CAN Has It's First Green Party MP

[Snafu-Bar]

Debates are like feather pillows, soft full of nothing and usefull for sleeping. I'd much rather have the candidates strapped to lie detectors while to the general populous grills them over a 48 hour marathon of real questions.

Cheers.


P.s Hopefully she's asked all the wrong questions and comes up with all the right answers.  ;D

 

[George Wallace]

It looks like slim chances that Elizabeth May will be at the televised debates. Personally, I would have preferred the networks to chose not to host the debates if the parties excluded her.

From CTV.ca

Having seen and heard her, I think it is in her best interest not to be allowed to partake in the debates.  She'd loose more than she would gain if she were permitted to speak on a nationally broadcast debate.  I do know some village somewhere would be relieved to find out her whereabouts, if she did.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

Well she still has to come out of her "liberal coma" still so who knows...mebbe she evolves.

 

[aesop081]

Personally, I would have preferred the networks to chose not to host the debates if the parties excluded her.

Since the Green party has little to nothing policy-wise on subjects other than the environment, May has very little to gain by attending a leader's debate.

What would she answer to questions about economic matters ?

Defense ?

Foreign policy ( other than regurgitating anti-GW stuff ) ?

The Greens may be making headway in terms of support but only because the environment has done the same as an issue. It is not, however, the only issue there is. Unfortunately for May, her party is a single-issue party.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

Since the Green party has little to nothing policy-wise on subjects other than the environment, May has very little to gain by attending a leader's debate.

What would she answer to questions about economic matters ?

Defense ?

Foreign policy ( other than regurgitating anti-GW stuff ) ?

The Greens may be making headway in terms of support but only because the environment has done the same as an issue. It is not, however, the only issue there is. Unfortunately for May, her party is a single-issue party.

I disagree, The green party is about embedding a better lifestyle in everything we do. Just because they are taking an environmentalist stance as thier backbone, it's till one that spans the Cf, The economy and other nations .

As long as they do SOMETHING as apposed to the crowd of duds around her we are no worse off, but atleast it's a change from the ever stale crappy status quo.

Cheers.

 

[GAP]

May excluded from TV debates
By Sue Baliey, THE CANADIAN PRESS 2008-09-08
Article Link

OTTAWA - Green party head Elizabeth May has been shut out of the televised leaders' debates after every party but the Liberals shunned her inclusion.

TV network officials hinted that one or more of the other party leaders would otherwise pull out of the showcase election event, set for Ottawa on Oct. 1 and 2.

"The (network) consortium approached the parties to explore the possibility of including the Green party in all or part of the leaders' debates," spokesman Jason MacDonald said.

"However, three parties opposed its inclusion and it became clear that if the Green party were included, there would be no leaders' debates.

"In the interest of Canadians, the consortium has determined that it is better to broadcast the debates with the four major party leaders, rather than not at all."

The nationally televised event is run by Canada's private networks as an umbrella group that decides who takes part. The consortium includes CBC, Radio Canada, CTV, Global and TVA. 
 
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has said he would welcome the chance to debate May on TV.

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Monday that May's inclusion would in essence allow a second Liberal candidate to participate.

He said May's platform is similar to Dion's and that she will ultimately endorse the Liberals.

"Elizabeth May is not an opponent of Stephane Dion," Harper said at a campaign event in Richmond, B.C.
More on link

 

[The Bread Guy]

Since the Green party has little to nothing policy-wise on subjects other than the environment, May has very little to gain by attending a leader's debate.

Having seen and heard her, I think it is in her best interest not to be allowed to partake in the debates.  She'd loose more than she would gain if she were permitted to speak on a nationally broadcast debate. 

It's not about how well or poorly she would do - after all, nobody else seems to be worried about how poorly other party leaders will do.  To me it's simple:  transparency and accountability on the part of the media.

According to the news release from "the consortium"

....The Consortium approached the parties to explore the possibility of including the Green Party in all or part of the Leaders' Debates. However, three parties opposed its inclusion and it became clear that if the Green Party were included, there would be no Leaders' Debates. In the interest of Canadians, the Consortium has determined that it is better to broadcast the debates with the four major party leaders, rather than not at all ....

Because the media owners made the decision, I doubt we'll see the headline, "Three out of Four Party Leaders Don't Want Greens in Debate" (not on any member networks of the "consortium", anyway).

What rules does the consortium use in making these decisions?  According to a submission by the consortium (which uses a PR firm to speak) to the CBC's Ombudsman in 2006 (.pdf)

...The decision about who is invited to participate in the leaders’ debates is made by Consortium members on editorial grounds. In this election, the Consortium has only invited the leaders of the four most prominent parties with representation in the House of Commons...

In other words, no written rules to judge the consortium by.

Media don't like it when government and others try to change the rules, or not apply the ones in place, or operate without any apparent ones, but are they any different when doing their own thing?

Then again, should I be surprised at the media?  Not really...

 

[aesop081]

I disagree,

Then please, by all means, show me one single piece of coherent Green party policy on defense  and foreign affairs.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

Then please, by all means, show me one single piece of coherent Green party policy on defense  and foreign affairs.

Just because they don't have that part down yet, there will and has to be both and that doesn't mean because they are "green" they are going to forgoe any of the matters pertaining to national defence or it's FA entanglements. It's just a matter of will they add money and continue to strenghten or be a dimwitted troupe who dismantles even more of it.

Everything is intertwined, one effects the others so in essence they are equally important to get right. The green party is by association no different than any of the other parties or thier membership. They too will suck ass, lie, cheat and steal if they feel they have just cause to do so, as is tradition in Canada. The only difference is that the greens are NEW, small and deserving of enough votes to send a PERFECTLY CLEAR MESSAGE to the rest of the idiotfest rotting in Ottawa.

Time for a change.

Cheers.

 

[George Wallace]

It is a moot point that they have been denied participation in a national debate, especially if the Hosts of the event are more or less entitled to invite whomever they want to their 'private' debate on national TV.  If a Party doesn't cover all the Bases; National Defence, the Economy, Foreign Affairs, etc. then they contribute nothing to any such debate.

 

[observor 69]

Kinda all over the map but here it is:

Policy Documents ; http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/documents

Didn't help did it?  ;D

 

[George Wallace]

I don't think they have a map after looking there.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Then please, by all means, show me one single piece of coherent Green party policy on defense  and foreign affairs.

I don't think they have a map after looking there.

Coherent?  You be the judge - the map is still pretty fuzzy (and needs hunting and tea leaf reading).....

Submission to the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan

Living Policy: Foreign Policy

The Economy

"We believe that security should not rest mainly on military strength but on cooperation, sound economic and social development, environmental safety, and respect for human rights."

Compare this to the coherence of the Bloc's platform on these issues (.pdf)

Foreign Policy Based on Cooperation, Diplomacy and Peacekeeping.
We convey Québec values of solidarity during our relations with the rest of the world. Quebeckers prefer such instruments as cooperation, diplomacy and peace-keeping. Conversely, the Harper government’s aggressive foreign policy, based mainly on force and inspired by Bush Administration policies, is unacceptable. The Bloc Québécois is the only credible advocate of an approach based on Québec values.

Riiiiiiiiiight, Gilles....

The point is the media is unaccountable and non-transparent about leaving the Greens out in a way they would NEVER tolerate from any other institution.

 

[RangerRay]

The fact that the Greens and Liberals are in bed together should be enough reason to exclude them from the debates. 

Personally, I feel that they should be allowed in when they have actually elected a party member to the House.  That way, they can prove that their platform has more popular appeal than, say the Marijuana or Canadian Action Parties.

It's bad enough that their first MP had ethics problems...now it appears that they are attracting their fair share of <a href="http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/09/whats-with-these-crackpots-is-anti.html">crackpots</a>.

 

[George Wallace]

Well, the Greens have succeeded in whining long and loud enough to get into the debate.  I really think that their enthusiasm greatly outweights their logic, and we will see that in the debates.  I am sure that they will not have coherent answers for many of the questions, but filibuster instead, using a myriad of words to say nothing.  They will promote one "Green Agenda" and that will be their answer for every question put to them.

 

[larry Strong]

Seeing's how the "Have a member in Parliament" rule has gone by the way side, when do the Rhino's, Communist party and all others get to join in? That would be some gong show.

 

[timma]

I received  a Green party pamphlet  in the mail today. Loaded with BS, it was. The part about Afghanistan pissed me off especially. Here's what it says :

"The war in Afghanistan drags on with no end in sight and no clear or obtainable goals.
100 brave Canadian men and women have lost their lives in this futile conflict and the combat mission is costing Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars. The Harper government has faithfully supported George Bush's war in Afghanistan. Had the Conservatives been in power, they would have also committed troops and money to the illegal and disastrous war in Iraq, a war over access to that country's oil resources.

Why would voting Green make any difference ?
The Green party began as a peace party. Greens have always believed that a fair international economy, tolerance, diplomacy and co-operation have always been preferable to war. War should only be the very last resort. Voting Green sends the message that you don't want the lives of Canadian soldiers and your tax dollars wasted on pointless and un-winnable wars."

They have it all wrong. Afghanistan isn't futile, pointless, or un-winnable. As stated in another thread (http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/79878.0.html) it isn't a cost, it is an investment towards the people of Afghanistan. Next they call it "Bush's war" and then go on to say how Iraq is all about oil. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, it isn't.  Then in the second part, they state that Canadian soldiers lives were wasted. BS.

In the next paragraph, they say "Food security is as least as important as military security and national sovereignty" Isn't the Afghanistan mission helping keep the region militarily secure by eradicating insurgents and not allowing them a base from which to orchestrate terrorist attacks, like 9/11? Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

 

[The Bread Guy]

It's bad enough that their first MP had ethics problems...now it appears that they are attracting their fair share of <a href="http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/09/whats-with-these-crackpots-is-anti.html">crackpots</a>.

True enough, although they're not the only ones - and it only takes one (OK, maybe two...)

They will promote one "Green Agenda" and that will be their answer for every question put to them.

And maybe it'll take that to wake them up and realize they'll have to broaden their platform a bit - although it'll be interesting to see if the NDP'll try to "out green" the Greens.

 

[aesop081]

although it'll be interesting to see if the NDP'll try to "out green" the Greens.

They sure dont have to "out green" the Liberals....after all the green shift is not that important a policy  :

 

[a_majoor]

The Greens are not really an independent party anymore, their leader is almost openly declaring Green voters should switch their ballots to the Liberals (or NDP) at this stage of the election:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/274215.php

    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.

    "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."

    May insists she's not calling for strategic voting because that leads people to simply vote Liberal. She wants Canadians to examine their riding and figure out how best to keep the Tories from winning.

    "I won't say, `You've got to vote Green if you believe in our policies.' I'll say, `Here's our policies, figure out what you need to do because, frankly, the Green party has to put progress (on climate change) and principle above short-term power.'"

I would much prefer Green voters stuck to their guns, splitting the "progressive vote" might help the CPC, but who knows, they might get a legitimate sitting MP if they actually support their party. After this election they should also take a careful look at their Leader as well.....