First Green MP

[maldon_road]

Actually, why don't the Liberals not run candidates in some strong Green ridings so that the Greens can have their rightful place in Parlaiment?

Dion has put his all into the GHG issue - if he flops then the Libs, and he, are dead. The environment is the Green's reason for existence. By running candidates they will seep votes away from the Libs. The Greens are just a rump group. They are the ones that should withdraw their candidates. May is a far more effective speaker than Dion and will come across better in the debates.

It's not a surprise that the one leader not opposed to the Greens in the debates is Harper. He has the most to gain.

[cybercoma]

I wonder how many people really understand The Green Party's platform. If it hasn't changed too much over the years, I remember going to a debate where their candidate said that they would not spend any additional money on health care because their initiative was to prevent illness by putting money towards a cleaner environment. It's this type of thinking that convinced me never to vote for that party, regardless of how much I would like a cleaner more environmentally conscious country.

[Argus]

I wouldn't count my chickens, if I were you. Back at the end of the 80's Reform elected Deb Gray as their first sitting MP, in a by-election.

The other parties REFUSED to allow Reform in on the televised debates! Said that one MP was nowhere near enough to matter.

The precedent was set. Don't be surprised if the incumbent parties stick to it!

And at least the Reformers actually got a candidate elected, which is more than the Greens can say. Major party? Phht.

[Argus]

Actually, why don't the Liberals not run candidates in some strong Green ridings so that the Greens can have their rightful place in Parlaiment?

If the only way your party can get elected is if other parties let them, then just how much support does it have?

[Ontario Loyalist]

If the only way your party can get elected is if other parties let them, then just how much support does it have?

Well, it has a membership of about 9,000 and in the last election ran candidates in 308 riding and received 660,000+ votes (4.5%). It wouldn't necessarily mean that they would be elected. It would mean that the Liberals don't have to waste time on some useless ridings and the Greens can improve their profile. In turn the Greens could do the same in a few ridings, as well.

[Ontario Loyalist]

I wonder how many people really understand The Green Party's platform. If it hasn't changed too much over the years, I remember going to a debate where their candidate said that they would not spend any additional money on health care because their initiative was to prevent illness by putting money towards a cleaner environment. It's this type of thinking that convinced me never to vote for that party, regardless of how much I would like a cleaner more environmentally conscious country.

I can't comment on what the candidate specifically stated, but the Green Party does believe in preventative health care. I mean, it's basically common knowledge now that medical researchers are drawing direct links between pollution and cancer, etc. That's just one example. If you reduced the causes of illness and reliance on health care, that reduces how much money has to be spent on it. Simple logic.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Dion has put his all into the GHG issue - if he flops then the Libs, and he, are dead. The environment is the Green's reason for existence. By running candidates they will seep votes away from the Libs. The Greens are just a rump group. They are the ones that should withdraw their candidates. May is a far more effective speaker than Dion and will come across better in the debates.

It's not a surprise that the one leader not opposed to the Greens in the debates is Harper. He has the most to gain.

I'm under the impression that Dion is the only one who wants them in.

Saying that the environment is the "Green's reason" for existence is no different than saying "free market Capitalism" is the reason for the Conservative's existence. The environment is simply the party's main concern, but it has broad-based policies just like the other major parties.

Look at the Ontario election results for 2007. The Greens got much support and it came from the Conservatives, not the Liberals. Some of it may have simply been protest voting, but I think that Green policies do have more of an appeal to conservatives. Going Green has become the new thing, and the people who tend to subscribe to this are those who actually have the money to purchase new hybrid cars, solar energy and renovate their homes to be energy efficient. Greens also support local agriculture and small business, traditional Red Tory territory.

[cybercoma]

I can't comment on what the candidate specifically stated, but the Green Party does believe in preventative health care. I mean, it's basically common knowledge now that medical researchers are drawing direct links between pollution and cancer, etc. That's just one example. If you reduced the causes of illness and reliance on health care, that reduces how much money has to be spent on it. Simple logic.

I'm not disputing the fact that a cleaner environment would likely lead to fewer diseases; however, the extent of which it would reduce them is largely unknown. There are several diseases and illnesses that cannot be avoided by a cleaner environment.

Regardless, if you divert money from health care to the environment what do you do in the mean time with people that develop illnesses while you're cleaning everything up? It's going to take at least a generation for the impact to evident. When there's waiting lists now and people are waiting for specialists and care now, how can anyone justify not assisting the health care system in favour of cleaning up the environment?

I may be wrong, but the candidate to which I'm referring had a "to make an omelet you have to break some eggs" mentality. IOW, too bad for the people who are sick now, if we don't clean up the environment we never will.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm under the impression that Dion is the only one who wants them in.

Saying that the environment is the "Green's reason" for existence is no different than saying "free market Capitalism" is the reason for the Conservative's existence. The environment is simply the party's main concern, but it has broad-based policies just like the other major parties.

Look at the Ontario election results for 2007. The Greens got much support and it came from the Conservatives, not the Liberals. Some of it may have simply been protest voting, but I think that Green policies do have more of an appeal to conservatives. Going Green has become the new thing, and the people who tend to subscribe to this are those who actually have the money to purchase new hybrid cars, solar energy and renovate their homes to be energy efficient. Greens also support local agriculture and small business, traditional Red Tory territory.

As usual, Dion has himself boxed in. If he supports letting the Greens in the debate, they will siphon votes from him. If he doesn't support them, he'll be opposing his own principles of fighting for the environment - especially since the Libs and Greens have their ill-fated alliance. The decision to include them or not is a TV network one - not a government one. From a viewing standpoint, having 4 parties is more than enough with all the interrupting that goes on. On a personal note, it makes no sense to me to give equal time to a party that has not yet elected a single MP - ever.

[cybercoma]

As usual, Dion has himself boxed in. If he supports letting the Greens in the debate, they will siphon votes from him. If he doesn't support them, he'll be opposing his own principles of fighting for the environment - especially since the Libs and Greens have their ill-fated alliance. The decision to include them or not is a TV network one - not a government one. From a viewing standpoint, having 4 parties is more than enough with all the interrupting that goes on. On a personal note, it makes no sense to me to give equal time to a party that has not yet elected a single MP - ever.

I think letting them in would be the least damaging for Dion. By not letting them in, he appears as though he doesn't support his green initiatives and is trying to undermine the Green Party. By letting them into the debate, he can play off their views for a greener environment while highlighting that their party does not have a viable platform to be a major player. He can show the similarities that the Liberals have in their environmental policies, yet outline how the Liberals obviously have a better position on everything else. By allowing the Green Party in, Dion can show how "green" voting for the Liberals can be, while still choosing a party that has a viable plan in all other areas.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Regardless, if you divert money from health care to the environment what do you do in the mean time with people that develop illnesses while you're cleaning everything up? It's going to take at least a generation for the impact to evident. When there's waiting lists now and people are waiting for specialists and care now, how can anyone justify not assisting the health care system in favour of cleaning up the environment?

I don't think the Greens would ever advocate spending money on the environment rather than healthcare. Money for the environment would come at the expense of the military and increased taxes on fossil fuels, etc.

I may be wrong, but the candidate to which I'm referring had a "to make an omelet you have to break some eggs" mentality. IOW, too bad for the people who are sick now, if we don't clean up the environment we never will.

My guess is that you're wrong. Nobody that draconian would be tolerated in the Green Party, although the Greens have attracted some nuts in the past.

[Ontario Loyalist]

As usual, Dion has himself boxed in. If he supports letting the Greens in the debate, they will siphon votes from him. If he doesn't support them, he'll be opposing his own principles of fighting for the environment - especially since the Libs and Greens have their ill-fated alliance. The decision to include them or not is a TV network one - not a government one. From a viewing standpoint, having 4 parties is more than enough with all the interrupting that goes on. On a personal note, it makes no sense to me to give equal time to a party that has not yet elected a single MP - ever.

Okay, I just made an argument for why Greens are just as likely to take votes from the Cons.

Yes, that's right, the networks decide, but the party leaders can still voice their opinions. The fact that only the Liberals want May in makes them look good, IMO.

Again, debates have been organized with more than four leaders in other political arenas, so why can't Canada manage a fifth party leader. What if there were six parties in Parlaiment, do we only include the top four? Absurd. The Greens have a significant following, and there exclusion (as well as all of the others) is simply a way for the media to control what the electorate hears.

Yeah, now the criteria has changed to "elected". Then, once they elect a few MPs, then it will be more than the MPs that they have, etc. Whatever.

Just for the record, though; the Greens are my second choice, but it looks like my party won't be running a candidate in this riding, so... I don't agree with many of their policies, but the environment is important to me and I don't really trust the mainstream parties when it comes to the issue, except maybe the Bloc, but I won't support them at all.

[Bryan]

Yeah, now the criteria has changed to "elected". Then, once they elect a few MPs, then it will be more than the MPs that they have, etc. Whatever.

12. Once they have elected 12, and are an official party, then they will have earned their spot.

[Wild Bill]

The fact that only the Liberals want May in makes them look good, IMO.

Did I miss something? The only place where I've heard about parties having a preference about including the Greens in debates is HERE, in this thread!

Now YOU are making a claim that the Liberals and ONLY the Liberals want May in and you feel it makes them look good!

Can you give us a link or something to substantiate your claim about how any of the parties, including the Liberals, feel about including the Greens?

[cybercoma]

12. Once they have elected 12, and are an official party, then they will have earned their spot.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Conservatives still get a place in the debates when they lost their official party status?

[cybercoma]

I don't think the Greens would ever advocate spending money on the environment rather than healthcare. Money for the environment would come at the expense of the military and increased taxes on fossil fuels, etc.

My guess is that you're wrong. Nobody that draconian would be tolerated in the Green Party, although the Greens have attracted some nuts in the past.

Well, I hope for The Green Party's sake, I am wrong. Crippling our health care system to better the environment would be ridiculous.

I think it was just the candidate that was running in my area at the time and it was several years back. He was asked what he'd do about hospitals being underfunded and his reply was along the lines of put money towards cleaning up the environment so less people need the hospitals. It was just too long-term of an answer for an issue that was so pressing to the voters at that time.

Regardless, I still think a lot of their policies are detrimental to the economy and particularly harmful to lower income Canadians. I could get into detail about it, but I'm not so inclined to go through their platform and point everything out at the moment.

[maldon_road]

Did I miss something? The only place where I've heard about parties having a preference about including the Greens in debates is HERE, in this thread!

Now YOU are making a claim that the Liberals and ONLY the Liberals want May in and you feel it makes them look good!

Can you give us a link or something to substantiate your claim about how any of the parties, including the Liberals, feel about including the Greens?

In the last election when the Greens tried to get in the debate Harper did not oppose it. Layton was the most adamantly opposed since he expects he would lose votes to the Greens.

Can't see the CPC losing votes to the Greens. Anyone for whom the environment is a big thing is not likely to be voting for the Cons in the first place.

[cybercoma]

I think any party that can run a candidate in every riding should have a place at the national debate. And yes, even the Marxist-Leninists.

Oh wait... that excludes the Bloc.

Edited August 31, 2008 by cybercoma

[Ontario Loyalist]

Did I miss something? The only place where I've heard about parties having a preference about including the Greens in debates is HERE, in this thread!

Now YOU are making a claim that the Liberals and ONLY the Liberals want May in and you feel it makes them look good!

Can you give us a link or something to substantiate your claim about how any of the parties, including the Liberals, feel about including the Greens?

This was on CTV repeatedly the last couple of days.

[myata]

I just sooooo want to see something new, fresh, whatever, anything to get out there. The very thought of a debate with the old familiar faces (Harper, Layton, Duceppe + Dion - he's new, but I can already visualise him so well in my mind's eye) can be very depressing, n'est ce pas?

[marksman]

Good for the Green Party for getting represented in Parliament. Not so good for the people in the riding who voted for a Liberal MP. Although that isn't different from any other MP switching parties or becoming independent.

To get a place in the leaders debate I don't think you need 12 elected MPs. Even the Progressive Conservative party was allowed to participate with only 2 or 3 seats. Maybe national polling numbers should be enough to get you into the debate. But people are blowing this story out of proportion. Just because someone switched does not mean their new party gets in the debate. It would've helped if they'd actually elected at least 1 MP even though it's a chicken and egg situation where being in the debate help gets someone elected.

If the Greens are allowed in it should be because their national numbers support their inclusion not because 1 guy already in Parliament decided to sign up to the party.

[cybercoma]

They could make a reality show with the debates... y'know, for ratings.

Get the leaders of all known federal political parties there and have them say a short little blurb, give an outline of the party, then at the end of the show the nation calls in and votes for the wild-card seat at the debate the next night. The party with the most phone-in votes gets to join the debate.

[blueblood]

This is good for the Liberals, they dump a snake-oil salesman and can get a better candidate in a Liberal riding, c'mon this is B.C. we're talking about here. Next elections the Libs get this riding.

[maldon_road]

I just sooooo want to see something new, fresh, whatever, anything to get out there. The very thought of a debate with the old familiar faces (Harper, Layton, Duceppe + Dion - he's new, but I can already visualise him so well in my mind's eye) can be very depressing, n'est ce pas?

And a woman too. Not for the first time but one with more spunk than those juiceless females the Dippers had as leaders.

[Topaz]

The Liberals won that riding by less than 1000 votes over the Conservatives last election. The Greens came a distant fourth. Should be interesting the next time around.

As we all know voters vote for a person for different reasons. IF Wilson was voted in for himself then he'll get back in BUT if he was voted in because he was a Lib, he won't. I think in the last election the voters who voted Conservative thought they were electing in a PC and yet, its been pointed out by some in their party.... they are a different party....that's not us!