April 21st, 2005

Filed under:
Politics
8 Comments »

Martin, Harper and Layton on National Television

I just finished watching Paul Martin’s address (there are video clips in the right-hand column, thanks Debby) to the nation, and Stephen Harper’s response to it. Martin pledged to call an election 30 days after the Gomery inquiry’s results are made public. Harper lambastes Martin in both official languages. I’m struck by what pitiful public speakers they both are, and confused about when the next federal election will occur.

To be honest, I haven’t been following the sponsorship scandal very closely. Clearly Martin’s party has acted inappropriately, and clearly they should be held accountable for those actions. I didn’t vote for Martin, and given his mismanagement, I don’t think he should be able to dictate the timing of the next election. Either way, he’ll be thrown out on his ear if the Liberals know what’s good for them.

I agree with Paul Janes Wells when he notes a “big, big win” for Jack Layton:

He begins by talking about what government should be doing. Among other things, it’s a refreshing change from the previous three guys. If anyone’s still listening…

I’m not crazy about Layton’s party, but he’s by far the best speaker, and is far succinct that his fellow speakers. It’s also the best-written speech, pointed without being catty. He wins my respect by not focusing on the scandal, but on what government should be doing instead of the scandal.

Comments: 8 Responses so far

The Urban Treehugger
April 21st, 2005
8:22 pm

The speech to the country was pretty dull. I really do believe the Liberals will have an election within 30 days after the commission has ended. But only if the Tories don’t secure a majority on June 27th… which seems more and more likely. Anybody noticed how Harper’s French has gotten alot better too?…and how his response speech to reporters seemed to be more in French than in English…and I don’t suspect it was to win over Quebecer’s either. But you can decide on that one. Piece out.

[Reply]

Paul Wells
April 21st, 2005
8:47 pm

Again with the “Paul Janes” thing. You’re freaking me out. That being said, I’m sure I agree with Paul Janes too.

[Reply]

The Urban Treehugger
April 21st, 2005
8:56 pm

Maybe he’s just refering to the pianist… http://www.paul-janes.co.uk/ …or maybe not.

[Reply]

The Urban Treehugger
April 21st, 2005
8:59 pm

Janes addiction? ok I’ll stop.

[Reply]

Darren
April 21st, 2005
9:52 pm

Yeah, sorry about that, it’s some kind of mental block. I even forget the origin of it.

[Reply]

Todd
April 22nd, 2005
11:21 am

Traditionally the power to call the election lies with the party in power, but tradition isn’t a very good reason for very much. That said, I’m not sure what I’d prefer to that though, as a non-confidence vote will be quite calculated and greased up with lots of backroom promises to ensure the number of votes. Both are unpalatable.

In the end it seems Martin gave up the ability to call the exact point of the election by promising it 30 days after the close of the inquiry. That puts it effectively into the hands of Gomery, if anyone, who I don’t think we can consider friendly to the Liberals.

[Reply]

alexis
April 23rd, 2005
12:00 pm

. My best friend is very involved with the NDP, and Layton came out to a meet and greet at a youth event at a bar in Saskatoon. He came off as very nice, especially since no cameras were rolling and he was just hanging out.

[Reply]

Lori
April 24th, 2005
12:26 pm

I’ve met Jack Layton, and followed his career on Toronto City Council for years before he became the leader of the NDP.

I think out of all the politicians in Canada, he’s way more of a stand up guy.

Though, being a politician, I don’t completely trust him either.

[Reply]

Add a comment