Federal Election #2 - The Speeches
I had been meaning to write something about the recent leaders debate that took place in Vancouver the other day, but I was working instead of glued to the CBC rooting on my favorites. So instead I’ll do a review of Matthew Good’s review of the debate, a meta-review of sorts.
There
That’s ridiculous. I was referring to corporate executives being given the abiluty to select questions. At the very least, government can provide Canadians with an avenue to submit questions. Don’t be so dramatic.
I’m well aware that Mr. Harper has claimed that he would make it an issue, and franly I don’t care. You don’t claim yourself a staunch believer in the democratic process and then try and repeal laws because they disagree with your personal morality.
Ultimtaly there has to be some oversight on an editorial level. Do you really tust the government to do it? Might work out in Canada but we’ve seen the Republicans jerrymander and miscount their way into office before. I’m not saying that’s going to happen, just that it’s a possibility.
Which is why we leave it to the journalists to question our leaders, both in the formal debates and in the field. To say corporate execs picked the questions out of those submitted by public is sort of suggesting that somewhere in a Save-On Foods Jimmy Pattison did all the picking.
Could abuse happen? Sure, just as it could if we let Elections Canada do it all on their own in my own wacky scenario above. Though the debates do fall under the mandate of EC and if there was anything unfair was going on they’d investigate.
Jouralism doesn’t straight across the board equal corporations. We’ve seen the Asper family, a pro-Liberal family, using their publications to paint a Liberal friendly Canada for sure and Conrad Black did the same for the right so you’re not wrong that it could happen, but then we do have the CBC as well.
The perfect situation would be more debates, a longer election and at least one open public forum. I just don’t think it’s possible to only have open debates.
As for the same-sex issue it’s going to be with us for decades. I must have misread what you said, because I took it to mean that you were surprised that Harper was using it in his platform.
Like abortion which should have been put to rest decades ago, it’s a blue province (a reversal of colours from the US) issue. I lived in Kelowna up until this year and every week there would be anti-abortion picketers years after the issue was settled in Ottawa.
Never under-estimate the effect that religion has in mobilizing the masses and what Harper is counting on to be his base. What he’s counting on is low voter turnout in urban centres where his homophobic antics don’t play well.
If people don’t turn out to vote and he managers to make gay marriage a big enough issue he’ll get his supporters out and since it’s easier to get out the vote with hate he’s hoping to pick up big gains.
Also on the first point there are local debates for MPs. While the party system limits the individual freedoms Members of Parliment it’s still a place for far more intiment interaction with those up for office than a televised debate.
Also since few MPs have the media handlers and media training the party heads do it’s often a better way to get to the truth of where party beliefs are than any from the leaders.