Elizabeth May: “If you look at precedence, the Greens are in the debates in 2015”

147 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

montrealer58 wrote:

Nazi Party: 1928, 2%. 1930, 18%. July 1932, 37%...

I believe in democracy, but I also know that Nazis can get 43.9% as they did in March of 1933.

The more layers of democracy you have, the more bumps in the road you put for Nazis. The constitutional structure of the Weimar Republic slowed Hitler down. Modern Canada's would not.

I'm sorry to say so, but what this shows is that you do not believe in democracy at all. You cite an example of when democracy failed, and you suggest that we must find means of preventing a recurrence. This is reasonable, except that the means you propose are to cripple democracy by limiting participation in some way that you think will prevent bad people and bad parties from getting a foothold. Of course, the meaning of "bad" is just a tad subjective, and any rule that could be used to eliminate Nazis could also be abused to eliminate socialists, or greens.

My question is, why are you so sure that your own ideas and beliefs, your ability to tell right from wrong, are superior to those of others? Perhaps you or I would have been convinced of the virtues of Nazism if we had been unemployed German workers with 4 kids in 1930. I submit that you are expressing your fear of what people who are not you might vote for if they aren't properly restrained. Whatever you want to call that, it isn't belief in democracy.

Sean in Ottawa

I think the best way to keep out extremists is to keep as many people participating in the system. To that end we have to be careful about the growing disconnect between a great proportion of a whole generation of people and the political process. Trying to keep out small parties could serve to keep out people that may in frustration turn to more radical alternatives.

wage zombie

I think Stockholm's suggestion at #42 makes the most sense.  I think it would be great if there were 4 debates, 2 in english and 2 in french, and 2 with six leaders, 2 with three leaders (from parties with official status).  I do not expect this to happen, unfortunately, because I don't think the "Broadcast Consortium" would go for it.

If we do not get the larger and smaller debates, here is what I'd like to see:

The Bloc should be included.  Given they were above 5% in the last election and elected 4 MPs, given they have been in all the debates for 20+ years, and given that they were once the Official Opposition, I don't think there's any reason not to include them.

The Greens should be included.  May was elected as a Green last election, they are polling quite well, and they are going to be running candidates in almost all ridings.  Plus it's been shown in polls that people want to see May included.  While I agree that May endording Dion for PM in 2008 could have been a valid reason to exclude her, I don't think that applies any longer.

IMO, F&D should not be included.  I don't think they are a real party (again, IMO).  They are 2 MPs from different parties that teamed up, and neither were elected as F&D.  I know they will be running candidates in a bunch of seats in Quebec only, but I don't know if it will be even half the seats in Quebec, and I expect also that there will be smaller parties with no MPs who will be running more candidates overall.

So, I would include the Bloc and the Greens, and not F&D.  If this seems unfair, well, there are no formal criteria anyway.  If we're stuck with the Broadcast Consortium deciding inclusion arbitrarily, then excluding F&D is an aritrary decision that, to me, makes sense.

If we do see two rounds of debates, one with all the parties with MPs, and one with only parties with official status, then sure, I'd like to see F&D participate in the first round.  I think the existence of F&D is the best reason to do two rounds.  I can understand the idea that 6 leaders is too much, and use the existence of F&D to try to block the Bloc and the Greens completely (from any debates), but I think that would not serve Canadians.

Personally, I don't like "has an MP in the house" as one of the criteria, because it means any MP could form a party and demand inclusion.  If there is counting of MPs involved, Ithinkitshouldbe with the stipulation that they were elected under the party banner.

One criterion I would like to see, and one that could be applied provincially as well (since people keep bring up the NB and PEI NDP), would be a consideration of the number of members in the party.  I'm not sure what this should be set at though.  1 party member in 1000 people?  1 party member in 5000 people?  This would also give parties more impetus to sign up members.  I suppose though that it could open the door to cheating, as we have seen irregularities in party member signups in leadership & nomination contests across the country.  Still, this seems like it would be easy enough to verify and it would only be smaller parties that would be cutting it closely.

bekayne

 

 From left to right, the line up last night was Green Party leader Natalie Bennett, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, Ukip leader Nigel Farage, Labour leader Miliband, Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood, First Minister Miss Sturgeon and Prime Minister David Cameron

Brachina

 I'd have one bilingual free for all with all party leaders then I have 2 French and 2 English Debates, with regional tv translations so they're accessible to all Canadians.

Brachina

 I'd have one bilingual free for all with all party leaders then I have 2 French and 2 English Debates, with regional tv translations so they're accessible to all Canadians.

nicky

Last night's UK debate was a pretty neutered affair with Cameron insulated from effective attack by the sheer number of participants - seven leaders carving up 2 hours of airtime. Three of these leaders had 1, 2 and 3 MPs respectively.

Those who think the Canadian micro-parties should be included should look to the British experience.

Sean in Ottawa

nicky wrote:

Last night's UK debate was a pretty neutered affair with Cameron insulated from effective attack by the sheer number of participants - seven leaders carving up 2 hours of airtime. Three of these leaders had 1, 2 and 3 MPs respectively.

Those who think the Canadian micro-parties should be included should look to the British experience.

You don't need to have a complete fre-for-all to have inclusion. As I said earlier some micro parties could be limited to opening or closing statements. The debates have become central to the election process and people ahve a right to see their options. That some proportionality be included in how they see them is not unreasonable. The idea that a micro party must get the same airtime as the PM and leader of the biggest opposition parties as a condition of their inclusion is where this discussion goes of the rails every election. ten minutes of time devoted to statements from the parties too small to go in the full debate is not a lot to ask for to provide voters with a more accurate picture of their choices.

I favour a debate between the parties that have candidates in most ridings; a French debate that includes the BQ as they have candidates in most ridings where French is significant; and then statements form the other parties. This includes the BQ being included in the English debates at a lower level than the French but still included.

We could have topical rounds for the larger parties and brief exchanges between the smaller parties and the larger ones an option as well. The landscape is complex an over simplification of the debates is part of the problem.

So imagine English debate:

opening statements 4 minutes each CPC, NDP, Lib, GRN, BQ 20 min

Issue questions between the top 3 parties only 20 min x 3

General Exchanges between groups where the leaders ask the question: CPC NDP Liberal GRN BQ 20 min

Questions from the public for any of the leaders mostly to the bigger parties but the option of a question to the smaller ones -- keep responses to no more than 1 minute. 50 min

2.5 hours total

As you can see equal participation in first 20 minutes -- only large parties in next hour -- free-for-all for 20 minutes and questions from public for a little less than an hour (most weighted to larger parties but some opportunity for smaller parties. People can tune in or tune out as they please for whatever part they want to see.

 

Brachina

nicky wrote:

Last night's UK debate was a pretty neutered affair with Cameron insulated from effective attack by the sheer number of participants - seven leaders carving up 2 hours of airtime. Three of these leaders had 1, 2 and 3 MPs respectively.

Those who think the Canadian micro-parties should be included should look to the British experience.

 

 This sums it up well. Its not like the Greens, Bloc, or whatever the fuck the other party is called have no means to communicate thier platforms to the public, in this day and age they have a ton. No the purpose of the debates is to help people to decide who will be the next Prime Minister. Its more important to be fair to the needs of voters and the future of this country then it is be fair to Elizabeth May.

Stockholm

Let's face it, the one and only issue that Elizabeth May REALLY cares out is that Elizabeth May should get more publicity.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Last night's UK debate was a pretty neutered affair with Cameron insulated from effective attack by the sheer number of participants - seven leaders carving up 2 hours of airtime.

I'm not, personally, a proponent of "free-for-all" televised debates in which anyone with an idea and a dream gets equal microphone time.  But to be fair, to what degree are debates supposed to be an opportunity to "attack" the unpopular incumbent?

Brachina

Stockholm wrote:
Let's face it, the one and only issue that Elizabeth May REALLY cares out is that Eliza

beth May should get more publicity.

 

 I agree.

addictedtomyipod

Brachina wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
Let's face it, the one and only issue that Elizabeth May REALLY cares out is that Eliza

beth May should get more publicity.

 

 I agree.

There is a reason the joke from the Hill is:
Where is the most dangerous place to stand in Ottawa?

Between Elizabeth May and a microphone. Badda Bing!

Sean in Ottawa

addictedtomyipod wrote:
Brachina wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
Let's face it, the one and only issue that Elizabeth May REALLY cares out is that Eliza

beth May should get more publicity.

 

 I agree.

There is a reason the joke from the Hill is: Where is the most dangerous place to stand in Ottawa? Between Elizabeth May and a microphone. Badda Bing!

I don't think May is any more self interested than any politician.

Yes she works to get to a microphone -- she is one of only two Green Members and is also known as the most hard working of all MPs

I have had direct contact with her on the Hill -- I don't want to connect all the details here but this was not in the public eye. She is a dedicated public servatn who cares about a lot of things as well as herself. I don't see the need to bash her like this.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Yes she works to get to a microphone -- she is one of only two Green Members and is also known as the most hard working of all MPs

If she gets:

- one eightieth of the airtime that the CPC does

- one forty-fifth of the airtime that the NDP does

- one eighteenth of the airtime that the LPC does

... then it's mathematically not biased.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I believe in democracy. Saying that I don't is a simple failure to understand. I can sympathize with that.

When Hitler rose, democracy ended. Fascists hate democracy, and they only use the democratic system to try to get elected so they can close down Parliament and run a dictatorship. After that election where Hitler got 43% (which was in late 1933), the next multiparty all-German election was in 1990. Hitler had absolute power for 12 years, and Germany was split for 45 years after that. All of Germany was not to get democracy again because of fascists for 57 years. What exactly is your point? I don't think you understand the threat to democracy from fascism.

Fascist tendencies can always be suppressed, but it is impossible to stop them rising again. So, we have to be vigilant. If we can take any precautionary measure to stop fascism before it rises (and it can anywhere in Canada or anywhere else), it will better protect democracy. If someone has voted for a fascist party, they have voted against voting itself. If you think about it, any fascist vote should be a spoiled ballot.

So as a believer in democracy, preventing the existence of parties which would destroy democracy is consistent. If people openly vote for a fascist party, and if governments openly permit fascist and racist propaganda to be disseminated, the pressure will build. As we can see, fascism is virulent, can rise quickly, and destroy its host.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I don't think May is any more self interested than any politician.

Yes she works to get to a microphone -- she is one of only two Green Members and is also known as the most hard working of all MPs

I have had direct contact with her on the Hill -- I don't want to connect all the details here but this was not in the public eye. She is a dedicated public servatn who cares about a lot of things as well as herself. I don't see the need to bash her like this.

I agree. Let's also remember that the goal here is to defeat the Harper government, and getting into arguments about Elizabeth May or how self-serving she is detracts from that point. It's also important to note in this context that May has one of the strongest anti-Harper voting records of any of the non-NDP MPs, so even if seats do fall to the Greens, it's not like we have to worry about them enabling the Conservatives.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I don't think May is any more self interested than any politician.

Yes she works to get to a microphone -- she is one of only two Green Members and is also known as the most hard working of all MPs

I have had direct contact with her on the Hill -- I don't want to connect all the details here but this was not in the public eye. She is a dedicated public servatn who cares about a lot of things as well as herself. I don't see the need to bash her like this.

I agree. Let's also remember that the goal here is to defeat the Harper government, and getting into arguments about Elizabeth May or how self-serving she is detracts from that point. It's also important to note in this context that May has one of the strongest anti-Harper voting records of any of the non-NDP MPs, so even if seats do fall to the Greens, it's not like we have to worry about them enabling the Conservatives.

great points!

addictedtomyipod

I have not seen any evidence anywhere of the Green Party allegations that the big 3 parties are trying to silence her.  This is what the issue is, not whether she should be in the debates or not.  I think we all agree that she should be.  The part I don't like is that these are baseless smears by the Green Party and it misleads the public.  

So far we hear that there are backroom machinations trying to silence her.  Then they use the niqab to draw a parallel to her oppressive plight and when that backfired they moved onto the claim she is the victim of misogyny.

If you are going to make accusations, they should be based on fact and I just have not heard anyone anywhere openly saying she should not be in the debates. If Harper or any leader does come out and say it, then deal with it.  But FFS, let's not get our knickers in a twist over a figment of Green imagination.

And please can we keep this issue to today and not rehash the last several elections.

NorthReport

Just like Cameron did in the UK, Harper will decide how many and who is in and who is out of the debates
If you were Harper what would you want?

Malcontent

I agree they are all scared of her and that is why they keep trying not to allow her in the debates.  To be honest this whole debate set up is a sham to begin with. Harper is sure a baby too.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I agree they are all scared of her and that is why they keep trying not to allow her in the debates.

Who are you agreeing with?

grangerock

If I were Harper, I would like May in the debates--it splits the opposition.

Debater

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I don't think May is any more self interested than any politician.

Yes she works to get to a microphone -- she is one of only two Green Members and is also known as the most hard working of all MPs

I have had direct contact with her on the Hill -- I don't want to connect all the details here but this was not in the public eye. She is a dedicated public servatn who cares about a lot of things as well as herself. I don't see the need to bash her like this.

I agree with you on this.

I think it is DISGUSTING the way some NDPers go out of their way to smear Elizabeth May as if she is the Wicked Witch of the West.

addictedtomyipod, BrachinaStockholm should all be ashamed of themselves.

What crimes has Elizabeth May committed that are so terrible?  Would the 'progressive' posters here who bash her please tell us?

The crime of advocating for a safer, cleaner, healthier environment?  The crime of drawing attention to Harper's anti-democratic government?  The crime of beating a Conservative cabinet minister in 2011?

I trust Elizabeth May more than I trust any other opposition leader -- including Justin Trudeau.

Aristotleded24

grangerock wrote:
If I were Harper, I would like May in the debates--it splits the opposition.

That's the same line the Liberals used against the NDP, and if that's the best that the NDP can use in response to the Greens, then the NDP is in serious trouble.

NorthReport

Agreed, and that's probably why she will be in the debates.

 

grangerock wrote:

If I were Harper, I would like May in the debates--it splits the opposition.

addictedtomyipod

Ashamed?  Nope, I don't feel ashamed.  I am simply pointing out that Lizzie May is making stuff up.  Why should the Greens get away with it?  Debater could at least provide some facts himself rather than throw insults.

Who exactly is keeping her out of the debates?  Where are the quotes from these 'backroom boogeymen'? Is everyone in Ottawa against poor 'ol Lizzie?  

 

 

 

NorthReport

Last election only the leaders of the 4 official political parties in the House of Commons were invited to participate in the debates. The Greens were excluded in spite of having 6.8% of the popular vote in the 2008 election.

In the 2011 election the Greens only received 3.9% of the vote.

In 2015 the Greens only have 2 seats (one of which was a floor-crosser), you need 12 to be recognized as a political party, so I would be surprised to see them invited to this year's debates. 

Sean in Ottawa

Let's not forget that when May was refused an opportunity to speak in the House it is the NDP that gave her their time but the Conservatives who denied her the right to speak.

May has actually improved the relationship between her party and the other opposition parties. She is presently getting along fairly well with both Liberals and New Democrats on the Hill.

So yes, each party will play some politics but there is no point pretending that she is the arch enemy of the NDP or the Liberals at this time. She has very good relations with all sides of the House at the moment.

That said there are good relations between other MPs as well including some Liberals and New Democrats.

Of course the most ardent supporters of all parties seem to be banging the drum.

grangerock

The reason some NDPers are pushing back against the Greens is because of what is happening in Victoria.  Elizabeth May gets a ton of coverage in local media and it is very hard to criticize her without a huge backlash.  The Greens built a large populist movement in Victoria against the proposed publicly funded sewage treatment. Most people don't want to pay more taxes.  May thinks she can win Victoria and replace Murray Rankin, one of Canada's top environmental lawyers.  The Greens are TARGETING Rankin's riding--they already have a Green Campaign office set up in his riding and are already campaigning.  They are also TARGETING Randall Garrison's riding--another great NDP MP.  She has every right of course to run candidates--and I have no problem with her targeting other ridings with no progressive incumbent or new riding boundaries.  It just seems a huge waste of money and time that people that care about the environment are fighting each other.  It will be very difficult as the Greens have the "anything but the NDP" mantra going on. 

Centrist

Grangerock, I fully appreciate and understand what you are saying. But that is politics. Remember when Lib David Anderson represented Victoria, who is also a well known environmentalist, and we continually targetted him in order to win the seat? 

To be fair, just the same thing happening here. Hopefully we will retain those seats.

PS. May is just a flake.

NorthReport

There needs to be mimimun requirements to participate in the debates.

Unfortunately for the Greens they don't appear to meet any of the reasonable criteria.

The Bloc probably should be admitted because they received 6% of the vote last election.

Brachina

 perhaps official party status should be the requirement?

Sean in Ottawa

The problem with party status being a requirement is that admission tot he debates may be essential to get party status. The bas is simply too high and the debates too central to the political narrative for the election. A party with a seat in the House running in most ridings is a party that should be heard from.

The issue for me is how do you do that?

I have come to beleive that while it is esential to include smaller parties it is not essential to give them the same amount of time or to participate all night. Opening and closing statements may be a compromise that allows for some participation without turning the whole debate into a circus of no-hope parties.

That said, some people have said that we need more debates and I agree with that as well.

grangerock

Thankyou, Centrist for the post which I agree with.  But my point is that EMay has campaigned on cooperation and that she does polictics differently--what is happening in Victoria proves that she is no different than other politicians.

Debater

grangerock wrote:

The reason some NDPers are pushing back against the Greens is because of what is happening in Victoria.  Elizabeth May gets a ton of coverage in local media and it is very hard to criticize her without a huge backlash.  The Greens built a large populist movement in Victoria against the proposed publicly funded sewage treatment. Most people don't want to pay more taxes.  May thinks she can win Victoria and replace Murray Rankin, one of Canada's top environmental lawyers.  The Greens are TARGETING Rankin's riding--they already have a Green Campaign office set up in his riding and are already campaigning.  They are also TARGETING Randall Garrison's riding--another great NDP MP.  She has every right of course to run candidates--and I have no problem with her targeting other ridings with no progressive incumbent or new riding boundaries.  It just seems a huge waste of money and time that people that care about the environment are fighting each other.  It will be very difficult as the Greens have the "anything but the NDP" mantra going on. 

The NDP doesn't like it when the Liberals sound entitled, so why is the NDP doing the same thing with regard to the Greens?

When Liberals have pointed out that the NDP should target Conservative seats more than Liberal seats, NDPers have pointed out that Liberals should not act entitled, and yet some NDPers seem to feel that they are entitled to maintain all their seats without being challenged by the Greens.

If Murray Rankin is so pro-environment, he could have run for the Green Party.

 

Rokossovsky

Debater wrote:

grangerock wrote:

The reason some NDPers are pushing back against the Greens is because of what is happening in Victoria.  Elizabeth May gets a ton of coverage in local media and it is very hard to criticize her without a huge backlash.  The Greens built a large populist movement in Victoria against the proposed publicly funded sewage treatment. Most people don't want to pay more taxes.  May thinks she can win Victoria and replace Murray Rankin, one of Canada's top environmental lawyers.  The Greens are TARGETING Rankin's riding--they already have a Green Campaign office set up in his riding and are already campaigning.  They are also TARGETING Randall Garrison's riding--another great NDP MP.  She has every right of course to run candidates--and I have no problem with her targeting other ridings with no progressive incumbent or new riding boundaries.  It just seems a huge waste of money and time that people that care about the environment are fighting each other.  It will be very difficult as the Greens have the "anything but the NDP" mantra going on. 

The NDP doesn't like it when the Liberals sound entitled, so why is the NDP doing the same thing with regard to the Greens?

When Liberals have pointed out that the NDP should target Conservative seats more than Liberal seats, NDPers have pointed out that Liberals should not act entitled, and yet some NDPers seem to feel that they are entitled to maintain all their seats without being challenged by the Greens.

If Murray Rankin is so pro-environment, he could have run for the Green Party.

 

Because if you invite one party with two seats, you actually have to invite all parties with two seats, and what the means is that you are giving 2% of the house equal air time to the three parties that make up 98% of the house.

All this does is disenfranchise 90% of the voters who cast ballots in favour of the three main parties.

Why should the parties representing less than 15% of the electorate get equal airtime to the parties that represent 85%

Its all very nice to be "inclusive" and if we were really just talking about May, it might be a workable arrangement. But what May disingenously pretends is that "its all about her", when in fact it should be about inclusion of all the micro-parties, something she doesn't mention. How someone gets to make it "all about her" and pitch this as a matter of principle is mind-boggling.

Let's hear it for E-May when she calls for inclusion of all the micro-parties as a matter of principle. as opposed to using this as a device for personal grand-standing, and comes up with a workable format to include the "mosaic" of opinion across the board.

Or perhaps, its just that voucing for inclusion of the "seperatist" BQ might not go down well with the dissillusioned Conservatives that make up at least half of her base.

Debater

My post was not about the debates but about the targetting of seats.  I asked why the NDP feels that the Greens should not be allowed to target their seats and why the NDP feels entitled to keep all its seats unchallenged.

As for the debates, as has been explained, the Greens & BQ have elected MP's -- F&D do not.  So the former 2 parties should be included, but not the latter.

nicky

Has May ever taken a position on whether the BQ and F&D should participate in the debates?

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

grangerock wrote:

The reason some NDPers are pushing back against the Greens is because of what is happening in Victoria.  Elizabeth May gets a ton of coverage in local media and it is very hard to criticize her without a huge backlash.  The Greens built a large populist movement in Victoria against the proposed publicly funded sewage treatment. Most people don't want to pay more taxes.  May thinks she can win Victoria and replace Murray Rankin, one of Canada's top environmental lawyers.  The Greens are TARGETING Rankin's riding--they already have a Green Campaign office set up in his riding and are already campaigning.  They are also TARGETING Randall Garrison's riding--another great NDP MP.  She has every right of course to run candidates--and I have no problem with her targeting other ridings with no progressive incumbent or new riding boundaries.  It just seems a huge waste of money and time that people that care about the environment are fighting each other.  It will be very difficult as the Greens have the "anything but the NDP" mantra going on. 

The NDP doesn't like it when the Liberals sound entitled, so why is the NDP doing the same thing with regard to the Greens?

When Liberals have pointed out that the NDP should target Conservative seats more than Liberal seats, NDPers have pointed out that Liberals should not act entitled, and yet some NDPers seem to feel that they are entitled to maintain all their seats without being challenged by the Greens.

If Murray Rankin is so pro-environment, he could have run for the Green Party.

 

The Liberals ARE targetting NDP seats -- so what is the point you are making? that the NDP should not target Liberal seats and let Liberals target theirs?

Rokossovsky

Debater wrote:

My post was not about the debates but about the targetting of seats.  I asked why the NDP feels that the Greens should not be allowed to target their seats and why the NDP feels entitled to keep all its seats unchallenged.

As for the debates, as has been explained, the Greens & BQ have elected MP's -- F&D do not.  So the former 2 parties should be included, but not the latter.

People arguing that "election" is relevant are merely selecting criteria to come to the determination they want. In fact Lucien Bouchard was accepted into the 1993 election debate, despite the fact that the BQ had no "elected" representatives. In fact, May has only one elected member.

But May is campaigning for herself, and not on principle clearly, otherwise the Greens would be campaigning for any party that fits a particular criteria to be included.

Debater

Rokossovsky wrote:

In fact Lucien Bouchard was accepted into the 1993 election debate, despite the fact that the BQ had no "elected" representatives.

Yes it did.

You're forgetting the 1990 Laurier by-election that elected BQ MP Gilles Duceppe! Smile

nicky

In fact Gilles Duceppe had won the Laurier by-election. Not sure if Bloc had yet been formally formed but Bouchard had a caucus of 6 or 7 and Diceppe had run under his umbrella

Debater

I guess Duceppe technically ran as an Independent because the Bloc Québecois was waiting to be registered as an official party by Elections Canada.

But since he won 66% of the vote during that time period, it could certainly be argued he had a mandate of some kind from voters.  He was an elected MP in any event, not just a floor crosser.

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

Rokossovsky

Anything can be "argued". The fact is that people always find criteria the suits their cause in this discussion. May is no exception, and the self-centered way that she is promoting her cause in this case, without even arguing for inclusion of the BQ in this case, only highlights her total lack of principle or logical accumen.

It's all about Ms. May, obviously.

Rokossovsky

Come on. Let's get real. May's only real point is that she wants to increase her vote share by getting into the debate and getting viewers and being treated as a major contender, or by scoring sympathy points if she is not included. We go through this every election. Tra la la.

Does she do this because this is the only issue where she can gain traction? Isn't she supposed to be leadng some kind of environmental movement?

mark_alfred

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:

We shouldn't have to to limit ourselves to just two (French and English) debates. 

I like the idea of more debates.

I think there will be an additional debate on women's issues.  Some group made the offer to all the leaders.  So far, only Mulcair and May have responded, indicating that they will attend.  So, there could be a debate just with Mulcair and May.  link

addictedtomyipod

A reminder that E May wanted to be in the debates for the 2011 election. They had no elected MPs then and it didn't seem to matter with her. She is entitled to be in the debates, no matter what.
She also doesn't think the other two parties should be included.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

The rules governing who appears in the debates should be something that is established shortly AFTER an election -- hopefully established once and for all. It is farcical watching the scrambling around in the 6 to 9 months leading up to an election to decide this matter. There should be clear criteria based on a combination of number of seats AND percentage of the popular votes. Yes, this would impose an additional burden on emerging/new parties and on those who are close to meeting the criteria but still fall short -- guess they just have to try harder.

Debater

Brachina wrote:

 perhaps official party status should be the requirement?

Then the NDP couldn't have been in the 1997 debates since they lost official party status in 1993.

Pages