Canadian leaders debates - 2015

583 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Canadian leaders debates - 2015

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Issues Pages: 
NorthReport

In 2011 Harper blocked May from participating in the debates.

Liberals were quite upset but not for the reasons they professed. Liberals just wanted to have an echo chamber for their dismal leader, and Harper wasn't buying any of that.

Canadian leaders debates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_leaders_debates

NorthReport

Anyway from what I understand May will not be allowed to participate in the leaders debates in this election as well.

Quote:
Although there are usually a dozen or so political parties registered with Elections Canada at any given time, not all party leaders participate in the debate. The rules have shifted over time, but the most accepted criteria requires that a political party needs to have representation in the House of Commons as well as proven popular support in the country of at least 5 per cent of popular vote in the polls.[1] Over the years, there have been at least three, and as many as five, leaders at each such debate.

addictedtomyipod

The Greens have already attempted to fireup outrage and anger over this issue by releasing it on social media several times.  They know it works in their favour.

 

NorthReport

They have learned well from their Liberal masters but regardless Canada has standards. The Wikipedia article says it all.

Never mind last election (what did they get then in terms of popular support in 2011), as even today Canada's most accurate pollster Ipsos Reid has the Greens only at 4%.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Anyway from what I understand May will not be allowed to participate in the leaders debates in this election as well.

Quote:
Although there are usually a dozen or so political parties registered with Elections Canada at any given time, not all party leaders participate in the debate. The rules have shifted over time, but the most accepted criteria requires that a political party needs to have representation in the House of Commons as well as proven popular support in the country of at least 5 per cent of popular vote in the polls.[1] Over the years, there have been at least three, and as many as five, leaders at each such debate.

In this parliament the Green Party has representation in the House of Commons and they have been polling higher than 5 per cent of popular vote.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

They have learned well from their Liberal masters but regardless Canada has standards. The Wikipedia article says it all.

Never mind last election (what did they get then in terms of popular support in 2011), as even today Canada's most accurate pollster Ipsos Reid has the Greens only at 4%.

Most polls have had them over 5%.

Debater

NorthReport wrote:

Canada's most accurate pollster Ipsos Reid has the Greens only at 4%.

Laughing

Premier Tim Hudak sends his love to Ipsos Reid.

NorthReport

It is so obvious why Liberals want to smear Ipsos Reid

But not for the reasons posted above

The Liberals always want to deceive voters with their mainstream press commentary, etc
And not only mainstream they are all over the net as well including here

Imagine if all Canadians knew Mulcair was in the mid-twenties in terms of support and in a good position to contend for the brass ring

So they try to discredit Ipsos Reid just like

the CBC and their sycophants are trying to destroy Jesse brown

NorthReport

What did the greens get in the last election?

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

They have learned well from their Liberal masters but regardless Canada has standards. The Wikipedia article says it all.

Never mind last election (what did they get then in terms of popular support in 2011), as even today Canada's most accurate pollster Ipsos Reid has the Greens only at 4%.

Most polls have had them over 5%.

NorthReport

Did the greens get 5% in the last election?

janfromthebruce
NorthReport

And they want into the debates with less than 4% support and only so they can be an echo chamber for the liberals

What a farce they are!

JKR

NorthReport wrote:
What did the greens get in the last election?

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

They have learned well from their Liberal masters but regardless Canada has standards. The Wikipedia article says it all.

Never mind last election (what did they get then in terms of popular support in 2011), as even today Canada's most accurate pollster Ipsos Reid has the Greens only at 4%.

Most polls have had them over 5%.

The standards mentioned in the Wikipedia article you posted states "the rules have shifted over time, but the most accepted criteria requires that a political party needs to have representation in the House of Commons as well as proven popular support in the country of at least 5 per cent of popular vote in opinion polls." So the Greens 3.9% of the vote in the 2011 election seems to be much less relevant than their standing in the polls during the period before the next election. The Greens have usually been above 5% in the polls during the last few years. If they are still above 5% in most polls going into the next election it seems to me they meet the criteria stated in the Wikipedia article.

nicky

The fact is that there are no recognized criteria for participation in the debate. The 5% polling rate or one MP standard referenced above finds its support only in one newspaper article footnoted in the Wikipedia article. Who knows what the threshold will be as determined by the broadcasters this year. They could come up with any number of rationales for including some or none of the Greens, bloc or F&D and none will be free from criticism. Surely it is time for Parliament or some body sanctioned by it to produce hard and fast guidelines well in advance.

janfromthebruce

I'm wondering if the broadcasters will basically look at criteria, such as recognized official party standing in the House, and thus use that to limit the national debate to 3 recognized official parties. So instead of 6 people it is limited to 3.

Unionist

What do babblers think of this:

Quote:
There is another good reason to keep the Greens out of the debates and it needs to be said even though many on this board may not like to hear it. Harper is on the verge of a majority. Anyone who is concerned about the environment  and most of the other things. the Greens stand for must dread that prospect. The higher the Green vote the more likely a Conservative majority.

 

thorin_bane

You stirring the pot, and?
I think the greens aren't a real enviro party given their business solutions, and the young people I know who are voting for them are doing solely because of 'stupid union supporting NDP'

NorthReport

Last election May was not to be allowed into the debates because  May would only be an echo chamber for the Liberals. Has anything changed?

 

NorthReport

Last election May was not allowed into the debates because  May would only be an echo chamber for the Liberals. Has anything changed?

 

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

Last election May was not allowed into the debates because  May would only be an echo chamber for the Liberals. Has anything changed?

Yes, something has changed.

Jack Layton is gone.

And the Brad Lavignes of this world are back in the saddle.

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/layton-back... backs May's participation in leaders debate[/url]

Quote:

"We initially took the view that she should not be there and we said we will follow the rules that they lay out," Mr. Layton said. "I reflected on it that time. I decided that was not the right position to take and in 2008 we supported her participation and we would be absolutely fine with it this time around as well."

 

Stockholm

dp

Stockholm

Wikipedia does not determine the rules for who gets included in the leaders debates in Canada. Its up to the networks. If fringe, nuisance partyleader Elizabeth May is to be juxtaposed with the leaders of the major parties that have official party status and are clear contenders for power - then why not also give the same status to Beaulieu and Fortin? - and if Brent Rathgeber wants to form the Brent Rathgeber party - let him in the debate too!

Perhaps a simple solution is to have two debates in each language.

Option 1 - In initial six way debate that includes every party that has any parliamentary representation and then a week later a debate between the leaders of the three parties with official party status

Option 2 - Have a three way debate between Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau and then have little 15 minute segment after they finish where the three fringe party leaders - May, Beaulieu and Fortin - get the air time to themselves - or even give the fringe party leaders their own deate on another night

In Germany they tend to do Option 2 - and they have one debate between the leaders of the CDU and SPD and the following night its a free for all between the leaders of the FDP, Greens and Linke  

 

NorthReport

Sounds like sour grapes.

It was Harper that blocked May last election

Stockholm

Actually it was neither Harper nor Layton who "blocked" May last election. The networks did not invite her because they decided she was not a serious player - and none of the other leaders objected.

NorthReport

Yes it was Harper - he told the networks he would not participate if May was present. 

Unionist

In 2008, Jack followed bad advice (Brad Lavigne) and initially went along with opposing May's participation. He reflected and thought better of it.

Likewise, in 2011, he was "absolutely fine" with her participation.

It would be nice if his party's inner circle could be as open-minded as he was. Any word from them yet?

nicky

Participation in the debates should not be up to the political parties, nor the consortium of broadcasters. It should be determined by independent body such as the Chief Electoral Officer applying clear  guidelines set well in advance.

What the relevant factors may be is a matter of debate but we should not have to wait until the white smoke comes out of the broadcasters' chimney to know who is in.

Stockholm

I think Layton made a mistake by caving in in 2008 and letting a fringe party quack like Elizabeth May get juxtaposed with leaders of real parties. If she ever leads the Greens to 12 or more seats - then she can be in a leaders debate with the big boys. Until then she can have a place at the children's table with the leaders of the Bloc Quebecois and Force et Democratie  

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

I think Layton made a mistake by caving in in 2008 and letting a fringe party quack like Elizabeth May get juxtaposed with leaders of real parties. If she ever leads the Greens to 12 or more seats - then she can be in a leaders debate with the big boys. Until then she can have a place at the children's table with the leaders of the Bloc Quebecois and Force et Democratie  

Oh geez, sorry everyone! Software problem. My "ignore" function got temporarily overridden by my "flag as disgusting" function!

I've beefed up the "ignore" code - we should be fine now.

Apologies all round.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I'm not Green, but I do support May's participation in the debates. Preston Manning and Duceppe were allowed to debate when they had no seats nor representation across Canada while the Greens field candidates in all constituencies and have representation in the House of Commons. Elizabeth May is too articulate and too knowledgeable about pipelines and oil extraction and that is why she is not welcome.

Stockholm

Misfit wrote:
Preston Manning and Duceppe were allowed to debate when they had no seats nor representation across Canada while the Greens field candidates in all constituencies and have representation in the House of Commons. Elizabeth May is too articulate and too knowledgeable about pipelines and oil extraction and that is why she is not welcome.

Not true. Duceppe was in the leaders debate sin 1997, 200, 2004,m 2006, 2008 and 2011 and in each case he was leader of the third largest party in parliament with well over 30 seats. Manning in 1993 led a party that had one seat but that was polling in the high teens and clearly poised to sweep large parts of western Canada.

I don't care how articulate May is about pipelines...it doesnt seem to stop her from being an apologist for pro-Keystone XL Justin Trudeau. Beaulieu is very articulate and knowledgeable on ethnic nationalism and anglophobia - doesn't give him more of a right to be in the debate.

NorthReport

Hoisted by his own petard it seems.  Laughing

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

I think Layton made a mistake by caving in in 2008 and letting a fringe party quack like Elizabeth May get juxtaposed with leaders of real parties. If she ever leads the Greens to 12 or more seats - then she can be in a leaders debate with the big boys. Until then she can have a place at the children's table with the leaders of the Bloc Quebecois and Force et Democratie  

Oh geez, sorry everyone! Software problem. My "ignore" function got temporarily overridden by my "flag as disgusting" function!

I've beefed up the "ignore" code - we should be fine now.

Apologies all round.

Misfit Misfit's picture

@North Report. Yes, I do stand corrected. Deborah Gray was an MP then and it was Bouchard, thank you. However, I had no idea that Duceppe was around in the year 200. Maybe that is why his hair was so gray.

Stockholm

In 1993 th BQ had 12 MPs because of a mass defection of PC and Liberal MPs including Bouchard, plus Duceppe had been elected in a byelection in 1991

nicky

In 2008 May was initially excluded. She went on a media rampage blaming Jack Layton as if it were his sole decision. She claimed she shd be included because the Greens had one sitting MP, Brian (?) Wison from North Van who was booted from the Liberals for corruption but welcomed with open arms by May who had less scruples than even the liberals about embracing such a tainted politician.

Unfortunately there was so much blow back against Layton that he went public and supported May who eventually was allowed to participate.

I certainly don't care for May or think that she should be in the debates on the basis of 3.9% of the vote and one elected MP. I anticipate that she would just run interference for Justin and train her fire more on the NDP than Harper.

But my preferences are not the point. I would hope we can avoid the type of spectacle we endured in '08. Someone in one of these threads has noted that the Greens in the UK managed to parly their initial exclusion into an increased sympathy vote in the polls. May might be able to do the same.

This is why there should be very clear guidelines established well in advance, whatever they may be. Participation in the debates should not be a political football. Either you meet the criteria or you don't.

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:

What do babblers think of this:

Quote:
There is another good reason to keep the Greens out of the debates and it needs to be said even though many on this board may not like to hear it. Harper is on the verge of a majority. Anyone who is concerned about the environment  and most of the other things. the Greens stand for must dread that prospect. The higher the Green vote the more likely a Conservative majority.

 

Bad, bad, bad idea. Whatever we may think of the Greens, if we try to actively exclude them that will only rile up their supporters and people will vote Green simply on the basis of rooting for the underdog. Much better to allow May to say her piece, and under those circumstances it will be much easier to critique her approach.

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

What do babblers think of this:

Quote:
There is another good reason to keep the Greens out of the debates and it needs to be said even though many on this board may not like to hear it. Harper is on the verge of a majority. Anyone who is concerned about the environment  and most of the other things. the Greens stand for must dread that prospect. The higher the Green vote the more likely a Conservative majority.

 

Bad, bad, bad idea. Whatever we may think of the Greens, if we try to actively exclude them that will only rile up their supporters and people will vote Green simply on the basis of rooting for the underdog. Much better to allow May to say her piece, and under those circumstances it will be much easier to critique her approach.

Agreed - 100%.

I just wanted to re-post that comment from a babbler in March 2011 to see if he had changed his mind.

 

NorthReport

Disagree 100%

As Wikipedia stated above in the opening post there are standards.

Maybe now folks get a clear understanding of how manipulative Canada's mainstream press can be particularly during Canadian federal elections - May got less than 4% of the vote last election and this is what results.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Bad, bad, bad idea. Whatever we may think of the Greens, if we try to actively exclude them that will only rile up their supporters and people will vote Green simply on the basis of rooting for the underdog. Much better to allow May to say her piece, and under those circumstances it will be much easier to critique her approach.

 

Unionist

Jack Layton, gone but not forgotten.

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

nicky wrote:

Participation in the debates should not be up to the political parties, nor the consortium of broadcasters. It should be determined by independent body such as the Chief Electoral Officer applying clear  guidelines set well in advance.

What the relevant factors may be is a matter of debate but we should not have to wait until the white smoke comes out of the broadcasters' chimney to know who is in.

Since we don't have a thumbs up or similar function, I have decided to quote the entirety of nicky's post and apply bold. It is outrageous that such an important matter is decided by the broadcasting consortium - and plays into their conceit that they actually own the "airwaves".

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

To go one further, the debates themselves should be hosted and produced by Elections Canada (or similar) with each broadcaster having the option to either air the debate, or not.  I would think that the reason broadcasters get to decide who attends is that it's their shindig.  Maybe it shouldn't be.

Slumberjack

For anyone looking for notable foreign policy differences in the leaders debate on TV, might I recommend instead the Cartoon Network as a suitable alternative for that evening?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I agree completely with nicky, bagkitty and magoo that leaders debates should be defined in legislation, probably the Elections Act, and Elections Canada should be in charge of organizing them according to the statute.

Unionist

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I agree completely with nicky, bagkitty and magoo that leaders debates should be defined in legislation, probably the Elections Act, and Elections Canada should be in charge of organizing them according to the statute.

No kidding. How about all the rest of election advertising? Or is that still up to the highest $$$ bidder?

What's this fetish about leaders' debates?

In fact, why not have Elections Canada determine the proportion of reporting on various parties in the so-called "news" stories on TV, radio, newspapers?

The entire system is designed to consolidate the hold on power of those who have a hold on power. What's amazing is that we have so-called progressive babblers screaming in chorus that publicity should be given only to those to whom enough publicity has already been given that they should no longer need any publicity.

 

NorthReport

I agree with all of these folks as well.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I agree completely with nicky, bagkitty and magoo that leaders debates should be defined in legislation, probably the Elections Act, and Elections Canada should be in charge of organizing them according to the statute.

Aristotleded24

NorthReport wrote:
Disagree 100%

As Wikipedia stated above in the opening post there are standards.

Maybe now folks get a clear understanding of how manipulative Canada's mainstream press can be particularly during Canadian federal elections - May got less than 4% of the vote last election and this is what results.

That's an arrogant tone to take with smaller parties, NorthReport. It wasn't that long ago that the NDP was a marginal party, and your attitude would have excluded it from other debates. I'll also remind you that in many parts of the country, the NDP is a more marginal party than the federal or BC Greens are currently.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Sorry Stockholm, I thought you were North Report. I don't like the Greens because they split the left vote. And my conspiracy theory is that the Alberta oil right wing movement created the concept of the Green Party to divide the left at the same time they were trying to unite the right. I believe that it is statistical ploy to keep the NDP out of contention. Having said that, the Green Party does run a full slate of candidates, and they have seats in the House of Commons. They should be treated with more respect. I remember when the PC party had two seats in the House of Commons. The NDP had 9 seats. I believe we need to rethink what we consider to be a national party.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I also agree with Aristotled24. This very same line of reasoning can be used against the NDP to keep them out if their popularity falls for whatever reason. And, Elizabeth May does not wish to talk about the wonderful imaginary middle class, she is there to discuss pipelines, fracking, and oil extraction, issues which I feel no other party wants to give more than token recognition to, if that.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Unionist wrote:

No kidding. How about all the rest of election advertising? Or is that still up to the highest $$$ bidder?

No, I also think that all election advertising should be publicly financed, and outside advertising intended to influence the outcome of an election should be forbidden.

Quote:

What's this fetish about leaders' debates?

It just happened to be the topic under discussion in this thread.

Quote:

In fact, why not have Elections Canada determine the proportion of reporting on various parties in the so-called "news" stories on TV, radio, newspapers?

Hmm, I think you're kidding about this one.

Quote:

The entire system is designed to consolidate the hold on power of those who have a hold on power. What's amazing is that we have so-called progressive babblers screaming in chorus that publicity should be given only to those to whom enough publicity has already been given that they should no longer need any publicity.

 

Not only true, but very well expressed, thanks. 

NorthReport

You are wrong Ari.

There needs to be standards documented in election law. Just because some group, as it does not matter which group can make a lot of noise in the mainstream press, but has less than 4% per cent support, is not a valid reason why. We do not have a PR system in place and probly never will. If that were to change then it might be worth considering but not now.  

Aristotleded24 wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Disagree 100%

As Wikipedia stated above in the opening post there are standards.

Maybe now folks get a clear understanding of how manipulative Canada's mainstream press can be particularly during Canadian federal elections - May got less than 4% of the vote last election and this is what results.

That's an arrogant tone to take with smaller parties, NorthReport. It wasn't that long ago that the NDP was a marginal party, and your attitude would have excluded it from other debates. I'll also remind you that in many parts of the country, the NDP is a more marginal party than the federal or BC Greens are currently.

Pages