This wouldn’t be an issue if we just banned TV, but short of that we should stop letting a media consortium decide which political parties get a national stage on which to share their platform upon.
A recent poll confirms that Canadians understand that democracy is best served when the Green Party is allowed into the leaders debate, after seeing the folly of freezing them out in the past. I’d like to see other small parties included too, to show the diversity of Canadian issues, instead of being boxed into the whole “tax cuts and healthcare” issue traps. Yes they are important issues to many people, but so are about a hundred other serious topics and if 2 nights of debate aren’t enough to cover the bulk of them, then perhaps we should have 5 nights of debate and make our politicians lay it all on the line for us.
I know American Idol is terribly important, but there are enough Canadians with cable TV that if the CRTC didn’t let local cable stations take over synchronized American broadcasts with their own signal, then people would have a choice about what they watched through the week or dispersed-month series of debates. The Canadian political condition just *might* be a tad more important to the future of this country, than the outcome of a vote south of the border for the next Clay Aiken (who lost by the way). I know politics is *boring*, but isn’t it time the adults of this nation took back the airwaves from the children of yesteryear who think they run the show?
Some free market goon might come in commenting with an appeal about how disastrous it might be if CTV, CBC, and Global were to lose out on 5 nights of ad revenue. Well there are solutions to that, aren’t there? Aside from the obvious point that it’s CTV and Global’s patriotic duty to serve this country with important news, there are more reasons. Intelligent debate on their station for just 1.4% of the year’s evenings might be something a station using public airwaves could afford to do.
The CBC is already a public broadcaster, and therefore has nothing more appropriate to show than the nation’s potential leaders duking it out in a marathon that would make Question Period look like Kindergarten. OK, that was a bad example, because QP already does look like Kindergarten.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
JimBobby | 29-Jan-07 at 10:00 am | Permalink
Whooee! I’m startin’ t’ think we won this fight. Media pundidiots an’ StephBoy Dion are sayin’ Earth Mother Lizzie May deserves a seat at the debate. The Broadcast Consortium knows it ain’t got any choice but t’ air the debates. They oughta be able t’ see that more Canajuns’ll watch if the Greenies are in.
The easiest way fer Dion t’ make sure Lizzie gets in is jest t’ say he’ll boycott if she ain’t. That’d show Canajuns he ain’t afraid o’ the Greens an’ it’d show he’s big on democracy.
Asa fer as I’m concerned, I’d like t’ see Elections Canadee take over the debates an’ take the rules outta the hands o’ the network executives. Fair debates is too important t’ be left up t’ a few fatcats.
JimBobby
Lance | 29-Jan-07 at 10:11 am | Permalink
Hah! Dion boycott the debates. I wish. Never happen.
Elections Canada will in _no way_ take over the debates. If they did, then there would only be one of three possible outcomes: must have a seat to participate, must be a national party, must run in the election.
And the answer would be the first, it would be set on paper as policy and that would be that. The reason is that because the third option is untenable, and the middle option excludes the Bloc, which will not happen.
The Greens are not a serious party. They will not be serious until: their platform is known to be more than 1 E, they are on the panels on TV/radio, they elect someone.
Before that, well . . . no.
I used to belong to the BC Libertarian party, we worked grassroots on the Internet too. We thought we had vast support too.
I learned that the Internet will do that to you.
Cheers,
lance
Dodos | 29-Jan-07 at 10:11 am | Permalink
I think the “tipping point” has occured so to speak in that the public will demand that May be part of the debates. She did well in the by-election in Ontario and with the environment finally on the list of things Canadians care about (weird that most of us are just waking up to the fact that we need the earth more than anything to survive) it is just a matter of time before we see her in the debates.
The Canadian political condition just *might* be a tad more important to the future of this country, than the outcome of a vote south of the border for the next Clay Aiken (who lost by the way). I know politics is *boring*, but isn’t it time the adults of this nation took back the airwaves from the children of yesteryear who think they run the show?
I just wrote about this last month in reference to the obsession over Britney Spears vagina. If the citizens of Canada and the U.S. knew half as much about politics as they did about celebrities we would have the best functioning democracies in the world. But we don’t. Sigh.
Saskboy | 29-Jan-07 at 10:12 am | Permalink
Don’t be so sure JB, there’s nothing yet that says the media has to do what the public wants.
http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2007/01/28/vote-for-the-same-ol-ndp-or-the-real-green-thing-tm/#comment-15377
Rosie | 29-Jan-07 at 11:48 am | Permalink
Lance, I don’t believe that the internet support is all there is. I also know that the Green party is not a one issue party. I can admit that they need more experience in federal politics and are at this point not even remotely close to being ready to form a government, but an MP or two wouldn’t hurt. Elizabeth May’s performance in the London riding proved the Green party as a serious contender.
JimBobby | 29-Jan-07 at 12:05 pm | Permalink
LanceFeller, the Greens ain’t the Libertarians. The Greens got more’n 4% o’ the popular vote in the last two elections. In 2006 the GPC got 665,940 votes The libertarians got 3002 (0.02% popular vote).
The latest ‘pinion pools put GPC support at over 8% with sum polls showin’ ‘em ahead o’ the rotten separatist BlocHeads. Canajuns want Lizzie May in the debates.
Gettin’ in the debates is one o’ them “panels on TV/radio” that yer sayin’ they need t’ be in on. Catch 22 mean anythin’ t’ you?
The TV debates amount t’ huge free advertisin’ fer the LPC, CPC, NDP an’ BQ. With Mother Earth issues front an’ centre an’ so many Canajuns movin’ t’ the GPC an’ Elctions Canadee fundin’ the GPC more’n a million bucks a year, I reckon we gotta right t’ see what they’re all about.
The GPC platform ain’t “1 E”. I think you already know that, LanceFeller, jest like I think you know the Libertarians ain’t the least bit comparable t’ the Greens. If the old parties ain’t afraid o’ Earth Mother Lizzie May, they oughta do like Dion done an’ say they welcome her onta the TV.
JB
Lance | 29-Jan-07 at 12:44 pm | Permalink
JB, my point wasn’t to compare GPC with the Libertarians, it was to point out that there is danger in believing your own press.
The debates aren’t equivalent to the pundit panels. You don’t see the leaders on the panels, you don’t see rules on the panels. I don’t see it as catch-22, rather a “one begets the other” scenario. If the political pundits don’t respect the GPC enough to offer them a place then why should the networks?
Other than 1 E, I don’t know of any branded issue that the GPC can claim as their own. Now, granted I haven’t looked either.
Show me an area of the country that has the GPC polling as high as the Bloc in Quebec and I’ll give credit that the GPC is ahead of the Bloc. Until that happens, don’t compare the GPC as a national party to the Bloc as a regional party.
Rosie: The GPC threw everything they had into the London by-election, they still lost. I agree with you, I don’t think a few GPC MP’s would hurt either, but at the same time I don’t think it’s going to happen anytime soon.
Cheers,
lance
JimBobby | 29-Jan-07 at 1:19 pm | Permalink
Well LanceMan, the press I believe is the ‘pinion pools that show the greenies makin’ headway. I ain’t drunk the green kool-aid, jest readin’ Angus Reid. Now that Canajuns is all aboard on the Save-Mother-Earth LRT, the party that’s got the bestest record on green stuff is the Green Party.
It ain’t a secret that the Grits did didly when they was in. Nobuddy’s buyin’ the HarpoonTossers’ newfound love fer Mother Earth. The Dipper’s ain’t seriuous ’bout bein’ green. Smokestacks before regulations, if there’s any union jobs at stake.
Have yerself a look at http://www.greenparty.ca an’ find out a little ’bout what other than environment stuff the GPC sez. They got positions on jest ’bout every dang topic unner the sun.
Yer right as rain ’bout a few GPC MPs bein’ good fer Parlement an’ yer probbly right on it not happ’nin’ too quick but I keep votin’ Green an’ I’ll tell you why. When the bigass oldtimey parties see 8% o’ the vote goin’ Green, they want that vote. Shee-it! The Cons want it so bad they did a 180 on everything they was sayin’.
The more folks vote Green, the more the ass-kissin’ polyticians settin’ in the House o’ Comments is gonna kowtow an’ do good green stuff. I don’t give a ratsass if Lizzie’s PM so long as we got real green action comin’ outta Ottywa.
JimBobby
Lance | 29-Jan-07 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
Anyone but me catch PrimeTime Politics on CPAC tonight? Layton basically told Van Dusen that he doesn’t want the Greens in the debates.
The defence rests.
Cheers,
lance
Saskboy | 29-Jan-07 at 8:49 pm | Permalink
Whether Layton has the clout will be the thing Lance. I think the Liberals, and Conservatives will look at London North Center, and decide that the NDP are hurt by the Greens, and using FPTP to the Liberal’s advantage, they’ll let May in the debate to wound the NDP enough that it’s percieved as a two way race between the Cons and the Libs. Convoluted? Yeah, but that’s FPTP (and my brain sometimes).
JimBobby | 30-Jan-07 at 8:29 am | Permalink
Whooee! Saskboy, [Comment edited by blog administrator] There sum troublem in yer boog commentin’ setup? I ain’t seen this sorta mixup happen myself but I heard-tell it could.
JB
Saskboy | 30-Jan-07 at 9:15 am | Permalink
Wow, I’ll look into that JB tonight.
Lance | 30-Jan-07 at 9:16 am | Permalink
Yeah, JB, I think they’re called ‘cookies’. :)
FWIW, you can catch the Layton interview on cpac.ca. D/load and play PTP from yesterday. here
Cheers,
lance
JimBobby | 30-Jan-07 at 9:27 am | Permalink
Whooee! Dang cookies! So d’ya figger Happy Jack’s a yellow-belly? I figger he’s tryin’ play the game t’ his advantage an’ that means keepin’ his biggest threat outta the debates.
I’ll say one thing fer Jack an’ that’s he’s playin’ the stable, cool-headed leader beside the yammerin’ kindergartners in the House. I ain’t sure why he’s got hisself so wound up ’bout these here ATM fees. I reckon he figgers it’ll win a couplafew votes but it’s small potatoes when we got ol’ Mother Earth t’ worry ’bout.
JB
Lance | 30-Jan-07 at 9:39 am | Permalink
Layton loses as long as environment is on the table. Layton can’t afford to go into an election with the public still unsatisfied over the actions of the gov’t on the file. If that happens the Libs and the Greens eat his lunch.
He needs to move the conversation to traditional NDP files; health, working Canadian’s, yadda, yadda, oh and the evil banks. However, he desparately can’t be seen as propping up a CPC gov’t. That’s why he wants environmental action NOW! Dammit.
The LIbs and the Bloc want to delay the Clean Air Committee until after the budget. That forces Jack to support the budget and allows them to vote against it without fear of toppling the gov’t.
That’s all this is about. Force the hand of the weakest party so that everyone knows what the votes are going to be. No one wants an election over this and no one is going to allow it to happen, however they all want ot be positioned to say whatever they think their supporters want to hear.
Now, the really interesting thing is if Layton decides that the hit from no action on the environment is less than the hit of supporting the CPC. Chances are he’ll not tell anyone that the NDP won’t support the budget, then kaboom, accidental election.
Having said that, I think the Libs and the Bloc will be playing it safe and have “just enough” seats empty on the day of the budget vote.
Cheers,
lance
JimBobby | 30-Jan-07 at 9:55 am | Permalink
Whooee! LanceFeller, when you sed “Layton loses as long as environment is on the table.” — you sed a mouthful. Thing is… jest ’bout everybuddy sez Mother Earth IS gonna be the bigass issue. Our Green Party ties health care in tight with clean air an’ water an’ I see the other parties is startin’ t’ do the same. Even if the folks start focussin’ on health, green issues’ll play a big part.
The onliest thing that can help Jack now is if — God forbid — we take a shitkickin’ in Afstan an’ lotsa Canajuns die. Afghanistan’s the onliest topic that can jump t’ the top o’ the heap in days, sez I.
With them ads an’ the playground antics in the House yesterday, it’s lookin’ more’n'more like anuther electionvote comin’ up that nobuddy wants. Did I mention that the Green Party wants fixed dates fer electionvotes?
JB
Lance | 30-Jan-07 at 10:07 am | Permalink
I tend to disagree with, “jest ’bout everybuddy” on this though.
I think the Clean Air Committee is going to put enough meat on the Act that it’ll push the issue off. I mean, lets face it, the only thing the CAA is missing is CO2 stuff with stronger targets. Everything else is in there regarding boring old regular pollution.
I don’t believe that the environment file has the legs to last past the summer, it isn’t a wedge issue. Chantal Hébert said it best on CBC’s The National last night, “It’s only a wedge issue if there is a difference.”
The CPC won’t allow them to be seen as different, that’s why everyone is accusing them of looking like Liberals. They are doing it on purpose to remove the wedge issue.
Cheers,
lance
JimBobby | 30-Jan-07 at 11:11 am | Permalink
“They are doing it on purpose to remove the wedge issue.”
Smart enuff. Removin’ a wedge issue by adoptin’ yer opponent’s stance looks contrived, though, sorta flip-floppy an’ blowin’ whichever way the ‘pinion pools say.
The big thing you an’ I disagree on, LanceFeller, is whether the environment file’s got legs. There’s a lot of us with a gut-gnawin’ feelin’ we’re lettin’ down our grandkids an’ the bad news keeps on comin’. The GHG/globall warmin’/climate change debate’s over an’ Canajuns is lookin’ t’ see action.
It might be like yer sayin’ an’ CAA’ll satisfy enuff voters. That’d mean Jack Laydown would o’ had t’ play ball with Harpoon. I ain’t sure if that’d be a plus or a minus fer JackyBoy.
T’ my way o’ thinkin’, a compromise CAA without gettin’ back on Kyoto ain’t gonna pass muster fer most real green thinkers. Sellin’ any green plan made by the former climate change deniers is gonna be a tuff nut t’ crack, sez I.
If the green file’s got legs an’ the issue itself ain’t a wedge issue, then it boils down t’ “who you gonna trust?”. Right now, I don’t trust any of ‘em ‘cept the Greens when it comes t’ Mother Earth. I’ll be waitin’ t’ see how hard the bigass parties try t’ win over the 8% who sez they’re GPC backers.
JB
Lance | 30-Jan-07 at 11:31 am | Permalink
By legs, I mean election issue. If everyone looks the same, there is nothing to differentiate, therefore the campaign issues fall back down to the regular old stuff.
After a year or so of yelling back and forth over whether we make Kyoto, don’t make Kyoto; listening to the daily news casts about another storm where there have always been storms; I just can’t see Cdn’s wanting to go there anymore.
“Sellin’ any green plan made by the former climate change deniers is gonna be a tuff nut t’ crack, sez I.”
Which is why it’s now in committee. :) The Government is now taking responsibility, not any particular party. It will be hard for any party to slam something that passed committee that their members were involved in.
The parties are all working to eliminate this issue. I find it a little bit funny.
Cheers,
lance
Miss Cellania | 30-Jan-07 at 3:03 pm | Permalink
As far as letting all the parties participate, I can tell you what the broadcasters are thinking. “If we let a third party in, then we will have to let any party in, and that could get ridiculous.” Which is a ridiculous argument in itself, because there are ways to draw a line. If a party has enough support to make a little noise, then it has enough support. Broadcasters are doing the CYA there, because they are always trying to avoid accusations of bias, and they are also trying to make it easier on themselves.
Saskboy | 30-Jan-07 at 11:22 pm | Permalink
JB, I figured out that cookie thing for you, no problem.
Lance, the CAA is apparently worthless [although you'd expect Chernushenko to say so].
http://www.devonrowcliffe.ca/blog/?p=241
Why can’t we use existing written laws, you know, instead of adding more that people will never have time to read anyway. Note that I don’t count lawyers as people in this instance.
==
Miss C, quite right. We’re lucky enough in Canada that the media smokescreen for the most part accepts that 4 isn’t too many to have in a debate these days [at the federal not provincial level mind you {Nova Scotia's CBC blocking the Greens from the last provincial debate is a case in point}]. The US is stuck with a lame two parties. That’s one thing I wish the movie Man of the Year could have changed, and that’s showing Americans just how exciting a multi-party debate would be.
Lance | 31-Jan-07 at 9:05 am | Permalink
The CAA is hardly worthless. Granted it doesn’t “attack” GHG like it does regular pollution, but no one wants to talk about real air, ground and water pollution.
Cheers,
lance
Saskboy | 31-Jan-07 at 9:15 am | Permalink
Lance I don’t agree - I think there are some MPs who care, but have no clout - ie Garth Turner possibly, among others. T Keeper is an MP right, and as a celebrity she cares about the environment too ;-)
The Green Party wants to tackle all environmental problems, not just the ones on the public’s radar.