66 per cent of respondents think that the Green Party should be allowed to participate in the televised debates ahead of October’s federal ballot. Almost two-in-five Canadians (39%) strongly agree with the Greens taking part in the debates. Only 25% disagree.
Political affiliation is no obstacle for supporting the Greens’ participation in televised debates or their representation in Parliament. Sixty-eight per cent of respondents who would vote for the Bloc Québécois, 75 per cent of those supporting the New Democratic Party, and 77 per cent of Liberal backers think that May should be allowed to debate along their respective party leaders. A lower proportion of Conservatives—47 per cent—concur.
By a slight majority, even Conservative supporters want May in the debate, another illustration that the arguments against her inclusion don't fly with anybody.
What some of these parties have done, is embolden May, and in the grand scheme, she probably benefits more now from her exclusion. A rallying cry, supported across the political spectrum, more exposure, the decision is clearly working in May's favor. What else is clear, the NDP may well pay a price for their decision, rarely do you see partisans so opposed to the party line, the danger of erosion is real. The prospect of May continually pointing fingers, is hardly a wanted development for a party offering a departure from politics as usual.
Of course we don't know how many people who also say YES to having the leaders of the Communist Party and the Christian Heritage Party in the debate.
Its interesting that the Tories were apparently the most insistent about barring the seatless green party from the debate. You would think that they would be only too happy to have yet another supposedly centre-left leader on stage splitting the anti-Conservative vote. There must be some method to their madness.
Meanwhile, I don't see anyone pressing the Liberals to insist on May's inclusion. They seem to have taken no position and have not exactly gone out on a limb to get her in - probably because polls are showing that the Greens take more votes away from the Liberals than anyone else.
So lame, the Liberals have been clear on May from the start. Comparing the Greens to the Communist Party is a testament to WEAKNESS of argument. Swing, and a miss.
so why doesn't Dion put his money where his mouth is and say that unless May is included in the debate, he will refuse to take part?
Why not compare the Greens and the Communists and the CHP - all three are parties that have never won a seat at any level anywhere in Canada. Correction, the Communists actually elected an MP in 1945 and had members of the Ontario leg. up to the mid-50s - that's more than the green party can claim.
Yawn. Yes, this is about Dion. Too funny.
It is about Dion. May is supposed to be his ally and he isn't lifting a finger to help her get into the debate. If he wants to show that he's such a strong leader, why doesn't he boycott the debate unless she is included and lob the ball back into the court of the networks.
I still can't figure out why Harper would oppose having May in the debate when he would have so much to gain from her being there (you would think). Maybe he figures that this is a good way to have the Liberals, NDP and Greens waste a lot of time pointing fingers at each other while he waltzes away unscathed.
I don't understand people who post anonymously and I take their opinions with a grain of salt because of it, comment threads full of the brotherhood of split personalities called Anonymous. However, the Greens are going to take votes from everyone, they're taking all kinds of votes from the NDP here, they're taking votes from the Liberals and they are certainly going to take Conservative votes who are disgusted with Harper. The only parties they might not take votes from are Christan Heritage or the Communists.
I do have a question Far and Wide, you wrote that "A lower proportion of Conservatives—47 per cent—concur."
By a slight majority, even Conservative supporters want May in the debate, another illustration that the arguments against her inclusion don't fly with anybody."
Am I missing something between 47% and the slight majority of Conservatives ?
Yes, I think that May and the Greens are benefitting from being excluded. An even bigger benefit will be if she is excluded now and then wins a court battle and actually gets into the debates. That would be a huge advantage. Had they just let her in the debates most viewers would have been skeptical of this new party, now I think most viewers, even if they have no intention of ever voting for her, will be cheering for the underdog who fought her way in against the establishment parties.
Steve and Jack's plan has back-fired on them. They never thought that the media consortium would rat them out. My suspicion is the that media consortium was so quick to rat them out this time because last election Steve, Jack, Gilles and Paul all refused to let the Greens in and the media consortium took the heat. They knew that the heat this would time would be much worse. If you read the CBC ombudsman report to the Green Party complaint at being excluded from the debates twice the ombudsman talked about the importance of an agreement with the other political parties. I have no proof, but that is my suspicion.
"Its interesting that the Tories were apparently the most insistent about barring the seatless green party from the debate. You would think that they would be only too happy to have yet another supposedly centre-left leader on stage splitting the anti-Conservative vote. There must be some method to their madness."
Yes, there is some method to the madness. Harper needs for the NDP to be strong. If Elizabeth May is in the debates Harper's fear is that many people who were thinking of voting NDP may vote Green instead. A weaker NDP means a stronger Liberal party.
"Harper needs for the NDP to be strong. If Elizabeth May is in the debates Harper's fear is that many people who were thinking of voting NDP may vote Green instead. A weaker NDP means a stronger Liberal party."
That makes no sense whatsoever. If the Conservatives are in a close race with the Liberals in a ton of swing seats - what difference does it make to them if some votes move from the third place NDP to the fourth place Greens? That has no bearing at all on the vote split between the CPC and Liberals. If anything the Tories might pick up some NDP seats in BC if the Greens pick up some NDP votes.
Sorry, but BC is small potatoes compared to the NDP seats in Ontario which are what Harper (and Layton) are attempting to protect with this move.
Fiddling with the electoral predictor thingies they have out and you can see that a big enough swing from the NDP to Greens actually has the effect of boosting the Liberal seat count -- even into minority government territory depending upon the severity of it.
Additionally, with May in the debates, suddenly we have someone who speaks coherent english explaining how carbon taxation with accompanying income and payroll tax reductions makes economic and environmental sense, and how the cap and trade systems proposed by the NDP and Conservatives will also raise consumer's costs considerably, but do so without giving the end consumer any relief.
Understandably, the Harper/Layton coalition doesn't want that to happen.
The libs are unlikely to lose much ground to the greens simply because I think they've already hit their base support with adscam etc. I doubt they'll be getting much smaller.
"Additionally, with May in the debates, suddenly we have someone who speaks coherent english explaining how carbon taxation with accompanying income and payroll tax reductions makes economic and environmental sense, and how the cap and trade systems proposed by the NDP and Conservatives will also raise consumer's costs considerably, but do so without giving the end consumer any relief."
Bingo. Steve and Jack have been lying through their teeth about the carbon tax for months. They know that May can do a better job than Dion at exposing that lie in the english debates.
"with May in the debates, suddenly we have someone who speaks coherent english"
I find her to be more of a histrionic nutbar and not coherent at all. I think the average person hearing her go on about carbon taxes would figure that any policy backed by this weirdo has got to be pretty whacky.
Jack and Steve have backed down.
A slight majority means that, of those that responded, the majority wanted her in the debates. You have to remember that some don't answer/no opinion. More Conservatives said yes, than no, a majority of respondents.
It's official the consortium says May is in!!
Post a Comment