Wrong on all counts. Dion won debates, head of May in english as well: http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/103 "11:02 (Doug): Summing Up: I screwed up last night, so I should really leave this to Ms. Southey. But I thought Dion won.
11:02 (Tabatha): Why is Don Newman eating his glasses? Dion by a not quite country mile, I'd say." http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/douglas-bell/the-show-ii/article712913/?service=mobile
And Consortium made the right call, for anyone who understands Canadian democracy and its fundamental principles: http://eugeneforseyliberal.blogspot.com/2011/03/elizabeth-may-should-definitely-not-be.html
Just sad to see how hypocritical the GPC has become. Like all the other parties, now. Pity.
I believe that May has a RESPONSIBILITY to participate in the debates and that the other parties have a responsibility to ensure that she fulfills this duty.
The benchmark for participation should not be if a member is elected, but if the party is receiving a direct subsidy from the electorate.
As the GP won almost 1 million votes in the 2008 election, they receive almost $2 million in direct subsidies from the taxpayer.
I demand to know what the GP will do to justify receiving this money.
This is the NEW In and Out scandal. I have to wonder if the media barons are doing this on purpose to get more attention for themselves, before relenting.
As the leader of a national political party (candidates in all ridings, unlike the Bloc) she should be in the debates. No seats in the HofC? Hey, this is about the future, not the past.
"The benchmark for participation should not be if a member is elected, but if the party is receiving a direct subsidy from the electorate."
If that's the only reason why she be let in there won't be any problem keeping her out the next time, after the subsidy is gone.
BCL: Using poll numbers as a measure of support with 40% of an electorate that doesn't show up is folly. The 6.8% or something she got in the last election is all that matters.
The Consortium got this one right even if their name makes them sound like some evil cigar smoking imperialists.
8 comments:
As a Green supporter and on behalf of the other 937,612 people who voted Green in 08, thanks
Wrong on all counts. Dion won debates, head of May in english as well:
http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/103
"11:02 (Doug): Summing Up: I screwed up last night, so I should really leave this to Ms. Southey. But I thought Dion won.
11:02 (Tabatha): Why is Don Newman eating his glasses? Dion by a not quite country mile, I'd say."
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/douglas-bell/the-show-ii/article712913/?service=mobile
http://www.visioncritical.com/public-opinion/4896/harper_dion_won_debates_for_canadians/
And Consortium made the right call, for anyone who understands Canadian democracy and its fundamental principles:
http://eugeneforseyliberal.blogspot.com/2011/03/elizabeth-may-should-definitely-not-be.html
Just sad to see how hypocritical the GPC has become. Like all the other parties, now. Pity.
I believe that May has a RESPONSIBILITY to participate in the debates and that the other parties have a responsibility to ensure that she fulfills this duty.
The benchmark for participation should not be if a member is elected, but if the party is receiving a direct subsidy from the electorate.
As the GP won almost 1 million votes in the 2008 election, they receive almost $2 million in direct subsidies from the taxpayer.
I demand to know what the GP will do to justify receiving this money.
So five people simultaneously trying to shout each other down is your idea of a 'debate', is it?
It's a joke, and it makes us all look like fools in comparison to the countries that have *real* debates.
This is the NEW In and Out scandal. I have to wonder if the media barons are doing this on purpose to get more attention for themselves, before relenting.
As the leader of a national political party (candidates in all ridings, unlike the Bloc) she should be in the debates. No seats in the HofC? Hey, this is about the future, not the past.
"The benchmark for participation should not be if a member is elected, but if the party is receiving a direct subsidy from the electorate."
If that's the only reason why she be let in there won't be any problem keeping her out the next time, after the subsidy is gone.
BCL: Using poll numbers as a measure of support with 40% of an electorate that doesn't show up is folly. The 6.8% or something she got in the last election is all that matters.
The Consortium got this one right even if their name makes them sound like some evil cigar smoking imperialists.
Post a Comment