NSLiberal Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 I'm so happy that the Greens have been booted out to the sidelines where they belong. I do think it's high time the rules for inclusion in the debate are set out on paper so that we don't keep having this debate debate every election. My personal recommendation is if the current incarnation of your party has ever gotten official party status in the commons you should be allowed in the debates as long as that party exists. Further if your party hasn't attained official party status in the past, but did elect at least 1 MP in the last election they should be allowed in for the next debate only. None of this Blair Wilson backdoor crap. And as for people who say the Bloc shouldn't be in the English debates two things: #1: you know not everyone in Quebec speaks French right? #2: What basis are you arguing they should be excluded? Because you don't like what they stand for? I personally don't like what the Conservatives, NDP, or the Bloc stand for; but I don't think that means they shouldn't be allowed at the debate. Quote
Scotty Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 This issue is a perfect example of the advantages of our traditional "First Past the Post" system. It sets a bar to screen out the fringe parties! If the networks are allowed to say no to May why don't they say no to Duceppe? He has no business being in the debate either, and just makes it more difficult to hear the people who English Canadians are interested in learning about. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
TimG Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) If the networks are allowed to say no to May why don't they say no to Duceppe?They adopted a fairly neutral criteria: parties with seats in the house. Duceppe has seats in the house so he gets a place in the debate. I don't see what the issue is. Edited April 3, 2011 by TimG Quote
Oleg Bach Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 If there was a powerful will by voting Canadians to have the Greens participating - they would have seats in the house - They don't...besides who needs another Rona Ambrose but not as good looking? Quote
cybercoma Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 Theoretically, I could win the lottery tomorrow. Chances of that are a hell of a lot higher than the scenario you describe, too. THere's nothing wrong with giving a theoretical extreme to illustrate the problem with the system. The number of seats won by a party does not indicate that party's support. At the extreme end a party could have 49% of public support and by your system not have a seat at the debate. Most people would agree that this is unacceptable. In reality the Green Party was supported by nearly 1,000,000. That's more people than the population of the entire province of New Brunswick. Yet she doesn't get a seat at the debate? Come on. I wouldn't vote for her and I didn't like the way she was trying to shout down Harper in the last debate; however, I still think her supporters deserve to see her at the debates. And for that matter, any party that has enough support to run candidates in almost every riding, should be represented at the debates, so voters know what they stand for--even if no one agrees with them. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 They adopted a fairly neutral criteria: parties with seats in the house. Duceppe has seats in the house so he gets a place in the debate. I don't see what the issue is. What about the independents? They have seats in the House. Why don't they get to enter the debates and represent themselves? Quote
TimG Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 What about the independents? They have seats in the House. Why don't they get to enter the debates and represent themselves?It is a national debate. Independents on represent their riding. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 It is a national debate. Independents on represent their riding. It is a national debate. Bloc Quebecois only represent their province. Quote
Smallc Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 It is a national debate. Bloc Quebecois only represent their province. And their province is part of this country. Quote
Bryan Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 What about the independents? They have seats in the House. Why don't they get to enter the debates and represent themselves? That's just another reason why the rules have to be tight. Not just the debates, I'd seriously like to see the definition of official political party status tightened up to include a minimum number of elected officials and a minimum number of ridings represented in a minimum number of provinces. Then just make the criteria for participating directly in pretty much anything be "official party status". Quote
TimG Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 It is a national debate. Bloc Quebecois only represent their province.The BQ is still a party that was and could become the official opposition. Independents are simply individuals. Quote
jbg Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 The BQ is still a party that was and could become the official opposition. Independents are simply individuals. I'm torn on Bloc participation. On the one hand people may want answers to how they'd handle being the Opposition. Onthe other they're dedicated to destroying Canada and have no chance of Cabinet participation other than in coalition. So I'm not sure. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Oleg Bach Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 Thought that the Greens were all about people who were sick of corruption...sick of the status quo and wanted a chance to be allowed to be corrupt also? Quote
cybercoma Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) And their province is part of this country. And the independents' ridings are part of this country. Edited April 3, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
cybercoma Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) I'm torn on Bloc participation. On the one hand people may want answers to how they'd handle being the Opposition. Onthe other they're dedicated to destroying Canada and have no chance of Cabinet participation other than in coalition. So I'm not sure. If the entire state of New York no longer wanted to be a part of the United States, would you support their ability to elect to office members of a political party whose objectives were to see New York's independence? And if you support them being elected to office, would you not support their full participation in the democratic process? Edited April 3, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
kimmy Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 Here is an article where the chairman of the broadcast consortium talks about the decision to exclude May. He says they are sticking to their guns and will not reconsider allowing May to participate. As somebody who'd like the debate to be meaningful, I'm extremely happy to hear it. The more people participating, the less likely that anything worthwhile happens at the debate. Probably the ideal situation for the Conservatives would be if the Greens were included, as well as the Marxist-Lenonists, Christian Heritage, Marijuana Party, Rhinoceros Party, Waffle Party, and any other party. That would almost guarantee that nothing informative would happen during the debate. The more people involved, the less time is available for anybody to present an argument or make their case to the Canadian people. That would be great for the Conservatives, but a loss for the other parties and a loss for the voters as well. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Bonam Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 I'm torn on Bloc participation. On the one hand people may want answers to how they'd handle being the Opposition. Onthe other they're dedicated to destroying Canada and have no chance of Cabinet participation other than in coalition. So I'm not sure. Hmm well if we go by theoretical extremes as mentioned in the thread earlier... the Bloc could win up to 75 seats in Quebec and the remaining 4 parties could be equally split in the rest of Canada with 58-59 seats each, giving the Bloc the first chance at forming a government Quote
Bryan Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 Here is an article where the chairman of the broadcast consortium talks about the decision to exclude May. This says it pretty clearly: Our decision is final and the decision is unanimous. It will not be reconsidered. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 Hmm well if we go by theoretical extremes as mentioned in the thread earlier... the Bloc could win up to 75 seats in Quebec and the remaining 4 parties could be equally split in the rest of Canada with 58-59 seats each, giving the Bloc the first chance at forming a government Forming a minority government, yes. Do you think they would actually get support for their separatist agenda with a minority government? Quote
Smallc Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 And the independents' ridings are part of this country. Yes, but they aren't parties vying to form a government or become part of a government...or oppose a government. They're simply individuals. Quote
M.Dancer Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 It's official....No special treatment for fringe party Green party Leader Elizabeth May has lost in her last-ditch effort to get in to the televised leaders' debates.Federal Court judge Marc Nadon has decided not to expedite the case before the first debate on Tuesday. The party says it will look at all options before deciding whether to pursue the case any further. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/judge-denies-elizabeth-mays-bid-to-join-leaders-debates/article1971474/ Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ToadBrother Posted April 5, 2011 Author Report Posted April 5, 2011 It's official....No special treatment for fringe party http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/judge-denies-elizabeth-mays-bid-to-join-leaders-debates/article1971474/ Maybe the Greens will grow up now, pick a proper and sensible leader and try to claw their way up. It's not impossible. The CCF did it, and it didn't get more grassroots than them. Quote
M.Dancer Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Maybe the Greens will grow up now, pick a proper and sensible leader and try to claw their way up. It's not impossible. The CCF did it, and it didn't get more grassroots than them. ...maybe they can use their $2 per vote to actually communicate with the public rather than hope their video goes viral... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
jbg Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 If the entire state of New York no longer wanted to be a part of the United States, would you support their ability to elect to office members of a political party whose objectives were to see New York's independence?No. I'd support their trial for treason, and likely their execution as traitors. And if you support them being elected to office, would you not support their full participation in the democratic process? See above. There is nothing democratic about secession. Secession is a rejection of the democratic process whereby the loser lives by the result of the succession of elections. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Jack Weber Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Maybe the Greens will grow up now, pick a proper and sensible leader and try to claw their way up. It's not impossible. The CCF did it, and it didn't get more grassroots than them. I think this decision effectively ends Ms. May's leadership of that party... Question... Are there sensible Greens? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
.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.