Harper asks for full hour on economy during leaders' debates
Newsbot @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:16 pm
Title: Harper asks for full hour on economy during leaders' debates
Category: Political
Posted By: snookums
Date: 2008-09-30 10:39:08
Canadian
ridenrain @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:16 pm
That is a smart move because who would be most comfortable talking about the economy than an economist. The only thing Dion can do is keep chanting "tory times are tough times" and Jack will have to return to the old socialist slogans that nearly burried the UK.
.. and May? She's irrelivent.
Reverend Blair @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:37 pm
Why? Is he going to use the extra time to read somebody else's speech?
There's a couple of economists on TV right now and one disagrees with Harper completely while the other is saying that Harper is pointing too rosy a picture.
I think an hour is too long, but give it 30 or 40 minutes extra. Let Harper answer for his inaction. Note: That's extra, not instead of other topics.
ridenrain @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:41 pm
You folks desperately want it both ways don't you? Layton was on the news just this morning wanting a talk with the candidates because the economy is so important and now you say that it's a distraction?
Make up you're mind.
Pseudonym @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:53 pm
Is it just me, or is Harper dominating most of the topics on the forum today?
Reverend Blair @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:54 pm
I didn't say it was a distraction. I said that it should be extra, not instead of other issues. I think a Prime Minister should be able to deal with more than one thing at a time.
The reason I think it should be shorter...and I would add that it should come at the end of the debate, not the beginning...is that I don't think any of the leaders have that much to say on the issue that we haven't heard before, and viewers will tune out when they start repeating themselves.
What's Harper going to say, for instance? "Our fundamentals are strong," "Now is not the time to try anything different," "Governments should stay out of the economy." That doesn't take an hour.
The same goes for the other leaders...their positions are pretty well known on this, as are their policies. We don't need to listen to them repeating themselves over and over again.
ridenrain @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:59 pm
$1:
Layton urged Harper to convene an all-party meeting this week to discuss the economic problems and what they mean for Canada.
"It's important for Canadian families to know that the leaders put aside, at least for a brief period, some of the partisanship that goes on in an election to focus in on their concerns," Layton said in Toronto.
"It's important for Canadian families to know that the leaders put aside, at least for a brief period, some of the partisanship that goes on in an election to focus in on their concerns," Layton said in Toronto.
Is it important or not?
If it's that important, why hold it behind a closed door meeting instead of a public debate?
I'm sure I can find a chicken sound if I dig a bit.
Reverend Blair @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:23 pm
It's important, nobody said it wasn't. Layton wants to extend the debates too.
He asked for a meeting to try to find some common ground so they could present a common front, but Harper prefers divisive politics so he refused.
The economic problems brought on the laissez faire policies favoured by the far right are not the only important issue though, nor is it possible to deal with economic issues without also addressing environmental and social issues.
Extending the debate to deal with economic issues is fine. Expanding the economic portion at the expense of other issues is not.
mtbr @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:31 pm
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
It's important, nobody said it wasn't. Layton wants to extend the debates too.
He asked for a meeting to try to find some common ground so they could present a common front, but Harper prefers divisive politics so he refused.
The economic problems brought on the laissez faire policies favoured by the far right are not the only important issue though, nor is it possible to deal with economic issues without also addressing environmental and social issues.
Extending the debate to deal with economic issues is fine. Expanding the economic portion at the expense of other issues is not.
He asked for a meeting to try to find some common ground so they could present a common front, but Harper prefers divisive politics so he refused.
The economic problems brought on the laissez faire policies favoured by the far right are not the only important issue though, nor is it possible to deal with economic issues without also addressing environmental and social issues.
Extending the debate to deal with economic issues is fine. Expanding the economic portion at the expense of other issues is not.
Jack wanted to have a meeting about the economy behind closed doors, so he could get a few pointers on how it really works before the debate.
Reverend Blair @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:36 pm
He has pointers to take from Harper, mtbr. Layton has a costed platform. Where's Harper's?
uwish @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:47 pm
yeah costed at $50 billion!
Reverend Blair @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:49 pm
He says how he'll pay for it, uwish. That's more than Harper did with his massive spending increases and pre-election pork-barreling.
meaden24 @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:11 pm
alright reverend we get it already, you don't like Harper. Your posts are really losing their effectiveness when we know you're just going to let your negative opinion of Harper get in the way of your thought process.
Wally_Sconce @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:27 pm
lol the good reverend is trying to tackle Harper from every angle. And then he's making some up, too!
Reverend Blair @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:29 pm
Ah here we go with the Conservatives trying to deflect the criticism again.