Suspension of This Belief

If all I wanted to hear was unmoderated, blathering jibberjabber, I could’ve tuned in to parliament’s question period any day. But since I had just, fittingly, poured a broken shakerfull of salt into my soup, I listened to the leaders of our nation tell us what’s what on the issues of the day. This is my verdict.

Gilles Duceppe - His additions, when made at all, were made poorly. While his best point was the one that made a case for the relevance of his party, this could hardly have earned him much credit across Canada. 

Michael Ignatieff - Despite being the weakest of the four, he had one memorable talking point. (we can’t trust Stephen Harper) Only the reason we remember this is that his debating style centered around repeating that phrase until it was clear we should ignore everything coming out of his mouth, however rambling and staccato. To be fair, he did assert that his bickering was in fact “Democracy”. 

Jack Layton - Much stronger, yet, every opportunity to raise or respond was utilized to dispense an avalanche of every talking point the man had in his arsenal, until all semblance of a point was lost. One could almost hear him finish up with a pause and a “So there!”

Stephen Harper - By saying absolutely nothing, but doing so calmly, he came off confident and honest. My god, he even managed to credibly defend his environmental record.  

How all three opponents to SH could have failed to challenge him on solid issues such as prorogation, contempt of Parliament, the Tar Sands, and the deficit, is a testament to the utter dearth of strength amongst our alternatives. If anyone were to ask me what I learned from these debates, I would be forced to reply “Flarkenshlappenshnarks”.