So I’m just going to make a few notes:
-Ignatieff was right when he says Harper’s offering “fantasy economics”. He also answered the financial question directly. And Harper seemed to make eye contact for the first time. And then went back to the camera. Harper: “Every credible economic analyst” says taxes kill jobs – in Harper’s words, that’s “simply not true.” Ha-Joon Chang & Joseph Stiglitz come to mind, but of course if you exclude those who disagree with you as “non-credible”, then you’re in a perfectly logically valid circular argument, which is where Harper lives.
So I’m just going to make a few notes:
-Ignatieff was right when he says Harper’s offering “fantasy economics”. He also answered the financial question directly. And Harper seemed to make eye contact for the first time. And then went back to the camera. Harper: “Every credible economic analyst” says taxes kill jobs – in Harper’s words, that’s “simply not true.” Ha-Joon Chang & Joseph Stiglitz come to mind, but of course if you exclude those who disagree with you as “non-credible”, then you’re in a perfectly logically valid circular argument, which is where Harper lives.
-It really is madness that Harper keeps talking about how Parliament needs to work, when he shuts it down whenever it’s expedient.
-Only Layton touched climate change. Is that Ignatieff wanting to distance himself from the Green shift and Dion?
-Duceppe was a little less fun than 2008. But he’s right that Stephen Harper does hide his intentions, and Canadians can’t trust him.
-Harper keeps saying “focus on the economy”, but his economic doctrine is nonsense, and he really does treat the government like it’s his party’s plaything…
It was novel, and interesting, following the debate on twitter while tweeting about it… on twitter, people are saying Ignatieff “lost”, but I think expectations were very high. I actually didn’t expect him to differentiate himself from Harper as much as he did.
More tomorrow.
