Evening Star Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 Tom's Take on Elizabeth May Authenticity. I agree with Clark but I also wonder if this would change if May (or another Green leader) were to become a serious contender for PM. People do tend to become much more cautious when they have to reach the largest number of people. Quote
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 29.7 per cent chose Harper as preferred PM according to the Nanos link you provided. You said he was last. He's actually first. Quote
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 Who cares if she's in 4th. So what!!! Thee are forums for local candidates. She doesn't belong on a forum for potential leaders of government. Quote
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) You said he was last. He's actually first. EKOS polls have almost consistently shown that he is the last. http://www.ekospolitics.com/ Edited September 20, 2015 by G Huxley Quote
Evening Star Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) I've said previously if a party can field 20 candidates nationally then they should be allowed in the debates. Oh, interesting. So the Communists, Marxist-Leninists, and Libertarians would all be included. That could get pretty messy. Edited September 20, 2015 by Evening Star Quote
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 I agree with Clark but I also wonder if this would change if May (or another Green leader) were to become a serious contender for PM. It certainly changed the NDP. I remember a speech Gary Doer gave to the Nova Scotia NDP, either just before or after they won government for the first time. It was a story about needing to be pragmatic and actually getting into government so that you could make real change, rather than pontificating from ivory towers. Right now, Elizabeth May is on her tower. Quote
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 Thee are forums for local candidates. She doesn't belong on a forum for potential leaders of government. That is absurd. As part of a coalition she could easily be a potential leader in a next government. Quote
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) Oh, interesting. So the Communists, Marxist-Leninists, and Libertarians would all be included. That could get pretty messy. I don't consider having choice in a democracy 'to be messy.' In fact I welcome diverse opinions. Edited September 20, 2015 by G Huxley Quote
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 That is absurd. As part of a coalition she could easily be a potential leader in a next government. She would never be in a position to lead a coalition. The party that leads the coalition is almost universally the party with the most seats in the coalition. Quote
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 I don't consider having choice in a democracy 'to be messy.' There's a reason that 'democracy' hasn't been set up the way that you envision it. Messy is exactly what it's supposed to avoid. It's about orderly, peaceful transitions. Quote
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) She would never be in a position to lead a coalition. The party that leads the coalition is almost universally the party with the most seats in the coalition. Who said she has to be in a position to lead a coalition? This isn't winner takes all politics. This is supposed to be a democracy. Theoretically anyone can win. The votes are decided on election day not in advance. She certainly has enough candidates running to win. Edited September 20, 2015 by G Huxley Quote
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 There's a reason that 'democracy' hasn't been set up the way that you envision it. Messy is exactly what it's supposed to avoid. It's about orderly, peaceful transitions. Democracy is about having a choice. Many other countries have democracy in a way that I envision it including Sweden, Germany and Australia. Quote
Evening Star Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 I remember that, at one time, there used to be a second debate that included national leaders of fringe parties. Quote
Evening Star Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 Democracy is about having a choice. Many other countries have democracy in a way that I envision it including Sweden, Germany and Australia. Wait, do these countries really have leaders' debates with 10+ people on the stage debating every question? Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 Oh, interesting. So the Communists, Marxist-Leninists, and Libertarians would all be included. That could get pretty messy. The Green Party has what, 2 or 3 seats? She should be allowed to participate in any debate with the 3 leaders. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 Who said she has to be in a position to lead a coalition? The debate, as its structured, is between potential heads of government. Quote
Evening Star Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 I don't consider having choice in a democracy 'to be messy.' In fact I welcome diverse opinions. But, I mean, someone could even argue that your criterion of 'fielding 20 candidates' is arbitrary and undemocratic. Why exclude parties that field fewer candidates than that, or independents for that matter? Quote
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 Many other countries have democracy in a way that I envision it including Sweden, Germany and Australia. I'd like to see proof of that, especially in the example of Australia, a more conservative country than Canada by far. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 I agree with Clark but I also wonder if this would change if May (or another Green leader) were to become a serious contender for PM. People do tend to become much more cautious when they have to reach the largest number of people. Maybe but I doubt it. There have been cases of other politicians who have been able to maintain authenticity. Joe Clark Preston Manning Peter Lougheed Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 Wait, do these countries really have leaders' debates with 10+ people on the stage debating every question? Unsure, but the countries have massive amounts of seats allotted to what you refer or others refer to as fringe parties e.g. the pirate party in Sweden. Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 There's a reason that 'democracy' hasn't been set up the way that you envision it. Messy is exactly what it's supposed to avoid. It's about orderly, peaceful transitions. No it's not. It's all about choice for Canadians and having as much exposure as possible to the candidates. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 The Green Party has what, 2 or 3 seats? Why are you so against democracy? Why draw the line with having a seat? Shouldn't others have a chance for a voice, so they can get enough support to actually win seats? Quote
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 But, I mean, someone could even argue that your criterion of 'fielding 20 candidates' is arbitrary and undemocratic. Why exclude parties that field fewer candidates than that, or independents for that matter? I think there should be a second national debate for candidates lower than that. Quote
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 But, I mean, someone could even argue that your criterion of 'fielding 20 candidates' is arbitrary and undemocratic. It most definitely is. I'm actually very offended by it. Quote
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) I think there should be a second national debate for candidates lower than that. So why is your arbitrary criteria any better than mine? Than the G&M? Than Munk? Edited September 20, 2015 by Smallc Quote
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.