M.Dancer Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 Personally I think Harper should not be televised because hes in Contempt of Parliament. He shouldn't even be allowed to be leader of a party for that. If a party cannot have a representative of at least 33% of Canada (100 representatives running for office) then I feel that that party has expressed no interest at a federal level of what is best for the entire of Canada. Therefore, May is valid, Duceppe should be the one kicked out. And Harper, technically he should be spending six months in the pokey for doing something that 54 commonwealth nations have never managed to disgrace themselves with. This is an example of the sloppy thinking people have... Harper is not in contempt, the government is. ...and your views on the bloc to say the least are undemocratic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 Then you could potentially have a dozen candidates in the debate. I don't want a dozen nobodies who have no hope whatsoever of even getting a seat getting in the way of a real discussion and debate between the real political leaders. That's what happens at our local candidates debates. My riding, Ottawa-Vanier, typically has 10-12 candidates. (Makes no difference who runs, Liberals own it.) At a one and half hour debate each candidate gets 10 minutes or less to be heard. I watch them mostly to see and hear the guys covered in tattoos who like the Greens are one trick ponies. It's the comedic side of elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 That's what happens at our local candidates debates. My riding, Ottawa-Vanier, typically has 10-12 candidates. (Makes no difference who runs, Liberals own it.) At a one and half hour debate each candidate gets 10 minutes or less to be heard. I watch them mostly to see and hear the guys covered in tattoos who like the Greens are one trick ponies. It's the comedic side of elections. In my riding, they have all candidates meetings, where the candidates get five minutes to expound their virtues, and then a Q&A session. For years questions could be directed at specific candidates, so naturally Reform (back then), the Liberals and the NDP were asked every single question and the candidates for the fringe parties got to sit on their hands... which I was fine with, because the rest had absolutely no chance in hell of getting elected so I didn't really give a damn what they had to say. Then somebody decided that formula was deeply unfair, and the last ACM I went to, which was, I think, the 2004 election, the candidates I actually wanted to hear from had to share time with about five or six fringe party candidates. It was such a deplorable waste of my time, the only amusing one being the Marxist-Leninist candidate who kept talking about how the workers would be uniting if her party was elected, which was kind of fun as a sort of Bolshevik-lite spectator sport, but all in all, I got no sense of what the candidates were about, other than that the Tory incumbent looked about as excited to be there as he would be if he was visiting the dentist, and I didn't blame him. It was just a waste of precious air to watch a pack of whackos (and I include the Greens in there) talk nonsense and gibberish, while the three serious candidates who were going to, collectively, get over 90% of the vote in the riding, sat there going between irritation and boredom. Frankly, I don't know why they even bothered showing up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 This is an example of the sloppy thinking people have... Harper is not in contempt, the government is. ...and your views on the bloc to say the least are undemocratic Not necessarily. We're talking about various means to qualify on the national stage so I don't think running candidates outside one local area ought not be one of them. How about, if you can't elect MPs from at least two provinces you aren't a national party and you don't get on the national debate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Toronto centre David Gentili[1] 9,410 Bob Rae 27,582 El-Farouk Khaki 7,744 Ellen Michelson 6,086 Liz White (Animal All.) 187 Gerald Derome (IND) 155 Philip Fernandez (MXL) 92 7 candidates Toronto Danforth...8 candidates and 12 parties vied for seats in TO I hope I'm not being pedantic when I say this, but when I say a party needs to run a candidate in EVERY riding in the debates then only the parties that have candidates in the riding with the LEAST number of candidates can enter the debates. If you can't run 308 candidates, you don't get a spot at the debates, unless you have an MP that was elected. I'm not sure why this concept is hard for people to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I hope I'm not being pedantic when I say this, but when I say a party needs to run a candidate in EVERY riding in the debates then only the parties that have candidates in the riding with the LEAST number of candidates can enter the debates. If you can't run 308 candidates, you don't get a spot at the debates, unless you have an MP that was elected. I'm not sure why this concept is hard for people to understand. Because it is contrary to the democratic standards we hold. Both harper and ignatieff wish to win seats in quebec. The party that currently winse the most seats in quebec would not be allowed to debate the other leaders (and the other leaders debate the bloc)... So the real question is, what do you have against the legitimate and demonstratable expression of democracy in quebec? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 She was a colossal waste of time at the last leadership debate. I think that supporters of all the major parties should be pleased. It'll give the real leaders more time to make their case and to challenge each other. Kudos to the networks for putting their foot down. Enough's enough, Liz. -k I agree one hundred percent. I also agree with capricorn. If you can't get the support, you can't get into the debate. On a personal level, I feel she just damages the debate. The debate is bad enough with all the leftists and the treasonous Bloc-Quebecois, we don't need another who's even more looney and useless than Jack Layton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) I agree one hundred percent. I also agree with capricorn. If you can't get the support, you can't get into the debate. On a personal level, I feel she just damages the debate. The debate is bad enough with all the leftists and the treasonous Bloc-Quebecois, we don't need another who's even more looney and useless than Jack Layton. Seriously... You don't live here anymore by choice,right? Don't you have your special pile of Mediterannean rocks to worry about? Edited March 31, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZenOps Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) This is an example of the sloppy thinking people have... Harper is not in contempt, the government is. ...and your views on the bloc to say the least are undemocratic It is called the "Harper Government" now. If you want to change the official goverment letterhead on all documents, you should take the credit and the blame. Oda was originally in contempt, then it was passed to Harper, then to the PC party. If you believe that the leader is responsible for the actions of the men and women under his control then yes, he is in contempt of parliament. Which on an individual basis has always been a criminal offense under British law, and I'm not sure what as a government basis. I might ask the GG, although he is probably to new to enact something as severe as putting the PM behind bars, lol. Edited March 31, 2011 by ZenOps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 It is called the "Harper Government" now. If you want to change the official goverment letterhead on all documents, you should take the credit and the blame. Oda was originally in contempt, then it was passed to Harper, then to the PC party. If you believe that the leader is responsible for the actions of the men and women under his control then yes, he is in contempt of parliament. Which on an individual basis has always been a criminal offense under British law, and I'm not sure what as a government basis. I might ask the GG, although he is probably to new to enact something as severe as putting the PM behind bars, lol. But Liberals don't think "leader is responsible for the actions of the men and women under his control" otherwise would have seen a party leader prosecuted for adscam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Which on an individual basis has always been a criminal offense under British law, and I'm not sure what as a government basis. I might ask the GG, although he is probably to new to enact something as severe as putting the PM behind bars, lol. I can find no reference of contempt of parliament being a criminal offence under brit law, but it is most certainly not under CND law. Feel free to show otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I can find no reference of contempt of parliament being a criminal offence under brit law, but it is most certainly not under CND law. Feel free to show otherwise. It isn't a criminal charge in the UK either. Maybe there are some Westminster-based parliaments out there where it is, but so far as I know, Parliamentary privilege is not based in statute or constitution, but in the ancient right of Parliament to administer its own affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I hope I'm not being pedantic when I say this, but when I say a party needs to run a candidate in EVERY riding in the debates then only the parties that have candidates in the riding with the LEAST number of candidates can enter the debates. If you can't run 308 candidates, you don't get a spot at the debates, unless you have an MP that was elected. I'm not sure why this concept is hard for people to understand. Even the major parties can't consistently live up to this standard. People drop out, EDA's get caught by snap elections when they are between scheduled meetings, not to mention deaths, retirements, etc... Last I checked, nobody had a full slate for this election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZenOps Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Parliament Don't know how much stock anyone puts in Wiki, but I'm not going to wade through any Brit document to try and find it. Rarely has the Canadian federal parliament invoked its power to find an individual in contempt: There were "contempt citation" cases in 1913,[2] 1976,[2] 2003,[2] 2008[2] and 2011.[3] So, its a probably a comtempt "citation" that was never escalated to a criminal charge, because they dissolved on "no confidence" before it could escalate to that point. However, make no mistake - it is punishable as a criminal offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Parliament Don't know how much stock anyone puts in Wiki, but I'm not going to wade through any Brit document to try and find it. Rarely has the Canadian federal parliament invoked its power to find an individual in contempt: There were "contempt citation" cases in 1913,[2] 1976,[2] 2003,[2] 2008[2] and 2011.[3] So, its a probably a comtempt "citation" that was never escalated to a criminal charge, because they dissolved on "no confidence" before it could escalate to that point. However, make no mistake - it is punishable as a criminal offense. I think we're colliding on terms here. A crime, in the common law sense (which is what both the UK and Canada use) is defined by statute. Parliament's powers to organize, administer and police itself is only partially defined by statute, and even there they only really get the briefest mentions in the BNA Act. Contempt of Parliament is not a crime in the sense of a Criminal Code violation (the Criminal Code being a law passed by Parliament). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youshouldknowbetter Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 The debate should only include Harper and Ignatieff. One of those two leaders will form the government. If the basis for permitting participants is based on past success as a barometer for future success then we need not invite any other debaters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 The broadcasters have set the criteria to be included in the debate as having a minimum of one seat in the Commons. That seems fair and reasonable. The Green Party met that last time around, doesn't meet it today. What's the problem? They'll change their minds of course, and include her eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 The broadcasters have set the criteria to be included in the debate as having a minimum of one seat in the Commons. That seems fair and reasonable. The Green Party met that last time around, doesn't meet it today. What's the problem? They'll change their minds of course, and include her eventually. It's a pity, too. May is an idiot on every possible level. I'm sure she's very sincere and very nice, but she's a twit running a party filled with crackpots. It's little wonder they never get enough support to elect even one seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 Because it is contrary to the democratic standards we hold. Both harper and ignatieff wish to win seats in quebec. The party that currently winse the most seats in quebec would not be allowed to debate the other leaders (and the other leaders debate the bloc)... So the real question is, what do you have against the legitimate and demonstratable expression of democracy in quebec? I'll remind you that my original post stated that a party needed to EITHER have a candidate in all the ridings OR have an elected MP sitting in the house. I think that covers your criticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) Even the major parties can't consistently live up to this standard. People drop out, EDA's get caught by snap elections when they are between scheduled meetings, not to mention deaths, retirements, etc... Last I checked, nobody had a full slate for this election. A fair criticism and it can be addressed by not making it all 308 ridings. There could be some other benchmark set like 300 ridings or something. It's neither here nor there. It should be a substantial number of ridings or have someone elected sitting in the house, not someone that changed parties after being elected. Anyway, I was merely offering a suggestion to further discussion. Edited April 3, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 The broadcasters have set the criteria to be included in the debate as having a minimum of one seat in the Commons. That seems fair and reasonable. The Green Party met that last time around, doesn't meet it today. What's the problem? They'll change their minds of course, and include her eventually. Because the FPTP system makes that unreasonable on its own. Theoretically, a party could be big enough to get 49% of the vote in every riding and lose lose that riding to someone getting 51%, thereby not winning a single seat. This party with 49% of the vote, but no seat, would be ineligible for the debates. Kind of absurd, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 Because the FPTP system makes that unreasonable on its own. Theoretically, a party could be big enough to get 49% of the vote in every riding and lose lose that riding to someone getting 51%, thereby not winning a single seat. This party with 49% of the vote, but no seat, would be ineligible for the debates. Kind of absurd, no? Theoretically, I could win the lottery tomorrow. Chances of that are a hell of a lot higher than the scenario you describe, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 Former nuclear watchdog supports May, slams Tory minister. Keen was fired from her post as CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission after she forced a shutdown in late 2007 at a Chalk River reactor that provides vital isotopes for medical uses, and refused to restart it until safety systems were in place, despite intense political pressure. The shutdown caused a critical international shortage of isotopes and the government overrode the nuclear regulator, allowing the reactor to be restarted. Lunn fired Keen, but he then was demoted later that year. Yes, getting radioactive isotopes is important, but for the Harper Government, this incident provided a clear example that public safety takes a back seat to business as usual. A run of bad luck like they had over in Japan, and we could very well be staring at our own nuclear disaster right now. A lot of press stories on Linda Keen's endorsement of Elizabeth May focus on a theme that she is doing this out of revenge. But if it's just about revenge, why didn't she take her endorsement to the Liberals or the NDP? Possibly because Linda Keen was not impressed by the attention the other two parties have given to nuclear energy policy and environment issues in general. And boys and girls, that's why it's important to struggle against this drive to force Canada along the path to a two party system like the U.S. has. Even with three parties, none of them are giving a proper amount of attention to the environment. For them, environment issues are put further down the list of priorities when other concerns dominate the news cycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 I for one sincerely doubt we will see Elizabeth may on the televised debate French or English. And if she does not win a seat May 2nd I believe the greens will just fade away. In 2008 there were many in this country who came to her aid when the broadcasters announced she wasn't invited.Even Stephan Dion stuck his neck out for her(I don't know why).I don't hear anyone else trying to help her now this time round. I even remember many people up intil 2008 saying that our political system should even change to reflect the diversity in the political spectrum(greens).And this actually made sence at the time. Not anymore after seeing the greens attitude towards how our system works. Why should our entire system freakin change because the greens can't get a seat.Why do they have to be present at the debate,only further adding more confusion and public resentment when they obviously do not even want to win a single seat. Her court actions and appeals will go over like a lead ballon when any sencible judge looks at her track record and contempt for our political system. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 May should be allowed in the radio debates.... May should take her ambitions and use her energy on something more meaningful than politics. The fact that she is interested in taking political power in any degree - shows a shallow self centred person...If she were of any real use to us, she would grow up and do something useful...like maybe have a baby - get a nice man to hang out with - and travel the world spreading good will and light...but Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.......May wants to be - in her mind a man! Just like the other men in Ottawa that have so much power they can't even keep a government afloat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.