Anyone for musical chairs?

That's just great. Deeper fragmentation on the left is all we need. Can we have proportional representation now please?

Is Blair Wilson even all that left?

Why would that be relevant to the Green party?

Whooee! If we had proportional representation, there would be 12 or 13 Green MP's sitting in Parliament right now. That's voter support, not just the support of one guy. The arbitrary rule of no seat at the debate unless there is a sitting MP is in no way regulated by official rules of Elections Canada. The TV debates are regulated by the Broadcast Consortium, a panel of TV network execs. They made up the rule and the public somehow thinks it's some official regulation and that Elections Canada has some say-so on who gets into the TV debates.

The Greens are polling above the Bloc and very close to the NDP. Those are voters. Canadians. Not just one guy.

Canadians want and dese5ve to see the leader of a party that runs candidates in all provinces and polls in the double-digits go up against the 4 men in suits. The other men in suits in the Broadcast Consortium have tried their best to exclude the Greens. I expect them to try some more. I hope that the open-minded bloggers and commenters who post here will support Lizzie's appearance at the debates. Fairness demands it.

JB

Proportional representation is the way to go, but who will give it to us? The Liberals? They killed the very idea of it in Ontario. The other two parties the NDP and Greens will not be in a position to implement PR at any time in my lifetime under FPTP. I have a feeling even if they forced the Liberals to hold a sham referendum on the idea, the Liberals and Tories would gang up to defeat it, just like they did in Ontario. So, I say, the more the merrier. Divide up that vote and let the chips fall where they may. Let's have some real dysfunction. How about a "majority" government with 33% of the vote? Bring it on.

I'll agree that this is not the ideal way to get an MP, I would have prefered that someone like Chris Tindal who had actually worked at it had become the first Green MP but JimB is correct the system is not ideal so we cannot wait for ideal outcomes.

I certainly hope that our new poster child is sincern enough to tow the line and actually belives in us and is not just doing this to make a statement(even if that statement needs to be made)

Time will tell,

The squirming by the networks should be very fun to watch, I truly believe they will still try to exclude her, so what new condition with they add now?

I'd really loved to have hear Laytons back room rant when he got this news.

If we had proportional representation, there would be 12 or 13 Green MP's sitting in Parliament right now.

This looks as though you're allowing problems with the existing system to justify exploiting loopholes.

I hope that the open-minded bloggers and commenters who post here will support Lizzie's appearance at the debates.

And this looks like you're suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't open minded.

I don't agree with the first argument and don't much appreciate the second.

Had Wilson presented himself as a Green to the voters in that riding and won the seat, no argument. But he didn't.

It seems that all Elizabeth May has done since she entered federal politics is look for shortcuts that leave the voters out of the equation. She doesn't seem to me to have a lot of respect for democracy.

It is FPTP that leaves the voters out of the equation, not Elizabeth May. She is simply doing all she can to have the voices of GPC supporters represented.

How can you support the inclusion of the Canada-hating separatist BQ leader in the TV debates and yet want to keep the Green leader out? If anyone should be excluded, it should be the Cheesehat.

Too bad if the Dippers are scared of some competition. Canadian voters expressed their wishes in the election and over 600,000 voted Green.

All the Greens are asking for is the chance to compete on a level playing field. All we want is for our leader to be afforded the same courtesy that has been afforded the BQ, with its 75 candidates.

And this looks like you're suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't open minded.

If you think it is open minded to allow high powered TV network executives (like Peter Kent in the 2000 election) to make up the rules of the most important event in every Canadian election, that's up to you. I don't find the system to be fair. I thought the Dippers were against corporate manipulation of the electoral process. I thought the Dippers were for proportional representation. I guess only when it works in your favour.

JB

How can you support the inclusion of the Canada-hating separatist BQ leader in the TV debates and yet want to keep the Green leader out?

Enough voters in Quebec vote for the BQ that they actually have seats in the House of Commons. If you want people who live in Quebec to remain part of this country, I don't think the way to do that is to take their representation away from them.

If you have alternative rules regarding participation in the debates to suggest, go for it. I might even agree. But the debate here doesn't seem to be about rules that can be applied consistently. It's about getting Elizabeth May into the debates, period. Because on all the occasions I've seen you argue in support of May's inclusion, I don't think I've ever seen you step back and offer some objective criteria for the long term. If I've missed it, by all means point it out.

The rest of your comment seems to be on the presumption that I'm only saying what I've said because I'm a card-carrying Dipper even though I've indicated repeatedly and at length that I'm not a member of any political party. Let's just say that's the wrong line of attack.

Quoting myself:
I've indicated repeatedly and at length that I'm not a member of any political party

Not that there's anything wrong with being a member of a party but it seems particularly clear in this case that the point is to discredit my argument by suggesting I'm a partisan rather than actually, you know, discrediting my argument. It's an ad hominem.

Will you at least acknowledge that the rules for the debate inclusion are arbitrary and set up by corporate TV executives? These rules are not written down anywhere and can be changed at the whim of the TV network execs. They are in a position to affect the outcome of elections and they answer to no one except their respective corporate bosses. By calling for "alternative rules" you suggest that there are actually real rules in place now. There aren't.

I'd have to do a lot of digging to find where I've asked for a fairer system of running the TV debates. My position has been that the debates should be run by Elections Canada. I still hold to that position.

Over 650,000 voters voted for the Greens in 2006. Based on that support, the Green leader appealed to the Broadcast Consortium to be allowed in the debates. They said no. They said their rule was that a Green MP would need to be sitting in Parliament. Elizabeth asked to see the written rule. They replied that there is no written rule and that they can make any rule they want, anytime they want. They own the TV airwaves.

The Greens argued that opinion poll support had more than doubled since the last election and that the GPC had more support than the Bloc Quebecois and that the GPC is tied with the NDP, nationally. The TV executives said that wasn't good enough and that we'd need to have a Green MP.

We then informed the Broadcast Consortium that three-quarters of Canadians agreed that the Green leader should have a seat in the debates. The TV executives said that wasn't good enough and that we'd need to have a Green MP.

The Greens were up against powerful corporate gamesmen who were determine to stifle our voice and to deny democratic representation on the debate stage. All of the complaining and petitioning and arguing about the unfairness of it had no effect.

Now, we've met the arbitrary condition set forth by the men in suits.

A sitting MP offered to join the Green Party and our leader accepted that offer. This isn't the way we wanted to get a seat at the debates. It's the way those corporate bigwigs demanded. They set the rules and we've fought them using their rules. Watch them make up a new set of rules.

Sorry if my response pigeonholed you as a Dipper. While I do read and participate here relatively frequently, I don't keep a score card and I don't know who's a party member and who isn't. FWIW, I am a card-carrying GPC member and a riding association exec. That doesn't mean I march in lockstep to every single GPC policy. I've even strategically voted against the GPC. I have been agitating for PR since before becoming a GPC member. In 2004, I voted NDP on the basis of Layton's pledge to make PR a non-negotiable condition for supporting a Martin minority. When Layton propped up Martin on his budget without a whisper on PR, I was sorry I'd listened to his empty promise. From now on, I'll vote my conscience.

JB

My position has been that the debates should be run by Elections Canada. I still hold to that position.

I can get behind that. And for serious reasons but it has the added advantage that it would probably really annoy Stephen Harper.

More later.

The Greens are polling above the Bloc and very close to the NDP.

In the best Prime minister sweepstakes, May comes last: Stephen Harper 36% (+2), Jack Layton 17% (+1), Stephane Dion 15% (NC), Gilles Duceppe 5% (-2), Elizabeth May 4% (-3), None/ Unsure 23% (NC).

I'll accept your Nanos figures, Mahigan, without resorting to digging up other polls that jibe more with my original assertion. At the time Elizabeth appealed to the Broadcast Consortium, months ago, the GPC was polling a bit higher than we are now. As it happened, the big network suits weren't swayed by polling numbers any more than they were swayed by actual votes in the previous election. They said they'd only allow Elizabeth in the debates if we had a Green MP in parliament. Now, we've got one.

From what I can see, the Liberals stand to lose the most from additional GPC support. I'm not sure why other parties are so loathe to allow Elizabeth may to siphon off Liberal support. As it stands, only one party leader is endorsing May's appearance in the debates and he's the one who stands to lose the most.

I think opposition to May's appearance in the debates will be seen by average voters as fear. Are those three big men so afraid of a strong, articulate and intelligent woman who represents at least 650,000 Canadian voters?

I think if average voters understood just who makes up the debate rules and the sort of media corporation-backroom old boys they are, they'd be even more inclined to allow Elizabeth's participation. Way too much power and influence is being bestowed on media giants, IMHO.

JB

Sorry if my response pigeonholed you as a Dipper.

It isn't that you pigeonhole me as a Dipper, it's that you accuse me of being unable to write to this honestly.

Something else I've made clear on this blog is that I believe in judging politicians based on what they do, not what they say. And what Elizabeth May has done is try to make deals and find shortcuts to get herself into the House of Commons. I've argued consistently against the kinds of deals where party leaders decide in advance of an election that the voters in selected ridings will have their options limited. It's undemocratic. But May not only supports those kinds of deals, she's gotten quite ugly in public with party leaders who don't want to play those games. If Layton changed his tune and started getting involved as May wants him to, I'd be complaining about Layton too.

The way to fix a broken electoral system isn't to game it even more by exploiting whatever loopholes you can find. That's a recipe for making voters even more cynical than they already are.

Will you at least acknowledge that the rules for the debate inclusion are arbitrary and set up by corporate TV executives?

Sure. The rules as they exist are also extremely simple and one dimensional and I'm tempted to suggest that perfectly suits corporate TV executives (another group alienated!). But if we're going to have a discussion about what the rules should be, I don't think it should be had in the context that whatever we come up with should have the outcome that Elizabeth May gets to participate or we'll be having the same conversation the next time someone forms a new party and it starts to poll well. The conversation needs to be had without reference to particular politicians or parties and with reference to voters.

Meanwhile, I won't be at all surprised if May does end up in the debates precisely because the rules are arbitrary and simplistic. It will happen because an MP who appears to be looking for the support of a party hooked up with a party leader who's looking to gain a toehold in the House of Commons in any way she can even if it means making deals rather than winning elections. If Harper pulls the trigger before parliament reconvenes it will happen because there's an MP who suddenly claims to be a Green but has never actually sat in the House as a Green. I'm sorry but I think that sucks.

I know you're a big fan of Elizabeth May. I'm not. I think she's a cynical opportunist and when it comes to the kind of politics she claims to practice she has zero credibility left with me.

Pogge, I have no doubts about your sincerity or honesty. Please accept my apology for coming across that way.

I cannot agree that the debate rules are simple. There are no rules. The rules are whatever the Broadcast Consortium decides they should be and they can make up new rules or change old rules at heir discretion or whim or demand from their corporate masters. There's nothing simple about a sliding set of parameters and an unwritten rulebook.

Ideally, we'd be able to refine change all the rules and we wouldn't be involved in any sort of questionable practices in any political manoeuvrings. Unfortunately, we are saddled with a system with plenty of warts. Elizabeth May went to the TV bigwigs and attempted to appeal to the Broadcast Consortium with arguments based on fairness and based on our widespread support and 650,000 votes. That appeal fell on deaf ears.

How important is a seat in the debates? (I know, you didn't ask.) Consider what happened when Deb Grey was the only Reform Party MP and Preston Manning was allowed into the debates. The exposure afforded Manning in the TV debates was instrumental in propelling the the Reform Party into official opposition territory.

Political success in our current system requires some opportunism. I've met Elizabeth personally a few times and heard her speak a number of times. I have no doubts about her commitment to the planet and to bettering our environment. Our flawed system requires that far-reaching action be implemented through political power. Climbing the greasy pole is greasy work but failing to play the game only ensures failure.

This latest political play can easily be categorized as cynical and opportunistic. Our system evokes cynicism and if we do not make the best of whatever opportunities are available, we can sit on the sidelines and watch the old boys continue to break their promises with impunity. Winning in politics is about getting votes. Getting yourself into the best free advertising available -- the televised debates -- is the surest way to attract voters.

The Greens have worked hard to build support across the entire country. Our message is not a regional message and our appeal is not a regional appeal. One might characterize it as 4000 miles wide and a few inches deep. A national audience of TV debate viewers will provide an opportunity to add a few more inches to that level of support. It also risks us losing support. A mere appearance certainly doesn't ensure more votes. Elizabeth will need to win those votes just like all the other leaders will need to do. She can't win if she's not playing the game.

JB

Too bad if the Dippers are scared of some competition. Canadian voters expressed their wishes in the election and over 600,000 voted Green.

I wish Greens and Liberals would just look at the polls. The NDP and the Greens swim in totally different voting pools. The NDP is where it traditionally is in the polls. The Liberals on the other hand, have dropped about 8% from their traditional support "floor" since the Greens came on the scene, which is by coincidence the support level for the Green Party. So please JB, please stop saying the NDP is afraid of the Greens. They are a non-factor as far as NDP support goes. There, now that I have that off my chest, I am going out to burn my chicken.

So please JB, please stop saying the NDP is afraid of the Greens.

Okay. When Jack supports Elizabeth's inclusion in the televised debates. By continuing to speak against her inclusion, he appears to be afraid. It's not a rational fear. Personally, I agree that any vote splitting will be mostly at the expense of the Liberals. That is why I find it so strange that Layton and Harper continue to want her excluded. It's also why I find it strange that Dion continues to support her inclusion.

JB

The broadcasters don't have to change a thing to keep the Greens out. The criteria they used last year was "The four most prominent parties with representation in the House of Commons."

That said, I'm not sure I agree with the criteria that you need a seat to get in. I understand the need to reduce the number of debaters, but given an FPTP system based on regions, it's entirely possible that our government winds up being based on regional parties only. Why have a debate between parties who aren't competing for seats.

So along those lines, what I'd propose for a reasonable set of criteria for which party leaders get to participate in the debates:

1. The taxpayer is funding the national party through recognition by elections Canada. If the taxpayer is funding you, then surely the taxpayer deserves the chance to see who and what you are to decide if they want to keep doing that.

2. You have at least a theoretical chance of becoming a majority government. If most people in Canada can't vote for your party, your party has no business being in national debates. Local debates, locally broadcast, sure, but not national unless you truly are a national party.

Those two rules seem to make more sense to me than a declaration that you need someone in the house. Why just one? Why not three? Or six? Is one person seriously going to affect the government policies by so much that their leader needs to be in the debates? If that was the case, why not independants? It's just too arbitrary.

That is why I find it so strange that Layton and Harper continue to want her excluded

I can understand Layton's reticence to a degree as it is a mirror of why Dion wants her included. Dion needs May to defend him against both Layton and Harper and Layton doesn't want to have to defend himself against Dion and May (who let's face it, is on record as saying that Dion should be PM). It kind of undercuts Jack's message that he should be PM (yes I know) if he has someone else saying that he is a bad person for standing in Dion's way.

I find Harper's stand a little less understandable. I realize he would hate to have yet another voice carping about what a terrible PM he is, but he must realize that FPTP is his friend, the more fragmented the opposition vote is. So, why not include May? It would seem to help his cause more than hurt it.

If one is an independent and then declares they belong to a party before the house actually sits, and thus they are not sworn in a MP in a certain party, does it mean they automatically become that member or what?
I am just asking?

Forgot to say, excellent post Pogge.

so why does Dion want her in while the others want her out ? - here, I'll lay out my theory

Dion's one big card in an otherwise mediocre hand is the enviroment. He's bet the farm on the green shift. He goes into the debate he wants the enviroment front and centre, even if it comes from another party, and especially one that doesn't stand a realistic chance of success.
In the debate Dion will be hit from layton and Harper, who will ingore each other. they both know that they need liberals to vote for them and are unlikely to get votes from each other. With May in the mix it represents an ally - remember they've worked together before.

What Dion needs to win is get people to recognize that enviromental change is needed , and that he is the only one with a chance of enacting it. May at the debates will help with the first, and hopefully, a dose of realism will do the second.

A dose of realism would remind everyone that the Liberals run left and govern right, and Dion is about as likely to "enact" much that is progressive as were the (very long-lived) Chretien and Martin governments. Dion's only virtue is that he's not Harper, although 26 members of his caucus are.

I popped in mainly to object to those questionable references to Duceppe above, two of them way below the belt. I'm obviously not a BQ supporter, but I appreciate the responsible way they have worked in Parliament all these years. They are certainly much more reliable on social and international issues than are the Liberals, including M Dion, who can't even be bothered to show up and vote when constitutional freedoms are at stake. If Duceppe's service over the years isn't a demonstration of commitment to saving democracy on this continent, I don't know what is.

skdadl, I have a totally different take on Dion. I don't see him as a person who can't be bothered to show up to work. He strikes me (and I've met him several times) as someone totally dedicated to his job, highly motivated, and recognizes the damage Harper is and can do to Canada and recognizes the strength of Harper's marketing and the challenge ahead. I think his absences were strategic and working toward the goal of removing Harper. Harper's government is in a weaker position now with an economy moving down, hints of deficits, and various scandals/negative events gaining some traction, and the Liberals are in a stronger position, but even now, unseating Harper is not a sure bet.

May also seems to recognize that Harper is doing and will do damage to Canada and I think she would be a strong communicator of this in the debates.

I recognize that Layton will gain the most politically by hammering Dion and that Harper and he can both gain by reinforcing each other's attacks on Dion. For people who will not consider anything but voting NDP, this will work. For others, we shall see. Even in 2006, it worked for me (hammering Martin more than Harper). I don't feel the same about the Dion-Harper situation, since I like and trust Dion more than Martin and I've come to understand Harper more.

The way I see it, Layton's strategy may work, but I really don't think it will be good for Canada if it does. I will be happy to be surprised, but I don't expect Layton's campaign to do much to hurt Harper at the polls, so I am looking to Dion to do this. Ultimately May may help or hurt in unseating Harper in our FPTP system. That is up to voters. However, I expect her to expose Harper and to not reinforce any of his talking points that will help keep him in power. That is worth a lot to me.

Well, I don't do strategy, catherine -- that's for the smarter younger guys around here. I certainly consider Harper the next worst thing to the devil incarnate (aka Dick Cheney), so I'm happy to see anyone defeat him. And besides, in strategic terms I don't have to think much personally since I live in a very safe Liberal riding.

However, no electoral loyalty is worth volunteering for a lobotomy imho, which is why some of us insist on continuing to speak as clearly and critically as we can of the guys whose history we know all too well. Beyond that, we know why the Liberal Party has that history, and that is not going to change any time soon. I'm sure there are lots of nice people in the LPC. Dion may even be one of them. But they are run behind the scenes by guys like John Manley and his backers, who to me are just as bad as the Flanagans although they may have better table manners.

And Elizabeth May is a Clinton Democrat. I can think along with those people in an American context (because what else can they do?), but I see no need for Canadians to fall back that far.

I don't like Manley either, although I don't put him together with Flanagan. I'm not much of a party person, so have no idea who runs things, and just look to the leader, the key MPs around him/her, and my local candidate. There well could be things in the Liberal party that would scare me, but I figure, if so, they will show up in the things I look at (the leader,...). For me, every election period, every new leader, is a time to reassess the political landscape. I have no plans to take out a membership in any party.

Not being a party person, labelling May a Clinton Democrat doesn't mean much to me. I look to May for her environmental input (which I understand will grate on some Greens, as they look to the party more comprehensively.) For this, she also will be a great asset in the debates and I think this is important enough that Canadians should hear her views. I fully expect her to say her plan is better than Dion's. I just don't expect her to undercut Dion's plan in comparison to Harper's. I can't say the same about Layton.

More generally, I understand the network execs gave May criteria to enter the debates which she has now satisfied. My understanding is that one of the criteria was to have an MP and I don't recall hearing that they inserted the word elected. I'd be happy to have EC control the debates, but that's not the case for this election.

Jim Bobby sed:

"In 2004, I voted NDP on the basis of Layton's pledge to make PR a non-negotiable condition for supporting a Martin minority. When Layton propped up Martin on his budget without a whisper on PR, I was sorry I'd listened to his empty promise. From now on, I'll vote my conscience."

I think it's clear that if you're interested in PR, the only vote you should make is NDP, at least in the parts of the country where they can win seats. PR supporters could vote Green where they are likely to beat the NDP, but there are no ridings where the Greens will beat the NDP and can win the seat.

But I want to address your point that Layton reneged on his promise to use his leverage to bring in PR. Frankly, this is a gross distortion of history. When Layton and Martin first met after the 2004 election, Layton asked about PR and Martin flatly rejected it saying (and I assume this quote is accurate as I heard it from multiple sources, including Jack) "Jack, you don't have the votes".

Further, the NDP was able to get some movement on PR in the 38th parliament, by amending the Throne Speech to include a reference to studying PR. The Standing Committee on Procudure and House Affairs did just that and called on the Minister of Democratic Reform Mauril Belanger to come back to them with a plan to consulting Canadians on electoral reform by Sept. 2005. This directive was ignored by the Martin government (which, of course, Stephane Dion was a member of and therefore collectively responsible for its actions). I have since heard from a few sources that Belanger was ordered to stall so that the movement on electoral reform would not occur before the next election.

Now considering the actual history of the issue, who bears responsibility to the perpetuation of our unfair voting system? Layton or the Martin-Dion Liberals? I think the answer is clear.

Finally, you could argue that Jack should have made PR his make-or-break issue before the 2005-6 election. While I would have advised him to do so (even though it would have been surely rejected by Martin's government), I think we can agree that it was reasonable for him to instead make health care the issue. As much as I wish it were otherwise, PR is just not an important issue for voters. And frankly, I think if a Green caucus held the balance of power in parliament, they might make a more salient issue the make-or-break issue, and it would be unfair for PR supporters to criticise them for doing so.

How important is a seat in the debates? (I know, you didn't ask.) Consider what happened when Deb Jim Bobby sed:

"Grey was the only Reform Party MP and Preston Manning was allowed into the debates. The exposure afforded Manning in the TV debates was instrumental in propelling the the Reform Party into official opposition territory.

The Greens have worked hard to build support across the entire country. Our message is not a regional message and our appeal is not a regional appeal. One might characterize it as 4000 miles wide and a few inches deep."

Actually, the regionally concentrated nature of Reform's support combined with our undemocratic first-past-the-post system is what brought the Reform Party to parliament in such big numbers in the 1993 election.

It is not inconceivable that the GPC could achieve similar levels of electoral support as Reform did and not win a single seat.

And who do they have to thank for that - the Chretien-Martin-Dion Liberals! (see previous post)

And some Greens wonder why the NDP gets touchy about their leader's dance with Dion - because they just can't understand why she spends so much time blowing kisses to the Liberals when they've done jack on the environment and PR.

I think it's clear that if you're interested in PR, the only vote you should make is NDP...

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... Nope. Ain't gonna happen. Jack lied when he promised to make electoral reform his one and only non-negotiable issue. I refuse to compromise my Green principles a second time after being tricked by Layton in 2004.

JB

JB,
Did'ja read what I said?

It wasn't Layton who stopped PR, it was Martin and yet favorite gal Lizzy May's BFF Dion's guv'ment that stopped PR.

'Dems the facts!

Here is the Globe article that triggered my vote for the NDP in 2004:

Layton as power broker

By STEVEN CHASE
Globe and Mail Update
Monday, February 16, 2004

Ottawa — NDP leader Jack Layton says he's willing to form a minority government with Paul Martin's Liberals if the federal sponsorship scandal ends up denying the ruling party a majority of Parliamentary seats in an expected spring election.

"If the poll lines keep going the way they are going: us up ... and the Liberals down, then the probability of a minority government increases," he said.

But Mr. Layton says a non-negotiable precondition of any coalition with the Liberals will be holding a national referendum on switching to a new method of electing MPs to Parliament. "The condition of supporting any minority government would be that."

The NDP wants Canada to change to a so-called proportional representation system from the first-past-the-post method of sending MPs to the House of Commons today.

Mr. Layton said that proportional representation -- where parties win Parliamentary seats according to the percentage of votes they get in an election - would end Liberal dominance of Parliament. The Liberals often get no more than 40 per cent of the national vote but control a majority of seats because their candidates come up the middle after other parties split the vote in ridings, he says.

"We want to change the system that is allowing this kind of relatively arrogant ... government to exist in the country," Mr. Layton said.

He says a Parliament composed of MPs elected by proportional representation would more accurately reflect Canadian opinion.

Mr. Layton points out that New Zealand has successfully moved to a form of proportional representation from a first-past-the-post system. "It can be done without constitutional change," he said.

Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals have seen their national support slide nine percentage points because of the $250-million sponsorship scandal.

An Ipsos-Reid poll conducted immediately after the release of Auditor-General Sheila Fraser's report on the scandal last week shows the Martin government dropped nine percentage points this month, down to 39 per cent of decided voters, from 48 per cent in January.

Another drop of five to six percentage points would put the government's majority in danger if an election were held this spring, pollsters say.

******************************

As I recall, there has never been a "Dion government."

Layton won my vote with that promise. When push came to shove, the 2005 "NDP" budget saved Martin's ass and there was a perfect opportunity to put the screws to martin and for Layton to demand a dialog on electoral reform. He failed to keep his promise and he failed those of us who "lent" him our votes.

JB

Again, I'll repeat what actually happened.

When Layton and Martin first met after the 2004 election, Layton asked about PR and Martin flatly rejected it saying (and I assume this quote is accurate as I heard it from multiple sources, including Jack) "Jack, you don't have the votes".

Jack asked for PR, Martin flatly rejected him. In the real world, there was CLEARLY no way to get to the 155 votes in the House of Commons it would take to change the electoral system.

However, the NDP was able to get some movement on PR in the 38th parliament, by amending the Throne Speech to include a reference to studying PR. The Standing Committee on Procudure and House Affairs did just that and called on the Minister of Democratic Reform Mauril Belanger in the Spring of 2005 to come back to them with a plan to consult Canadians on electoral reform by Sept. 2005. This directive was ignored by the Martin government (which, of course, Stephane Dion was a member of and therefore collectively responsible for its actions). I have since heard from a few sources that Belanger was ordered to stall so that the movement on electoral reform would not occur before the next election.

Do I have to say it again, there was already a promised dialogue on electoral reform. The Liberal government - of which Dion was a cabinet minister - broke that promise.

I don't know how this can be fairly seen as a failure of anyone but the Liberal Party.

In retrospect, the NDP could have kicked and screamed and make every one of their votable motions about PR, the fact is they couldn' have gotten electoral reform passed because of intractable Liberal opposition.

And finally, in Canada (and all Westminster parliamentary systems), we have this concept called "cabinet solidarity". Taken together, this means that government ministers are collectively responsible for all the decisions of the cabinet.

So as a Minister in the Martin government, the principle of cabinet solidarity means that he Dion can't be absolved of the Martin government's failures on electoral reform (or reducing greenhouse gas emissions for that matter). Now if he were to have quit Cabinet over those failures, it would be another story. But he didn't and therefore should have to bear the failures of the governments he was a part of.

And I'll repeat it. Martin needed Layton's support for his budget or else his government would fall. He got Layton's support after adding $4 billion worth of goodies to the budget. There was an opportunity to push for reform and it was passed by.

Since Layton propped up the Martin government, suppose we refer to it as the Martin-Layton government. That makes about as much sense as calling it the Dion government.

I voted for your guy. I felt betrayed. I won't vote for your party again. Check Hansard for NDP (or any party) references to PR during the Martin minority government session. There's one good speech by Ed Broadbent that came toward the end of the session. That's it.

As far as hearsay accounts of what might have transpired early on, that means very little. When Layton's support was needed by Martin, it came without any demands for a dialog on electoral reform. Before Martin was on the ropes, Layton was not in a position to force his demands. Later, at budget time, Martin needed Layton's support and he got it.

When someone says they have just one "non-negotiable precondition," I take them at their word.

JB

I'll explain it again to you JB. I wish I could do it with diagrams, but such is the limitations of the medium.

There was already a promise to hold a dialogue on electoral reform. It was made in the inaugural throne speech of the 38th parliament. Following that it was sent to the Procedure and House Affairs committee to refine the proposal (which is why it was not mentioned a great deal in Hansard, as the discussions were happening in committee). They reported in May or June 2005 if memory serves me right. I should know, I went to most of the committee meetings.

Again, the committee's report called on the Minister of Democratic Reform to start a consultation process on electoral reform by Fall 2005. The committee report was ignored by the Martin-Dion goverment.

Certainly, Jack Layton and the NDP COULD have made PR a "non-negotiable" condition for supporting Martin instead of the NDP budget, but (I'm surmising here) they didn't for two reasons:

1. As I've been explaining to you again and again, the Liberals has already agreed in committee to a consultation process on electoral reform. So why would the NDP make them promise the same thing again? I guess the NDP can be criticised for taking the Liberals at their word (a cautionary tale for Greens?), but the fact is their demands on electoral reform appeared to be on their way to being met.

2. If the NDP had've held out for a bill to enact PR, I think it's fair to assume that it couldn't have passed, as even in a whippped vote Liberals would have probably not passed it, as essentially a good 20-30 members of the Ontario caucus would have been voting themselves out of a job.

So again, I think you're being dramatically unfair to accuse the NDP of not fulfilling their promise. The failure of electoral reform in the 38th parliament can be almost solely put at the feet of the Liberal government.

"Since Layton propped up the Martin government, suppose we refer to it as the Martin-Layton government. That makes about as much sense as calling it the Dion government."

Actually, it was never the Martin-Layton goverment, as Layton was never in cabinet and, therefore, never collectively responsible for the government's decisions. Dion was and therefore can't dissociate himself from the bad things about the Chretien-Martin governments.

Are you actually reading what I'm writing, JB?

Certainly, Jack Layton and the NDP COULD have made PR a "non-negotiable" condition for supporting Martin instead of the NDP budget, but (I'm surmising here) they didn't for two reasons:

I've read all your excuses for Layton's failure to folow through on his promise. I really don't care why he didn't do it. I only care that he didn't do it after making a vow to do it. I voted NDP on the sole basis of that promise and it was unfulfilled. That's all that matters to me. I would have voted Green, as I'd done before and have dome since but I took Layton at his word and his word wasn't good.

You've conceded that Layton could have held out for Pr. He didn't. I really never expected him to make PR happen. I only expected him to force Martin to take a serious look at holding a referendum on the issue.

As far as expecting the Liberals to do anything about FPTP without having a gun to their heads, nobody expects that. FPTP benefits the Liberals, Cons and (mostly) the BQ. Nobody would expect those who are deriving the biggest benefits of disproportional representation to spearhead reform. It's like you said, if you want it, the NDP is the one to expect to push for it. I expected them to push a lot harder considering Layton had won my vote on a promise that it would be his one non-negotiable issue.

Do you actually understand how betrayed and literally sickened I feel after throwing away my 2004 vote on a party that made a promise that they did almost nothing to fulfill? I take my vote very seriously. I take electoral reform very seriously and I take promises like the one Layton made very seriously.

JB

Again JB, I'll explain it to you. I really feel like I'm talking to a kid here.

The fact is that during the budgetary crisis of Spring 2005 the process of consulting Canadians on electoral reform had begun.

What was Jack Layton supposed to do? Because I'm reading that you agree with me that the Liberals would never vote for a bill to being in PR sans referendum (well unless their hands were forced by say a caucus of 60-70 pro-PR MPs, which the GPC could have probably helped realize in the 2004 election, but I digress).

Were Jack and Ed supposed to say "while a parliamentary committee has already instructed the government to come up with a plan for consulting on electoral reform at the NDPs initiation, we're going to force the government to come up with another plan for electoral reform"?

Or were Jack and PMPM supposed to come up with a plan on the back of a paper napkin? Frankly, I don't think that would be good for the long-term cause of electoral reform in Canada.

Again, the fact was that while the NDP "had the Liberals over a barrel" there was already a process on electoral reform in place. In other words, they were "forc[ing] Martin to take a serious look at holding a referendum on the issue". They can be faulted for trusting Liberals, that's about it.

I think an accurate understanding of the situation must lay the blame almost entirely on the Liberals. I'd give the NDP maybe 2% of the blame.

Finally, in a contest on demonstrated committment to electoral reform, I can hang with most Canadians. So I get a little on edge when people grossly distort what's actually happened on the issue in recent history.

There are New Democrats who deserve to critized by electoral reformers (Carole James and a great deal of the BC NDP, Howard Hampton, the SK and MB NDP) but the federal NDP caucus has a darn good record on the issue. They've brought it up in the last four parliaments and, while they may have not had success and may have made strategic errors, I think it is grossly unfair to say they broke faith with voters who supported them based on electoral reform.

I've had enough of your condescension and insults, Partisan. I've been a voter for over 40 years. I'm a grandfather and I've dedicated my life to social activism and environmental causes. I follow politics closely and have done so since I was a schoolkid in the 50's.

You and I know that no major party will move forcefully and effectively on electoral reform -- unless they are truly threatened. Striking a parliamentary committee and agreeing to consider its report is hardly holding a gun to the heads of the ruling party. Studies and commissions and committee reports are stall tactics and excuses to do nothing and everyone knows that. Romanow, LeDain and a host of others could attest to the effectiveness of their multimillion dollar, years long studies that have done nothing but gather dust.

Martin was on the ropes when he absolutely needed Layton's support in 2005. Layton got $4 billion dollars worth of concessions. To claim he couldn't have or shouldn't have followed through on his pre-election pledge is nothing but weaseling out and shifting blame.

As far as whether or not the Martin government was, in effect, a coalition Martin-Layton government, just look at how it finally fell when Layton quit supporting it. Without Layton's support, Martin could not survive and the proof is that Martin's reign died when Layton pulled the plug. Layton held the strings and Layton brought down Martin.

I'm through reading your excuses. Your biggest "trump" card is the existence of a do-nothing parliamentary commission that was eventually to make a do-nothing report to a do-nothing Liberal government. Gimme a f**kin' break. If you expected any real action from such a lame commission, you're the naive child.

JB

While then, my dear JB, what SHOULD the NDP caucus have done?

Because I thought we agreed there's no way the Liberals would pass a straight-up bill bringing in PR. So if that's off the table, then what else do you have other than a government-run dialogue on PR?

I'm awaiting your strategy, my friend ...

And BTW, you show your ignorance of the issue when you say "the existence of a do-nothing parliamentary commission that was eventually to make a do-nothing report to a do-nothing Liberal government". The report was already made, it was finished in the Spring of 2005. The government was to respond by the Fall, but being Liberals, and electoral reform being their kryptonite, they ignored it. I think it's fair to surmise that this contempt for parliament is part of the reason the NDP had no desire to vote confidence in the Martin government.

I'm goign to keep harping on this because if we fail to understand history, we are doomed to repeat it. And if there are enemies of electoral reform in the House of Commons, it ain't the NDP, it's E. May's best buddies in the Liberal Party of Canada.

Finally, a smart feller like you should know, even if the NDP had supported the failed Martin government in Fall 2005, they still would have fell as they needed the votes of all but one of the independent MPs to maintain the confidence of the House (which they didn't have).

And in an aside, let's consider the arithmetic of electoral reform.

To change Canada's federal electoral system, you would need a majority vote in the House of Commons. Let's assume that all New Democrats and Greens would vote for reform. I think we can add another assumption, that the Conservatives or the Bloc would be staunchly opposed to reform. So to get the voting system changed, the parliamentary standings have to be:

LIB + NDP + GRN = 155

As the latter two parties are most committed to reform, I think we can agree that the likely of reform passing is more likely the closer to 1 the following ratio is:

NDP + GRN : LIB

If it's 1 or higher, reform could probably pass in the first month or two of a parliament, but if it's about 1:7, a rational consideration of the parliamentary dynamics can't be anything but pessimistic. Particularly if, as was the case in the 38th parliament we're discussing, NDP + LIB is LESS than 155. Again, if you read what I've been writing, they "didn't have the votes" (in Paul Martin's words) for electoral reform.

Now, things might have been different if, say, the leadership of the GPC were as smart as you and understood that their parliamentary allies were the NDP and that electoral reform will never come to Canada without a strong NDP caucus.

In that regard, I think the failure of electoral reform to progress in the last parliament can be blamed on the GPC as much as it can be blamed on the NDP.

The government was to respond by the Fall, but being Liberals, and electoral reform being their kryptonite, they ignored it.

So, your excuse for not forcing the issue is the existence of a report that the Liberals were, predictably, ignoring. Very effective.

Greens are running against Liberals in 306 ridings across the country. An arrangement of mutual respect was made that affects just two of 308 ridings. Whenever Elizabeth has been asked who her first choice for PM is, she's responded by saying her first choice is herself. She's followed up by acknowledging that such an expectation would be lunacy and that her choice between the two leaders who have any real chance of winning is Dion. That's based more on her distrust of Harper and her disdain for Harper's environmental negligence.

You and Teneycke can continue to try painting the Liberals and Greens as buddy-boys or peas in a pod. That is simply not true. May is idealistic but politics demands a mix of idealism and pragmatism. I honestly think that if Layton had a chance of becoming PM, May would be much less likely to endorse Dion as her second choice.

As I said, I'm tired of the condescension. I've attempted to treat you with respect and you've taken every opportunity to make personal insults and sarcastic epithets. I'm signing off with a decision that I'll agree to disagree with you. My second grandson was born yesterday and I need to shop for some tiny Green Party togs.

JB

I should just add, because JB doesn't appear to get this, that to have passed amendments to the Elections Act to bring in PR in the Spring of 2005, it would have taken more than the NDP and Liberal caucuses to vote for PR. Even if all members of the Liberal caucus voted for PR (an extremely dubious assumption, because it would involved the Ontario caucus voting at least 1/3 of themselves out of a job), they still would have needed another vote (remember Chuck Cadman).

JB, you may not want to admit it, but the fact is that there were never the votes for PR in the 38th Parliament. Had more Green voters thought like you did, maybe it might have happened. But unless Jack Layton has magical mind control powers over MPs (and if he did he probably would've used them by now) the votes for PR just weren't there.

I'll grant you that he could have brought down the parliament over PR, I would have loved that myself. But to suggest that PR could have come out of the 38th Parliament is, in my view, absurd.

I'm sorry you're offended by my words, JB. I guess I'm getting a little frustrated as I feel I'm dialoging with a wall. I get the sense you're ignoring everything I'm saying that doesn't fit your "Jack Layton = evil" frame.

I've tried to lay out what actually happened with electoral reform in the 38th parliament, a subject I feel I know a decent amount about. I see little acknowledgement from you of this.

One point I'd like to respond to from what you just wrote:

"So, your excuse for not forcing the issue is the existence of a report that the Liberals were, predictably, ignoring. Very effective."

As I wrote before, in the Spring of 2005, when you're suggesting the NDP should have been pressing for reform, the committee report had been prepared and was awaiting a government response. It was not until the Fall that it became clear the Liberals were ignoring it. 'Dems the facts.

I'll repeat what I wrote last night - "What was Jack Layton supposed to do? Because I'm reading that you agree with me that the Liberals would never vote for a bill to being in PR sans referendum (well unless their hands were forced by say a caucus of 60-70 pro-PR MPs, which the GPC could have probably helped realize in the 2004 election, but I digress).

Were Jack and Ed supposed to say "while a parliamentary committee has already instructed the government to come up with a plan for consulting on electoral reform at the NDPs initiation, we're going to force the government to come up with another plan for electoral reform"?

Or were Jack and PMPM supposed to come up with a plan on the back of a paper napkin? Frankly, I don't think that would be good for the long-term cause of electoral reform in Canada.

Again, the fact was that while the NDP "had the Liberals over a barrel" there was already a process on electoral reform in place. In other words, they were "forc[ing] Martin to take a serious look at holding a referendum on the issue". They can be faulted for trusting Liberals, that's about it."

Congratulations on the addition to your family Jim Bobby. I wish the little feller and his kin health and happiness.