Let the Woman Speak!

[M.Dancer]

They have an elected MP. That's the point, and it's one none of the other federal parties dispute.

Electing an MP and having an elected MP are two different things, unless of course you can show me which by-election this Green ran in and became the first elected MP then I will withdraw the comment.

Edited September 10, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Stephen Best]

Personally I think they will be better off sticking to the news. I don't think May is either a seasoned debater or telegenic enough to sway more that 6.5% of the electorate.

Huh? Have you ever seen May debate? Probably not, or you'd realize how wrong you are about her debating skills. It's those skills that Harper and Layton fear.

[blueblood]

cwazy they are

Now you're talking. Think of the victory party?

they have a tough hide and normally only one point to make.

First three fringes off the top of my head. To have an actual, (not that bs from last year) debate with all those parties would need 6 hours of tv time. The greens are just a popular fringe party and if layton and harper don't want to debate with them, that's their problem.

I honestly only think the BQ is in the debates as a bone thrown to quebec. I think that's a fringe party as well, one trick pony and don't run all over Canada and won't be government.

[Topaz]

What May could do is have a program on her platform just before the guys do OR make her the host of the guys show to ask the questions???

[HisSelf]

I agree. They have an MP. I am more disappointed in Layton than Harper, who has shown himself time and again to be control freak. So we are splitting hairs on whether the member was elected as a Green candidate. Gee. Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? No need to mention any names for fear of hurting his mother, Mrs. Emerson, LOL.

The Green party has an MP. Let the woman speak.

[Bryan]

When they have elected an MP, they will have a valid argument.

No they won't. Not until they have TWELVE elected MPs and get official party status will they have a valid argument.

[Argus]

Let the woman speak! Democracy and voting isn't about barring people from speaking to voters. Or is it? Regardless of what you think of May, her motives, or her policies, should she be allowed to participate in the leaders' debates on television. Or should Harper and Layton have the right to keep her out? That's the issue. Most Canadians want to hear what May has to say, and want Harper and Layton to let the woman speak.

So those of you who don't like May and Dion and whoever, the question is should May be allowed into the televised leaders' debates? It's not about her character and policies or what she might say, it's about democracy. Are you for or against democracy?

I don't even want Layton and Duceppe there. They're needless distractions. The purpose of the debate should be to asses the two contenders for the job of Prime Minister. Having every wacko who calls herself or himself a politician included just drowns everyone else out and makes the entire exericse a complete waste of time.

This woman no more belongs there than any other fringe party whch has never elected anyone.

[Stephen Best]

Electing an MP and having an elected MP are two different things, unless of course you can show me which by-election this Green ran in and became the first elected MP then I will withdraw the comment.

How the Greens got their MP is irrelevant, particularly when you consider it's how the Conservatives got Emerson and the Liberals Stronach. Crossing the floor is a time honored Parliamentary tradition. Reform leader Preston Manning was in the televised debates when he had only one MP in the Commons, and Reform had less of the popular vote than the Greens enjoy now. Based on precedent, the Greens deserve the same benefit.

[M.Dancer]

How the Greens got their MP is irrelevant, particularly when you consider it's how the Conservatives got Emerson and the Liberals Stronach.

It would be irrelevant if either of those were their forst MP

Crossing the floor is a time honored Parliamentary tradition.

For something so honoured they sure got reviled.

Reform leader Preston Manning was in the televised debates when he had only one MP in the Commons,

Elected MP Big difference.

and Reform had less of the popular vote than the Greens enjoy now. Based on precedent, the Greens deserve the same benefit.

The 1st debate the reform party participated in was 1993. That year they earned 18.69% of the popular vote. Oh.....and the had a member elected under the Reform banner who sat in the HofC

Based on precedent, they need to elect a member....any member....somewhere.....

[HisSelf]

No they won't. Not until they have TWELVE elected MPs and get official party status will they have a valid argument.

I disagree. I think the number 12 is arbitrary and it discounts that part of the electorate that elected the 'less than twelve'. If Eleven core ridings in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver elected a bunch of elves, what do you think would happen? We'd have televised debate with stools at the ready for the 'vertically challenged'.

If a party has an MP, than it has status in the House. I think that entitles it to participate fully in the public debate and to at least some basic level of funding.

The Green Party would not exist in Canada if there was not some level of support for its platforms - about a half a million as I understand it.

I think Dion is right. We can either lead or follow. Now is the time to lead. It is time to exhibit a little husbandry with respect to old mother earth instead of just going on crapping in her front yard. We have tremendous resources other than those that are traditional. T. Boone Pickens has been talking about wind. Well you wanna see wind? Right here baby. We probably could not compete in terms of solar power with countries like the Phillipines (well maybe we could because they are run by half-wits) but wind and geothermal, we are there. And we are definitely there with respect to the technological smarts to make it all happen.

[Stephen Best]

The 1st debate the reform party participated in was 1993. That year they earned 18.69% of the popular vote. Oh.....and the had a member elected under the Reform banner who sat in the HofC

In the 1988 federal election, before Deb Grey won her 1989 by-election, the Reform Party had 2.1% of the national vote, half what the Greens, who also have their first MP, enjoy now.

It wasn't until Reform was allowed into the debate in 1993 that their percent of the national vote increased.

So Reform--a Western regional party--was allowed to debate with 1 MP and 2.1% of the national vote. The Greens--a national party--with 1 MP and 4.5% of the national vote are not permitted. Just the sort of thing that the Right would deem fair, don't you think?

And, as to the national party thing. Remember that Reform, at the time, excluded candidates from Quebec. The Greens have never excluded candidates from any part of Canada.

Let the woman speak!

[jdobbin]

No they won't. Not until they have TWELVE elected MPs and get official party status will they have a valid argument.

Exceptions have always been made. The PCs reduced to two seats were invited to debate.

I would have loved to have seen Frank McKenna make the argument that after he won 57 of 57 seats, he did not have to face anyone in debate.

[Smallc]

All of the leaders now say May can be allowed in the debate. Breaking news from CTV.

[jdobbin]

Layton has reversed himself on May. It is probably because of the hue and cry from his own party.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=election2008

NDP Leader Jack Layton has reversed his opposition to the inclusion of Green Leader Elizabeth May in the televised federal leaders' debates.

Layton says the issue became a distraction and he doesn't want to keep "debating about the debate."

"As long as (Prime Minister) Stephen Harper takes part, I don't care who else is on the stage," he said Wednesday on his campaign bus.

Edited September 10, 2008 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

In the 1988 federal election, before Deb Grey won her 1989 by-election, the Reform Party had 2.1% of the national vote, half what the Greens, who also have their first MP, enjoy now.

And without an elected Reform MP, they weren't included in the debate. When they elected an MP and the polls showed they had considerable support (8-15% 1992-93) they were included in the debates. The greens do not have considerable support and have yet to elect an MP. A fact that seems to escape you.

Edited September 10, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Stephen Best]

I don't even want Layton and Duceppe there. They're needless distractions.

It's not up to you to decide what's a needless distraction. Democracy doesn't work that way. You're just one of over 23 million voters, some of whom want to hear what Layton and Duceppe have to add to the debate.

[Argus]

Layton has reversed himself on May. It is probably because of the hue and cry from his own party.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=election2008

Watch for the next group to start whining that they need to be included too. Anyone want to see all twenty five party leaders debate at the same time?

Maybe she'll burst into tears, fall to her knees, and beg God to strike Stephen Harper dead for not dedicating the entire budget to fighting CO2 emissions.

[HisSelf]

In the 1988 federal election, before Deb Grey won her 1989 by-election, the Reform Party had 2.1% of the national vote, half what the Greens, who also have their first MP, enjoy now.

It wasn't until Reform was allowed into the debate in 1993 that their percent of the national vote increased.

So Reform--a Western regional party--was allowed to debate with 1 MP and 2.1% of the national vote. The Greens--a national party--with 1 MP and 4.5% of the national vote are not permitted. Just the sort of thing that the Right would deem fair, don't you think?

And, as to the national party thing. Remember that Reform, at the time, excluded candidates from Quebec. The Greens have never excluded candidates from any part of Canada.

Let the woman speak!

Best post so far!

[Smallc]

Watch for the next group to start whining that they need to be included too.

Personally, I think that if a party is getting federal funding, the people deserve to hear what they have to say.

[Stephen Best]

And without an elected Reform MP, they weren't included in the debate. When they elected an MP and the polls showed they had considerable support they were included in the debates. The greens do not have considerable support and have yet to elect an MP. A fact that seems to escape you.

M. Dancer, I am well aware of the details of the situation. What is clear is that you have made up some rules for yourself which you think should prevail over my view of the rules. Most Canadians, according to a recent poll, don't agree with you. They want to hear Elizabeth May speak in the debates. You, Harper, and Layton want to make sure that they, the voters, don't get to hear Elizabeth May. Why you'd want to prevent people who want to hear May from hearing her is strange. But that's your opinion.

[Bryan]

Exceptions have always been made. The PCs reduced to two seats were invited to debate.

That was a mistake. Too many people at the podium, the debate was a mess. Even four is pushing it.

I would have loved to have seen Frank McKenna make the argument that after he won 57 of 57 seats, he did not have to face anyone in debate.

Why not? Trudeau refused to debate anyone in three different elections. If your support is already that strong, why would you give your competition a venue to attack you?

[Stephen Best]

Anyone want to see all twenty five party leaders debate at the same time?

There are 16 registered parties in Canada. I've met some of the leaders of the smaller parties, and most of them are more thoughtful than the leaders of the major parties. Canadians should hear them.

[Stephen Best]

Personally, I think that if a party is getting federal funding, the people deserve to hear what they have to say.

Excellent point. Voters should know about the political parties who are getting their tax dollars.

[Bryan]

There are 16 registered parties in Canada. I've met some of the leaders of the smaller parties, and most of them are more thoughtful than the leaders of the major parties. Canadians should hear them.

How long do you want this debate to be? Nobody will be able to get their point across any better than they would with regular press coverage anyway.

I guess every independent is a party of one too, so they should each be there too.

Excellent point. Voters should know about the political parties who are getting their tax dollars.

Even better, stop giving anyone federal money unless they get official party status.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Bryan

[normanchateau]

Let May speak. It's unfair that only Harper's there to represent God-fearing, religious zealots.

Except for the environment, Harper and May seem to share values. I suspect Harper fears that the religious right may find in May someone they can respect more. Even Jack Layton has now decided that May should participate in the debates. What's Harper afraid of?