The Liberal Party is continuing to embrace transparency and responsibility in government and the way the platform is going to be presented is a first. On Sunday, April 3, Michael Ignatieff will launch the Liberal Platform and answer unscripted questions in a national town hall. You can submit your questions here.
I was at the Liberal town hall in Montreal. It was really amazing watching Michael Ignatieff answering hard, tough questions on the fly. This really contrasts to the five questions per day Harper is accepting. He wants to minimize the chances of damages to his campaign. He even erected a fence to keep journalists away!
These two very different approaches to the campaign signify two very different parties. If you vote Conservative, you will get a secretive government that launches smear attacks against its opponents, even if they do not belong to a political party. If you vote Liberal, you get an open, transparent government, ready to provide information in an easy-to-access format to all Canadians. I think the choice is clear.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Donald Trump a "birther"
It is sometimes very sad to see someone who is so well connected and so wealthy that he could probably afford to do a full back round check to see if Obama was really born in the U.S unfortunately he said that he doesn't know and really questions wether Obama was really born in the U.S. I hope that this doesn't become the issue of the 2012 campaign there are so many more important issue's. We need to talk about the deficit and the taxes that must rise to eliminate it. It is a shame to see the great democracy of the U.S talk about something so silly and so untrue. I hope Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination so Obama will have an easy candidate to beat. The fact is a poll before these comments had Trump just a few points below Obama. This may just prove how the Tea Party is pushing all right wing candidates more to the right that it will be very hard for a Republican to get elected. You can say the Right is pushing themselves so far to the right no one wants to vote for them. While Obama is moving to the center. Obama could have a very easy win, but I am making no predictions just yet, because no major candidate is saying if he or she is going to run. So far the republican maybe circle is so large that candidates are going to have to push themselves to one part of the party and hold on to it till the other candidates leave the race. The good thing about this is that most of them are trying to hold on to the Tea party vote which means the candidates are pushing themselves to the extreme to win there parties nominations. By doing that they will alienate the center and give Obama another 4 years.
Strategic Voting!
I think Harper must be eliminated and the only way we truly can do that is voting Liberal nationally, but we shouldn't kid ourselves. It is true voting the Liberal is the best thing we can do to replace Harper, but in some riding's it the best thing we can do for the Liberal party is to vote for the NDP or the Greens. Now in most riding's across the country we should vote for Ignatieff, but in just a handful of riding's we should vote for the other parties. In Saanich—Gulf Islands according to 308.com The Green party is just 7% behind the conservative candidate, voting Liberal there would help Gary Lunn get reelected and give Harper another minority. In this riding we must in order to create a Liberal government vote Green to eliminate the Conservative party candidate. If you do the math having one more progressive MP and 1 less conservative MP will help the Liberals have a government as Harper has fewer seats, but just taking off Conservative candidate's in a few riding's across the country will not do it. We need to make a concerted effort to vote Liberal even in NDP riding's like Outremont, because if you do the math again the having one more Liberal and one less NDP does more to eliminate Harper then voting for the NDP. Because voting NDP and electing an NDP will just let Harper stay having a Liberal instead helps Ignatieff get elected and by doing that replacing Harper. We must vote to eliminate Harper, and the only way to do that is to vote Liberal across the country. Like in Brampton Ontario the Liberal just beat the Conservative in the last election. If we split the vote there we will get another Conservative. If the NDP voters and Green voters vote for the Liberals they will stop Harper and help replace him. In Helena Guergis seat because now they are splitting the right wing vote if the NDP and the Greens in that riding vote Liberal we can get that seat away from the conservatives or people who vote with the conservative. Make no mistake the only party that can replace Harper is the Liberals, but a seat that we should keep NDP is Linda Duncan seat in Alberta Liberals in order to stop Harper should help her get elected. We must strategically vote, but this only proves that we must put in place BC-STV or IRV systems so we don't have to vote for one candidate in the fear that Harper will get elected. IRV and BC-STV let's us vote are heart's instead of voting are fears.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Let's have a losers' debate!
Much talk has been made about how Elisabeth May will not be invited to the debate. The other authors of this blog have already taken a stand on the issue. I agree mostly with Owner and Doggy on this one: it is the network's choice. They are, after all, hosting the debate, and paying for all expenses of the event (to the best of my knowledge). It is their debate which will lack the quick-witted debater who was keen to point out errors in her opponents position and logic.
But instead of simply sitting around and saying, "It's too bad, but what can we possibly do about it?", I propose that May organize a "loser's debate". This debate would incorporate all the parties that do not get seats, but get a sizable portion of the "loose" votes (votes not for major parties). This debate would be a true battle of ideas and logic: Libertarians would face off against Communist, Benevolent Dictators (or statists, either one) against Anarchists, and Socialists against Fascists (the non-Nazi kind). It would be a veritable debate, with ideologies explaining themselves, making their case, and destroying the others'.
Although many years back this would not be possible, now, thanks to modern technological innovations, it can be done. The leaders could link up through video-conferencing, allowing the party leaders to represent from all over the country. The whole thing could be live-streamed, and made available for download on a later date. The whole thing would cost very little, too: under 50$ for a video-conferencing software (or free, depending on which one); live-streaming is generally free or cheap; file-hosting sites will carry a file for very little money.
On top of giving a voice to all the parties that normally remain in the shadows the rest of the time, it would allow a better understanding of the various roots of the normal ideologies of the mainstream political parties: Libertarians and Classical Liberals for Conservatives (generally), Socialists and Classical Liberals for Liberals (generally), Socialists for the NDP, and Neo-Liberals for the Bloc (?). It would allow us to better understand why people vote for a party, even when that party seems to be doing things counter to the ideology (the way people vote for Conservatives, even when they go on spending binges).
In conclusion, instead of sitting around waiting for the next debate, watching a mud-slinging competition (sorry--debate of the party leaders), we should carpe the diem: seize the day. The Green party should organize a debate of the non-elected parties, where ideas would be discussed and ideologies could prove their points. This would not only help the third-party parties, who remain in the shadows, but help the average Canadian better understand the ideologies behind the parties, and the valid points held by the opponents. The whole thing would cost very little, and could have a large impact on the impressions of Canadians. Besides, what does the Green party have to lose? They appear as a doer, they get free publicity as all the third parties tune in, and it costs them almost nothing; the third-parties get a large audience to present to. I, personally, would watch the debate of the best and brightest of the country in politics squaring off in a battle of ideas than the typical mud fight.
It's the Networks' Choice
Many people are outraged at the fact that Elizabeth May is being excluded from the TV debates. My co-blogger went so far as to call it "undemocratic" and "unfair" for the TV consortium not to have invited the leader of the Greens to the debate. While my co-blogger is right on both accounts, democracy and justice has nothing to do with the decision.
The TV networks making up the broadcast consortium are: CBC-Radio-Canada, CTV, Global and TVA. While CBC is a Crown Corporation, none of these companies participate in government. None of them are chosen by election. They have the right to decide who to include and who not to include and accept the consequences in ratings. There is no law against excluding a political leader from a debate nor should there.
While the networks might be wrong about excluding Elizabeth May from the debates, it is not up to us, anyone or anything to force them to accept the Green leader. She can file a formal complaint with the consortium or organize debates on whatever network she chooses.
The organizer sets the rules and suffers the consequences. That's how it has been and will always be.
The TV networks making up the broadcast consortium are: CBC-Radio-Canada, CTV, Global and TVA. While CBC is a Crown Corporation, none of these companies participate in government. None of them are chosen by election. They have the right to decide who to include and who not to include and accept the consequences in ratings. There is no law against excluding a political leader from a debate nor should there.
While the networks might be wrong about excluding Elizabeth May from the debates, it is not up to us, anyone or anything to force them to accept the Green leader. She can file a formal complaint with the consortium or organize debates on whatever network she chooses.
The organizer sets the rules and suffers the consequences. That's how it has been and will always be.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is once again getting shut out of the televised debates, but she is already rallying her troops for a fight and finding some unlikely allies.
“I feel as though I’m absolutely in a state of shock,” May said Tuesday night from Victoria, B.C. “It’s not what I expected. I thought we resolved this issue in the 2008 election campaign.”Read more at the Toronto Star.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)