I hope that Elizabeth May is keeping the issue of the leaders' debate going solely for the reasons of free publicity and fundraising. What a great opportunity for a political leader to garner money and vote for her party at no cost to the Green's national campaign.
I personally don't understand why she would want to share a stage with a bunch of guys who are screaming and shouting to an audience who can't hear a word of what any of them are saying. Having said that, I do think she should be included as the leader of a party that is fielding candidates across the country. And I can understand why Layton and Ignaiteff wouldn't want her as she drains from their pool of voters. As for Harper, he should be happy because it keeps the focus on her attendance at the debate rather than his past performance as Prime Minister.
The bigger question is who among us wants to tune in to this debate and listen to the rabble?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
If the threshold to be in the debate is running a candidate in all ridings then the Liberals and BQ shouldn't be allowed in. However the broadcasters made the very sensible decision that only parties who have actually succeeded in electing an MP should be allowed in the debate.
ReplyDeleteIf the Greens get in to the debate so should the Marxist-Leninists (et al.) Why should the threshold be how many candidates you are running? In a democracy isn't each voice worthy of being heard (not just the trendy ones)?
If Elizabeth May wants to be in a televised debate, let it be with the dozen or so other parties who haven't elected anyone. The Greens are a creation of the media. Even with all the free publicity they got last election, the election result for them was one great big ZERO.
If the Green's are recieving the voter-subsidy because they broke the 2% threshold, that should be enough to qualify them for the debate.
ReplyDeleteAt the very least, let's formalize the debate selection criteria ASAP. Personally, I don't like decisions on who we are allowed to see take part left to un-named tv execs and self-interested political parties.
Why is there a 2% threshold for a voter subsidy? To have any threshold is to tell some citizens that their votes hold no value.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't the democratic votes of citizens for smaller parties be worth the same as for bigger ones? If only 100 people vote for a registered federal party, that party should get funding based on the numbers it drew.
There are only two reasons that I can see for a threshold of this nature. The first is so that public funds aren't given to 'fringe' parties whose policies may be objectionable or repugnant to the vast majority of Canadians. (However that hasn't stopped the funding of the BQ (or the NDP for that matter) so it shouldn't be a problem.
The second is to marginalize emerging parties by restricting a potential source of funding.
Considering the aribtrary nature of the 2% rule, the federal funding argument is only useful for those people who want to let in the Greens. The fact is that they don't have any members of parliament. If they get into the TV debate, then let all leaders into the debate.
At the most fundamental level of who has succeeded in attracting enough votes to actually represent Canadian citizens, the Greens are no different than the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada.
There should be any tax funding of political parties. I even hate the tax rebate people get for giving to a political party it stinks of dictatorships. Parties should have to raise their own money for existing not rely on a free handout that oops isn't free as it is costing me to have them. Harper gets my vote to abolish.
ReplyDelete"There should be any tax funding of political parties. I even hate the tax rebate people get for giving to a political party it stinks of dictatorships. Parties should have to raise their own money for existing not rely on a free handout that oops isn't free as it is costing me to have them. Harper gets my vote to abolish."
ReplyDeleteWith that attidude we don't even need elections. We can get rid of them entirely. All you have to do is get Ipsos-Reid to survey the CEO's of the 500 largest corporations in Canada and let them decide.
At least with the per-vote funding, EVERYONE'S vote counts.
Note that the Conservatives are only proposing getting rid of the per-vote subsidy. Not any other taxpayer money that they get, like reimbursement for election expenses and the like.
"If the threshold to be in the debate is running a candidate in all ridings then the Liberals and BQ shouldn't be allowed in. However the broadcasters made the very sensible decision that only parties who have actually succeeded in electing an MP should be allowed in the debate."
ReplyDeleteThen why was the Bloc included in the past, before they had any MP's elected?
"At the most fundamental level of who has succeeded in attracting enough votes to actually represent Canadian citizens, the Greens are no different than the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada."
ReplyDelete2008 election results:
AAEVPofCanada = 4 candidates, with a combined total of 529 votes.
Green = 303 candidates, with a combined total of 937,613 votes.
Someone needs a history lesson. The BQ had members in parliament from day one as Quebec PC's under Lucien Bouchard formed a new party in the wake of Meech Lake. Bouchard had MP's just like Liz May did during the last election, with a turncoat Liberal sitting as a Green.
ReplyDeleteThe AAEVP's 529 votes should have garnered that party over $1000. Since their supporters didn't choose to vote for a bigger party, there is no subsidy. That is fundamentally wrong. There is no reason to treat the smallest parties differently than bigger ones when it comes to federal vote subsidies.
The Greens 900,000 votes got them the same number of MP's as the AAEVP. The Greens may have received as many votes as all the other also rans combined but that still makes them an also ran.
There have been many opportunities for Lizzy to run in by-elections and get into Parliament but she hasn't. It's time for her to 'put up or shut up' as my mom used to say.
Or as my brother more graphically describes it, "close only counts in horse shoes, hand grenades and thermo-nuclear warfare."
"Someone needs a history lesson. The BQ had members in parliament from day one as Quebec PC's under Lucien Bouchard formed a new party in the wake of Meech Lake. Bouchard had MP's just like Liz May did during the last election, with a turncoat Liberal sitting as a Green."
ReplyDeletePlease name which BQ MP was elected PRIOR to the Bloc being included in the debates.
If your standard is that a party has to have elected at least one MP before the party leader gets included in debates.....
The standard which was used during the last election was that a party had to have a sitting member. Because of a Lib turncoat, Lizzy was included. Since the Greens haven't been able to turn anyone else since last election and haven't been able to elect anyone, they don't make the cut.
ReplyDeleteNot difficult at all. The unwritten rules were consistantly applied in both instances. To give into Lizzy now would be to give her extra consideration that is not available to any other party who are also without representation in Parliament.
But the media group had already decided to exclude the Greens AFTER Blair Wilson went green. Then they changed their minds after everyone pointed out that the Greens had already met the criteria that they had stated that they were using.
ReplyDeletePrior to that the excuse was always that the Greens didn't have a sitting MP (much like the Bloc didn't either, as Gille was an independent when elected, prior to the Bloc's formation), but that changed with Wilson.
Why do media executives get to decide who we hear from in debates?
Why do the criteria for inculsion keep changing?
I'm voting for Harper solely on his pledge to remove the party subsidy.
ReplyDeleteI'd buy a lifetime membership to the Conservatives if Harper would solely debate Liz May and humiliate her on national television. She's an embarrassment.
Lizzy May is a joke and does nothing but try to get her name in the media. I remember when the initial coalition talk with Dion took place she was right there with Dion, Layton, Duceppe supporting the coalition on behalf of the Greens. What support exactly do the Greens have.
ReplyDeleteElect someone to parliament before you demand a seat at the big boys table. If the people are screaming to let her in, they must also support letting in any fringe party leader. Having 15 leaders up there would be productive.
Get a life Lizzy, no one cares what you have to add in the debate.