Sep 17 leaders debate

[G Huxley]

Here is the entire history of party recognition in the House of Commons for you. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/bp243-e.htm

Again that`s in the House of Commons. The electoral process is outside of the House of Commons.

[cybercoma]

Again that`s in the House of Commons. The electoral process is outside of the House of Commons.

You asked "who decided official party status" and I gave you the answer.

[69cat]

Huxley, you understand that you undermined your entire arguement regarding democracy when you say you would exclude the Bloc, right there you say you would rewrite the rules to allow your favored candidate and to exclude another. Very undemocratic of yourself.

Remember watching a debate with the Bloc at the podium? Yeah, it was pretty good, Gilles Duceppe it must have been. There was zero chance of him forming government and in fact was there to destroy Canada, but democracy allowed him to be there. But in your democracy you would ban him, even though he had the required seats for official party status to meet the requirements of the debate.

And i think at that time we had lib, ndp, con, bloc and reform on the ballots, be a heck of complicated set of forum rules you would need like would you require a candidate in each provinc/territory, or each riding? Maybe you dont even need a seat in Parliament in your new forum rules, if not 12 then why even 1? How do you get one person elected if you can not participate in this national debate.

[Topaz]

Harper is so use to say anything he wants about the other two, when he did that last night about the other two would just ram through the migrants without security issues...Tom came back and said that none of the parties would even consider doing what Harper said.

[G Huxley]

Cybercoma: Thank you I note though that the information regarding it has nothing to do with democratic elections, but rather what happens after the elections in the House of Commons in so far as parties are concerned:

``Though the Canada Elections Act defines it, there is no single accepted definition of what constitutes a “political party.”

`` In 1963, the Speaker also suggested that a distinction might be drawn between political parties that contest an election, and those that are formed subsequently.``

In answer as to who was responsible for passing the act it seems to have been the government of Pierre Trudeau in the 1970s.

Edited September 18, 2015 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

Huxley, you understand that you undermined your entire arguement regarding democracy when you say you would exclude the Bloc, right there you say you would rewrite the rules to allow your favored candidate and to exclude another. Very undemocratic of yourself.

Remember watching a debate with the Bloc at the podium? Yeah, it was pretty good, Gilles Duceppe it must have been. There was zero chance of him forming government and in fact was there to destroy Canada, but democracy allowed him to be there. But in your democracy you would ban him, even though he had the required seats for official party status to meet the requirements of the debate.

And i think at that time we had lib, ndp, con, bloc and reform on the ballots, be a heck of complicated set of forum rules you would need like would you require a candidate in each provinc/territory, or each riding? Maybe you dont even need a seat in Parliament in your new forum rules, if not 12 then why even 1? How do you get one person elected if you can not participate in this national debate.

69 I made no mention of the Bloc. I have said previously in fact that I consider that the Bloc should be allowed in the debates and I thought Gilles Duceppe was a good debater. In fact for a time I considered him to have been the best debater in the Federal debates.

What I have already said in this thread as what I consider the qualification for people to enter the federal debates is if they have registered 20 candidates nationally, which would require that they gathered 20000 signatures nationally in support of their candidates running showing that there is a genuine movement.

Edited September 18, 2015 by G Huxley

[69cat]

Yes, Huxley, a miss interpretted the quote that you commented on the page before, i can give you that if i read the wording differently then the Bloc would not be excluded - my bad.

With your idea of 20 candidates it would give rise to very regional based parties. Fair enough for trying to win seats but in a debate format it could be quite unproductive for a voter trying to decide who to vote for as regional issues would conflict. Just musing here.

Again, no snub against May and i have listened to her talk and make time to listen more, but i can understand an entity simply saying you must have official party status. Of course there is no reason at all why we can not have 10 leaders debates during an election, it just means there must be entities willing to present it and candidates willing to attend. Frankly, last nights debate was very good, and i could benefit from seeing another one but it is up to the people putting it on to set it up and provide the rules. For example another forum we discussed a cut off switch on microphone to prevent being interrupted, some were in favor but ultimately up to the one orchestrating the debate to decide. Simply one more of the rules and so i take exception to you saying there is anything undemocratic about it - as having the Bloc participate previously bears out.

And i have no issue saying Gilles contributed immensely to that debate. May could too, it is what it is regarding last night and not foul play.

[Accountability Now]

Huxley, you understand that you undermined your entire arguement regarding democracy when you say you would exclude the Bloc, right there you say you would rewrite the rules to allow your favored candidate and to exclude another. Very undemocratic of yourself.

That was my argument...Huxley just quoted my words in his response.

I stand by my argument as it is based on the belief that only parties who are represented on a federal scale should be present at the debates. The Green party is and should be at the debates. The Bloc is not and should not be present.

[G Huxley]

Yes, Huxley, a miss interpretted the quote that you commented on the page before, i can give you that if i read the wording differently then the Bloc would not be excluded - my bad.

With your idea of 20 candidates it would give rise to very regional based parties. Fair enough for trying to win seats but in a debate format it could be quite unproductive for a voter trying to decide who to vote for as regional issues would conflict. Just musing here.

Again, no snub against May and i have listened to her talk and make time to listen more, but i can understand an entity simply saying you must have official party status. Of course there is no reason at all why we can not have 10 leaders debates during an election, it just means there must be entities willing to present it and candidates willing to attend. Frankly, last nights debate was very good, and i could benefit from seeing another one but it is up to the people putting it on to set it up and provide the rules. For example another forum we discussed a cut off switch on microphone to prevent being interrupted, some were in favor but ultimately up to the one orchestrating the debate to decide. Simply one more of the rules and so i take exception to you saying there is anything undemocratic about it - as having the Bloc participate previously bears out.

And i have no issue saying Gilles contributed immensely to that debate. May could too, it is what it is regarding last night and not foul play.

Again Official Party Status is not relevant to the debates it's an internal thing in the House of Commons set up by the Trudeau govt in the 1970s. In a fair election the debates should not be exclusionary.

Canadian politics is already regional. The voter distribution between parties across Canada demonstrates this and 20 candidates would cover a huge region.

The fear of regional politics in Canada is pretty absurd when Canadian politics is already basically regional. If you really want to get rid of regional politics then proportionate representation rather than riding based elections would be the way to go.

Yes the parties are free to have separate debates, but they have been undemocratic in choosing debates purposely excluding others so as to make the election process unfair. This is undemocratic and I won't be voting for undemocratic parties. My ancestors fought for Democracy in Canada and I will continue that struggle despite the party elite's and many of their followers efforts to prevent it in Canada.

[G Huxley]

Accountability Now: I don't see what the problem with letting the Bloc in the debates is. So they have a regional agenda like everyone else. They have a lot of support. Let them be heard. Frankly it seemed Gilles Duceppe was about the only genuine person in the debates for a period of time. I'm from the West coast, but found myself musing that he would make the best federal leader.

As for his recent return as head of the Bloc, I think it's pretty sad given the circumstances.

Edited September 18, 2015 by G Huxley

[Argus]

Harper's economic message:

Bad things - global economic conditions.

Good things - all my work.

And the others are different, how?

[Argus]

From the numbers people choose to provide, it's easy to infer meaning. It's like the claim that economic growth is worse under Harper than anyone since WWII. It's true....of the entire western world. Without that context you've chosen to make a point by using pure data in a misleading way.

You must have loved it seeing Mulcair and Trudeau blaming Harper for no new pipelines going in given their supporters have been fighting tooth and nail against any new pipelines going in. Mulcair blamed him for gutting all the environmental studies and rules and protections against pipelines even while lambasting him for the fact what was left had still blocked any new pipelines. Huh? And isn't his party pretty much against any new pipelines of any kind, ever, anywhere?

[PrimeNumber]

You must have loved it seeing Mulcair and Trudeau blaming Harper for no new pipelines going in given their supporters have been fighting tooth and nail against any new pipelines going in. Mulcair blamed him for gutting all the environmental studies and rules and protections against pipelines even while lambasting him for the fact what was left had still blocked any new pipelines. Huh? And isn't his party pretty much against any new pipelines of any kind, ever, anywhere?

Actually Mulcair has stated he would support Trans Mountain & Energy East if he gets into power and has a chance to overhaul the current environmental review process. The party and most people back him on this. He's right about there being only temporary jobs involved in anything going south and that the US stands to gain the most from XL even though they don't want it and he vehemently opposes Northern Gateway which a majority of British Columbians oppose as well.

[Argus]

Actually Mulcair has stated he would support Trans Mountain & Energy East if he gets into power and has a chance to overhaul the current environmental review process.

His "support" is lukewarm and highly qualified. It should not take years to decide if a pipeline is environmentally acceptable. Yet it already has, and as far as he's concerned, that hasn't been nearly enough scrutiny.

The party and most people back him on this.

Never met a NDPer who even accepted the need for 'fossil fuels'. I highly doubt his party, which is being tight-lipped now before the election, will suddenly find they love pipelines afterward.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Argus

[dre]

Never met a dipper who even accepted the need for 'fossil fuels'.

ROFLMAO

[69cat]

Huxley, i see what you mean by parliamentary representation but how do you link this to Harper and Mulcair in any form? I cant find any specific reference in an internet search regarding rules for inclusion. The only thing i find is a wiki article and back in 1988 the CRTC went after CBC, CTV and Global on behalf of the Green Party through the Ontario courts and even the Supreme Court was appealed to, but your issue makes it sound like something that originated in the last 3 years when it was actually challenged +25 years ago and thus begins with the first debate.

In lack of finding any other info it seems the CBC, CTV and Global is who you need to go after as they are the parties named. And now the Globe and Mail would need to be filed suit against.

[cybercoma]

Andrew Coyne's article on the debate is pretty amusing. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-the-real-meaning-of-thursdays-federal-leaders-debate

[G Huxley]

69cat:

Harper and Mulcair split from the Consortium debates in favour of these ones because it meant May was going to be discluded from them.

Otherwise why would they have ditched the Consortium debates which most Canadians would have watched? It's pretty obvious.

[ToadBrother]

69cat:

Harper and Mulcair split from the Consortium debates in favour of these ones because it meant May was going to be discluded from them.

Otherwise why would they have ditched the Consortium debates which most Canadians would have watched? It's pretty obvious.

David Cameron did the same thing this spring in the UK. It's about control pure and simple. This is about the political parties seizing the debates for themselves.

[SpankyMcFarland]

And the others are different, how?

I think they are different because they actually say other things occasionally. Harper seems to want to bore us into submission on how wonderful the economy has been these last ten years.

[August1991]

What a joke that was, the mod should be fired. He let trudeau and mulcair interrupt harper thru the whole nite, knowing harper would be the gentlemen and not interrupt them...

I didn't watch the debate but I saw several clips after.

I agree with PIK. It was three guys arguing/interrupting each other in a bar. After 15 seconds, who cares what they're saying...

[hitops]

I don't get it, cbc is reporting that most people felt Trudeau won? WTF? I can understand if it was unclear who won, but I know for sure Trudeau was the worst of the 3. What are people thinking?

[G Huxley]

David Cameron did the same thing this spring in the UK. It's about control pure and simple. This is about the political parties seizing the debates for themselves.

Yes in fact Harper was simply emulating Cameron's contempt for democracy hijinx. It seems that the authoritarian image worked in the participatory panopticon which is the 21st century UK and Harper is hoping it works in Canada too.

[Accountability Now]

Accountability Now: I don't see what the problem with letting the Bloc in the debates is. So they have a regional agenda like everyone else. They have a lot of support. Let them be heard. Frankly it seemed Gilles Duceppe was about the only genuine person in the debates for a period of time. I'm from the West coast, but found myself musing that he would make the best federal leader.

As for his recent return as head of the Bloc, I think it's pretty sad given the circumstances.

We have provinces and elections for those provinces to account for regional issues. Any party that gets in needs to represent all of Canada. How could you possibly expect the Bloc to represent all of Canada when their clearly pushing for Quebec issues one of which is the idea if separation from Canada.

[G Huxley]

They aren't but such is democracy. They deserve a chance to like everyone else. Quebec deserves representation of their choice like all the other provinces. Just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean they shouldn't have a fair chance like everyone else. Even if they don't form the government they can still have influence. Again since we have a parliamentary system it isn't winner takes all like it is with the presidential system in the States.

Edited September 19, 2015 by G Huxley