Why is Elizabeth May being blocked?

[Tacklewasher]

The Green Party did receive almost 7% of the vote last time while all "other" parties received less than 1%. I think the line can be drawn between the Green Party and those "other" parties.

Why can't that line be the "who has seats in the current parliament?" Seems to be what the tv stations want. (at least at this point, I still think this is just a method to stir up interest and May will be included).

[grammafreddy]

The debates are a waste of time anyway - why bother with them? They are just a rehash of everything they've yelled at each other and accused each other of for the past 20+ years. Nothing is really new and mostly they just act like little kids in a *bleep* match anyway with one attempting to become the biggest schoolyard bully of the bunch.

[GordonH]

The debates are a waste of time anyway - why bother with them? They are just a rehash of everything they've yelled at each other and accused each other of for the past 20+ years. Nothing is really new and mostly they just act like little kids in a *bleep* match anyway with one attempting to become the biggest schoolyard bully of the bunch.

this is why I don't bother watching, their adds are bad enough.

[NAB]

True. Why bother with listening to debates or digging into detail. We all know most men will vote for the one who promises to give away the most money or tax breaks and/or appears to be the meanest dog in the junk yard, while most women will vote for the one with blue eyes and the least body hair and, if no one has blue eyes and is clean cut, the one with the nicest teeth and smallest ears or who appears to be in need of a mother most. ; -)

Nab

[GordonH]

True. Why bother with listening to debates or digging into detail. We all know most men will vote for the one who promises to give away the most money or tax breaks and/or appears to be the meanest dog in the junk yard, while most women will vote for the one with blue eyes and the least body hair and, if no one has blue eyes and is clean cut, the one with the nicest teeth and smallest ears or who appears to be in need of a mother most. ; -)

Nab

[grammafreddy]

True. Why bother with listening to debates or digging into detail. We all know most men will vote for the one who promises to give away the most money or tax breaks and/or appears to be the meanest dog in the junk yard, while most women will vote for the one with blue eyes and the least body hair and, if no one has blue eyes and is clean cut, the one with the nicest teeth and smallest ears or who appears to be in need of a mother most. ; -)

Nab

Cripes, it appears I am neither man or woman ... am in deep doo-doo now and have nobody to vote for. Oh woe is me .......

I am going to vote for the one who sounds like they studied Economics 101 ... and passed it.

I'll also vote for the one who wants to balance the budget without jacking around with it and who intends to govern without an overdraft at the bank.

So where does THAT leave me?

And what is new and different and intelligently discussed in the televised debates anyway? All the detail has already been slung with the rest of the mud during the campaign process, hasn't it?

If they've got any great and wonderful plans and how they will accomplish them, one would hope that is their campaign platform and not something saved for one 2-hour evening of TV debating.

[Amarow121]

ooooo!

Let's do pay-per-view!

After the first debate, (all the leaders in English) Elizabeth May will fight Gilles Duceppe MMA style. (My money is on May)

Then the second debate (all leaders in French) followed by Harper vrs Ignatieff. (I'm going with Ignatieff)

Now bloody and bruised (and probably with torn sweater vests) they go head to head in a verbal debate!

Jack Layton sadly will have to sit out since he's had hip surgery recently.
Perhaps he could commentate the fights?

[NAB]

Well, it appears Lizzie is out this time. Probably all for the best I think, as she was such an unnecessary distraction last time..

Nab

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/03/30/cv-election-debates-consortium.html

The broadcast consortium has confirmed the dates and location for the federal election leaders' debates have been set with the parties, and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is still not invited.

In a statement Wednesday evening, the consortium confirmed that it and the four federal parties represented in the House of Commons have reached an agreement.

"The leaders of the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois have agreed to participate in the debates as organized by the broadcasting consortium," said the networks, which are comprised of CBC/Radio-Canada, CTV, Global and TVA.

The English television debate will take place on April 12. The French debate will take place two days later on April 14. Both debates will occur in Ottawa.

The consortium's statement said it had considered the "broad scope of reaction" to its initial invitation on Tuesday and reiterated that its decision was unanimous.

"The decision was based on the application of journalistic principles, and the fact that the Green Party has never elected a member to Parliament," the statement said.

"The consortium has also considered in its decision that leaders' debates are not the only opportunities for a party to gain access to the airwaves during an election campaign."

Conservative sources told CBC News that their party was open to any format and interested in a modification of the traditional process. The sources said their representatives proposed to include an hour of debate between Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, but in the end accepted the traditional format with some one-on-one engagement at the beginning of each segment.

[JLives]

Cripes, it appears I am neither man or woman ... am in deep doo-doo now and have nobody to vote for. Oh woe is me .......

I am going to vote for the one who sounds like they studied Economics 101 ... and passed it.

I'll also vote for the one who wants to balance the budget without jacking around with it and who intends to govern without an overdraft at the bank.

I will vote for the one who will see beyond mere money and protect my country for future generations. I will vote for the one who puts environment, education and health as the top priorities in that order.

[I Think]

NAB wrote:
True. Why bother with listening to debates or digging into detail. We all know most men will vote for the one who promises to give away the most money or tax breaks and/or appears to be the meanest dog in the junk yard, while most women will vote for the one with blue eyes and the least body hair and, if no one has blue eyes and is clean cut, the one with the nicest teeth and smallest ears or who appears to be in need of a mother most. ; -)


Who one is is writ large upon ones face, as one matures the inner thoughts and outer actions are expressed right up front on ones face. harpers face tells his story much more eloquently than any words ever could.

Which completely begs the question of May's exclusion. Her right to be included as leader of the Green party, is much stronger than the Blocs

[Tacklewasher]

Which completely begs the question of May's exclusion. Her right to be included as leader of the Green party, is much stronger than the Blocs

She has no "right" to be included. The courts have ruled on this.

From http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1964414/

On Wednesday, the Green Party announced it had hired an attorney to contest the exclusion, but the odds of success seem low: The legal question of who must be invited to a nationally televised debate was settled in 1995, when the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that broadcasters were not obligated to include every party leader when organizing televised events.

The Green Party raised the challenge after its exclusion from the 1988 debate, arguing that CBC, CTV and Global violated the Television Broadcasting Act by not providing equal time to each political party. The Ontario court ruled that the debates were not partisan events, which meant equal time rules didn’t apply. “While participants in a debate may very well be partisan, the program itself, because it presented more than one view, was not,” the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission wrote in its notice explaining the decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the case.

There is no violation of "rights", no "blow to democracy" or any of the other hyperbole being tossed out. It may not seem fair (and I'm not sure I agree or disagree with that) but it is well within the broadcasters rights to invite who they think will provide the best show. And drawing the line at who has actual seats seems reasonable

[kina]

Well I looked into who owns most of these news agencies (starting with The Globe and Mail) and found this on Wikipedia:

THE GLOBE AND MAIL:
"The Globe and Mail:
Type Daily newspaper
Format Broadsheet
Owner The Globe and Mail Inc.
(Woodbridge - 85%, Bell Canada - 15%)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Globe_and_Mail

THE WOODBRIDGE COMPANY:
"The Woodbridge Company Limited is a Canadian private holding company and the principal and controlling shareholder (55 percent) of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters was formed in 2008 when The Thomson Corporation acquired Reuters.
The company also owns the largest (85 percent) interest in The Globe and Mail Inc.. In late 2010, Woodbridge sold its 40-percent interest in CTVglobemedia, a Canadian multimedia company with ownership of CTV, to BCE Inc.[1]
Woodbridge is the primary investment vehicle for members of the family of the late Roy Thomson, the first Lord Thomson of Fleet. Woodbridge is the primary investment vehicle for the Thomson family of Canada. David Thomson and his brother, Peter Thomson, became chairmen of Woodbridge upon the death of their father, Kenneth Thomson in 2006. Woodbridge is based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Geoff Beattie is president of the company."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woodbridge_Company

THOMSON REUTERS:
"Thomson Reuters is an information company[1] created by the Thomson Corporation's purchase of Reuters on 17 April 2008.[2] Thomson Reuters shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX: TRI) and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: TRI). Thomson Reuters is headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City, USA. The Woodbridge Company, a holding company for the Thomson family of Canada, owns 53% of the group,[3] which operates in 100 countries, and has over 55,000 employees. Thomson Reuters was ranked as Canada's "leading corporate brand" in the 2010 Interbrand Best Canadian Brands ranking."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_Reuters

BCE INC. (BELL CANADA):
"Bell Canada, commonly shortened to "Bell", is a major Canadian telecommunications company. Including its subsidiaries such as Bell Aliant, Northwestel, Télébec, and NorthernTel, it is the incumbent local exchange carrier for telephone and DSL Internet services in most of Canada east of Manitoba and in the northern territories, and a leading competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) in the western provinces. Its subsidiary Bell Mobility is one of Canada's "big three" mobile telecommunications providers, while Bell TV is the country's most popular direct-to-home satellite TV provider. In a majority of its service territory, Bell Canada's principal competition is Rogers Communications. The company, which serves a total of over 13 million phone lines, is headquartered in Montreal, Quebec.[4]......
......Bell announced in September 2010 a deal to reacquire full control of the broadcasting properties of CTVglobemedia, expanding once again into creating content in support of its various distribution platforms. This deal was approved on March 7, 2011.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCE_Inc.

And for the last nail in the coffin...

GEOFF BEATTIE:
"W. Geoff Beattie is a Canadian business executive. He is currently President of The Woodbridge Company, the Chairman of CTVglobemedia Inc. and Deputy Chairman of Thomson Reuters. He also serves as a director of Royal Bank of Canada as well as a member of the Corporate Governance Committee and Human Resources Committee and has been a director since 1998. He also was one of the torch holders in the Vancouver 2010 Olympics." <--How sweet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Beattie

[grammafreddy]

Cripes, it appears I am neither man or woman ... am in deep doo-doo now and have nobody to vote for. Oh woe is me .......

I am going to vote for the one who sounds like they studied Economics 101 ... and passed it.

I'll also vote for the one who wants to balance the budget without jacking around with it and who intends to govern without an overdraft at the bank.

I will vote for the one who will see beyond mere money and protect my country for future generations. I will vote for the one who puts environment, education and health as the top priorities in that order.

Well, Jenny, there's nothing to say that environment (yawn and gag), education and health can't be adequately funded AND still balance the budget, is there?

If the budget is not balanced and the country's debt increases beyond the working person's ability to pay, there is NO protection for the country for future generations - and future generations will be spending more of their income to service today's debt with tomorrow's taxpayer incomes. The burden this places on future generations means there will be even less money for any government programs for their social ills.

Canadian REALLY do need to get a grasp on this concept of debt - their own and their country's. Debt incurs interest payments and taxpayer money spent on interest is a total waste of money which could be going to much more valuable things - such as the social programs you love to have government pay for.

When the money is used to cover debt and debt servicing, there will be a decline in services to Canadians - now AND in the future.

[GordonH]

Cripes, it appears I am neither man or woman ... am in deep doo-doo now and have nobody to vote for. Oh woe is me .......

I am going to vote for the one who sounds like they studied Economics 101 ... and passed it.

I'll also vote for the one who wants to balance the budget without jacking around with it and who intends to govern without an overdraft at the bank.

I will vote for the one who will see beyond mere money and protect my country for future generations. I will vote for the one who puts environment, education and health as the top priorities in that order.

Well, Jenny, there's nothing to say that environment (yawn and gag), education and health can't be adequately funded AND still balance the budget, is there?

If the budget is not balanced and the country's debt increases beyond the working person's ability to pay, there is NO protection for the country for future generations - and future generations will be spending more of their income to service today's debt with tomorrow's taxpayer incomes. The burden this places on future generations means there will be even less money for any government programs for their social ills.

Canadian REALLY do need to get a grasp on this concept of debt - their own and their country's. Debt incurs interest payments and taxpayer money spent on interest is a total waste of money which could be going to much more valuable things - such as the social programs you love to have government pay for.

When the money is used to cover debt and debt servicing, there will be a decline in services to Canadians - now AND in the future.

We can all give thanks to Pierre Elliott Trudeau who started us on this road of national debt, which we have never been able to get off.

[CJT84]

Cripes, it appears I am neither man or woman ... am in deep doo-doo now and have nobody to vote for. Oh woe is me .......

I am going to vote for the one who sounds like they studied Economics 101 ... and passed it.

I'll also vote for the one who wants to balance the budget without jacking around with it and who intends to govern without an overdraft at the bank.

I will vote for the one who will see beyond mere money and protect my country for future generations. I will vote for the one who puts environment, education and health as the top priorities in that order.

Someone still needs to pay government workers in those areas and a smaller tax base means less revenue for the government making it harder to do those things you listed. I'll break down what would be better for each though.

Environment: reform resource contracts and allow firms to purchase land or river space from the crown to avoid over fishing and bad resource practices. Why would a company care about renewable resources if they only get at them for 5 years? If they owned the land they would have incentive to keep it productive or if they wanted to sell it, they would incur a loss. Pollution should be dealt with in courts as it effects the liberty of others. Fines should be imposed for air pollution and oth forms of pollution that effect water tables and whatnot to compensate those effected by it and encourage producers to find ways to create products without effecting the liberty of others.

Education: create a voucher program and allow more competition in schooling as well as a process for teachers to mould lesson plans to suit their students instead of making all students conform to what the BC government or Federal government wants. Stop teaching kids how to pass tests and teach them critical thinking and better prepare them for the realities of economy and life in general. In post secondary there should be incentives for families to start RESP accounts for their children such as the government funding 4000 for every child at age 5 and allowing the parents to add to that and invest it to let it grow. If the child doesnt go to university, take back the 4k and tax the rest as income. The government should also look into tax breaks and cheaper rate loans for those going into sectors that are badly needed in the economy to encourage more students to do more than an art degree.

Health: Allow more room for private healthcare as an option to those who can and wish to purchase it. Look at the australian model of healthcare and adapt the best practises of it while cutting spending in areas such as advertising and redirecting the funds to renovating old hospitals, improving equipment and giving better care for patients.

Allowing more options, less taxes and less government will make things better for everyone.