CANADA: the Green Party and the Debates - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Charlatan · 09-08-2008, 02:35 PM

The Green Party has been trying very hard to get into the upcomming debates but it looks like they have been denied (yet again) from participating.

This election cycle they claim that there is precedence. The Reform Party had one seat and they were allowed into the debates. They now have one seat and want the same treatment.

I am not so sure that they should be in the debates on that precedent given that their one seat was a floor crosser rather than an elected seat. That said, they have managed at least two election cycles with slate of candidates in every riding (something even some of the other parties haven't managed). They also did managed to capture a reasonable sizable portion of the popular vote last election.

Maybe it is time to give them a place in the debate.

What do you think? Should the Green Party be allowed to participate?

Daval · 09-08-2008, 03:03 PM

Something like 10 or 12% of the voting public voted for the Green Party in the last election. That is a huge amount of votes, but unfortunately with our stupid system (first past the post) they get no voice in parliament.

They most definately should be included in the debates and I am sickened that the other 3 party leaders are threatening to boycott the debates if they are included.

It's shit like this that makes me wonder why I should vote. I may just go in and spoil my ballot.

For the record, I have never voted green in the past. I would feel that same way about any party that gets such a significant amount of votes.

Charlatan · 09-08-2008, 04:47 PM

I had forgotten that it was as high as 10% of the vote.

I thought I read somewhere (before the election call) that Dion was going to support the Green Party in their attempt to get into the debates. Is this why you are only saying three party leaders? Aren't there four against (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc) or is this just for the English debates? If yes, will the Greens be allowed into the French debates?

CandleInTheDark · 09-08-2008, 06:39 PM

Jim Harris' Greens should have been in the debates. Elizibeth May and her support of the Liberal Party show that she is not ready to lead, and Dion will act fine as her proxy.

REDL|NE · 09-08-2008, 07:09 PM

What about the fact the the leaders of the Green Party and the Liberals have a promise not to run candidates in each others ridings? Does this play a role?

Liberals agree not to run candidate against Green leader

Baraka_Guru · 09-09-2008, 07:18 AM

The more I think of this, the more I think that the Green Party should be in the debates.

If the Green Party had 100 seats, it wouldn't be an issue, would it? Suddenly it comes back to the number of seats. Sure, the seat is from a floor-crosser, but it's still a seat nonetheless.

I don't buy the argument that it would be like "just another Liberal at the debate." Are they separate parties or not? Even if what the Greens and Liberals argue are closely related, it doesn't matter. A hollow argument echoed is still a hollow argument, and a good argument echoed is still a good argument. Refute it or shut up. Are these to be debates or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by REDL|NE

What about the fact the the leaders of the Green Party and the Liberals have a promise not to run candidates in each others ridings? Does this play a role?

In this matter? No. This is merely one of many political deals that typically happen. It only affects two ridings, and the leaders' ridings at that. The NDP often strikes deals with the Liberals, often when it comes to confronting the Tories. This doesn't mean the NDP and the Liberals are closely related in their politics; it's merely a power play.

CandleInTheDark · 09-09-2008, 10:46 AM

The only sound argument I can think of for the Green Party to be included in the debates is that they receive public funding. The public funds the Party, and thus should hear what they are supporting. Of course, that only works if you are okay with political parties being funding by taxpayer's dollars.

Charlatan · 09-10-2008, 01:32 AM

So former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, Joe Clark has posted an open letter in the Globe and Mail saying that Elizabeth May should be allow to participate in the debates. LINK

I have to say that the one person I am truly disappointed in is Layton. Granted he has a lot to loose if the Greens gain seats as they will likely appeal to digruntled NDP voters, but he refusal to let her into the debates just smacks of the sort of back room politics that he swears he is against.

What do you think of Clark's letter? Does it change your opinion? I have to say, I am leaning more toward letting her participate.

Quote:

Let Elizabeth May speak
I'm alarmed at how easily parties put their own interest ahead of the public interest

JOE CLARK

Sixteenth prime minister of Canada

September 10, 2008

The immediate question about Canada's election is not who will win, but how open and inclusive the campaign will be.

Elections can confirm bad practices, or change them. Ours need changing.

The tone of federal politics today is the worst I can remember in my 50 years in public life. Of course, there were angry partisan differences before, but they were tumultuous exceptions to a general rule of common public purpose, even civility. By contrast, the standard today has become consistently bitter and negative - personal invective routinely displaces any serious discussion of issues or differences.

This low standard helps corrode respect for the democratic institutions in which this mean drama plays out. It comes at a bad time, because there has been a general decline in the reputation of politicians, parties, legislatures and other institutions. Cynicism grows. Candidates are hard to attract. Citizens turn away from politics - especially young people, who see nothing to attract or inspire them. That constitutes a long-term threat to the authority of the pan-Canadian political institutions that have always been essential for citizens of this diverse democracy to act positively together.Obviously, Canada is not the only democracy whose parties and leaders are losing their constituency. But what is striking - now that a Canadian election has been crammed into the shadow of a U.S. presidential campaign - is that we (who preach so much) are continuing our decline, while the American system (which we routinely deride) has broken away emphatically from "business as usual." In choosing their candidates for president, both American parties reached deliberately beyond their status quo - the Republicans to independent voters who admire John McCain, the Democrats to the young and the idealists who are inspired by Barack Obama.

What might Canada do to break out of our mean political cycle, between now and Oct. 14? One option appears to have been shut down on Monday, with the refusal to allow the Green Party's Elizabeth May to participate in the leaders debates.

That should be reconsidered. Her participation would demonstrate that Canadian politics is inclusive, not exclusive. Ms. May shares essential democratic attributes with both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain - the outsider, the person the party establishments sought to exclude, the person with a message that resonates with citizens who've grown cynical about, or disaffected from, their political system.

I've participated in televised debates, both leading the party that went on to win the election, and leading a "fifth" party. Those debates do not, in themselves, determine election results. But they do allow voters - the citizens who decide our country's future - to hear the arguments, assess the candidates and make informed decisions.

This would not be a free ride for the Green Party. Ms. May would have to prove herself and make her case, just like other party leaders. But now, unlike those other leaders, she alone is denied that right.

We're not talking about the Rhinoceros Party. In the 2006 general election, the Greens won 665,940 votes, nearly 5 per cent of the total. Polls published this month by Segma, Ekos and Environics indicate that support for the Greens runs between 7 per cent and 10 per cent, even though the party has never been allowed to make its case in a national leaders debate. In nine provinces and three territories, the Greens have much more support than the Bloc Québécois, which is not only invited to the debates but has the power to veto other participants.

No law forbids Ms. May from joining the other leaders in a televised debate, just as no law forbade Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain from launching their improbable campaigns for a presidential nomination. Instead, the rules that keep her out are determined, in effect, by the political parties that are already in. Technically, the decision is taken by a consortium of the broadcasters who would carry the program; but, in announcing the decision to shut out Ms. May, that consortium has made it clear that the real veto is exercised by the other political parties.

So, it's a club, whose members set their own rules.

Jason MacDonald, a spokesman for the network consortium, is quoted as saying that three parties - those led by Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe - all opposed the participation of Ms. May in the so-called leaders debate, "and it became clear that if the Green Party were included, there would be no leaders debates."

That's blackmail. If these three men want to boycott a genuine debate, let them have the courage to do so openly. Let them also explain why, in a year when U.S. party establishments could not shut out an Obama or a McCain, it is appropriate for the Canadian party establishments to muzzle a significant voice for change.

I am not a supporter of any of the existing federal parties, including the Greens. But I am alarmed, and surprised, by how tightly the government now controls Parliament, how easily parties put their own interest ahead of the public interest, and how mean our public debate has become. We have to break that pattern, and one way to begin would be with a more inclusive leaders debate. I urge more Canadians to press these three leaders, and the broadcasting consortium they hide behind, to reconsider their exclusionary decision.

For Canadians concerned about democracy, the question is not why the Green Party should be let in. The question is: Why should the Greens be kept out?

-----Added 10/9/2008 at 05 : 38 : 24-----
By the way there was also a very interesting editorial by John Ibbitson in the Globe and Mail as well. He suggests that America is too democratic for Canadian tastes. I think it touches on a lot of the things that Joe Clark is saying in his letter.

Yes, we have a different system but maybe we need to take a closer look at how it functions.

aberkok · 09-10-2008, 05:42 AM

The Greens should definitely be in the debates. Whatever deal they have with the Liberals is a separate issue which is bigger than the debates.

Perhaps if there is some backscratching going on between May and Dion then that should be looked upon critically, but I personally find it insulting that Green voters (like me) aren't represented on TV because the other parties think we are rolling out the red carpet for the Liberal party.

Any vote splitting worries... well maybe given the risk of more Harper, it's a valid concern, but is that a good enough reason to sacrifice open democracy by excluding a legal participant in the debate!?

Daval · 09-10-2008, 10:44 AM

Toronto radio just reported that it looks like Elizabeth May and the Green Party will be allowed to participate in the debates after all. Stephen Harper and Jack Layton have backed down from their previous stance.

Will post article when I find one.

Jack Layton backing down article
-----Added 10/9/2008 at 02 : 46 : 50-----

Quote:

May boosted by debate support

* Article
* Comments (Comment44)
*

BILL CURRY

Globe and Mail Update

September 10, 2008 at 1:27 PM EDT

PICTOU, N.S. — Elizabeth May was all smiles as she poured over the Wednesday morning papers at a Pictou Tim Horton's.

“It's like Christmas morning,” the Green Party Leader says to Ron Kelly, a local campaign volunteer.

The Halifax Chronicle Herald penned a forceful editorial called “Censoring the Greens.” It decried the actions of other party leaders to block Ms. May from taking part in the leaders' debates.

“Barring Ms. May from the leaders' debate is a disgrace to democracy,” concluded the province's paper of record.
Elizabeth May
Enlarge Image

Elizabeth May receives a number of emphatic honks as she stands at the side of the road in Pictou, N.S., on Wednesday Sept. 10. (Bill Curry for The Globe and Mail)

But what had Ms. May even more excited was the call by former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Joe Clark that she be included in the debates. Mr. Clark, who never joined the Conservative Party led by Stephen Harper, compared Ms. May to U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain.

“Ms. May shares essential democratic attributes with both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain – the outsider, the person the party establishments sought to exclude, the person with a message that resonates with citizens who've grown cynical about, or disaffected from, their political system,” he wrote in a column published in the Globe and Mail.

Mr. Clark stopped short of endorsing Ms. May, but certainly came pretty close.

More support arrived on Wednesday morning as Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said he would call the consortium later that day to ask why Ms. May was excluded.

Speaking at a roundtable of women candidates this morning in Streetsville, Ont., Mr. Dion criticized Mr. Harper and NDP leader Jack Layton for not supporting her participation.

“They don't have the courage to explain their position,” said Mr. Dion, suggesting they are hiding behind the consortium's decision.

Meanwhile, a small group of angry Green party workers tuned out to an NDP campaign event in Oshawa, Ont., to demand that Ms. May be allowed to take part in the leadership debate.

“Let Elizabeth speak,” they shouted, waving Green election signs across the parking lot from the microphone where Mr. Layton was proposing a strategy for job creation.

“The majority of Canadians want Elizabeth at the debate,” said Cavan Gostlin whose ex-wife, Pat Gostin, is running for the Greens.

“Democracy is about serving the wishes of the majority,” he said, showing a sign in which the letter D had been crossed out of NDP.

Many New Democrats have quietly expressed some discomfort with their party's stand on this issue. Mr. Layton's Facebook page has been inundated with posts from people claiming to be New Democrats expressing dismay.

It has been quite the week for Ms. May, the leader of a party that barely received any attention in the last campaign under former leader Jim Harris.

In pictures, editorial cartoons, radio and television interviews and online petitions, Ms. May has received the kind of attention a small party could only dream of.

Not all of the comments fit with Ms. May's message however.

Environmentalist David Suzuki, who has urged people to vote Green in the past, was quoted this morning hoping for the end of the Greens.

“I can't wait until there is no Green Party,” Dr. Suzuki was quoted as telling the Toronto Star.

“As long as there's a Green party, the implication is that the Greens somehow have a stranglehold on this issue; they're the ones that worry about the environment so the other parties can worry about other things. I don't think it's a ghetto subject.”

An environmentalist close to Dr. Suzuki said the comments were merely a rhetorical complaint about how the other parties view the environment and not a criticism of the Greens.

As she flipped through the papers at Tim Horton's, customers came by to offer their support. She is running in the staunchly Tory riding of Central Nova, held by Conservative Peter MacKay.

Later, standing at the side of the road in Pictou waving at cars, the number of emphatic honks suggests she is at least striking a cord.

In an interview, Ms. May acknowledges she has pushed back any policy announcements until Friday in order to manage the fallout over the debate decision.

Ms. May said she's read the forceful comments of NDP supporters writing to NDP Leader Jack Layton on his Facebook web page, and she is hopeful that pressure will ultimately lead the NDP to reverse its opposition to her inclusion in the debates.

The consortium of broadcasters that decide the rules for the leaders debates said Ms. May will not be invited because other party leaders threatened to boycott the event if she is included.

Officials with Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Jack Layton have confirmed they were the leaders who said they would not participate in a debate with Ms. May present.

Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton have cited Ms. May's favourable comments toward Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion to make their case. They argue inviting Ms. May would be like having two Liberals on stage, a claim Ms. May rejects.

Further, they point out the Greens have not elected an MP under the Green banner, and therefore nothing has changed since the 2006 campaign when only four leaders took part in the English and French language debates.

The Greens argue they should be in because polls show their support is hovering around 10 per cent and they now have an MP in the House after B.C. Independent Blair Wilson joined the party.

Ms. May said Mr. Layton's position is out of sync with the NDP's traditional support for giving smaller parties a voice through proportional representation. Known as PR, it is a voting system that would allot House of Commons seats among parties largely based on the percentage of public support they receive.

“I think the pressure on Layton and Harper, particularly on Jack, will force them to reconsider,” she said. “If it's down to one leader saying ‘we won't participate,' that's not tenable. But we don't want the story of this election to be about our exclusion. We want it to be about our ideas.”

So far however, Mr. Layton is holding firm in his position.

Interviewed Wednesday morning on CBC Newsworld, Mr. Layton was repeatedly asked to comment on the opposition he's receiving on his Facebook page from NDP supporters.

The NDP leader however remained evasive, answering the questions with unrelated statements about Mr. Harper.

“I'm not troubled by that,” he eventually allowed, in reference to the feedback on the website being read to him over the air. “Nothing has changed from the last time around.”

Source

fresnelly · 09-10-2008, 11:35 AM

Fuckin' eh!

Charlatan · 09-10-2008, 04:50 PM

So it seems that Layton and Harper bowed to public pressure and have removed their objections to The Green Party's participation in the debates... An interesting turn of events to be sure.

Following on this, I just read an article but the former head of news at the CBC, Tony Burman, about some the back room issues that happened in the planning stages. He suggests that it is time to have another look at how the debates are organized.

Reading his article has reminded me that we, generally only have one English and one French debate. Why don't we make more time for debates? Would you support something similar to what they do in the US (three debates of two hours each dedicated to specific topics?). Should the debates in Canada be solely organized the three TV networks or should there be an independent council?

I admit I haven't really given this much thought, but the article below makes sense to me.

What about you?

Quote:

Former CBC News chief: The election debate process is a sham

TONY BURMAN

September 10, 2008 at 2:01 PM EDT

Prime Minister Harper's refusal to allow the Green Party leader to participate in the Federal Election Debates is cynical and self-serving, but at least it exposes the sham that Canada's election debate process has become.

After 40 years of relying on Canada's television networks to organize this important event, I believe it is time for Canadians – through the CRTC – to pull the plug on the networks and entrust this vital mission to an independent, non-partisan ‘commission' similar to how it is done in the U.S.

This certainly is a change of position for me. Between 2000 and 2007, as editor-in-chief of CBC News, I was the chair of the fabled “network consortium” that organized the election debates for Canada's last three elections – 2000, 2004 and 2006 – and wrestled with a multitude of issues to make these debates more effective.

In 2006, we discussed the issue of whether the Green Party leader – Jim Harris at the time – should be allowed in the debate, and we decided against it. Although the rules have shifted over time since Canada's first election debate in 1968, the most accepted criteria requires that a political party needs to have representation in the House of Commons as well as proven popular support in the country – which we interpreted to be at least 5 per cent of popular vote reflected in the polls. The Green Party of 2006 had neither.

Early last year, as Canada's new Conservative minority government was under attack in the Commons, I called the networks together to quietly discuss the format of the next debates in case a sudden election became necessary. We invited Ms. May and her senior colleagues to make their case to us.

After they left, the networks privately debated the issue. We never actually reached an agreement that day, although all of the networks were sympathetic to the ‘public service' dimension of the Greens' case. Some networks worried that adding a fifth leader would make the debate "unwatchable" but we all knew that the elephant in the room was actually living at 24 Sussex Drive. And he – the Prime Minister – would effectively have veto power. Within days of the meeting, we were privately told by the Conservative Party representative that Prime Minister Harper would not participate in the debates if the Green Party leader was there.

That was in early 2007. So it's not surprising how it has turned out for this 2008 election – even though the Green Party now has a member in the House of Commons and is averaging between 7 and 10 per cent in national opinion polls.

And therein lies the fatal flaw in Canada's election debate process.

The CRTC and federal courts have reaffirmed the networks' right to ‘produce' this broadcast on their own, without any outside interference. And this is certainly the claim of the networks – including by me when I chaired the ‘consortium' for those seven years. But in reality, the government in power has a veto, and without the Prime Minister's participation, the debate won't happen.

In this instance, I wish the networks had made all of this public by threatening to walk away as a means of mobilizing public pressure.

Furthermore, what makes this year's pattern even worse is that the networks and parties have abandoned the change I introduced in 2006 of adding a second debate (or two extra, if you include French and English.) Like many people, I felt it was absurd that the complexity of a federal election in Canada was reduced to two hours of debating time. In addition, as if to ensure that Canada's debate this time is truly irrelevant, they have scheduled the English-language event for October 2, the same evening as the U.S. vice-presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

This is serious business. An election is intended to protect the heartbeat of a democracy, and a televised leaders' debate is the only opportunity to see them together on the same stage. I think it's high time for an independent, non-partisan commission to step in and urgently provide remedial action.

In the U.S., the “Commission on Presidential Debates”, created in 1987, has come up with a far more illuminating model. The two presidential candidates appear for six hours in three debates, including one devoted solely to world affairs. And this is all accomplished within 29 days, which is a week less than the Canadian election campaign.

Political experts in the United States and Canada are uncertain about how their elections will turn out this autumn, except for two things.

It is more than likely that voter turnout in the U.S. will be a record high, and the turnout in Canada will be a record low.

Does this actually surprise anyone?

Tony Burman is Managing Director of Al Jazeera's English-language news channel based in Doha, Qatar – where he reports it is 45 degrees Celsius and sunny.

fresnelly · 09-10-2008, 05:32 PM

Works for me.

I had to laugh today watching CTV's coverage of this story. In the same breath the anchor said that Jack Layton "Flip Flopped" on the issue while the other parties "came on board later on." Classy.

Willravel · 09-10-2008, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

What do you think? Should the Green Party be allowed to participate?

ABSOLUTELY!

The US has something like 300,000 members (that's 1/100 Americans) and we weren't even allowed to the 2004 debates. The result? The Ent lost the the idiot. No one was listening to Kerry, and Bush was able to get that "aww shucks" charm in there and fool people. Again. Had Green Party candidate Cobb (and Libertarian Badnarick) been allowed into the debates instead of being arrested for showing up, they might have actually said something of substance in response to a question instead of simply retorting campaign lines. Third parties are there to keep the big parties on their toes. Without that "we could end up getting replaced if we don't watch out" attitude, things devolve into coke vs. pepsi and we all lose.

The Libs and Torys can't be allowed to do the same to the third parties as has happened in Canada's basement. NDP and Green (and even Bloc) are all important and have plenty of constituents to represent.

Charlatan · 09-10-2008, 06:47 PM

Will... actually the leader of the Liberal Party was in support of the The Green Party participating in the debates. It was the leaders of the Conservative Party (party of the right), the New Democratic Party (party of the left) and the Bloc Quebecquois (party of the separatists) that were against the participation.

We do not have a two party system in Canada. Currently there are five different parties with seats in the House of Commons (Conservative, Liberal, Bloc, NDP and Green - the Greens have one seat thanks to a floor crosser, he was elected as a Liberal).

percy · 09-14-2008, 06:27 PM

Ironically I think the big loser in the debate will be Dion especially if the environmental card get's drawn alot. He seems to like all things green but has a hard time explaining exactly the procedure and outcome of his rhetoric.

Charlatan · 09-14-2008, 06:43 PM

I tend to agree with you Percy. From what I've been reading, Dion is loathed in Quebec and can't make himself understood in English Canada. In the face of this, he is trying to explain a reasonably complex issue (the Green Shift) in a language in which he struggles.

The Liberals sound like they are in serious trouble.

Daval · 09-15-2008, 05:01 AM

I think the Liberals really need a new leader for the same reasons you two have outlined. Dion means well but cannot get his message across. He's ineffective as a leader.

percy · 09-15-2008, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

What do you think? Should the Green Party be allowed to participate?

Yes, ideologically(democratically) but not fundamentally. By this I mean that May isn't an elected official(MP) in the House. The argument being if she is allowed, why not every leader from all those registered as a political party?

Secondly, May stricts me as someone out of her league. Maybe because on an almost weekly basis she has letters to the editor submissions to most major papers and magazines. Sometimes she is coherent, other times she portrays herself as a bit of a livewire in that she pushs the boundaries of professionalism and many times crosses it. She may know her stuff, but isn't someone I would stake my future in or even take seriously, and only because I think she is in over her head. I hate to say this about anyone in politics but, she seems outclassed by the rest. High class in borrowed shoes perhaps.

She strikes me more of a Norma Rae than a Hillary Clinton.

Charlatan · 09-15-2008, 02:08 PM

An interesting take percy... I haven't seen enough of her in action to say one way or the other with any certainty but my gut tells me you are right.

percy · 09-15-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

An interesting take percy... I haven't seen enough of her in action to say one way or the other with any certainty but my gut tells me you are right.

Well it is just an opinion. But I have seen(had) pretty much enough of them all, living in Ottawa. You know what it's like. Can't get away from it if you tried.

Yakk · 09-15-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by percy

Yes, ideologically(democratically) but not fundamentally. By this I mean that May isn't an elected official(MP) in the House. The argument being if she is allowed, why not every leader from all those registered as a political party?

The Bloc participated in debates quite recently without an elected MP. I think the Conservative party did as well, when the PC and Alliance parties dissolved, and members "crossed the floor" to the new party. As probably did the Alliance party (which was formed when the Reform party dissolved).

The Green party has a sitting member of parliament, right now. It had candidates at in every single riding last election. It polls a good 10% of the national popular vote -- the only thing that prevents it from getting seats is that it has spread out support, instead of regional support like the Bloc and the Reform party.

But barring all of that -- having a seat in the house of commons seems like a reasonable line to draw, doesn't it?

Quote:

She strikes me more of a Norma Rae than a Hillary Clinton.

To be honest, the Green, NDP and Bloc parties are not going to form the next government, barring a graphic sex scandal involing Harper and Dion being homosexual lovers.

CandleInTheDark · 09-16-2008, 08:51 AM

Given May's propensity for sticking her foot in her mouth, expect the debate to be an embarrassing moment for the Green Party. Though she'll hope "Canadians are stupid" enough to ignore her gaffes.

Charlatan · 09-16-2008, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CandleInTheDark

Given May's propensity for sticking her foot in her mouth, expect the debate to be an embarrassing moment for the Green Party. Though she'll hope "Canadians are stupid" enough to ignore her gaffes.

I've heard that sound bite and it sounds like it was taken out of context. I don't for a minute think she believes that Canadians are Stupid.

CandleInTheDark · 09-17-2008, 02:45 PM

I disagree that it was taken out of context. May has a tendency to be over the top, and her attempt to explain away to comment was pathetic. The Green Party, at least under May, seems to have a tendency to attract fringe characters.

Tusko · 09-18-2008, 10:37 AM

i watched her last speech thingy.

wow.

what a bumbling incompetent. it sounded like the speech you make when running for class president.

MORE MONEY FOR EVERYONE WYAYAYA

Martian · 09-18-2008, 11:13 AM

Ideologically the Green party belongs. In practice, I don't think May is going to add anything of value. Maybe she'll surprise me.

09-08-2008, 02:35 PM	#1 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	CANADA: the Green Party and the Debates The Green Party has been trying very hard to get into the upcomming debates but it looks like they have been denied (yet again) from participating. This election cycle they claim that there is precedence. The Reform Party had one seat and they were allowed into the debates. They now have one seat and want the same treatment. I am not so sure that they should be in the debates on that precedent given that their one seat was a floor crosser rather than an elected seat. That said, they have managed at least two election cycles with slate of candidates in every riding (something even some of the other parties haven't managed). They also did managed to capture a reasonable sizable portion of the popular vote last election. Maybe it is time to give them a place in the debate. What do you think? Should the Green Party be allowed to participate? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-08-2008, 03:03 PM	#2 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	Something like 10 or 12% of the voting public voted for the Green Party in the last election. That is a huge amount of votes, but unfortunately with our stupid system (first past the post) they get no voice in parliament. They most definately should be included in the debates and I am sickened that the other 3 party leaders are threatening to boycott the debates if they are included. It's shit like this that makes me wonder why I should vote. I may just go in and spoil my ballot. For the record, I have never voted green in the past. I would feel that same way about any party that gets such a significant amount of votes. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

09-08-2008, 04:47 PM	#3 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I had forgotten that it was as high as 10% of the vote. I thought I read somewhere (before the election call) that Dion was going to support the Green Party in their attempt to get into the debates. Is this why you are only saying three party leaders? Aren't there four against (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc) or is this just for the English debates? If yes, will the Greens be allowed into the French debates? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-08-2008, 06:39 PM	#4 (permalink)
CandleInTheDark Addict Location: Where the music's loudest	Jim Harris' Greens should have been in the debates. Elizibeth May and her support of the Liberal Party show that she is not ready to lead, and Dion will act fine as her proxy. __________________ Where there is doubt there is freedom.

09-08-2008, 07:09 PM	#5 (permalink)
REDL\|NE Crazy	What about the fact the the leaders of the Green Party and the Liberals have a promise not to run candidates in each others ridings? Does this play a role? Liberals agree not to run candidate against Green leader __________________ "You learn more and more about less and less, until you know everything about nothing."

09-09-2008, 10:46 AM	#7 (permalink)
CandleInTheDark Addict Location: Where the music's loudest	The only sound argument I can think of for the Green Party to be included in the debates is that they receive public funding. The public funds the Party, and thus should hear what they are supporting. Of course, that only works if you are okay with political parties being funding by taxpayer's dollars. __________________ Where there is doubt there is freedom.

09-10-2008, 05:42 AM	#9 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	The Greens should definitely be in the debates. Whatever deal they have with the Liberals is a separate issue which is bigger than the debates. Perhaps if there is some backscratching going on between May and Dion then that should be looked upon critically, but I personally find it insulting that Green voters (like me) aren't represented on TV because the other parties think we are rolling out the red carpet for the Liberal party. Any vote splitting worries... well maybe given the risk of more Harper, it's a valid concern, but is that a good enough reason to sacrifice open democracy by excluding a legal participant in the debate!? __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

09-10-2008, 11:35 AM	#11 (permalink)
fresnelly Functionally Appropriate Location: Toronto	Fuckin' eh! __________________ Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

09-10-2008, 05:32 PM	#13 (permalink)
fresnelly Functionally Appropriate Location: Toronto	Works for me. I had to laugh today watching CTV's coverage of this story. In the same breath the anchor said that Jack Layton "Flip Flopped" on the issue while the other parties "came on board later on." Classy. __________________ Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

09-10-2008, 06:47 PM	#15 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Will... actually the leader of the Liberal Party was in support of the The Green Party participating in the debates. It was the leaders of the Conservative Party (party of the right), the New Democratic Party (party of the left) and the Bloc Quebecquois (party of the separatists) that were against the participation. We do not have a two party system in Canada. Currently there are five different parties with seats in the House of Commons (Conservative, Liberal, Bloc, NDP and Green - the Greens have one seat thanks to a floor crosser, he was elected as a Liberal). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-14-2008, 06:27 PM	#16 (permalink)
percy Addict	Ironically I think the big loser in the debate will be Dion especially if the environmental card get's drawn alot. He seems to like all things green but has a hard time explaining exactly the procedure and outcome of his rhetoric.

09-14-2008, 06:43 PM	#17 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I tend to agree with you Percy. From what I've been reading, Dion is loathed in Quebec and can't make himself understood in English Canada. In the face of this, he is trying to explain a reasonably complex issue (the Green Shift) in a language in which he struggles. The Liberals sound like they are in serious trouble. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-15-2008, 05:01 AM	#18 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	I think the Liberals really need a new leader for the same reasons you two have outlined. Dion means well but cannot get his message across. He's ineffective as a leader. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

09-15-2008, 02:08 PM	#20 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	An interesting take percy... I haven't seen enough of her in action to say one way or the other with any certainty but my gut tells me you are right. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-16-2008, 08:51 AM	#23 (permalink)
CandleInTheDark Addict Location: Where the music's loudest	Given May's propensity for sticking her foot in her mouth, expect the debate to be an embarrassing moment for the Green Party. Though she'll hope "Canadians are stupid" enough to ignore her gaffes. __________________ Where there is doubt there is freedom.

09-17-2008, 02:45 PM	#25 (permalink)
CandleInTheDark Addict Location: Where the music's loudest	I disagree that it was taken out of context. May has a tendency to be over the top, and her attempt to explain away to comment was pathetic. The Green Party, at least under May, seems to have a tendency to attract fringe characters. __________________ Where there is doubt there is freedom.

09-18-2008, 10:37 AM	#26 (permalink)
Tusko Psycho	i watched her last speech thingy. wow. what a bumbling incompetent. it sounded like the speech you make when running for class president. MORE MONEY FOR EVERYONE WYAYAYA

09-18-2008, 11:13 AM	#27 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	Ideologically the Green party belongs. In practice, I don't think May is going to add anything of value. Maybe she'll surprise me. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame