Canadian Federal Party Leaders Debates

ToadBrother · April 14, 2015

Even if you only represent one province, and have made no attempt to even pretend to be a national party?

Besides that, it also still leaves the door open for the multi-person person shouting matches we've sen before. It's not a debate when it's structured like that. How would you structure the debate itself so that would actually work?

I think it would be hard to argue that a party should be excluded if they have managed to reach that basic threshold of recognition.

Bryan · April 14, 2015

I think it would be hard to argue that a party should be excluded if they have managed to reach that basic threshold of recognition.

It's an easy argument to make. "It's a Federal debate, parties who restrict themselves to one province shouldn't qualify".

ToadBrother · April 15, 2015

It's an easy argument to make. "It's a Federal debate, parties who restrict themselves to one province shouldn't qualify".

So if we had a party with enough seats that they become of the Official Opposition, you think it is appropriate to exclude them because they're regional? There was a time when Reform wasn't running candidates in Quebec.

At any rate, that is moot at the moment. The Bloc doesn't even have official party status. My issue is that a fringe party that elected precisely one MP in 2011 is now being treated as if it were a major federal party. Even the rosiest projections show little chance of gaining ground. Simply put, Elizabeth May hasn't earned the right to be part of the leaders debate.

overthere · April 15, 2015

My issue is that a fringe party that elected precisely one MP in 2011 is now being treated as if it were a major federal party.

Yep. The Greens has <4% of the popular vote in 2011, a drop from 2008. They remain the 'fifth party'. They are no different from the two Quebec based parties, except the Greens have less popular vote.

None of them have official party status, only the three that have that status should be included in the debates.

Edited April 15, 2015 by overthere

cybercoma · April 15, 2015

So the small and shrinking popular vote, and the lack of seats for the Greens are not relevant?

The only criteria is running losing candidates in many ridings?

If they can run candidates in at least 75% of the ridings that's 254 people spread out across Canada who support them. Their party name is going to be under a candidate on almost every Canadian's ballot on election day. Voters deserve to hear what they're about, so they can make a proper decision, instead of picking candidates like you pick sports teams.

cybercoma · April 15, 2015

The Libertarians already have 60 announced candidates, how many more before they get on the national debate in your opinion?

That's less than 18% of the ballots.

cybercoma · April 15, 2015

So if we had a party with enough seats that they become of the Official Opposition, you think it is appropriate to exclude them because they're regional? There was a time when Reform wasn't running candidates in Quebec.

At any rate, that is moot at the moment. The Bloc doesn't even have official party status. My issue is that a fringe party that elected precisely one MP in 2011 is now being treated as if it were a major federal party. Even the rosiest projections show little chance of gaining ground. Simply put, Elizabeth May hasn't earned the right to be part of the leaders debate.

Actually, the rosiest projections show nearly a 4-way tie in BC.

Bryan · April 15, 2015

So if we had a party with enough seats that they become of the Official Opposition, you think it is appropriate to exclude them because they're regional? There was a time when Reform wasn't running candidates in Quebec.

Again, I don't know what that threshold should be between regional and national, but "only in one province" in my book comes no where near meeting a reasonable requirement.

ToadBrother · April 15, 2015

Again, I don't know what that threshold should be between regional and national, but "only in one province" in my book comes no where near meeting a reasonable requirement.

I think the threshold should be official party status. If you've managed to reach that point, you've earned the right to be considered a party for the purposes of the leadership debate.

Keepitsimple · April 15, 2015

I think the threshold should be official party status. If you've managed to reach that point, you've earned the right to be considered a party for the purposes of the leadership debate.

That certainly makes it clear and consistent.....that's what was speculated before the networks caved and let the blabbermouth into the last debates. Debates are not supposed to be a marketing platform for fringe parties - it's for parties that will play a serious role in governing the country. A party needs at least 5 or 6 seats to even hypothetically play a role in a minority situation. So lets get serious.

TimG · April 15, 2015

I think the threshold should be official party status. If you've managed to reach that point, you've earned the right to be considered a party for the purposes of the leadership debate.

So you are saying the PCs should have not been in the debate after the 1992 election?

jacee · April 16, 2015

So you are saying the PCs should have not been in the debate after the 1992 election?

Good point! ?

.

nerve · April 16, 2015

Are these debates a worthwhile exercise in selecting who you will be voting for?

Should Elizabeth May be allowed to participate in these debates?

Will you be watching any of these debates?

The leader debates are just are just a medium of repoire building. I consider them artificial. I don't like fake people. These things just show more why the PMS office and other ministers must be limited in executive exercise. We don't need partisan exercise of public powers.

That is up to the networks but the debates should count as third party advertising to parties that do participate.

It is a waste of time to watch them. People need to do their research and engage politicians before and after. It is by contacting them that you will find out if they are people of character or elitist con artists. There are far more cons than real people in politics.

webc5 · April 20, 2015

When is the Federal Election Debate?

Argus · April 20, 2015

That may be, but it still won't do the NDP much good. From the Liberals' point of view, better Mulcair win than Harper, because a Mulcair win is pretty much neutral, whereas a Harper win could do some damage.

From a Liberal perspective the last thing they want is an NDP win.The NDP are the real threat to their party. If the NDP ever manage to convince all those left leaning people in the Liberal party that they would govern effectively and intelligently a lot of them would jump ship. There's not much holding them to the Liberals other than fear the NDP would go nuts and run the country into the ground.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Argus

Keepitsimple · April 20, 2015

The leader debates are just are just a medium of repoire building. I consider them artificial. I don't like fake people. These things just show more why the PMS office and other ministers must be limited in executive exercise. We don't need partisan exercise of public powers.

That's quite a Freudian slip that the ladies might have a chuckle over......

ToadBrother · April 20, 2015

When is the Federal Election Debate?

I predict a few weeks after the writ is dropped!

Topaz · April 20, 2015

Does anyone have an idea when Harper will call for the election to began? Would he do it in June and then have from June to Oct.9th off, then come back a month later after the election?? Many people I've talked to think he'll use the budget to run on to get elected.

ToadBrother · April 21, 2015

So you are saying the PCs should have not been in the debate after the 1992 election?

Yup.

ToadBrother · April 21, 2015

Does anyone have an idea when Harper will call for the election to began? Would he do it in June and then have from June to Oct.9th off, then come back a month later after the election?? Many people I've talked to think he'll use the budget to run on to get elected.

I think that window has closed. Unless the Prime Minister has no intention of the current Parliament actually debating or passing the budget, it looks to me like the final weeks prior to Parliament recessing for the summer will be taken up by debating the budget. I think the Tories will pass the budget and then sell it during BBQ season before dropping the writ in the Fall. The bet here is that the Liberals keep sliding, and the Tories squeak through with another majority in the fall. Dropping the writ now threatens a Tory minority that won't likely survive the first Speech from the Throne.

cybercoma · April 21, 2015

Oh, I'm betting it would survive. If Trudeau would support C-51, he would likely support a Tory minority government at least for awhile.

ToadBrother · April 21, 2015

Oh, I'm betting it would survive. If Trudeau would support C-51, he would likely support a Tory minority government at least for awhile.

I doubt it. I don't think JT would commit the same blunder that Ignatieff did.

cybercoma · April 21, 2015

It will be interesting to see what happens. I suspect the Tories will have a minority government after the next election.

PIK · April 21, 2015

I suspect they will have a majority with the gains being made in Quebec and I think when the election gets here, people in ONT will realize that a wynee-trudeau governments is not a good thing. Trudeau is a nice boy and that is all he is.

poochy · April 21, 2015

So you are saying the PCs should have not been in the debate after the 1992 election?

Becuase there is certainly no difference between being a national party since confederation representing a point of view shared to some degree by millions and being a fringe party with one or two seats per election cycle, surely, that's a reasonable point of view.