(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Green Party: We want in on the debates!
Rest of country: Elect an MP first. Just one, anywhere. Until then, you're no better than Heritage or Natural Law, so GO AWAY.

Comments

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I can see the point. I mean where should the bar be set for a party to have a degree of official recognition and publicity? If Canada is anything like Britain (and I imagine it is) there are 10 squillion parties out there, most of them so utterly insane that even the Monster Raving Looney party would laugh at them.

At some point you have to draw a line where you say "no, we're not covering these guys. No, these guys aren't in the debate. No we can't give free press/attention etc."

Maybe requiring an MP is viewed as a little strict by some, but there has to be a cut off line somewhere - and one MP? Anywhere in the country? It's not much to ask.

[zastrazzi.livejournal.com]

The Green Party has an MP - the objection is a bit of a technicality, as the MP was elected as a Liberal and then 'crossed the floor' later on.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

They have never elected an MP. No Green Party candidate has ever won an election.

[autobotsrollout.livejournal.com]

"Neither had the Reform Party or Bloc Quebecois the first time they participated in a debate," is the rejoinder.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

#1: Special case, there. It was the first election for both of them, the Reform were a splinter of the PC and not a new party. The Bloc had a significant number of seats already, from the defections which formed the party.

#2: That's not true. Gilles Duceppe was elected to the House in a byelection before the 1993 federal election, running as part of the Bloc.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

See, that's not something I like either (and it happens here as well). We can all pretend we vote for the MP and not the party - but it's a lie. We vote for the party. Most of us don't know our personal Mp's views and they don't matter ANYWAY because he's going to have to toe the line or be an ignored backbencher.

So, if we're honest, we'll say we vote for a party, not a person. If that person changes party, IMO we need an election

[zastrazzi.livejournal.com]

Doesn't that just reward the 'vote for the party' behaviour?

Ya know what would be really fun this year? Ballots with only the candidates names, no mention of the party they're with.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if we shouldn't reward that behaviour. I mean, if the MP is just going to be a servant to his party anyway (and 90% of the time that's the case or they get sidelined into uselessness which makes them equally pointless) then why maintain the fiction we're actually voting for a person rather than just endorsing the national party and its leader?

That would be fun and different - but does it matter what they support or what their positions are if they just vote lock step regardless of their beliefs?

Besides, people wouoldn't recognise the names and would just vote at random *le sigh*

[harald387.livejournal.com]

Right action for the wrong reasons. They didn't exclude May from the debate on account of failure to elect an MP, they excluded her because the party leaders would have refused to participate if they hadn't. Saying 'You've never elected an MP, so that's why' is a sop to avoid having to say 'The other leaders threatened to take their ball and go home'.

Unfortunately, 'You've never elected an MP, so you don't get to be involved in parliamentary leadership debates' *IS* perfectly valid on its own. It annoys me that the reason is being used the way it is.

[dolston.livejournal.com]

That's not what they said at all. May has actively endorsed Stephane Dion for Prime Minister of Canada and has also endorsed other Liberals. The Liberal Party of Canada is not running against her and has actively endorsed her as a candidate in the riding she is running in. May should not be allowed to be at the debates because the Green Party already has a representative at the debates Stephane Dion.

Not only should the Green Party not be at the debates, the people of Canada should be demanding our tax money back that the Green Party has received given that they are actively supporting the platform and leadership of another party.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

That's not what they said at all

Last I checked, I was going for "funny", not "news".

Not only should the Green Party not be at the debates, the people of Canada should be demanding our tax money back that the Green Party has received given that they are actively supporting the platform and leadership of another party.

You know, I don't actually mind the idea of a party saying "We're not going to win everything, and we know it. We're running anyway because our principles are important, and we want you to vote for us over *those guys* and *these guys*, but you should definitely not vote for us over *THOSE* guys because they're the best option that isn't us, and, more importantly, they're the best option who *might* win everything."

It's a surprisingly sane attitude to take.

[reyl.livejournal.com]

t's a surprisingly sane attitude to take.

And considering how they value cooperation as opposed to win-at-all-costs, they are very refreshing. They try to avoid being pegged as right- or left-winged, and appeal to a broader group who value the environment. Although I am pro-environment and anti-oppression (another key issue for them), I don't necessarily think theirs is the best way to go. But I'm interested in what they have to say. I'm also more interested in HOW they are going to reach their goals, instead of hearing about the way things SHOULD be. So I'm a little disappointed that they aren't at that debate.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I'm really, totally, completely okay with not having them at the debate. They've never won an election.

My criteria for putting a party leader in a debate are:
1) has won an election and elected an MP in the past
2) has a current MP
3) is running in the current election

I'd be prepared to make an exception, maybe, for parties who made good showings in the past and polled at least 10% but still somehow lost all their MPs before the current election - like when the NDP and PC parties got wiped out, if they'd been completely eliminated rather than just down to single digits.

But, no matter what, the Greens don't qualify.

[dolston.livejournal.com]

Co-operating is fine. This is not co-operating. This is something very different. This is the Liberal Party saying "Vote for May!" and "May saying if you aren't in my riding, vote Liberal!"

There is something fundamentally wrong with that scenario where the leaders of two opposing parties are basically saying one is as good as the other.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Again, I don't see it as being that much of a problem.

The objective of the Green Party is to win one seat. One single seat. They *need* that single seat. They need to run everywhere else, but it's important that they win one single solitary seat.

And, if they win that one seat, that's a huge hurdle they've lept - but they *still* have no power and they *still* can't actually get any part of their platform made into law.

So, having determined that their platform cannot be made into law by them, they're still running anyway in the hopes of making their platform work in the future, and they're trying to avoid being a handicap to their own efforts in the short term, by ensuring that everyone knows that Green is good, but Red isn't bad, and if you can't get Green (and in most places, you can't) you should damn well make sure Red gets in over Blue or Yellow. It does you no good to vote your conscience if voting your conscience guarantees that the unconscionable win instead of the imperfect-but-not-terrible.

(and, unless I'm deeply wrong about how the funding works, even if the Green Party were a wholly owned subsidiary of the Liberals and spent all their money advancing the Liberals, it wouldn't be any different than if their voters had just voted Liberal instead. It's not like there's any *more* money being spent.)

[dolston.livejournal.com]

There are spending laws, however. The Liberals are pretty much always at the top of their spending limit so they are getting a spending bump by the Greens who are saying "support Dion" for Prime Minister.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

And *that* leads to all kinds of interesting conundrums.

Like, what if the CPP were to see that the Libs were at their limit, then drop $10 million on TV spots in the Atlantic supporting the Liberals as being better than the NDP?

(Yes, yes, it's a stupid example. It's just an example!)

At what point does spending you didn't ask for and don't control start, or stop, being your spending?

[neobitch.livejournal.com]

If she'd been Green from the get-go, and ended up representing the riding through a byelection, I'd be really upset that she wasn't welcome at the debates. I think that could be fairly considered as an elected MP, even if it was a byelection.

However, considering she crossed the floor /and/, in a feat of massive foot-shooting stupidity, endorsed the Liberals, I don't see how she can make a fuss.

The quotes about "we're not interested in debates where the Liberal Party has two representatives while everyone else has only one" nail the issue, I think.

[glitteringlynx.livejournal.com]

Is the Green Party the biggest party behind the NDP? Are they considerably larger than any other given party below them?

I don't know the answer to those questions, but if yes to both, I see no reason they shouldn't be given a spot. Worst case scenerio they're exposed as fools. Best case scenerio we realise they actually have good points.