Remember Me?
Home Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2011 Federal Election Forum This Forum is to gather all topics and discussions around the 2011 Federal Election. This was born out of the Jimbo thread entitled the "real issues". This forum will be archived 1 week after the end of the election.


Go Back   Connect2Edmonton > C2E Cafe > Archived event-specific forums > 2011 Federal Election Forum
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-09-2008, 11:54 PM   #1
ZiZiPop
You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Default Greens out of Debate

The networks are not allowing Elizabeth May to participate in the debate. I'd like to know what people think.

I believe she should be there (even though I probably won't be voting Green). They are running candiates in every riding and they do technically have an MP. But somehow the "rules" are being changed again. There needs to be clear rules to who participates and who doesn't so parties can't play these games just to silence a voice.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...731f25&k=86351
ZiZiPop is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 12:06 AM   #2
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

I think the Green Party should be allowed to participate. They might get enough votes to win a seat or two.
The_Cat is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 12:33 AM   #3
DebraW
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

I believe that Elizabeth May of the Green Party should be a part of the debate. The argument that the GP platform is similar to the Liberal's is not a
reason to exclude them and I do not think any other party (especially the one who is the government) should be making these type of assumptions or generalizations.

Things like these are not what I expect (require) in a democracy.
DebraW is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 12:40 AM   #4
Kronic
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default

Somebody should make strict rules for elections to include things like this and stick to it .........oooooops guess that won't work either

.....the Kronic
Kronic is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 07:24 AM   #5
bobinedmonton
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

She's getting far more publicity this way, why bother with a debate that nobody will watch?
__________________
BobinEdmonton
bobinedmonton is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 08:45 AM   #6
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobinedmonton View Post
She's getting far more publicity this way, why bother with a debate that nobody will watch?
I think a lot of people watch the debate. I know I do. I don't understand why Harper is being such a jerk about this issue. How immature.
etownboarder is online now  
Old 09-09-2008, 08:51 AM   #7
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

I understand the choice, and pretty much agree with it. If they let them in, why not a few independent candidates as well? How about some representatives from the Communist or Christian Heritage parties? After all, they each have had more MPs elected to the House of Commons than the Greens.

The way I see it, the Greens are still a single-issue fringe party that is much like the NDP, minus the high-profile politicians, economic platform, plans for health care, position on the roles of provincial/federal power, or criminal justice. They still time and work to earn their place and PROVE they are a political party to be taken seriously.

Last edited by MrOilers; 09-09-2008 at 08:58 AM..
MrOilers is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 08:55 AM   #8
Dusty Bear
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

I haven't voted Green in the past and won't be in this election, either. However, I was disappointed to hear May won't be allowed in the leadership debate.

In past years, the broadcasters cited the party's lack of an MP in the House for their decision to exclude the Greens. Well, now they have a seat. So what's the problem? And does Harper consider them that much of a threat? If anything, I would think they'd bleed votes from the NDP and the Liberals.

This decisions makes even less sense considering the Bloc, a separtist party that only runs candidates in one province, is allowed to participate.
Dusty Bear is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 09:27 AM   #9
ZiZiPop
You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
I understand the choice, and pretty much agree with it. If they let them in, why not a few independent candidates as well? How about some representatives from the Communist or Christian Heritage parties? After all, they each have had more MPs elected to the House of Commons than the Greens.
Ok then, where do you draw the line? What rules should govern who is in the debate and who isn't? IMO, if your party has a current MP, or is running in 90% of ridings.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a similar situation for when the Bloc was first allowed into the debate.

Last edited by ZiZiPop; 09-09-2008 at 09:30 AM..
ZiZiPop is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 09:43 AM   #10
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZiZiPop View Post
Ok then, where do you draw the line? What rules should govern who is in the debate and who isn't? IMO, if your party has a current MP, or is running in 90% of ridings.
I know where I draw my line, but don't really have an have an answer as to a good impartial line that most people will agree with. Requirements will always be subjective.
MrOilers is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 10:10 AM   #11
ZiZiPop
You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Default

Come on! That's a cop out! Regardless of whether you agree with a party or not, there has to be clear defined lines on these kinds of issues becuase if there is not, parties will allways try and find ways to keep others out. It's the Green party today, it'll be some other party tomorrow. There is aways going to be people that don't agree with the criterea, but there has to be clear defined lines.

I could understand in previous elections why the Greens wern't allowed, but in this one i don't. In my mind the integrety (if there was any) of the debate has been compromised.

Last edited by ZiZiPop; 09-09-2008 at 10:12 AM..
ZiZiPop is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 10:13 AM   #12
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZiZiPop View Post
Ok then, where do you draw the line? What rules should govern who is in the debate and who isn't? IMO, if your party has a current MP, or is running in 90% of ridings.
I know where I draw my line, but don't really have an have an answer as to a good impartial line that most people will agree with. Requirements will always be subjective.
I agree with MrOilers. I'm not sure where to draw the line either, but I think the Greens are a one-issue fringe party. And that issue isn't the environment - it's attacking Stephen Harper on behalf of the Liberals. I rarely hear her talking about the environment, it's always Harper this, Harper that. The fact the Liberals agreed not to run a candidate against them in a riding is most telling.

Elizabeth May has always received more attention from the media than she has warranted IMHO. I might feel different if they had ever gotten an MP elected, and instead resort to extending welcoming arms to MP's who's ethics are so questionable they are even abandoned by the Liberals.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 10:19 AM   #13
Dusty Bear
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZiZiPop View Post
Ok then, where do you draw the line? What rules should govern who is in the debate and who isn't? IMO, if your party has a current MP, or is running in 90% of ridings.
I know where I draw my line, but don't really have an have an answer as to a good impartial line that most people will agree with. Requirements will always be subjective.
I agree with MrOilers. I'm not sure where to draw the line either, but I think the Greens are a one-issue fringe party. And that issue isn't the environment - it's attacking Stephen Harper on behalf of the Liberals. I rarely hear her talking about the environment, it's always Harper this, Harper that. The fact the Liberals agreed not to run a candidate against them in a riding is most telling.

Elizabeth May has always received more attention from the media than she has warranted IMHO. I might feel different if they had ever gotten an MP elected, and instead resort to extending welcoming arms to MP's who's ethics are so questionable they are even abandoned by the Liberals.
Whether this is true or not, again I would point to the Bloc's inclusion in the debate. They are concerned not with Canadians, but Quebecois. They are a separatist party that runs candidates only in one province. Yet they can participate in the leaders' debate.
Dusty Bear is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 10:24 AM   #14
raz0469
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

I very much agree with several others. If the Greens are out, so should the Bloc. If the Bloc is in, then so should the Greens.

As far as the Greens being a "single issue party", that was not my impression at all. I have never really researched their platform at all, but I was under the impression that they had a complete platform and weren't only concerned with environmental issues, although yes that is a focus of theirs.
raz0469 is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 10:24 AM   #15
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

I know, but the leaders of the other "real" parties agreed to participate with the Bloc in the debate, unlike with the Greens. I personally agree the Bloc is irrelevant.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 10:42 AM   #16
Dusty Bear
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
I know, but the leaders of the other "real" parties agreed to participate with the Bloc in the debate, unlike with the Greens. I personally agree the Bloc is irrelevant.
That gets right to thrust of it - there should be clear, established rules. Right now it seems to be crass politics. Opposing the Bloc's inclusion in the debate would hurt the other parties' chances in Quebec. However, they could have a lot to lose if the Greens are included and May comes off as well spoken with credible policies.
Dusty Bear is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 10:55 AM   #17
240GLT
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
Default

The Greens are far from a one issue party. They've got a comprehensive platform that covers all issues, but of course environmental stewardship is a key focus in all the policies.

I don't know how I will vote this election... The incumbent conservative in my riding is bigot and racist Peter Goldring. Libs don't impress me, and while I have been a card carrying member of the NDP for the past three years, I grow weary of some of the party's far left fringe that makes it difficult for other Canadians to support the party, I may very well be voting Green this year.
240GLT is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 11:03 AM   #18
IKAN104
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

But the green party is endorsing the leader of another party. If you put them both in the debate then they've essentially got an alliance against the others. That's where the problem is.
IKAN104 is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 11:06 AM   #19
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
But the green party is endorsing the leader of another party. If you put them both in the debate then they've essentially got an alliance against the others. That's where the problem is.
Hmmm, I wouldn't say that either leader/party is endorsing the other. They're eliminating competition in each others ridings, which I find a bit strange, but essentially they aren't really doing anything wrong.
etownboarder is online now  
Old 09-09-2008, 11:26 AM   #20
240GLT
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
Default

Quote:
But the green party is endorsing the leader of another party
That is just not true. The Cons want you to think that, but in all reality the Green fiscal platform is closer to a conservative platform than a liberal one.
240GLT is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 11:45 AM   #21
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

May should be careful what she wishes for - she might just get it. She'll get better shots off from the sidelines with no return fire, which is how she likes it anyway. It's not the Conservatives who stand to lose voters to the Green Party, as May ridiculously contends. No Conservative would switch to Green.

"The NDP confirmed late Monday that Layton had said he wouldn't attend the debate were May allowed to participate.

"We said that if the Liberals were going to have two representatives, we would not accept the invitation," campaign spokesman Brad Lavigne said on Monday."


May should not have made the symbolic deal not to contest the election in Dion's riding, because they didn't stand any chance anyway. Dion needs May because she is his proxy balls. And May did endorse Dion as Prime Minister in April 2007, who agreed not to run a candidate against her in return.

And I don't believe the Bloc were allowed in the debate either until they elected an MP.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 12:12 PM   #22
240GLT
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
Default

Just learned on TV that Ray Martin is running against Peter Goldring in my riding.

Guess I'm voting NDP this time around after all.
240GLT is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 12:13 PM   #23
Kevin_Foster
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

I think any part with an MP should be part of any national debate.
Kevin_Foster is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 12:19 PM   #24
raz0469
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
No Conservative would switch to Green.
Sorry, what? Do you speak for all Conservatives? I've voted both Conservative and Liberal in the past, and I'd consider voting Green as well if the candidate or the platform warrant it.
raz0469 is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 12:23 PM   #25
ZiZiPop
You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
And I don't believe the Bloc were allowed in the debate either until they elected an MP.
The first Bloc MP i believe was Gilles Duceppe. Technically he was elected as an idependent.
ZiZiPop is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 12:35 PM   #26
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
... They've got a comprehensive platform that covers all issues, but of course environmental stewardship is a key focus in all the policies.
...
while i disagree with your use of the word "comprehensive" - and take issue with some of the non-quoted accusations you went on to make - the green party has certainly clearly demonstrated that they are a national party and a credible one irrespective of whether one agrees with their platform or not.

they should be included in the debate and entitled to gain or lose support based on their performance in it, not excluded from it based on anyone else's perception or opinion (either political or media) of whether their support is sufficient or not and whether it is real or not.

that would be like excluding franklin d. roosevelt from a debate because much of his platform was either borrowed or shared and his "image" would probably reduce ratings. not that may is any roosevelt.
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 02:20 PM   #27
sundance
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: City of Champions
Default

Okay here is something Harper should think about, by having the Greens in the debate he splits the left wing vote, its in Harper's best interest for them to be there.

What is a better debate model, number of minutes based on a poll? So Conservatives get 35%, Liberals 30% ND 20% Bloc 10% Green 5% (or whatever the numbers are). Sort of doesn't work for a debate

Debates aren't really the best medium no one side gets to really express their full views as the moderator is always limitting the arguments and rebuttals, not sure if there is a better medium, perhaps a web page of all the policies and where the various parties stand on each issue. A quick answer and a link to a longer answer with more details.
sundance is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 03:01 PM   #28
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

I was just reading some of the plans on the Green party's website, and they sound completely out to lunch on some issues.

I just read about legislation on animals and they sound like they are against all conventional farming, slaughtering, and scientific testing involving animals. They are even against toxicity studies using rats. Forget these unrealistic hippies. They sound a bit like radical groups such as PETA. To their credit, they don't sound any crazier than the Communist Party of Canada on their site, but much like them the Greens' plans are not realistic in this world and I don't care if I ever hear them in debates with "real" political parties.
MrOilers is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 03:02 PM   #29
240GLT
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
Default

Quote:
while i disagree with your use of the word "comprehensive" - and take issue with some of the non-quoted accusations you went on to make - the green party has certainly clearly demonstrated that they are a national party and a credible one irrespective of whether one agrees with their platform or not
I would absolutely call the Greens' plan comprehensive in rebutting claims that the Greens are a one issue party.

I've got a nice pamphlet in my desk drawer (If you live in Goldrings' riding you got one too) Sent to me by Peter himself that easily corroborates my my claim that Peter Goldring is a bigot. A quick scan of his voting record also proves anything else.
240GLT is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 04:01 PM   #30
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post

I've got a nice pamphlet in my desk drawer (If you live in Goldrings' riding you got one too) Sent to me by Peter himself that easily corroborates my my claim that Peter Goldring is a bigot. A quick scan of his voting record also proves anything else.
It's true, Peter Goldring is a total racist bigot. People like that have no place in public office. That doesn't mean I don't support one's right to run for office, I just have a problem with the fact that people keep electing this SOB.
etownboarder is online now  
Old 09-09-2008, 04:07 PM   #31
Dusty Bear
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
I was just reading some of the plans on the Green party's website, and they sound completely out to lunch on some issues.

I just read about legislation on animals and they sound like they are against all conventional farming, slaughtering, and scientific testing involving animals. They are even against toxicity studies using rats. Forget these unrealistic hippies. They sound a bit like radical groups such as PETA. To their credit, they don't sound any crazier than the Communist Party of Canada on their site, but much like them the Greens' plans are not realistic in this world and I don't care if I ever hear them in debates with "real" political parties.
That's nice that you don't like their platform. But more than 600,000 Canadian voters did in the last election. It's not just about what you want to hear. That's kind of the point, isn't it? This is a democracy where different viewpoints get expressed, whether we like them or not. We should not let other party leaders decide who gets to be represented at the debate.
Dusty Bear is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 04:12 PM   #32
Dusty Bear
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post

I've got a nice pamphlet in my desk drawer (If you live in Goldrings' riding you got one too) Sent to me by Peter himself that easily corroborates my my claim that Peter Goldring is a bigot. A quick scan of his voting record also proves anything else.
It's true, Peter Goldring is a total racist bigot. People like that have no place in public office. That doesn't mean I don't support one's right to run for office, I just have a problem with the fact that people keep electing this SOB.
Or Rob Anders in Calgary-West, for that matter.
Dusty Bear is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 04:14 PM   #33
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

It's the NDP who have the most to lose here. I still doubt any Conservative, at least any I've ever heard or met, would ever consider voting Green.

For example, under Foreign Policy:
"Canada is running the risk of losing this hard-earned respect from the international community through its participation in the war in Afghanistan"

& soon after
"The Green Party believes in a foreign policy that will support self-determination, human rights, democratic governance, environmental sustainability and the growth of international institutions. This is in keeping with one of our key values, non-violence."

Not in line at all with Conservative policy, to say the least. Impossible to get the second without doing the first. The Taliban obviously wouldn't be amenable to the second policy points I posted here. What planet are the Greens on?

& finally, this gem:
"Proposing a reform of the UN Security Council, eliminating vetoes and expanding membership."

Talk about empty gestures and useless posturing. It's not like Russia, the US, China, or anyone else on the Security Council for that matter, is ever, ever going to consider this from Elizabeth May, or anyone. Those aren't the kinds of policies I can have any faith in, as the first. They lead me to question their grasp of reality.

But, I do have to congratulate 240GLT on refusing to stay loyal to any one party. One of my biggest problems is with those who will always vote for their party, no matter what. I think there are far too many voters who remain entrenched, and often end up defending policies they don't agree with because they are put forward by their party.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 04:25 PM   #34
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
"Proposing a reform of the UN Security Council, eliminating vetoes and expanding membership."
That's comedy! AS IF any government can actually change the old boys club known as the UN Security Council permanent members. While they're at it, they might as well propose to make the sun shine twice as long on Canada so we can collect more solar power.

I've never actually read anything on the Greens until today, and they really sound like a bunch of whackjobs. And just because they got 600,000 votes last time doesn't make them more right, less whacky, or any more worthy of respect. My original hunch that they were a fringe group promising nothing realistic except their pro-environmental stances has been validated.




By the way, I don't think I'm going to vote. I have no bearing on who is going to be the Prime Minister or who is going to form the governemnt anyway. I'm in Peter Goldring's (Conservative) riding and he's going to win his seat back by a landslide again. All I can do is make Mr. Goldring win by 10,001 votes or by 10,000 votes (if I vote for someone other than him). I really hate our electoral system.
MrOilers is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 04:27 PM   #35
ED1
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

The broadcast consortium should have booted the Bloc from the English debate, and have Elizabeth May represent the Green party on the debate. Why should the Bloc be on a national English debate where 99.9% of its platform doesn't apply for areas outside of Quebec?

The opposite could work as well, have the Bloc be in the French debate, but not the Greens...
ED1 is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 04:28 PM   #36
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

^^^ That's not such a bad idea.
MrOilers is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 04:38 PM   #37
raz0469
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
I've never actually read anything on the Greens until today, and they really sound like a bunch of whackjobs. And just because they got 600,000 votes last time doesn't make them more right, less whacky, or any more worthy of respect. My original hunch that they were a fringe group promising nothing realistic except their pro-environmental stances has been validated.
I think you'll find that every political party's "manifesto" has plenty of goofiness and unrealistic ideals in it, if you go digging. As I said earlier I haven't perused the Green Party's platform in detail, and from I've seen it isn't in line with my opinions. But is it any further "out there" than a lot of what the NDP has proposed in the past? I'd venture to say absolutely not. Yes the NDP has moderated somewhat under Layton, but it remains to be seen how long that will last. A lot of the hardcore kool-aid drinkers in the NDP establishment are getting ready to lynch Layton, accusing him of being a "sell out" to the party's socialist roots because he's moderated the party's stances in order to increase their electability.

If the Green Party is as whacky as you say, then they'll quite quickly expose themselves for the whackos they are in the debate. Like it or not, they have been garnering a significant portion of the total vote, they're a national party running candidates in every riding save one (something that can't be said for the BQ), and they do have a sitting MP.
raz0469 is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 05:01 PM   #38
Blueline
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Sorry in advance:
"Think of the energy that will be saved by this move...."
Blueline is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 05:32 PM   #39
ZiZiPop
You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Default

I really don't care what any of the parties platforms or stances are when it comes to the issue of participation in the debate. Whether its the Greens, NDP, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Reform, or the party of Satan himself, if they meet a preset criterea to participate they should be there. It's the double standards that really get to me. The Bloc was allowed for the first time because thay had a current MP, even though they were a "fringe" party. However this time around the Greens are asking for equal treatment and they get brushed off.

I just find it interesting the people that try and bring up the Greens positions on issues as a reason not to be allowed to debate. They are irrelevent to get in. However they are relevent once they are there.
ZiZiPop is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 05:36 PM   #40
ZiZiPop
You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ED1 View Post
The broadcast consortium should have booted the Bloc from the English debate, and have Elizabeth May represent the Green party on the debate. Why should the Bloc be on a national English debate where 99.9% of its platform doesn't apply for areas outside of Quebec?

The opposite could work as well, have the Bloc be in the French debate, but not the Greens...
So the Greens don't apply to Quebec?
ZiZiPop is offline  
Old 09-09-2008, 06:46 PM   #41
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZiZiPop View Post
... Whether its the Greens, NDP, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Reform, or the party of Satan himself, if they meet a preset criterea to participate they should be there. ...
Interesting debate here, probably more interesting than the TV leaders debates. I'm for excluding the party of Satan, but maybe that's just me.

As for criteria, the party leaders are the ones participating, or not. If some or most of the leaders of the "real" parties decide not to participate because they don't believe another party leader fits their criteria, it won't be much of a debate.

Elizabeth May has a history of stumping for the Liberals, even to the extent of asking some of her own candidates to drop out of the last race in key ridings to help Liberals get elected. She admits her party has no chance of governing, says she's just being realistic, and "Indeed, explicitly made the case for strategic voting to stop Harper during the past two elections."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...on2008&no_ads=

That crosses the line in my books. May and the Liberals are too cozy. As I said earlier, she knows she won't be elected, and her primary purpose is to help the Liberals defeat Harper. Having her in the debate gives the Liberals two candidates to gang up on the Conservatives while encouraging potential NDP voters to vote strategically to defeat Harper. That's not a debate - it's a pile-on.

Just my view.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 08:04 AM   #42
Blueline
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

By the sounds of things in this AM's news this issue is not over yet.
Are they afraid of her or is the party itself considered too fringe?
Blueline is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 09:37 AM   #43
RTA
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Holyrood
Default

Quote:
fringe
Pronunciation: \ˈfrinj\
Function:noun
Usage:often attributive
...
b: a group with marginal or extremist views
I don't really get why people keep calling them "fringe." If anyone has taken the time to read up on their platform, nothing about them really stands out as extreme or marginal.
RTA is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 11:31 AM   #44
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline View Post
By the sounds of things in this AM's news this issue is not over yet.
Are they afraid of her or is the party itself considered too fringe?
It's inherently unfair, especially to the NDP, but also to the Conservatives.

There is a question of fairness when two of the leaders (Dion and May) have formally agreed not to run against each other, and have explicitly stated, and demonstrated, they support each other. Unlike all of the other party leaders, it's highly likely these two would not debate each others points.

May has said in past elections she knows she won't be elected (her party has never elected an MP), and encouraged her candidates to strategically throw their support behind the Liberals (not the NDP) to stop Conservatives from being elected. In this debate she would be another proxy Liberal. Of course Dion is going to try to get her included, as it effectively gives the Liberals two voices in the debate, and much more time.

If May had not done the agreement with the Liberals, and openly supported them, I'd be for the Green's inclusion. As it stands, she would be there to support Dion's Green Shift policies.

This looks like just another sneaky Liberal strategy to me. She has said she doesn't plan to throw her support behind the Liberals this time, and questioned why Harper would suggest that's what she will do. Maybe because that's just what she did last time. Let's see if she does it again.

Either way, the strategy will pay off for the Liberals. It may be much ado about nothing, but it's getting media play, which is ultimately what the goal is.

Does anyone else find it interesting this is a media story about a media decision?
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 11:49 AM   #45
debos
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Default

The decision made by Dion and May not to run candidates against eachother contributes to the democratic defecit in Canada. Party leaders should also have to face fair political competition in their own ridings. In fact, this would be a blessing in disguise for the Liberals; get rid of Dion sooner rather than later. If we could get rid of the FPTP system we would have a much more dynamic political debate and wider inclusion because no one thinks that their own political convictions are "fringe".
debos is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 12:23 PM   #46
DebraW
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default Layton backs down on blocking May from debates

Layton backs down on blocking May from debates

By The Canadian Press September 10, 2008 11:50

OTTAWA — NDP Leader Jack Layton has backed down in his opposition to having Green party Leader Elizabeth May in the federal leaders debates.
Layton says the issue has “become a distraction” and he does not want to
continue “debating about the debate.”

Layton came under fire from his own supporters after saying May, who is closely linked with Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, had no place at the table.

The five-network consortium that runs the debates — CBC, Radio-Canada, CTV, Global and TVA — has said some leaders threatened to boycott the events if May was included.

It was later revealed that Layton and Prime Minister Stephen Harper had threatened the boycott.

Link:
http://www.edmontonsun.com/canadavot...0/6724916.html
DebraW is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 12:29 PM   #47
Blueline
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

The "decision made by Dion and May not to run candidates against each other " is was a front room deal apparentaly.
This makes me thaink that the decision to let a dunderhead like stockwell day out into the public musta been a backroom deal over a doozie !
Blueline is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 12:42 PM   #48
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

If Layton says it's ok, I suspect the Conservatives would be ok with it too.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 12:43 PM   #49
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline View Post
The "decision made by Dion and May not to run candidates against each other " is was a front room deal apparentaly.
This makes me thaink that the decision to let a dunderhead like stockwell day out into the public musta been a backroom deal over a doozie !
I fail to see what these two things have to do with each other at all. Are you suggesting Stockwell Day be allowed in the debate too, to even it up?
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 02:08 PM   #50
raz0469
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
If Layton says it's ok, I suspect the Conservatives would be ok with it too.
heh, you sir are a prophet! They've both dropped their opposition because they were exposed publicly on their boycott threats, and had nowhere left to hide.
raz0469 is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 02:17 PM   #51
DebraW
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default Debate over the Debates

Tories, NDP open door for May at leaders' debates

Andrew Mayeda and Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, September 10, 2008

TORONTO - Green Leader Elizabeth May is expected to participate in the leaders' debate after the Conservatives and NDP dropped their opposition to her appearance in the broadcasts.

Link:
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...1-4f8c537f12f1
DebraW is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 03:02 PM   #52
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raz0469 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
If Layton says it's ok, I suspect the Conservatives would be ok with it too.
heh, you sir are a prophet! They've both dropped their opposition because they were exposed publicly on their boycott threats, and had nowhere left to hide.
so, if these two act together in boycotting and then backing down, can we assume they represent one party? should there be only one of them in the debate? if I had a choice between Layton or Harper... that's a really tough choice!
__________________
My name is Gregory B.
grish is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 07:37 PM   #53
howie
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: edmonton
Default

I always thought that MP's, regardless of political stripe, were required to pledge allegiance to the Queen. Therefore, the Bloc, being a separatist party, are guilty of breaking that oath and are guilty of treason. Off with their heads!
howie is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 09:39 PM   #54
Bad_driver98
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Edmonton
Thumbs up Greens vs Liberals

The only place that the Liberals are not running a candidate against the Green Party is in Elizabeth May's riding. ONE riding, not ridings. This used to be fairly common practice where Party Leaders would either run very weak candidates against other Party Leaders or not run a candidate. This goes back to the days when people respected one another's right to disagree with out getting personal, you know, you respect someone's character even if their ideas are all wrong.
Bad_driver98 is offline  
Old 25-09-2008, 01:40 PM   #55
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline View Post
... Are they afraid of her or is the party itself considered too fringe?
It's inherently unfair, especially to the NDP, but also to the Conservatives.

...May has said in past elections she knows she won't be elected (her party has never elected an MP), and encouraged her candidates to strategically throw their support behind the Liberals (not the NDP) to stop Conservatives from being elected. In this debate she would be another proxy Liberal...

This looks like just another sneaky Liberal strategy to me. She has said she doesn't plan to throw her support behind the Liberals this time, and questioned why Harper would suggest that's what she will do. Maybe because that's just what she did last time. Let's see if she does it again...
Here we go. May throws her party "under the wheel of the bus". I knew she'd eventually show her true agenda, which has nothing to do with getting her party elected. I just thought she'd wait until a little later in the election. This is why she shouldn't be in the debates.

TorStar headline - "May urges strategic voting"
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/505642

"May urged Canadians to do all they can to throw Prime Minister Stephen Harper out of office, including strongly suggesting they shouldn't vote Green if another candidate has a better chance at defeating a Conservative."

What?, says her Green Party colleagues
&
"May insists she's not calling for strategic voting because that leads people to simply vote Liberal."

Right, Elizabeth.
&
"May says Dion is interested in going beyond the deal he struck with her before the election call, in which neither the Greens nor Liberals are running candidates in the other leader's riding.

"Dion's willing to do more and I'm willing to do more. The problem is that neither one of us can do anything more when Layton won't because then it looks like, `The Greens are what, a sidekick of the Liberal party?' No we're not. There's a lot wrong with the Liberal party," she said.

She rejected a two-way deal between her and the Liberals."

Bye, Elizabeth.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline  
Old 25-09-2008, 01:45 PM   #56
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default

I understand what she's saying, but I think this will be very problematic for her in the days to come. People often vote Green in protest because they feel none of the other parties can offer them anything of value. She should've just kept her mouth shut.
etownboarder is online now  
Old 25-09-2008, 02:05 PM   #57
McCauley resident
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: North of Little Italy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post

May throws her party "under the wheel of the bus". I knew she'd eventually show her true agenda, which has nothing to do with getting her party elected.
You missed the best quote in the article.........

Quote:
"We are too close to the edge of a global apocalypse," May said in an interview. "We have got to grab the opportunities we have. And, clearly, the contribution Canadians can make to a global solution is to get rid of Stephen Harper."
A democratic election result in a free society is going to destroy the world..............
__________________
When in doubt - follow the money trail...
McCauley resident is offline  
Old 25-09-2008, 03:12 PM   #58
raz0469
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Alrighty then, that destroys any credibility or respect I had for May. That's a colossal blunder on her part.
raz0469 is offline  
Old 25-09-2008, 04:03 PM   #59
FrozenOrca
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edmonton (now), Vancouver (native)
Default

So much for looking at this alternative.
FrozenOrca is offline  
Old 25-09-2008, 04:58 PM   #60
ralph60
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Albert
Default

If that comment made you lose respect for Elizabeth May take a look at this clip of her stating her opinion of Canadians: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9FGfVKay8o
ralph60 is offline  
Old 30-09-2008, 11:46 AM   #61
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default

Did anyone watch Elizabeth May on CBC's the National lastnight? I was quite impressed. She's a very very very good public speaker. I think she'll hurt Harper in the upcoming debates.
etownboarder is online now  
Old 30-09-2008, 12:16 PM   #62
bankboy
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

I did...she came across as very intelligent, and surprisingly knowledgeable about all issues (not just 'green' issues)
bankboy is offline  
Old 30-09-2008, 12:27 PM   #63
Hilman
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ozerna, North Edmonton
Default

I think she will hurt Dion more than Harper. The Tories will have a minority government at the very least with maybe the NDP coming in second.
Hilman is offline  
Old 30-09-2008, 12:42 PM   #64
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Is anyone else getting the sense that a lot of former Liberal supporters are now supporting the NDP, and a lot of former NDP supporters are now supporting the Greens? It seems like the only party that has lost popularity is the Liberals.
MrOilers is offline  
Old 29-03-2011, 04:43 PM   #65
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default May not welcome in leaders' debates: networks

May not welcome in leaders' debates: networks
CBC News Posted: Mar 29, 2011 6:09 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 29, 2011 6:15 PM ET

If the television broadcasters get their way, there'll be no election debate sequel for Green Party Leader Elizabeth May. The broadcast consortium that hosts the televised debates has decided May is not welcome to participate this time.

Consortium spokesman Marco Dubé says only the four leaders whose parties are represented in the House of Commons -- Conservative, Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois — have been invited to participate.

The Green Party has yet to elect an MP to the Commons.

May was initially excluded from the debates in the 2008 election, but a public outcry forced other party leaders to agree to her participation.

Story Found At: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...s-debates.html
etownboarder is online now  
Old 29-03-2011, 08:28 PM   #66
Sonic Death Monkey
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Downtown
Default

Perhaps May should try campaigning across the country. I don't think she's even left her riding on the Island.

I wish Laraque was running for MP.
__________________
“You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012
Sonic Death Monkey is offline  
Old 29-03-2011, 09:18 PM   #67
richardW
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

as made evident by the last election. May clearly has no intention of trying to gain more seats for her party. i kinda like the greens platform but i dont think that party will get anywhere with her as a leader.
__________________
Bro do you even lift?
richardW is offline  
Old 30-03-2011, 09:08 AM   #68
Turtle
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobinedmonton View Post
She's getting far more publicity this way, why bother with a debate that nobody will watch?
I think a lot of people watch the debate. I know I do. I don't understand why Harper is being such a jerk about this issue. How immature.
You never let the facts get in the way of your hatered Harper now do you.

NO MP'S NO DEBATE.

I thought the rule was simple enough for a woman to understand, but Ms May proved me wrong again.
Turtle is offline  
Old 30-03-2011, 12:09 PM   #69
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

The Green's don't have any presence in parliament.

They are no different than any other fringe party at this point in time, and don't deserve to be involved in a leaders debate.
MrOilers is offline  
Old 30-03-2011, 12:40 PM   #70
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default

Except for that fact that they do garner like 10% of the popular vote, which is quite substantial.
etownboarder is online now  
Old 30-03-2011, 12:47 PM   #71
PrairieBoyinExile
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
The Green's don't have any presence in parliament.

They are no different than any other fringe party at this point in time, and don't deserve to be involved in a leaders debate.
There aren't any other "fringe" parties who run candidates in every riding and get anywhere near the popular support of the Greens. The fact that the Bloc is in the English debate when no one outside of Quebec can vote for them makes it implausible to argue against the inclusion of the Greens. Not to mention it's more than worthwhile to have at least one woman in the debate.

There are some instances when black and white criteria don't make sense.
PrairieBoyinExile is offline  
Old 30-03-2011, 01:03 PM   #72
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Zero seats, zero MPs, and their leader can't even win enough votes for herself. They aren't owed anything.

If they accomplished something, their leader would have a reason to be there.
MrOilers is offline  
Old 30-03-2011, 01:23 PM   #73
PrairieBoyinExile
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
Zero seats, zero MPs, and their leader can't even win enough votes for herself. They aren't owed anything.

If they accomplished something, their leader would have a reason to be there.
How incredibly out of touch. It's not a question of the Green party itself being "owed" something...it's about the 1 million people who voted for them in the last election and the right of all of us to have an important perspective represented in the debates.

You Harper lovers just don't like to see strong women who aren't afraid to express themselves. You prefer to see attractive, young women like Rona Ambrose sit in the HOC and not say anything. All the comments I hear supporting your side talk about how she "hijacked" the debate. For me that means she did a damn good job. No male participant would be accused of hijacking the debate. I really can't see any other logical rationale for excluding her. Who does it hurt to let her take part?
PrairieBoyinExile is offline  
Old 30-03-2011, 01:27 PM   #74
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrairieBoyinExile View Post
You Harper lovers just don't like to see strong women who aren't afraid to express themselves. You prefer to see attractive, young women like Rona Ambrose sit in the HOC and not say anything.
Keep that crap outta here.
MrOilers is offline  
Old 05-04-2011, 11:08 AM   #75
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default Federal court denies Elizabeth May's bid to join leaders debate

Federal court denies Elizabeth May's bid to join leaders debate
BY CARMEN CHAI, POSTMEDIA NEWS APRIL 5, 2011 10:48 AM

OTTAWA — A federal appeal court judge has dismissed the Green party's attempts to quickly hear legal arguments over the party's participation in the televised leaders debate, meaning Green leader Elizabeth May is unlikely to be able to participate next week.

The Green Party of Canada had told the Federal Court of Appeal this week that its case to be included in a televised leaders debate should be heard as soon as possible.

Toronto-based lawyer Peter Rosenthal, who is representing the Greens, insisted that the party's application for a judicial review is a "pressing issue" that must be heard before April 12 — the date of the first debate. But the federal appeal court ultimately rejected that proposal on Tuesday.

The Greens had asked the federal court to call on the CRTC to outline clear rules for debate participation.

"We need some guidelines in order to run democracy in this country," Rosenthal said.

Broadcast consortium lawyer Phil Tunley said that speeding up the process for the hearing would only leave the court unable to make a sound, practical decision.

Full Story: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...102/story.html
etownboarder is online now  
Old 05-04-2011, 11:45 AM   #76
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
Federal court denies Elizabeth May's bid to join leaders debate
Good. Party leaders shouldn't be able to bully their way into a debate they weren't invited to in the first place.


Now, whether she deserved to be invited ot not is a different issue altogether.
MrOilers is offline  
Old 05-04-2011, 12:44 PM   #77
DiscoBandit
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
Federal court denies Elizabeth May's bid to join leaders debate
Good. Party leaders shouldn't be able to bully their way into a debate they weren't invited to in the first place.
I don't really feel it was bullying. Maybe if the Greens hadn't been invited before, I could see how it could be viewed as trying to claw their way in. It's very strange to be okay with it one year then be completely against it and have a long list of reasons why, and that weirdness probably is what prompted them to aggressively seek answers.
DiscoBandit is offline  
Old 05-04-2011, 01:29 PM   #78
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

The way I see it, the Greens had one member in Parliament last go around, and that is why May was allowed to join in on the debate.

This time they have zero MPs.

I think that's a fair rationalization for the decision, whether you agree or not.
MrOilers is offline  
Old 06-04-2011, 03:35 PM   #79
DiscoBandit
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
I think that's a fair rationalization for the decision, whether you agree or not.
I'm not disagreeing with you on this, I just certainly don't think their actions could be construed as "bullying". If nothing else, they would have to do it in the interests of not looking like lazy-bones to folk voting for them.
DiscoBandit is offline  
Old 08-04-2011, 07:45 PM   #80
PrairieBoyinExile
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

Great interview with Elizabeth May on The National tonight. Part of the discussion revolves around Stephen Harper cheating in the 2008 Leaders' Debates.

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indept...interview.html
PrairieBoyinExile is offline  
Old 08-04-2011, 09:03 PM   #81
Renton
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Far from home
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
It's the NDP who have the most to lose here. I still doubt any Conservative, at least any I've ever heard or met, would ever consider voting Green.

For example, under Foreign Policy:
"Canada is running the risk of losing this hard-earned respect from the international community through its participation in the war in Afghanistan"
Well, some of us who've voted conservative in the past (or would consider it in the future) did/do so on fiscally conservative grounds....Not because of their often nut-job /xebophobic stance on "moral issues", immigration, foreign policy, etc.

almost makes you yearn for the days of Reform / PC when there was a clear distinction between the two.
Renton is offline  
Old 08-04-2011, 11:40 PM   #82
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default

The Conservatives don't even really hold conservative fiscal policy in high regard as they spend more than ever before... Their spending habits are very liberal. Unfornatrly that means we just get double the number of ultra conservative programs.
etownboarder is online now  
Old 08-04-2011, 11:55 PM   #83
DiscoBandit
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Default

Where do you think "Conservative" comes from? Conservativism isn't a fiscal position, it's ultimately one of keeping society as it is rather than allowing it to evolve or better itself. It has roots in the French Revolution, they saw that a quick change in society's norms resulted in violent bloodshed, and felt that the best way to avoid conflict and to keep society's norms homogeneous is to conserve it by any means necessary. Fiscal conservatives are different from straight up conservatives, and I find most people identify as fiscal conservatives rather than the extreme religious/lock-step/traditionalist conservatives that run the party in both the US and Canada.

...which is part of the reason why you're seeing such vitriol these days in politics. The world has changed a great deal, many hold on to the ideas of the past and others want to change to the ways of the future, but both are hindered by a political system that needs a great deal of work (and, funny enough, this work is being hindered by conservatives).
DiscoBandit is offline  
Old 13-04-2011, 10:40 AM   #84
Admin
Forum Administrator
*
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edmonton
Default

***ADMIN THREAD BUMP***

I'm doing this instead of creating a new thread. It may be worth discussing whether or not the decision to exclude the Green Party proved to be disasterous, or a non event.

Did the absence of the Green Party from the Leaders Debate materially affect the outcome? Would Mrs. May been a factor? Were points critical to Greem supporters even discussed?
Admin is offline  
Old 13-04-2011, 11:39 AM   #85
Redd Foxx
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Calgary now. Edmonton Born
Default

I'd take her and the Green Party over the Bloc being invited. While the |Bloc may have protest seats, the Green Party at least could govern the country if they could get the exposure.
__________________
happy to be the grumpy old bugger waking up the booster club!
Redd Foxx is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.