| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/10/2008 02:08:25 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
A question about the debate.
Once upon a time, for a party to partake in the debate they had to have official party status in the House of Commons.
Has this changed? Is this what the Greens first challenge was about (previous election)?
If it hasn't changed then the Greens have no leg to stand on, they don't have any type of status in the House as they don't have a seat.
If it has changed, then what's the issue? Taking away precious time from the other participants as the time would have to be divvied up in smaller chunks? Why not just request the networks to extend the broadcast? |
I seem to remember a televised debate many, many (many) years ago that had the major Party leaders on stage with about five other "fringe" parties. I haven't heard of the official party status thing. It's the broadcasters that are making these decisions anyway, so I suppose any excuse for excluding important leaders that they wish to trundle out is a good excuse. |
|
|
|
09/10/2008 02:29:07 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
A question about the debate.
Once upon a time, for a party to partake in the debate they had to have official party status in the House of Commons.
Has this changed? Is this what the Greens first challenge was about (previous election)?
If it hasn't changed then the Greens have no leg to stand on, they don't have any type of status in the House as they don't have a seat.
If it has changed, then what's the issue? Taking away precious time from the other participants as the time would have to be divvied up in smaller chunks? Why not just request the networks to extend the broadcast? |
I seem to remember a televised debate many, many (many) years ago that had the major Party leaders on stage with about five other "fringe" parties. I haven't heard of the official party status thing. It's the broadcasters that are making these decisions anyway, so I suppose any excuse for excluding important leaders that they wish to trundle out is a good excuse. |
I do remember a debate where the Communist Party of Canada was included. That was probably 1993 as in digging around a few forums mentioned that year in relation to a multi party debate. I also discovered an article that mentioned the NDP and PC parties being denied entrance into a leaders debate since they didn't have official party status.
It looks like that's just the 'excuse du jour' as I couldn't find any official statement as to what the rules are around who can participate.
This blog is interesting as an editorial:
//alexabboud.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
|
09/10/2008 02:47:06 PM · #103 |
| That's an interesting article. And now, Layton has changed is mind. |
|
|
|
09/10/2008 03:12:02 PM · #104 |
| ...and now Harper backtracks, and it looks like May will be in the debates. |
|
|
|
09/10/2008 03:33:29 PM · #105 |
I wonder if there will be any other fringe parties requesting inclusion since there really aren't any rules as to who can and who can't participate.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2008 03:38:50 PM · #106 |
Maybe... I don't think the Greens are fringe any longer. In the last provincial election, they got 8% of the popular vote in Ontario. They've got a seat in the House federally.
Incidentally, I think the only criterium the broadcasters use is that the parties must have at least one seat. |
|
|
|
09/10/2008 03:48:43 PM · #107 |
|
|
|
09/10/2008 04:23:25 PM · #108 |
| That's also interesting in that I've just learned that the PCs are actually still a party -- no seats and apparently all its members in the Senate, but it still survives. I had no idea. |
|
|
|
09/10/2008 04:57:56 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Louis:
That's also interesting in that I've just learned that the PCs are actually still a party -- no seats and apparently all its members in the Senate, but it still survives. I had no idea. |
... and that there's 15 empty Senate seats.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2008 05:36:45 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Louis:
That's also interesting in that I've just learned that the PCs are actually still a party -- no seats and apparently all its members in the Senate, but it still survives. I had no idea. |
... and that there's 15 empty Senate seats. |
Let the stacking begin. :-P |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 09:22:04 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Jac:
What harm can it do? |
The harm is that your Green vote will remove a vote from the Liberals and give it to the Conservatives. Is your Montreal riding usually Bloc or Liberal? |
Now why would that matter? I don't want to see the Liberals there either. I don't like the Conservatives but I was happy to see them take power from the Liberals. I think here in Quebec, the Liberal Party is dead and it'll take lots of Conservative screw ups to revive them. That little blip in Conservative voting here in Quebec in the last election was just a hiccup from the fact that Harper gave Quebec Nation status in Canada. I'm sure many here thought it was the first step toward secession and that the Conservatives were going to give it to them.
We need fresh new faces and ideas in government. If it's a new inexperienced Green Party, so be it, they'll learn. What we're seeing here in Canada is not much different than what's happening in the US. When was the last time the third party ever won an election? It's been Liberal or PC forever and it's about time that changed.
My dream is to see 10% or less voter turnout for a federal election, I believe this is the only real way to get their attention. If nobody listens to you anymore then you need to say something different. We've been hearing the same crap for decades from the same two parties. Just like the American system. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 09:31:45 AM · #112 |
I guess you don't believe the Conservatives have the political will to change the social texture of this country. I do. Given a Conservative majority, I don't think it'll be long before they dredge up capital punishment and abortion. I would like to be wrong about that, but I don't think I am. When all quarters are clamouring for a ban on hand guns in this country -- including the police, beloved by the Conservatives -- and the PM refuses to even belch out an opinion of note, what does that say for where things could be taken? In my view, it's moral the responsibility of every person who is substantially opposed to changing the social landscape of this country to understand the issues, read Harper's words over the last ten years, and vote accordingly, ensuring the Conservatives do not gain any kind of political heft.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2008 09:52:06 AM · #113 |
Things could be worse Louis... imagine if the Christian Democratic Party of Canada had held a majority... Their Platformcan be viewed here:
I shudder at the thought,
Ray
Message edited by author 2008-09-11 09:52:23. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 10:00:23 AM · #114 |
| Kooks. Kooks are a dime a dozen in this country. "Repeal laws permitting homosexual acts", "send prisoners to the far north" to be used as slave labour. Good grief. Fascist idiots. Christian Heritage is another one. Part of their platform says, "The CHP is the only pro-life party in Canada today. From conception, to natural death, every life is precious." Hmmm, wonder what their stance on capital punishment could possibly be...? |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 10:02:39 AM · #115 |
This a my favorite:
"Abolish the metric system, and return to the Imperial system of weights and measures" (?! this is part of a platform?!)
BTW as a Christian even I wouldn't vote for them...
To be honest, I thing a minority Conservative Gvt. is the best we can hope for for the moment... The greens will not happen any time soon, nor the NDP, the Liberals are far to weak to do anthing, and I do agree with ou Louis that a conservative majority would be bad news too...
Message edited by author 2008-09-11 10:03:40. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 10:39:12 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I guess you don't believe the Conservatives have the political will to change the social texture of this country. I do. Given a Conservative majority, I don't think it'll be long before they dredge up capital punishment and abortion. I would like to be wrong about that, but I don't think I am. When all quarters are clamouring for a ban on hand guns in this country -- including the police, beloved by the Conservatives -- and the PM refuses to even belch out an opinion of note, what does that say for where things could be taken? In my view, it's moral the responsibility of every person who is substantially opposed to changing the social landscape of this country to understand the issues, read Harper's words over the last ten years, and vote accordingly, ensuring the Conservatives do not gain any kind of political heft. |
The social texture of this country will, and is changing and it's not because of the government in power. Immigration is doing that, not that i'm opposed to it, mind you. Reinstating capital punishment would make Harper the laughing stock for the entire world, he would lose so much credibility with this I almost hope he suggests it in the coming months after his victory. ( yes he will win again, who's to stop him? ) I dare him to take away a woman's right to an abortion. He knows that will never happen here. It is considered a right, not a law by many women. Guns are not controllable unless you stop their manufacturing and we know that's an impossibility here in North America. Just registering them turned into a fiasco that cost us how many millions?
I'm already tired of the election BS and I don't watch TV or listen to radio. I need a big rock, with a basement and electricity, to hide under for two months or so.
Message edited by author 2008-09-11 10:40:06. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 12:20:03 PM · #117 |
Conservative Minority ( or slight majority) with the NDP holding the balance of power.
An NDP majority would most likely send the economy into the dirt with a tax and spend attitude far worse than the Liberals.
With the NDP as the balance of power, the Conservatives wouldn't be able to cut the guts out of useful programs but should still be able to remove the money suckers.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2008 12:31:13 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Jac:
What harm can it do? |
The harm is that your Green vote will remove a vote from the Liberals and give it to the Conservatives. Is your Montreal riding usually Bloc or Liberal? |
It's actually removing the vote from both Liberal and Conservative.
If we are to get away from voting against something rather than for, this is what needs to be done. |
I wanted to respond to this, because in theory I agree completely, and have actually said this very thing in other discussions. I would vote either NDP or Green if I thought the vote would actually result in a change. Given my attitude to the Conservatives, my only option is to vote Liberal -- I am a lifelong Liberal voter anyway.
I wonder if anyone has an opinion on this, if voting "for" what wants, as opposed to casting a vote that is essentially "against" something, actually does result in any kind of perceivable change, and if there's any way to inform the electorate of this potential for change.
Message edited by author 2008-09-11 12:32:11. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:48:54 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Jac:
What harm can it do? |
The harm is that your Green vote will remove a vote from the Liberals and give it to the Conservatives. Is your Montreal riding usually Bloc or Liberal? |
It's actually removing the vote from both Liberal and Conservative.
If we are to get away from voting against something rather than for, this is what needs to be done. |
I wanted to respond to this, because in theory I agree completely, and have actually said this very thing in other discussions. I would vote either NDP or Green if I thought the vote would actually result in a change. Given my attitude to the Conservatives, my only option is to vote Liberal -- I am a lifelong Liberal voter anyway.
I wonder if anyone has an opinion on this, if voting "for" what wants, as opposed to casting a vote that is essentially "against" something, actually does result in any kind of perceivable change, and if there's any way to inform the electorate of this potential for change. |
I remember my Grandpa explaining this to me in a BC provincial election. He was a member of the Conservative party, but voted Liberal because there was more support for the Liberal party in BC and they had a much greater chance of ousting the NDP, which had made a mess of BC's industries.
I will probably end up doing something similar this election. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:53:38 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by LERtastic:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Jac:
What harm can it do? |
The harm is that your Green vote will remove a vote from the Liberals and give it to the Conservatives. Is your Montreal riding usually Bloc or Liberal? |
It's actually removing the vote from both Liberal and Conservative.
If we are to get away from voting against something rather than for, this is what needs to be done. |
I wanted to respond to this, because in theory I agree completely, and have actually said this very thing in other discussions. I would vote either NDP or Green if I thought the vote would actually result in a change. Given my attitude to the Conservatives, my only option is to vote Liberal -- I am a lifelong Liberal voter anyway.
I wonder if anyone has an opinion on this, if voting "for" what wants, as opposed to casting a vote that is essentially "against" something, actually does result in any kind of perceivable change, and if there's any way to inform the electorate of this potential for change. |
I remember my Grandpa explaining this to me in a BC provincial election. He was a member of the Conservative party, but voted Liberal because there was more support for the Liberal party in BC and they had a much greater chance of ousting the NDP, which had made a mess of BC's industries.
I will probably end up doing something similar this election. |
BC is notorious for voting out the old government, not voting in a new government. In cases like this, you don't get to complain about what you get if indeed you get what you voted for.
Case and point: When Harris was running for Premier of Ontario he said what he was going to do. He got in and did what he said he was going to do. The loudest complainers were the ones that voted for him and next time round he was ousted. I wonder what they thought they were voting for when they voted for Harris, probably just against the current government without consideration for what they'd get.
Just something to think about if using strategic voting rather than voting for something that would really be good for the country.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:54:57 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Case and point: When Harris was running for Premier of Ontario he said what he was going to do. He got in and did what he said he was going to do. The loudest complainers were the ones that voted for him and next time round he was ousted. |
Just to clarify, Harris actually won two majority governments in a row in Ontario. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 03:56:48 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Case and point: When Harris was running for Premier of Ontario he said what he was going to do. He got in and did what he said he was going to do. The loudest complainers were the ones that voted for him and next time round he was ousted. |
Just to clarify, Harris actually won two majority governments in a row in Ontario. |
Whoops. My mistake. Point still holds though.
In BC, voters are a bit more fickle as they can flip flop around the parties from one election to the next. There have been times though (late 70s early 80s - if my memory is correct) when one party managed to hold on for more than one term.
Message edited by author 2008-09-15 16:02:31.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2008 12:46:21 PM · #123 |
Green Party releases election platform, including GST hike
Posted: September 17, 2008, 11:21 AM by Jeremy Barker
Canadian Election, Greens
Canwest News Service
HALIFAX â Increasing the GST to 6% and implementing a carbon tax were two major parts of the federal election platform released Wednesday by the Green Party.
Green Leader Elizabeth May released her partyâs platform promising a $50 per tonne carbon tax and taxes for toxic chemicals. The tax would be used to cut payroll and income taxes, she told a news conference.
The party would also increase the GST to 6% and invest in infrastructure. But the Greens say they would expand the exemptions on food items, and extend them to childrenâs clothing and books.
âThe most important thing we are launching today is proof that we are a fiscally responsible party and that all the platform is costed,â Ms. May told a news conference.
May defended her platformâs taxation policy.
âItâs primarily a different way of collection taxes, rather than introducing new taxes.â
Ms. May said the carbon tax would have âa mild, but positive effect on GDP.â
Among other things, the Greens would:
⢠Cut corporate tax by $50 for each tonne of carbon emission reductions, to create a $100 per tonne saving when combined with avoided carbon tax
⢠Cut greenhouse gas emissions to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050. Use cap and trade, with hard caps, for some large polluters. Expand research and development of low-carbon technologies
⢠Improve energy productivity through smarter regulation of large appliances and vehicles, and a national program to retrofit existing buildings
⢠Work toward a Guaranteed Annual Income in place of support programs
â¢Increase funding for post-secondary education and cut studentsâ debt burden
â¢Protect a universal health care system
⢠Restore Canadaâs peacekeeping role and help to build a permanent UN force to respond to conflicts and climate disasters. In Afghanistan, shift from the NATO mission to one led by the UN
Ms. May said the other parties focus on elections and staying in power.
âWe are different. We look much farther forward,â Ms. May said.
Sounds good to me. Different is good after 141 years of the same bull***! I'm even Greener than I already was. :]
Message edited by author 2008-09-17 12:48:45. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 01:23:00 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Jac:
...
⢠Improve energy productivity through smarter regulation of large appliances and vehicles, and a national program to retrofit existing buildings
... |
I'm jaded and annoyed with the new "energy efficient" appliances. For example, I'm finding that I have to replace my energy efficient refrigerators every four years, while the old clunker in the basement has been running since 1980. That's a huge waste of materials and energy to manufacture these pieces of junk only to pile them into our landfills four years later.
That's all I have to say about that.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 09:53:50 PM · #125 |
I just saw the slot-machine "You'll pay more with Dion" campaign ad, and I had to laugh.
This coming the day after gas prices finally fell from the worst gouging I think I've ever seen, and Harper of course had no answer for it. Not that anyone else did, but man, I laughed. Nice timing.
Who falls for this crap?
|
|
