Initial Debate Thoughts
Well, I apologize for my tardiness on getting out a response to the debates. I have spent some days discussing the debates with others, and the reactions of other people have possibly been more fascinating than the debates themselves.
First of all, I enjoyed these debates much more than the 2000 federal election debates. While there was still quite a bit of redundant repetitive argumentation (as per usual for politics), there was some constructive debate at the same time.
Duceppe's insight that Martin has refused to release the report on the sponsorship scandal before the election in order to maintain a good image was remarkable.
I felt that when Martin was avoiding the sponsorship scandal (I know I was Finance Minister but do you really expect me to know what was going on with the country's employment insurance finances?), he was continuously attempting to make Harper seem like a "wrong" man. Then there was the blatant arrogance of Martin to assume that there are only two parties that matter in this federal election (an unsettling trend that I'm hearing from many Liberal candidates these days). Come on, Canada. Does anyone else not find this an insult to their intelligence? Only smart Canadians vote Liberal or Conservative.
Of course, see my Voting NDP post for more details that I feel on this.
This is why people are becoming more disillusioned with democracy. They've been screwed by the Liberals ($40 million in theft especially from the people of Quebec), and they've been screwed by the Conservatives (re: Walkerton, ON). Now the Liberals and Conservatives and arguably the majority of media in Canada tell people that you can only really vote for either party in this federal election. What kind of choice does that present to people? None at all, in many people's minds.
When Martin and Harper were questioned on how to solve the apathy of democracy in Canada during the French language debate, they responded with statements like "making government accountable" and "keeping promises." Neither of which either party has done in their service to Canada. Jack Layton comes forth with the idea that Canada could vote for someone other than the Liberals or Conservatives, the media doesn't say "boo" about it.
This is no way to solve apathy in Canada. Neither party can do so. The only real solution is a party that "shakes things up" so to speak. And it's entirely possible. I have spoken with people who state that they can't allow a Conservative government, so they will vote Liberal. As far as I'm concerned if you vote Liberal, you're saying "Yes, Mr. Martin, please take our money again. Please continue to privatize healthcare in Canada." Just how do you think we got to the point where we're discussing privatized healthcare in a federal election? Is it because the Conservatives and Alliance are well known for their trend towards privatizing healthcare? Could it be because we got to this situation under the current Liberal federal government? I think so.
Anyhow, I will cease my rant there and continue to write more on this on Monday.
3 Comments:
I should add an addendum to this post. My comment on voting Liberal as synonymous with "asking Mr. Martin to take more money" could be construed as overly aggressive and possibly belligerent. My apologies to all who think so. I do not with to intentionally berate anyone's intelligence for voting Liberal (something I actually berate Paul Martin for doing); however, I feel that this is a pertinent question to answer if you plan to vote Liberal. How do you wish to handle re-electing a government that has improperly managed the nation's finances in the past?
-- I don't think it's a question of who will handle the nation's finances best, it is: who will mishandle the nation's finances least. The Conservatives left Canada with a $42 billion deficit in 1993, and Mike Harris left $6 billion in Ontario. The NDP is Ontario helped destroy the provincial economy, and their work in B.C. has almost left them as a "have-not" province. The mishandling, arguably, was not done by Paul Martin but either not at all, or by the old Chretien regime. Paul Martin "slayed the deficit", and put the nation's finances back in order. Personally, I think he has mishandled the nation's finances the least.
-JV
However, Paul Martin was a key member of the old Chretien regime (re: Finance Minister), and I find it difficult to believe that he knew nothing of what went on with the sponsorship scandal.
However, I think that you are correct, JV, when you say we should elect someone who mishandles things the least (ie. finances, foreign policy, etc.). I would likely disagree on NDP finance handling. The NDP can make for a have-not province as compared to a Conservative Ontario province. Big business had a lot under the Tories, and didn't have so much under the NDP. This was one of the reasons for a Conservative backlash in Ontario in the early 90's: more money for big business.
The question after this becomes, who do we want our government to look our for first financially? Corporations or workers? I personally believe that Canada should look into supporting its workers financially before it brings tax cuts to corporations (ie. Sweden, etc.) Unfortunately, the Liberal government does not have a good track record for this. I would argue that they're actually very similar to the Conservatives on this (ie. the Liberal agreement with NAFTA, etc.)
I also still think that nearly $100 million in theft from things like Quebec employment insurance is a pretty severe case of financial mismanagement under the Liberal regime.
Post a Comment
<< Home