I strongly believe if you don’t vote, you lose the right to complain. I also believe if you don’t know the issues and where everyone stands, then you should inform yourself before you vote.
So I was pleased to see the leaders from the largest parties were going to debate the issues and get us some answers. Perhaps it was a bit naïve. But we are Canadian. And it’s tradition.
First, we did it in English. Then, we tried again in French. Regardless of the language, the results were the same.
Comparing records, it’s obvious the Liberals and Conservatives have both made major mistakes. Sure, the Liberal sponsorship scandal is a thing of the past. It’s also possible the current party just hasn’t had the power to do anything so staggeringly stupid in recent years. After all, power does corrupt.
By comparison, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe appear squeaky clean as the resident vote-splitters. Their presence in the game is much like the inclusion of “Lakehead” and “The Lakehead” in the 1969 vote to name our city.
They stack the deck for the other guys.
Consequently, they can be as offensive, contradictory or holier-than-thou as they like and no one will ever force them to back up their words with action.
As for the debate, instead of clearing up issues and positions, it was, to quote one writer, “a three-on-one assault.” And according to various fact-checkers, regardless of the arguments being tossed between the candidates, everyone was lying to some degree. Or just refusing to answer.
Stephen spoke relatively truthfully but you had to tilt your head and squint to see his perspective. Michael desperately deflected any direct question like it was a flaming bag of poo. Jack interrupted and argued with everyone. And Gilles was … French.
It was a lot of talk, names, and superlative adjectives. But without statisticians whispering in your ear, you didn’t know who spewed rhetoric and who just gently glossed over the facts. So what good did it do to take two hours out of our evening to listen?
It’s like the bathroom during my mother’s recent hospital stay. Two industrial-sized rolls were on holders with another on a shelf above. However, you had to pull slowly and carefully to get even three squares before the single-ply tore off in your hands.
So while there was a lot of it, what you got wasn’t worth the effort – and most of the time, you gave up trying long before you had enough to get the job done.
What should have been a tool for voters failed to be anything more than a lot of noise.
I’ve always felt that despite its flaws, our Canadian system was better than the money and games of American politics.
Unfortunately, now I can’t help but think at least the American debates don’t resemble a scene from Celebrity Apprentice.
So I was pleased to see the leaders from the largest parties were going to debate the issues and get us some answers. Perhaps it was a bit naïve. But we are Canadian. And it’s tradition.
First, we did it in English. Then, we tried again in French. Regardless of the language, the results were the same.
Comparing records, it’s obvious the Liberals and Conservatives have both made major mistakes. Sure, the Liberal sponsorship scandal is a thing of the past. It’s also possible the current party just hasn’t had the power to do anything so staggeringly stupid in recent years. After all, power does corrupt.
By comparison, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe appear squeaky clean as the resident vote-splitters. Their presence in the game is much like the inclusion of “Lakehead” and “The Lakehead” in the 1969 vote to name our city.
They stack the deck for the other guys.
Consequently, they can be as offensive, contradictory or holier-than-thou as they like and no one will ever force them to back up their words with action.
As for the debate, instead of clearing up issues and positions, it was, to quote one writer, “a three-on-one assault.” And according to various fact-checkers, regardless of the arguments being tossed between the candidates, everyone was lying to some degree. Or just refusing to answer.
Stephen spoke relatively truthfully but you had to tilt your head and squint to see his perspective. Michael desperately deflected any direct question like it was a flaming bag of poo. Jack interrupted and argued with everyone. And Gilles was … French.
It was a lot of talk, names, and superlative adjectives. But without statisticians whispering in your ear, you didn’t know who spewed rhetoric and who just gently glossed over the facts. So what good did it do to take two hours out of our evening to listen?
It’s like the bathroom during my mother’s recent hospital stay. Two industrial-sized rolls were on holders with another on a shelf above. However, you had to pull slowly and carefully to get even three squares before the single-ply tore off in your hands.
So while there was a lot of it, what you got wasn’t worth the effort – and most of the time, you gave up trying long before you had enough to get the job done.
What should have been a tool for voters failed to be anything more than a lot of noise.
I’ve always felt that despite its flaws, our Canadian system was better than the money and games of American politics.
Unfortunately, now I can’t help but think at least the American debates don’t resemble a scene from Celebrity Apprentice.
