Comments:Canada's leadership debate: the Green Party will take part

Current plans for an all party debate is absolutely a waste of time and I for one will not waste time watching this. One leader has no interest in a united Canada, 2 others will interupt the meeting and promise the world since they will nothing they have to provide leaving 2 sides that we already know about. Seems a waste of costly air time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.95.58.241 (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Should the debates be limited to only those parties likely to form a government?

No, parties unlikely to form a government should not be allowed to participate. That being said, the Bloc Quebecois shouldn't be taking part either.

The Green party are a complete waste of time. Even when they got in the debates they still couldn't win a seat. Disband this joke party and go back to the Liberals where you belong. Unless you want to keep giving the neo-cons election wins because our left vote is split 3 (4 in Quebec) ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.203.152 (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

---

And giving Canada a two party system just like the united-states with all it's flaws and anti-democratic nature. No thanks . Canada being the 9th best democracy according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index , and the two party U.S being lower in the rating , I think it's best we keep it the way it is.

Bad toupe

Is the man in the photo with the bad toupe from the Bloc Quebequois? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's Stephen Harper, (idiot) Prime Minister of Canada. And that isn't a toupe, it's just a really, really bad haircut. We're all embarrassed about it, so we try not to mention it. If you hover over the pictures it says who they are. Gopher65_talk 20:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If he was in America I'd recommend suing his hairdresser. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell no!

Absolutely not should the debates be exclusive to the parties likely to form a government. Doing that would simply make the debates liberal party vs. conservative party, excluding the other two parties that have a long standing significance in parliament (NDP, The Bloc). Doing so would only teeter Canada closer to America´s two party system, which I would argue is a very bad thing. I believe any party with significant membership should be able to participate in the debates, so everyone´s choices are made clear, especially if they had a member in Parliament (Green). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No. The environment is an important issue to some people, and the Greens pulled an impressive 5% last election. Let them have their say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.194.101 (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No. The last thing Canada needs is a two party system with its propensity to inbred political hierarchy. Multiparty system gives Canadians more say in what our government does by offering more choice of platforms and perspectives and makes the representatives more accountable too by offering more opportunity for voters to look elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.186.242.31 (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, the debates should be restricted to parties who hold seats in Parliament; otherwise, we might as well open up the debates for any party on the register. Next year we'll have the Rhinoceros Party on the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.155.24 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No they shouldn't, cause thats the way they do it in the U.S., and i don't like it.

They really shouldn't do this. This is because in the U.S., people like Ralph Nader are not aloud in the debates for he is running as an independent. And I think everyone should really be aloud in Canada, for they do not just have two dominant parties (which is good, for in the U.S., if you want to make it anywhere in politics, you must be part of the two major parties), and everyone is more equally represented. Duckwariorrandom (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I totally agree with all those `no` to the question stated above except the first no which seems contradictory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.207.82.37 (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Green Party excluded from debates

Bold text'As they should be. Get one single seat and then they might be taken a little seriously. They are at 3% of popular vote - we only have a limited amount of debate time to choose between leaders that actually have a chance to govern or at least get a handful of seats - the Green Party wastes that time by cutting into it - they do not merit a spot in the televised debates.'