It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canadian Politics: Why green party isn't in debates?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Story Here
www.greenparty.ca...

You have to wonder why a party with representatives in all 300+ ridings(Green party) is looked over for a spot in the televised debate.

While the Bloc Q. only holds ridings in quebec, roughly 80+ and they ARE allowed in the televised debates. How is this representative of democracy?






[edit on 13-12-2005 by fishmaster]

Mod edit: fixing big link

[edit on 13-12-2005 by parrhesia]




posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
They are not an 'official' party thats why. It's also why we need Proportional Representation so parties like the Greens who get half a million votes yet not one seat is under their control it would give them a voice and would also serve to reduce the power of those 3 parties in power which is why I think it will never happen.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
The green party is useless. Could that be the reason?

Seriously, they bring nothing to the table for the majority of the nation.

Look at the issues they mention on their website.
www.greenparty.ca...&MMN_position=126:19.html

They are a joke.

Do they have solutions to any problems at all? Do they focus on everything, not just the environment?

Do you want to elect an 18 year old for your riding?

I say let them join the debates. Let them get slaughtered on national TV when they do not have solutions to the most basic things.






posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
my original thread meantioned nothing about there platforms, just how they recieve millions of votes, yet they don't get one seat. You are very correct sir with their focus being strictly environmental and wishy washy with other topics like economy, health care, blah blah blah, the usual garbo. Given the chance they might do some good. I'd givem a try.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
The standard response to this question is that only parties with elected MP's are invited to the debate. Strangely enough, the choice of who is invited is made by the media who is televising the debate, like CBC, CTV Radio-Canada and Global.

Guess who the spokesman for the media consortium who organize the 2004 debate was? That would be Peter Kent, Conservative, running in the riding of St. Paul.

Debates should be organized by Elections Canada or some other semi-non-biased group, not the media. :shk:

Really, if the taxpayers are expected to pony up 1 million dollars in funding to this party, the least they could do is let us see what they have to say.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I believe the failure to include Mr Jim Harris (*shudders at the Harris name*) in the debate is a mistake that will give many more votes to The Green Party than if he was allowed to speak and answer tough questions.

So it's good news to me. They are currently at 7% of the popular vote in Ontario.

I watched him being interviewed a cuppla nights ago, and he did seem weak on a lot of subjects. On environmental issues, he was far more knowledgeable, though...and made excellent sense. I disagree with his stance on nuclear issues (go figure
), but his party is going to get my vote this time. I want there to be a 'green voice' in Ottawa and that party is going to need all the help they can muster just to get one seat.

.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
exactly my point duzey. regardless of a partys platforms, people in this country who do believe and approve of such a party should have a chance to see how the leader would perform in a public debate. this could really define and identify the strengths or challenges this leader posesses. then if people decide the party is not what they thought, maybe the government can save 1 million dollars and wouldn't have to hand it over to a "speechless" party.

[edit on 13-12-2005 by fishmaster]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I would still like to know how they plan on "making the environment better" and at the same time boosting the economy.

Do they even understand the current implications of Kyoto? Do they realise how much it will cost?

Abolishing things that "hurt" the environment does not fix other problems.

Say they cut down on logging. Where do the loggers go to get jobs? Etc.

This is a hilarious statement, courtesy, greenparty.ca




We can help strengthen our economy by conserving our ecology.


greenparty.typepad.com...

Read his blog, hilarity at best.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
well if you think beyond capitalizm dulcimer, the statement actually makes sense. the truth is our earth is suffering sorely for the abuse we as humans have subjected it to. we can choose to ignore the state of our home or acknowledge it and attempt to do something about it. if we don't, no one will have a place to practice a working economy.

this statement does not mean i approve of all of the green parties platforms, i merely understand the importance of improvment in the practices we adopt to conserve our home, earth.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Think beyond Capitolism? Why? It perfectly predicts a net gain in jobs & profits due to cost savings in the long run in sustainable business practices like "Green Roofs" for example...

Here is The Ford Motor Companies Green Roof www.hrt.msu.edu... , It increases roof longevity and increases Insulation R Value and Increased employment for gardeners, in some instances maybe even farmers if this really takes off big time :shrug: ) There is lots of barren unused rooftops in the world that are just crying out to be exploited in one way or the other, government incentives would make it more realistic.


Installation of extensive green roof on new auto assembly plant at
Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, during October 2002.



An intensive green roof atop the Coast Plaza Hotel in Vancouver,
British Columbia, has the appearance of a wooded forest.

[edit on 13-12-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dulcimer
Do they even understand the current implications of Kyoto? Do they realise how much it will cost?


I would think that Jim Harris and his group would make it their business to know. It is, after all, their entire platform.

From what I understand so far, after the latest meetings in Montreal, the agreement is to go beyond what the Kyoto initially called for. What exactly it all means, I don't know yet, but, I've read that the Americans have agreed to the terms and goals. Now, if Paul martin can just shake the effects of his chastisement of the Bush Government, we may have something workable.



Abolishing things that "hurt" the environment does not fix other problems.


Perhaps, if we severely cut back on airborne pollutants, we can save on the health care costs associated with them. There are in excess of 5,000 deaths yearly attributed to them in Ontario alone. How much is involved with the care and treatment of those suffering related ailments who do not die?



Say they cut down on logging. Where do the loggers go to get jobs? Etc.


If we were to invest in furniture making, such as the Ikea plant we nearly got in BC, and also put more cash into mills instead of just shipping raw logs to mills south of the border, then we could put some of these loggers back to work. The logging jobs that we have lost are because of the unfair trade practices with the Americans through NAFTA. I doubt we'll ever stop logging, just maybe clear cutting in areas where replanting doesn't make sense. In areas where logging is most intensive, like Timmins, there are huge tracts of land where the trees are planted and harvested just like farms. Ask any treeplanter how much is replanted there yearly, they'll tell you all about it. A good tree planting outfit is called Outland Reforestration...I know because one of my sons planted 750,000 trees personally over 5 years.



strengthen our economy by conserving our ecology.


I don't think that's so crazy...if we don't take care of our fresh water supply, it'll be worth nothing if we can't drink it. Nor would it support a commercial fishery or a sport fishery, both of which are a valuable resource. The same goes for our forestry industry, since poor harvesting practices lead to soil erosion, etc.

.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
The Green Pages are my favourite blog on 'green issues' and I visit it daily. The lead story is about the latest rounds of the United Nations Climate Control Conference in Montreal... written by Fraser Los

There are some good links in this blog. If you look back far enough, they also cover the green roof idea sardion2000 mentions.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Masqua you should chekc out www.worldchanging.com... It's very extesive.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join