Should the Green party be allowed in national leaders debates?


Avro
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Hmmmmm....

I hope you have signed up for that reading comprehension course Avro.....because you aren't really doing well at the moment.

Try again....I said



Please note I have put the relevant sections in boldface to try and help you out...........

Oh I know what you said old boy, it's wonderful spin, blame Harper but don't blame him.

All three parties and yes that includes Dion and Layton, if you had been genuine Colpy you would have said Harper instead of the other two jerks.

Like I said, you should write for the Post or Sun instead of sitting around collecting a pension.

You drip with bias and anybody with half a brain can see it even when you think you are being fair.

I would think that an intellectual elite like yourself would get it.....apparantly not.

You can't even figure out what hypocrisy is.
 
Spocq
#32
I think the Green Party should have a seat at the debates they had about 1 million votes last time I heard. I believe they fear the truth that will be brought to the table if they allow the Green Party to be in the debate.
 
Risus
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

The Greens are out, and that is outrageous.

The three major parties ALL (yes, that includes Dion and Layton) did not want her in......of course, Dion and Layon are busily blaming Harper.....but IMHO they share equal blame.

I watched Layton Sunday as a CBC reporter asked him four (that's 4) times whether Elizabeth May should be included......his evasion was the same every time, "I want to debate Harper". He refused to directly answer the question, which was answer enough.

An outrage.

Idiots all.

Yes, Idiot layton shows his mentality....
 
Walter
#34
I thought they should let her in the debate, too, until I heard the reason given by the Cons; the Liberals and the Greens have a pact not to run a candidate in each others' leaders' ridings, so the Cons said we don't need two Liberal parties represented at the debates.
 
Zzarchov
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

It isn't the Green Party they are refusing to debate. It is Elizabeth May herself as she is Dion's candidate for Central Nova.

Those agreements between parties are common, its never booted other major parties from the airwaves before.

Regardless of political reasoning. The Greens have more of a right to be there than the bloq. They run country wide and are polling higher.
 
Tonington
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

I thought they should let her in the debate, too, until I heard the reason given by the Cons; the Liberals and the Greens have a pact not to run a candidate in each others' leaders' ridings, so the Cons said we don't need two Liberal parties represented at the debates.

What brilliant deductive reasoning! Not running in an opponents riding is proof of a facsimile platform!

Geez, what were your reasons to support May in the debates if that's what changed your mind?
 
Colpy
#37
Turns out I have done the Liberals a disservice, hard as that is to believe.

Dion wanted May in the debates.

It was Harper, Layton and the Bloq that wanted her kept out.

Harper believes she is simply a shill for the Liberals, as they are not running anyone against her in Nova Scotia, she has endorsed Dion as PM, and she has endorsed the Liberal candidate running against Jim Flaherty. I think Layton agrees (although I'm not sure) and, I believe, the Greens are much more of a threat to the NDP than to the CPC.

I do not agree with Harper, I think she deserves a place...........although there has always been a tradition that any new party had to have one elected MP in the House before they were included..........and I can see his point.
 
YoungJoonKim
#38
I find Bloc more ridiculous than Conservative and THEY are allowed in the debate. Not funny. No justice whatsoever. Just for exclusion of Green Party from the debate, my vote goes to the Green People. Roar
 
TenPenny
#39
I'm surprised that the NDP didn't want her in the debate.
 
Zzarchov
#40
The NDP don't want her eroding their votes, its the same reasons the Liberals don't like the NDP.
 
Walter
#41
Quote:

Tonington; What brilliant deductive reasoning!

Thank-you.
Quote:

Not running in an opponents riding is proof of a facsimile platform!

Yes.
Quote:

Geez, what were your reasons to support May in the debates if that's what changed your mind?

They had a memeber in the H of C, some turncoat Liberal.
 
#juan
#42
I was going to bring up the point that Dion wanted May in the debate but Colpy already made that point. Some twit on the news last night tried to make a point that May couldn't be in the debate because the Green Party doesn't run candidates in every riding. I guess that privilege is reserved for a certain seditious little pri-k that runs the Bloc heads.
 
Risus
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I was going to bring up the point that Dion wanted May in the debate but Colpy already made that point. Some twit on the news last night tried to make a point that May couldn't be in the debate because the Green Party doesn't run candidates in every riding. I guess that privilege is reserved for a certain seditious little pri-k that runs the Bloc heads.

I think the reason is that they don't hold any seats in the current parlament.
 
Avro
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

The NDP don't want her eroding their votes, its the same reasons the Liberals don't like the NDP.

Keep in mind there are many green cons who find the Grean party attractive since they really aren't that liberal.

An extremely right wing business friend of mine is the biggest the tree hugger I know, he buys land the Beatrix Potter way, just to preserve it....he is voting Green.
 
lone wolf
#45
NDP probably has the right idea. If they're going to have a lot of fringe parties, why not have a free vote and eliminate the party system altogether? Fringe makes it too easy to split the vote - the way Mulroney did for Free Trade and GST. By popular vote, both times he was clobbered.
 
Zzarchov
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Thank-you.Yes.
They had a memeber in the H of C, some turncoat Liberal.

Well lets go over this, Other parties in the past have done this and still participated.
Why the special case for Green and Liberals but not other parties?


The BQ was allowed into the debates when it had only a single unelected MP.
 
Praxius
#47
Another thing I would like to add, is that if the Bloc are allowed in the debate.... a party that only represents one Province, then all parties should be allowed to be in the debates.

Restricting who can go into the debates, etc. is a control on freedom and the public's ability to be informed and make a sound decision.

People can call them fringes, but they're only fringes because nobody gives them a chance to speak.

I feel that so long as a political party can represent and have members that can be elected in most of the provinces, then they should be allowed..... for a party that only focuses on one province is a joke.... like the Bloc.... and besides, all they want to do is seperate from Canada anyways, so wtf should they be allowed in the debate if they don't represent all of Canada's best interests?
 
Risus
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post


The BQ was allowed into the debates when it had only a single unelected MP.

None the less, they had an MP.
 
Zzarchov
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by RisusView Post

None the less, they had an MP.

So do the greens.
 
Tonington
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

I do not agree with Harper, I think she deserves a place...........although there has always been a tradition that any new party had to have one elected MP in the House before they were included..........and I can see his point.

That's not true. The 1993 election had all five leaders at the debate, including the Bloc Quebecois, which had to that point not elected a single member to Parliament.

ETA: I see Zzarchov beat me to the punch.
 
Tonington
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Thank-you.



You're taking credit for what the Cons as you call them said? The name seems to fit...


Quote:

Yes.

Conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. But I'm not surprised you would follow blindly along...

Quote:

They had a memeber in the H of C, some turncoat Liberal.

Well shucks Walt, lets just let all the Independents in on it too!
 
earth_as_one
#52
FYI:

Quote:

The Green Party of Canada is a Canadian federal political party founded in 1983 with around 9,000 registered members as of November 2007[citation needed]. The Greens, as their name indicates, advocate green politics and are the largest party in Canada to focus primarily on green politics, though other parties have included environmental stances in their platforms.
The party's support has ranged between 4.5% and 15% since the 2006 federal election and has not polled below 6% in any opinion poll from 2007 onwards. In mid-November 2007 the Greens placed third ahead of both the Bloc and the NDP in a Strategic Counsel poll.[1] In the 2006 election, the Green Party of Canada received 4.5% of the total vote but did not win any seats.[2]
Elizabeth May is the current leader of the party. She was elected on the first ballot by 65% of voting party members on August 26, 2006.
On August 30, 2008, Vancouver area MP Blair Wilson became the first-ever Green Member of Parliament, after sitting for nearly a year of the 39th Canadian Parliament as an Independent. He had been a Liberal MP, but was expelled from the caucus earlier in the parliament for alleged campaign finance irregularities, of which he was later cleared after an 8-month investigation by Elections Canada.[3] Wilson became a Green Member while Parliament was not in session and was subsequently dissolved on September 7, before he had any opportunity to vote on anything as a Green...

Quote has been trimmed
As far as I'm concerned this one issue is justification enough to vote Green. But I also happen to agree with most of their policies:

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy
 
Fingertrouble
#53
YES they should be in the debate. I am no Green supporter by any means, but if it gets the other parties to reconsider any of their policies and utilise any good ideas that the Greens have (665,940 people voting for them in 2006 is still a LOT of people) we as Canadain's can only benefit....can't we????

Personally, I think they should replace the Bloc. I do not believe that they have ANY right to be in the debates, as has been previously mentioned, they don't field any candidates outside of Quebec and they DONT WANT TO BE A PART OF CANADA...so lets exclude them from any part of the Canadian Political system if they feel that way......
 
Zzarchov
#54
Well the debates used to have 5 candidates speaking.

Bloc, PC, Lib, NDP and Reform.

Seeing as Green qualifies for party funding if nothing else, and has an MP, they deserve to speak.
 
YoungJoonKim
#55
I'm sure most of Canadians want to see Green's Action on that podium--so do I.
 
TenPenny
#56
Let's look at the 'rules'. Apparently, the idea is that a party must have a sitting member to be represented in the debate.

The Green Party has a member, who joined the party while Parliament was not in session; Parliament was subsequently dissolved. Therefore, they have never had a sitting member.

So, we'll change the rules because we like the Green Party. This means we have to change the rules for every other party as well.
 
Tonington
#57
Where can one find the official standards for the televised leadership debates?
 
Zzarchov
#58
Sitting member? When was that added?

Your mistaking changing the rules with making new rules that previous parties had retroactively upheld.

If it turns out that no previous leaders had been left handed, that doesn't make it a rule that new leaders can't be left handed and participate, even if that makes it a convenient way to remove a current leader from the debate.

They run as a national party, they could in theory form a majority government, they have an MP and they have enough popular support to qualify for official party funding (unlike the rhino, marxist-lenninist etc)

They have far more right to be there and have their voices heard than either the defunct reform or BQ have ever had.
 
TenPenny
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

Sitting member? When was that added?

I heard that from some CBC wonk the other day. Could be wrong, which is why I said 'Apparently'.
 
TenPenny
#60
From cbc.ca:

"In the December 2005 debates that preceded the 2006 election, Jim Harris — then leader of the Green party — was excluded because his party had no seats in the House of Commons."

Since the 'Green' MP joined the party when Parliament wasn't in session, then technically, the Green Party has never had a seat in the House.
 

Similar Threads

0
Green Party
by Jersay | Feb 16th, 2006
6
The Green Party
by SHKVAL | Dec 27th, 2005
12
no new posts