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

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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 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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?  

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, 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.

 perhaps official party status should be the requirement?

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 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.