6:50 Getting set up for the next leaders debate. Hopefully, we’ll hear a bit more about the environment and post-secondary education, which were overlooked for the most part last time. Also, while some tend to like that style of debate, I really am not a big fan of the cross-talking that tends to happen in sometimes. The more heated it gets, the louder and faster people talk, with volume eventually replacing rational policy arguments.
7:02 Rodney’s opening speech. Once again, the incumbent Premier is trying to run on his record. I’ve found it odd that a leader, whose province is bleeding young talent westward, would, in the middle of an election, use the slogan “proven record”.
7:05 CBC is using twitter, email, and YouTube for the questions tonight. Along with liveblogging on the Chronicle Herald and CBC websites, it’s been a good election for Web 2.0.
Also, here’s another debate liveblogger. http://contrarian.ca/?p=567
7:10 Question #2 is kinda weak. “Will your promises be binding?” Um… situations change buddy.
7:11 Question #3 DING DING DING! TUITION! I never thought I’d see a day when the PC’s response on a PSE education question would be better than that of the NDP. I did think the Liberal response was better, acknowledging the role federal transfers pay. The Premier seemed content with hanging his hat on what’s been done, rather than making tuition more affordable in the future. Are we going to hear about grad students?
7:12 Via twitter, another first…. I agree with CFS. Where is tuition in your platform, Mr. Dexter?
7:20: re: mandated seating times. Uh, no Rodney. It's the responsibility of the government in minority situations to ensure that the government maintains the confidence of the house.
7:31: Ok, stop thanking people and just answer the damn question.
7:33 On an earlier question on freezing public service pay and cutting MLA wages, if you want to attract highly competent people to the job (and in the case of MLAs, reduce the influence of lobbying), you need to pay them competitive wages to lure them away from the private sector.
7:44 Rodney is really trying to milk the "hometown boy" card from the Cape Breton audience "I spent a season on a lobster boat!".
7:48 "Say something nice about your opponents" hmm, I wonder how Alberta's premier would do on a question like that. He didn't have much to say when Kevin Taft stepped down.
7:51 ooo. “How to improve the decline in voting.” Rodney has no real answer, D250 was pretty much a bust. And the joke about wanting people who voted for the other guy to stay home on E-day was un-cool. Liberals talk about an all-party review to look into the democratic process, NDP non-answer. Sadly, no talk about electoral reform.
7:54 Liberals talk about transit wrt green platform! Yes! About time. Rodney talks about energy efficiency in public buildings, however what about the private sector?
max cleland: the forever war of the mind
2 hours ago
6 comments:
As much as I hate to say it, I didn't watch this debate because this election is over.
44 freakin percent? Are you people kidding me? Of course I shouldn't be surprised. This is the same crowd that voted down Sunday Shopping... *rolls eyes*
But, I am glad to see for your blog that electoral reform wasn't mentioned. I was also happy to see STV go down in flames. Replacing a bad system with another worse system doesn't strike me as particularly good reform. Until someone comes up with a system that doesn't let wacco fringe parties have way too much power I'll be against electoral reform.
One of the things that has irritated me the most about this election is how Rodeny attempted to use PR as an urban/rural wedge issue. Coming from Alberta, I am all to familiar with a system where the many (urban areas) are ruled by the few (rural).
If you want to keep out the "fringe" parties, do what Germany does. Mandate that in order to get any seats, you need to pass a minimum 5% benchmark. There. Problem solved.
And electoral reform is more than just PR. At the vary least, I would like to see instant runoff ballots, meaning candidates would need to capture at least 50% support to be elected.
Problem with the threshold idea is do you really think having a party that gets 5.1% of the vote potentially having %50 of the power is a good thing?
Not a very realistic outcome.
Egh, just like every other conversation I've ever had with a PR supporter. I feel like this guy:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/TrickyNinja/Photoshopped/Talkingtoabrickwall.png
I'm just asking how a party could win 5% of the vote and get "50% of the power" in any system that allocated seats proportional to the % of the vote revieved...
Also, electoral reform is more than just PR, so there's that too. As I said, Instant runoff.
Post a Comment