Conservative Champions of Wasting Time

Heckling has returned to the House of Commons with a bang. Once again, politicians of all parties engage in this enormously hilarious act! According to Liberal MP Rodger Cuzner, Deepak Obhrai said Mr. Speaker six times in a 30 second period. This allows him to use up his allotted time so he doesn't say anything important. But, it's also quite funny to watch.

It's horrible. Absolutely horrible for transparency and responsibility to the people and Parliament. Yet, this goes back years and years, deep into Canadian history. While it would be great if MPs were nice to each other, this would require a culture change and it simply will not happen. So, sit down and enjoy the wonderful back-and-forth of the House of Commons.Deepak 

Obhrai is one of the worst offenders, according to the opposition. 

Frustrated MPs say the parliamentary secretary to the Foreign Affairs Minister throws in a few “Mr. Speakers” and other set phrases to eat up his allotted 35-second answers to purposely avoid saying anything substantial in Question Period.

Read more at the Globe and Mail.

The Scary Republican

In the Debate Last week the Republicans were asked some questions. Some I found slightly interesting, but one question just made me scared! The Question was that if their was a budget deal that for every 10 dollars in cuts their will only be 1 dollar in taxes would you support that? All the Republicans said no they would not be in favor. These Republicans scare me! They are against taxes more than Regan who did increase taxes on some people. They would rather see medicare destroyed then have a billionaire that has millions in safe heavens give one penny.

They forget the history of the U.S deficit. The deficit was first created with, because of the Bush tax cuts. Then with the help of a two wars the deficit ballooned. Then when the bubble burst revenue went down and the stimulus also increased the deficit. Eventually when the stimulus is out of the deficit the deficit will be mostly just be the Bush Tax cuts, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, interest on the debt, medicare and social security which under Clinton had money to fund it for the future, military and pentagon funding and lower revenue because of high unemployment. Spending cuts must be made, but if we want to get back to the Bill Clinton surplus we need to go back to Clinton tax rates. The Republicans will never eliminate the Bush tax cuts even though they were suppose to expire in 2010 now 2012. The Republicans say that loopholes are fine. They are against eliminating loopholes and using that money to actually save Medicare a little. Apparently eliminating loopholes on major corporations who are practically paying negative corporate tax is too harsh, but lowering help for poor and the elderly isn't at all important to them. The Republican say that the cuts will help save Medicare in the long run. I have an idea raise the social security age and the medicare age. You save a lot of money in the long run and you save those services from major cuts, and maybe just maybe make companies pay their full share of taxes so their will be money for the elderly, but the Republicans aren't interested in making as little harm as possible on Medicare. They don't care about losing money allowing Corporations to use loopholes to pay no corporate tax, but they do care about using money that goes helping the poor and the elderly.


The Republicans at that debate I hope lose the election, because not only do they not support tax increases, but they aren't at all open to compromise. Even with a 10:1 deal that completely support their ideas more than the democratic's by a large margin. They aren't open to compromise. electing any Republican in any chamber makes it harder to save any program that helps the most in need.

First Real Debate!

The race for Obama's opponent is now almost at the beginning. It's not quite there to say many candidates are still not fully in. Candidate's like Bachman, Palin and Giuliani all major factors at this point at least according to the polls aren't even in the exploratory phase, but currently we have 10 candidates in the race for sure and 3 in exploratory phase. Here's something interesting. there is going to be a debate in New Hampshire and 7 candidates are coming 5 of which are fully declared candidates 1 is in exploratory and Banchman the one who isn't officially looking interested in the White House is going to the debate. This will be the first real debate as major candidates Like Gingrich, Banchman, Mitt Romney will be attending a debate. This debate will be interesting. I can see most Republicans attack Romney on Health care (because in Massachusetts Romney passed a law that forced all people to get health care insurance like Obama health care bill) I can see Paul and Banchman attack each other on who will best represent the Tea party. This debate will be fun and if you think seven is crowded then just wait for the debate's in the Fall with possibly 14-15 people tops. The front runner now for me is Mitt Romney.

The Debate is Summed Up in One Word

Boring.

The outcome of the debate was completely predictable. Each leader was just repeating what they have been saying for the past few months. Harper kept saying that the economy was the main focus. Ignatieff hit hard on government transparency and Layton was his usual self, saying only the NDP are competent. Gilles Duceppe... was Gilles Duceppe.

Even though some people might claim there was a "winner" to this debate, I do not think there was. Every leader made good points, but there was no sustained attack or depth attack. It was a politician's heaven: an attack free-for-all.

As for the performance, Ignatieff did better than I thought he would, though I would have liked him to spend less time attacking Harper and more time explaining Liberal policies.Stephen Harper was pretty good, standing his ground, mostly by completely denying what his opponents said. I did not think Jack Layton did a good job of showing the NDP as a true alternative. Gilles Duceppe was the only one who provided entertaining parts as he has nothing to lose in the English debate.

Related articles

• Harper on debate defence against political rivals (theglobeandmail.com)
• The first debate: where they stood mattered, along with where they stand (macleans.ca)

I Would Not Have Watch the Debate

That is if it wasn't moved to Wednesday. The French debate was originally scheduled for Thursday, but it just so happens that Game 1 between Montreal and Boston would be at the same time. It's obvious who would win. Gilles Duceppe took the initiative to propose a change to the date. Good for him. It's a win for our democracy when this happens as more people will watch the debate.

Personally, I would have probably watched the series between Montreal and Boston if the debate wasn't moved. Playoffs time has come and all Montreal fans will want to see their beloved Canadiens battle the Bruins, me included. The rescheduling of the debate makes sure that everyone wins and hopefully the Habs too.

Politics and hockey went head to head Sunday and, in the end, the nation's winter pastime held the bigger stick. 

The parties and the broadcast consortium producing this week's televised leaders debates have agreed to move the French-language debate — originally scheduled for Thursday — up a day after a conflict arose with the NHL playoffs.

Read more at CBC. 

Related articles

• French election debate switched to Wednesday because of Habs (thestar.com)

Let's have a losers' debate!

Much talk has been made about how Elisabeth May will not be invited to the debate. The other authors of this blog have already taken a stand on the issue. I agree mostly with Owner and Doggy on this one: it is the network's choice. They are, after all, hosting the debate, and paying for all expenses of the event (to the best of my knowledge). It is their debate which will lack the quick-witted debater who was keen to point out errors in her opponents position and logic.

But instead of simply sitting around and saying, "It's too bad, but what can we possibly do about it?", I propose that May organize a "loser's debate". This debate would incorporate all the parties that do not get seats, but get a sizable portion of the "loose" votes (votes not for major parties). This debate would be a true battle of ideas and logic: Libertarians would face off against Communist, Benevolent Dictators (or statists, either one) against Anarchists, and Socialists against Fascists (the non-Nazi kind). It would be a veritable debate, with ideologies explaining themselves, making their case, and destroying the others'.

Although many years back this would not be possible, now, thanks to modern technological innovations, it can be done. The leaders could link up through video-conferencing, allowing the party leaders to represent from all over the country. The whole thing could be live-streamed, and made available for download on a later date. The whole thing would cost very little, too: under 50$ for a video-conferencing software (or free, depending on which one); live-streaming is generally free or cheap; file-hosting sites will carry a file for very little money.

On top of giving a voice to all the parties that normally remain in the shadows the rest of the time, it would allow a better understanding of the various roots of the normal ideologies of the mainstream political parties: Libertarians and Classical Liberals for Conservatives (generally), Socialists and Classical Liberals for Liberals (generally), Socialists for the NDP, and Neo-Liberals for the Bloc (?). It would allow us to better understand why people vote for a party, even when that party seems to be doing things counter to the ideology (the way people vote for Conservatives, even when they go on spending binges).

In conclusion, instead of sitting around waiting for the next debate, watching a mud-slinging competition (sorry--debate of the party leaders), we should carpe the diem: seize the day. The Green party should organize a debate of the non-elected parties, where ideas would be discussed and ideologies could prove their points. This would not only help the third-party parties, who remain in the shadows, but help the average Canadian better understand the ideologies behind the parties, and the valid points held by the opponents. The whole thing would cost very little, and could have a large impact on the impressions of Canadians. Besides, what does the Green party have to lose? They appear as a doer, they get free publicity as all the third parties tune in, and it costs them almost nothing; the third-parties get a large audience to present to. I, personally, would watch the debate of the best and brightest of the country in politics squaring off in a battle of ideas than the typical mud fight.