would understand. Hell most of us know that already. Why didn't Mike just say so.
Similarly it would appear to be clear that a number of years ago Steve would have happily formed some sort of coalition with the NDP and PQ - but there is no way that he can admit although there must be 100s of people who know that it almost happened. Their un-truths provide all the proof needed for some people to believe that they are all dishonest and that none of them are worth voting for.
It could have been an interesting debate if they had all had been wired to lie detector machines and if they had debated policy. As it is we are left with limited choices.
No comments:
Post a Comment