Why set those rules? Why not the old rules that you had to be an official party in the House, but wait, that was dropped in order to allow the PCs to be there a few years ago.
Why do we allow the television companies to set the rules for the debate?
Should the Green Party be asked to a Leadership Debate
- Thread starter Mowich
- Start date
Why set those rules? Why not the old rules that you had to be an official party in the House, but wait, that was dropped in order to allow the PCs to be there a few years ago.
Why do we allow the television companies to set the rules for the debate?
“She spent less time showcasing what made the Green party distinct from the chorus of her opponents than contributing to a cacophonic critique of the Conservative incumbent.”
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Maybe the reason is that it is the companies who have to arrange the time, line up ads, and cancel programs that might actually bring in revenue. It is not incumbent upon them to hold a debate, they do it for the public good.
She gives two reasons:
Elizabeth May shouldn't be in the debates because the environment isn't important to Canadians anymore
and not being in the debate is good for the Green Party because it will get people angry.
Well the second one might be true, it's too cynical a reason to take seriously and illustrates the frivolity of the rest on the piece. The first reason and only real reason, the Green's diminishing role in the national debate, is simply not true. In two years, the Greens have become less important? 7% of the vote and the only party that gained votes in the last election is an indication the Canadians care less about them?
Meanwhile, everyone against the Greens participating are trying every excuse they can come up with. When someone points out how that excuse is illogical, they come up with something else. Obviously they've made their decision and are creating the reasons as an afterthought. Now we're getting a healthy dose of character attacks on May, which brings us closer to truth of your real reasons for opposing her.
There's no need then to pretend you've thought this out thoroughly and have come to a reasonable conclusion. The best you can do is accept the invented-for-this-year rationale of the "consortium" without thinking. At least you can appeal to the authority of the media syndicate.
I was going to seriously respond to this, but I can't get it out of my head how your avatar looks like a big blue asshole.
They have no representation in parliament because Canadians fail to believe in them enough to give so much as one seat. Blame Canadian voters; blame the leader for being such a poor politician; or simply realize that democracy is working. If the Greens want a seat, they will have to convince us that they deserve one.
In the last election they had almost one million votes while the Bloc had one million three hundred thousand. Who knew that all you needed was one seat to prove Canadians believe in you and a million voters were not Canadians. And who knew that the difference between Canadians believing in you and Canadians not believing in you was only three hundred thousand votes. Somewhere between one million and one million three hundred thousand is 49 seats in Parliament. That's one seat about every 6000 votes. So the Greens' one million votes is 6000 people away from officially being believed in.
I watched that debate, and what you describe happened because it was Harper saying the stuff that was consistently the most false and misleading and therefore the easiest to attack.
You are criticizing May for expressing the same debating methodology and technique as the all the other party leaders except Harper, who kept inviting attack upon himself 'cause he kept saying the dumbest things.
In other-words, you're criticizing May for acting like a normal party leader, but not like Harper, whom we already know to not be normal.
I flip-flop on this 43 times a minute.
The debates are practically unwatchable as it is.
May contributes little to the debate, and was one of the factors in the unpleasantness of the last debates.
I like to see every one get their say....but the line has to be drawn somewhere. As it is, it seems to have fallen on May's head.
I guess I have to stand on my last post....let her in, but shut off her microphone.
lol...in a perfect world.......
I mean, shut off everyone's mike when their time is up.....allow no interuptions.
BTW, I searched the Green Party site! OMG!
I found ONE position I agree with.....paying Afghan farmers to grow poppies for medical purposes.....
Out of dozens.
She is like Libby Davies (whom she resembles somewhat). She would be fun to have in cabinet. When things got too raucous, someone could just say "Shut up! Shut up! Let's hear what Libby thinks!"
Comic relief....a good laugh, then back to reality.
Last edited:
Blame the first-past-the-post system we have for dis-representing the reality of what the citizens want.
It's obviously not working when a million voters get no representation at all while 39% can get power.
They got about as many votes as the BQ, yet the BQ got seats because the population is concentrated, which means the existing system might say something if ideologies were renationalized, so the way to have the existing system be fair would be for all greens to move to a few targeted constituencies.
In Europe some countries dish out seats as a percentage of popular votes.
At the very least, after each election they should reallocate seats in the Senate according to percentage of popular vote.
The obvious solution for the greens is to concentrate all 'greenies' in one geographic area.
I just saw her on Global news during the past day. She's definitely no wilting violet. :lol:
If he Bloc is allowed a seat at the debate, the Green Party should as well. It seems silly to allow separatists the opportunity to spew their garbage yet block a party that promotes the environment. Having MP's should not be the main qualifier for the debate.
Don't much like the idea of a broadcast consortium deciding what voters can see debate wise, I do like the idea of some of these networks setting up their own which includes the Greens and a one on one stetting.
Kenyon Wallace
Toronto Star
While the country’s broadcast consortium has ruled out a one-on-one debate between Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, there are no rules preventing individual networks or cable channels from hosting their own debates – including faceoffs featuring Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.
That is, of course, if the politicians are game.
On Thursday morning, Harper seemed to dismiss Ignatieff’s continued calls for a one-on-one debate, telling reporters in Halifax that he was not interested in multiple debates and would only take part in the planned traditional leaders’ debate on April 12 and 14.
But Harper might have to change his tone if other party leaders agree to take part in other debates that some channels and networks are reportedly planning.
Hamilton, Ont.-based broadcaster Channel Zero, also known as CHCH-TV, announced Wednesday it is planning its own leaders’ debate, which would include May.
News director Mike Katrycz told the Star that because the Green Party receives taxpayer money for votes cast in the election, Canadians should have an opportunity to hear about the party’s platform.
Under the Elections Canada Act, registered political parties that obtain at least two per cent of the total votes cast in a general election are entitled to a reimbursement of 50 per cent of their election expenses.
“Canadian taxpayers have a vested interest in hearing what the Green Party, and all the other political parties that meet that threshold, have to say,” Katrycz said.
“It’s not just a matter of whether you have a seat in the House of Commons. That’s one litmus test. But I think there’s something bigger here.”
Katrycz added that the station would be happy to make its signal available to any other broadcaster who wished to carry it — should the debate go ahead.
The University of Toronto has confirmed to the Star that it has been in talks with Rogers Cable to organize a debate between Harper and Ignatieff if the leaders agree to take part. And CBC News’ flagship news program The National has also offered up air time for a debate between the two leaders.
As it stands now, there are no rules that dictate what format leaders’ debates in Canada must take.
The broadcasting consortium, whose members are CBC/Radio-Canada, CTV, Global, and TVA, negotiates directly with members of each political party to arrive at a format agreeable to all. So while the political leaders of the four main parties wax prophetic about how they would all like to see May included, party and broadcast representatives unanimously agreed behind closed doors that only those parties with seats in the House of Commons should be represented.
“As far as the consortium is concerned, we have an agreement with the four parties represented in the House and the debates on April 12 and 14 are the only debates we’re working on,” consortium spokesman Marco Dubé told the Star Thursday.
The closed-door process has come under fire before. The Centre for the Study of Democracy, a Queen’s University think tank, last year issued a report calling for more transparent rules surrounding what qualifies a leader to be included in the debates. But so far the consortium has ignored the report’s recommendations.
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) rules dictate that broadcasters are required to cover elections and give all parties equitable treatment. However, “equitable” does not necessarily mean “equal.”
Broadcasters are not required to include all parties or candidates in televised debates. Rather, they must ensure they inform their audiences “on the positions of candidates and parties on the main issues in a reasonable manner,” according to the CRTC website.
Likewise, broadcasters must give equal opportunity to parties and candidates to buy commercial airtime for advertisements.
A broadcast consortium insider speaking on background said there’s nothing stopping broadcasters from organizing their own televised debates if they can get the agreement from the parties.
Kenyon Wallace
Toronto Star
While the country’s broadcast consortium has ruled out a one-on-one debate between Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, there are no rules preventing individual networks or cable channels from hosting their own debates – including faceoffs featuring Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.
That is, of course, if the politicians are game.
On Thursday morning, Harper seemed to dismiss Ignatieff’s continued calls for a one-on-one debate, telling reporters in Halifax that he was not interested in multiple debates and would only take part in the planned traditional leaders’ debate on April 12 and 14.
But Harper might have to change his tone if other party leaders agree to take part in other debates that some channels and networks are reportedly planning.
Hamilton, Ont.-based broadcaster Channel Zero, also known as CHCH-TV, announced Wednesday it is planning its own leaders’ debate, which would include May.
News director Mike Katrycz told the Star that because the Green Party receives taxpayer money for votes cast in the election, Canadians should have an opportunity to hear about the party’s platform.
Under the Elections Canada Act, registered political parties that obtain at least two per cent of the total votes cast in a general election are entitled to a reimbursement of 50 per cent of their election expenses.
“Canadian taxpayers have a vested interest in hearing what the Green Party, and all the other political parties that meet that threshold, have to say,” Katrycz said.
“It’s not just a matter of whether you have a seat in the House of Commons. That’s one litmus test. But I think there’s something bigger here.”
Katrycz added that the station would be happy to make its signal available to any other broadcaster who wished to carry it — should the debate go ahead.
The University of Toronto has confirmed to the Star that it has been in talks with Rogers Cable to organize a debate between Harper and Ignatieff if the leaders agree to take part. And CBC News’ flagship news program The National has also offered up air time for a debate between the two leaders.
As it stands now, there are no rules that dictate what format leaders’ debates in Canada must take.
The broadcasting consortium, whose members are CBC/Radio-Canada, CTV, Global, and TVA, negotiates directly with members of each political party to arrive at a format agreeable to all. So while the political leaders of the four main parties wax prophetic about how they would all like to see May included, party and broadcast representatives unanimously agreed behind closed doors that only those parties with seats in the House of Commons should be represented.
“As far as the consortium is concerned, we have an agreement with the four parties represented in the House and the debates on April 12 and 14 are the only debates we’re working on,” consortium spokesman Marco Dubé told the Star Thursday.
The closed-door process has come under fire before. The Centre for the Study of Democracy, a Queen’s University think tank, last year issued a report calling for more transparent rules surrounding what qualifies a leader to be included in the debates. But so far the consortium has ignored the report’s recommendations.
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) rules dictate that broadcasters are required to cover elections and give all parties equitable treatment. However, “equitable” does not necessarily mean “equal.”
Broadcasters are not required to include all parties or candidates in televised debates. Rather, they must ensure they inform their audiences “on the positions of candidates and parties on the main issues in a reasonable manner,” according to the CRTC website.
Likewise, broadcasters must give equal opportunity to parties and candidates to buy commercial airtime for advertisements.
A broadcast consortium insider speaking on background said there’s nothing stopping broadcasters from organizing their own televised debates if they can get the agreement from the parties.
How come it seems that it is mostly the conservative types who want to shut her up? The media that don't want her in the debates must be conservative too.
The 'debates' as they are, are organized by the group of broadcasters. They have admitted they have no set rules on how they set them up or who is invited.
Pretty pathetic, actually.
Omicron, you make a good point here.
"The Greens did get 70% as many votes as the Bloc Québécois did." Chris Selley - National Post
It seems that the issue has now been settled.
Broadcasters rule out one-on-one debate between Harper and Ignatieff, confirm May’s exclusion
DANIEL LEBLANC, SIMON HOUPT AND STEVE LADURANTAYE
OTTAWA AND TORONTO— From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Mar. 30, 2011 11:52PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Mar. 31, 2011 6:58AM EDT
It is odd considering she's blamed for taking votes from the left. But when you act against your own interests it's always a good indication that you're being honest. They really do hate her it seems.
Well, the english vs french compromise has intuitive appeal. But, really, I'd love to see the Rhino Party back...