According to the Toronto Star, Stephen Harper is refusing to let the Greens participate in the debates:
In a just-announced decision, network officials said that one or more of the other party leaders would refuse to participate in the debates on Oct. 1 and Oct. 2 if May took part.Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has said he would welcome the chance to debate May on television.
But Prime Minister Stephen Harper said today letting May into the debate would be in essence allowing a second Liberal candidate to participate.
In past elections, I have argued that the Greens should not be allowed into the debates until they had an MP. That has been the bar in the past (for instance, with the Reform Party) and I think it's a reasonable standard. Since that standard has been met (even if it is through a sitting MP switching) they should be allowed in. No party leader--whether it is Harper or someone else, although the Star certainly implies that it's Harper--should have or attempt to exercise a veto over the participation of others, and certainly not because he thinks they have "the same platform" as the Liberals.
UPDATE: The CBC report indicates that the NDP and the BQ also opposed May's involvement. My objection stands.
Whooee! You're right, Kevin. It's a damn disgrace. Harper, Layton and Duceppe have shown that they are chickenshit bastards who don't give a rat's ass about democracy or fair elections.
There are only 5 parties that receive federal funding. The Greens are one of the 5. The Greens received 24x more popular votes than the next most popular party in 2006. the GPC runs in every province and does not advocate the dissolution of our confederation.
In poll after poll, 75%+ of voters say they want to see the GPC leader included. Tens of thousands have signed petitions urging GPC inclusion.
Harper, Layton and Duceppe should be ashamed of themselves. I'm hearing some talk of a viewer boycott. Good.
I'm not letting Dion completely off the hook, either. If he were to say the Liberals leader will boycott the debates unless they include the Green leader, that would also put the kibosh on the debates.
The TV network fatcats played this very smart. They knew that if they made the decision, the GPC was prepared to take them to court. By handing over the decision to Harper, Layton and Duceppe, they effectively dodged a lawsuit.
Face it. TV is all about selling stuff. It exists on commercial advertising revenue. The Green Party is all about conservation and reducing unnecessary consumption. Good for the planet. Bad for business. Corporate interests have prevailed with the help of Harper, Layton and Duceppe -- chickenshit bastards.
I'm so PO'ed I could spit. I posted a piece on my own blog but I'm not sure I conveyed the true scope of my outrage.
JB
God damn it. Every voter is poorer for this.
from the Globe...
quote:...Ms. May had earlier in the day rejected accusations that she is a Liberal in disguise, and staking a claim to a debate berth.
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper predicted the Green leader will ultimately endorse the Liberals during this campaign and should not be allowed to take part in the leaders debates.
But even as Ms. May vehemently denied she is co-operating with the Liberals, an email surfaced showing Ms. May cheering on a Liberal candidate.
This morning at 9:19 a.m., Ms. May sent an email to Brent Fullard, the new Liberal candidate in Whitby-Oshawa, Ont., and copied the email to a broad range of reporters and politicians.
“I cannot help myself!!! GOOD LUCK BRENT!!!,” writes Ms. May in response to a Liberal press release announcing Mr. Fullard's candidacy. “You and Doug together can expose the massive incompetence of Mr. [Jim] Flaherty.”
Hmm, shoot ones own foot - complain about the hole - and deny that you own a gun.
So?
I don't care if she supports Liberal candidates in some ridings. That's not the point. The Green Party has met the test for inclusion that has been applied to every other new party (including the Reform Party and the BQ), they qualified for federal funding in the last two elections after getting over 5% of the vote, and as such they deserve to be there.
There is NOTHING stopping a politician who is concerned with doing the right thing from supporting other politicians that they know personally. Especially if they both share a common belief in doing the right thing for ALL Canadians.
Towing the party line is akin to murder and claiming you were "just following orders".
Grow up people.
Posted on my blog is a comment I wrote earlier today.
Many NDPers are so proud of themselves. How about some consensus building? I have OFTEN wished an opponent well and been happy they had won, especially if we knew each other. Politics is NOT a take all game, unfortunately, you do have to compromise to come to the best solution.
Now the question is, will I watch any of the debate with May excluded.
I think Harper stragetically thought it was in his best interests to deny May a place in the debates, because doing so may actually increase her chances rather than not - so splitting that vote works to his advantage.
Interestingly enough, Harper stated that he would not be in a leader debate if May was, and also Dion has said he would not be in a leader's debate if Harper was not.
Personally, I would like it if this media consortium was completely taken out, and the public debate was operated by Elections Canada, with regulations and criteria clearly written (which it is not at this time). It should be aired on CBC and with no commercials.
The news on CBC ten minutes ago indicated that "at least one" party leader would not participate if May was allowed into the debate. I'm no fan of the Greens, but I would have welcomed some questions from the other leaders of why they think acupuncture services should be federally funded.
Harper's petty playground threat was to be expected.
But Layton, that's crass unprincipled opportunism. He wants Leader of the Opposition no matter what it means for democracy or the disaster of a future Harper majority. This takes him right out of the long list of honourable distinguished CCF/NDP leaders.
Could it be that Stephen Harper is afraid of a fair fight with a girl???!!
Jan, how do you feel about Layton and the NDP conspiring with Harper to keep the only female leader out of the televised debates?
Well, I poster a letter I sent to Dion and CCed to Jack. Maybe we can make em think a little and see what comes of it.
Oh, for chrissakes, Saskboy, that is 'way 'way 'way below the belt.
Yeah, sure: that is how all women political commentators think. We don't have brains, y'know? We only vote for vaginas, by our vaginas.
That's why we're all in love with Sarah Palin, eh?
Honestly.
Gilles is now saying he never said he'd boycott if May is included. Coyne has it. http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/09/08/the-bloc-breaks-ranks/
This is backfiring on Layton in a huge way. Many bloggers who are generally rock solid NDP supporters are expressing shock and outright disgust at Layton's actions today. How long before he backs away and does the right thing?
JB
I never said that Skdadl. Honestly.
Saskboy, whether you recognize it or not, that is precisely what you said when you addressed a female comrade in the mindless way that you did above.
As an intelligent political observer, Jan is not required to parse her judgements of any political actor by sex any more than you are. Nor am I.
OK, you're right I suppose it's a better question without the sexism angle, forget I asked it that way.
I meant how does she feel about the cowards Harper and Layton conspiring to keep Elizabeth May out of the debates? Does it make them look like Strong leaders to pick on a party that has only 1 seat?
On another blog Jan was spreading misinformation about Layton not confirming that he'd boycott, when he actually had a party rep do so.
Hate to mostly disagree with my fellow bloggers here, but . . .
I'm of about three minds about all this.
Mind one, I'm really not at all sure I think this MP counts. Successfully attracting someone who was being kicked out of his own party is not the same as electing someone from your party. Lest we forget, there was a Green party candidate in that riding during the last election. The voters rejected him. Why then do we consider flouting the will of the voters to be a basis for admission to the debate? Surely the point of an expectation to have an MP is that it is some kind of signpost of progress in influencing the electorate in a democracy, not a signpost of progress in backroom deals.
I dunno, maybe in BC we take that kind of treachery a little more seriously.
Mind two, I'm a "tit for tat" thinker. In terms of politics I'll treat people fairly who treat me fairly. If they've been playing sneaky politics with me, they'll damn well get hosed when I get the chance. The Elizabeth May attitude towards the NDP has been one of playing politics from day one. She has perfectly good political reasons for that; being honest and acknowledging that the NDP environmental platform is far better than that of the Liberals and treating the NDP as an ally on important environmental policy matters would be a kiss of death for the Greens--it would make them look irrelevant. She has little choice but to trash the NDP, although cozying up to the Liberals to the extent she has does I think reflect poor judgement both environmental and political. So OK, she goes after the NDP and as I say that's only reasonable. But if I were an NDP strategist, I wouldn't react to her past behaviour by holding back if a chance came to shaft her. It's the natural downside of her strategic approach; these things come with costs.
Mind three, that doesn't actually mean May shouldn't be in the debates. Maybe May should be in the debates on the strength of her party's showing in the polls. The party has been in federal politics for a while now, and while it hasn't had any breakthroughs it shows no signs of folding up and leaving. They've had a noticeable percentage fairly steadily for some time now. I'd be willing to buy that as a reason for her to be in the debates.
Successfully stickhandling an MP who was elected under another party's banner, however, is not compelling to me. Hell, the Marxist-Leninists could conceivably do that, with .01% or whatever they have. It says nothing about a party's standing in the country. So I don't see what makes this cunning deal a reason for the NDP to suddenly welcome their inclusion if they didn't before. If it was OK for the NDP to oppose her being in before, it's still OK now, because this "Green MP" is not a democratic achievement, he's a stunt resulting from a backroom deal.
If there is no honourable doubt about the legitimacy of her participation, then I would expect the NDP to do the honourable thing and not oppose her inclusion. But if it's not a matter of honour, her politics of alliance with the Libs at NDP expense have made it quite important for the NDP to fuck her over at any opportunity; I would be upset with any NDP leader who failed to do so. Is this a case where the only honourable thing is to agree that the Green leader should have a seat at the table? Hrrmmm. Still fuzzy in my mind. Certainly I don't agree that this floor-crosser should be a clincher.
PLG,
This argument that floor crossers are always "flouting the will" of the voter only works if the people are voting for the party and not the person. I definitely take in to consideration the person themselves and I am willing to live with their decisions for 4 years. (Note that some recent floor crossings so close to an election suggest that the person ran a false campaign, that is not the case with this Green MP)
Mind two seems to be some projection, playing politics is what Layton has been doing for a long time now. We certainly couldn't have any kind of coalition in a minority government. That would mean getting things done more than 60% of Canada thought was good. Layton is not lily white and May would be just returning a tit for his tat, whomever started it.
I think your mind three needs to get together with some kind of rules created democraticly for inclusion on the debate, getting elections Canada funding seems to be pretty criteria. In a two party system the who must be elected before you can get your message out really stinks.
The floor crosser is not the clincher, it was the requirement of getting on the debate set by... corporate executives. Then again, I knew when I heard that the greens had an MP the bar would move, again.
I'm really late now, forgive my spelling as I got to run!
Layton is the key here, since Duceppe has said he will not boycott if May is included. If Layton would say the same, then Harper would be isolated, and all parties could hammer on Harper trying to control who he gets to debate.
Since Layton supports proportional representation, one should be able to convince him that he should not block May being in the debates. Layton should stand with Dion and Duceppe on this particular issue, not with Harper who is simply using his usual underhanded tactics (in this case, threats) to control the message.
In light of the discussion of floor-crossing, I should add that the broadcasting consortium gave a single reason for excluding May - that some leaders threatened to boycott the debates if she was included. Only Layton and Harper stand in the way, and Layton should publicly state that he will not boycott the debates.
It's funny, but May has been accused of getting her MP by "back room dealings" but it seems to me that the backroom dealing was setting the bar to an elected MP in the last election. Everyone is just pissed off that May met that bar this time around.
This "backroom" deal meme has got to stop as it truly is paralyzing the parliament, if you cannot work with people without being accused of some nefarious wrong doing....
Not pointing at anyone in this thread in particular, just stating an opinion.
I am willing to stipulate for the record that they are all a bunch of double-dealing, self-serving, bottom-feeding unprincipled so-and-so's; all of the above is a pile of red herring.
The Greens are a national party. If voting consists of making an informed choice - even if it consists of choosing the lesser of the evils - their leader belongs in the debate.
Simple as that.
We call this thing "Democracy".
It's hardly an accusation in this case. It's an event. The question is the significance of the event (e.g. I didn't say the backroom dealing was *nefarious*), but its nature is not really in question.
And as to voting for the individual, yes, quite true: The argument only works if the people were voting for the party and not the person. But in Canada that is what happens in the vast majority of cases. I see no indication that anything else happened here. Come on, we're talking about someone who's apparently such a fuckup the *Liberals* were dumping him. Don't try to tell me with a straight face that if this guy had run as a Green he would have been elected.
I absolutely agree that it would be good to have some sort of independent criteria set well in advance for such a major event as the major televised debate of an election campaign. And like with most things, it would be much better if corporate involvement were minimal. That doesn't tell me much about what should be done in this case, though. We can't really know just what the consistent criteria would be if some outfit like Elections Canada were administering it. Presumably the law under which Elections Canada would do so would be created by the House of Commons--which is to say, by elected MPs from the parties with representation in parliament. It's unlikely that lawmaking process would result in anything more friendly to small parties than the informal opaque corporate-dominated process we have now. It would be more transparent and consistent, which would be good, but there's a good chance it *still* would leave the Greens out of the debate under today's circumstances.
Meanwhile, if I'm to be consistent, and if I disagree with the idea of big corporations setting the terms of inclusion, then I should be happier that instead elected party leaders had a lot to do with it, right? To be precise, the same people who would dominate the process for deciding the criteria Elections Canada would work with if they were to run things . . .
One can talk about the future and some ideal way of setting the debates. But, for this year, right now, Layton and most likely Harper, chose to keep May out of the debates.
Layton may be convinced to change his mind based on principles or on practicalities, since he will lose voters on this. As to losing voters by having to debate May -- that is up to Layton and what he decides to say during the debates. On the other hand, Harper will only lose votes on this if Layton changes his mind and exposes Harper. Right now, Harper is benefitting the most from Layton's position.
Welcoming May into the debates *might* be the best thing to do ethically. I remain unconvinced, but there's an argument to be made.
But it's absolutely clear that it's not the best thing for Layton to do practically. Lose votes? Nobody's paying much attention at this point, and the only people who really care are those who already support the Greens fairly strongly, and wouldn't be voting NDP anyway. Meanwhile, in terms of the debate, one big part of Layton's mission clearly has to be to point out the Liberal party's complete failure to date, including with Dion as environmental minister, to do anything positive for the environment, and to favourably contrast NDP environmental policies with Liberal environmental vagueness and drift (and Conservative downright hatred for the environment). If there's one thing Layton doesn't need in that debate it's to have the leader of the Green party using the authority on that file that comes with the Green name to double-team him with Dion and help Dion whitewash his record. Given her record thus far, it's pretty certain that is what she will be doing if she gets into the debate. Elizabeth May is pretty clearly intending to be debate poison for the NDP if she gets in there. There is no possible way anyone is likely to persuade Jack Layton that from a *practical* standpoint he should agree to have her in the debate.
It didn't have to work out this way. The Greens and the NDP both have strong environmental policies. And the Greens increasingly seem to occupy ideological territory somewhere between the Liberals and the Conservatives on most other issues, and in the mechanisms they prefer for dealing with the environment itself. IMO that in itself weakens their environmental positions, but leave that for the moment. In theory, the Greens could use that fact to divide territory with the NDP, with the Greens trying to take environmentally conscious votes mainly from the centre and right, and allying with the NDP on pro-environmental policy while critiquing their other policies. The two parties could try to cannibalize the Cons and Libs between them, with left-of-centre Libs for the NDP and Cons/Right-of-centre Libs for the Greens. But that's not the way it's gone. Electorally, Elizabeth May has declared the NDP her enemy, and while there may be cases where honour demands the NDP treat her fairly, practicality most certainly does not. Practicality demands putting the boot in whenever opportunity presents, just as she will on those occasions when the boot is on her foot. And it's not like any ethical considerations are likely to hold her back.
It is not a matter of "welcoming" May. All indications are that there is no objective measure for keeping May out, but the media consortium is responding to pressure from leaders to KEEP MAY OUT (which is different from not welcoming her). Layton and Harper are actively preventing May from participating.
I have seen evidence that this bothers some potential NDP voters, but you don't think this amounts to much. Perhaps you are right. But this does rather put a crimp into any proportional representation ground the party sometimes likes to claim. It is not simply treating May fairly, as you imply. It is a matter of treating everyone who might vote for her fairly. If politics trumps that, what does proportional representation mean anyway? Just whatever is good for the NDP? So it seems.
From mediabuzzard:
Dion is already going to be at the debates. Case closed.
Certainly wouldn't see Jack working with anyone...
I am pretty sure, if Jack had come to an understanding with May and Dion, his name or party would also be in those quotes. May has repeatedly stated that she would rather work as a minority coalition on environmental issues than not at all.
Personally, I want to see a house that looks like this:
80 libs, 80 NDP, 80 Greens, and 68 split amongst everyone else. That would have the best features of minority government, some conservative balance, and a progressive outlook.
Looking back, this comment is a little harsh; I hope you do not take it personally. I'd much rather debate with you than start calling names. I do stand by what I've written as several times I've read a comment from you guys at pogge that ends discussion the same way I see on conservative blogs. I can understand the frustration at no one else “getting it” but...
Oh, and a comment about how evil the floor crosser is... he is so evil that elections Canada cleared him of the accusation. I see some of you have been made aware there is less to the story than you like to make out here.
PeterC, I am aware that Blair Wilson is not a bad guy, from another estimable source as well. I don't mind making that point.
For the record, I should repeat, as "us guys" at POGGE have often said: we aren't party critturs and we don't have a party line; we don't necessarily agree all the time, and we feel that that is part of our charm.
I stand corrected. I wasn't implying you were all dippers although I admit that it did come across that way. My apoligies. I also try to be non-partisan although I'm finding myself defending both Dion and May a lot so far this election to the detriment of the NDP.
I did want to stop the Blair Wilson is a crook thing though. Like many people, I believed it up until I posted this comment based on what I had heard and read. I investigated before I posted my comment though because it seemed "to good to be true" for certain parties.
You guys do have charm, I'll give ya that. :)
PLG,
No, politics is not about putting the boot to the "enemy" as much as possible. That would be getting MEDIA attention and only that.
Much like the basic assumptions of capitalism, that only the private industry can do it well. The idea media attention is the only way to win elections is not something I accept out of hand. The politics of the "wedge issue" is killing us all slowly and I will not buy into that.
At the moment, it's just a lot more work to do it any other way, and 40 days or so makes that impossible without a good plan in place, started well in advance.
Case closed. That's a good one.
So, I take it that you agree with Jack Layton that Canadians are so stupid that if they hear May at the debate, no matter what Layton says, they are going to vote Liberal or Green or something other than NDP, and only Layton (whoops, and Harper, how did that guy get in here too) will know that they are making a mistake. Whatever would we do if we didn't have Layton and Harper protecting our interests, watching out for what we are allowed to hear?
PeterC, politics need not always be about 'putting the boot to "the enemy"'.
But if someone starts gratuitously putting the boot to you, then they've made themselves "the enemy" and you would be a fool not to respond.
It's all very fine to say things like
"I am pretty sure, if Jack had come to an understanding with May and Dion, his name or party would also be in those quotes," and it's all very fine to imagine that she's doing politics differently somehow. But in fact, she put the boot to the NDP gratuitously from the start. She ran with the "Taliban Jack" meme. She talked as if the Liberal environmental record and platform were better than the NDP's, which is basically lying. She's pretty much taken every chance she's found to stick it to the NDP. And now you want to talk opening the door for co-operation? Shit, talk away.
Incidentally, in terms of NDP/Green/etc., my position is that I'm far to the left of the NDP and therefore far, far to the left of the Greens, so in any dispute between them my sympathies will tend to be with the NDP. Environmentally I don't think capitalism as usual is capable of being environmentally friendly, so any party trying to be centrist and Green at the same time is basically a dupe who will end up creating mainly more and better greenwashing; this further reduces my sympathies for the Green party. But that's not to say I consider the Green party "the enemy". I think there could have been good collaboration between Greens and NDP while agreeing to disagree on many issues.
As it happens, Elizabeth May instead declared war, for understandable political reasons. It would be foolish of the NDP not to declare war back. No hard feelings, but at this stage of the game it is either naive or disingenuous for Greens to talk as if the NDP has some kind of responsibility to be nice to either May or her party. And as to the supporters, it's not like I've heard word one from any Green rank and file criticizing May for things like her willingness to jump on Layton for advocating negotiation with the Taliban, for instance, even though that's the only sane course of action. She was happy to take the cheap shot even though it meant cheering for insanity and violence, and none of you said boo.
Catherine, if you're so sure Canadians won't be influenced by events at the debate, then why do you care if your candidate is in it? But you do raise the core point when you say
"All indications are that there is no objective measure for keeping May out".
That is more or less true. But there is also no objective measure for bringing her in. One problem with this whole discussion is that ultimately, I can't see any solid, definitive basis for any particular set of criteria for determining who should be in or out of a televised debate.
PLC, could you send me a link to the Taliban Jack thing, it might influnence my opinion and google didn't know all this time. As for May, as recently as this sping:
Now, that is kinda backhanded but she has not openly changed her policy. You can assume that she has an obvious hidden adgenda all you want. I've seen her as been fairly consistant.
You have an opinion, further to the left of the NDP, that is good, and I welcome it. I think to expect capitalizm to "die" this election is kooky, so how to we get closer to changing societies priorities?
I mean, really, how can we ever get together if we constantly blame the other for "starting it" without ever trying to work together? Yes, I agree, May and Dion COULD stab the NDP in the back. From many people's point of view the NDP WILL stab other parties in the back for a chance at the prize.
I'm going to read your responses, but I think that I am not going to continue to comment on this thread. See you in the next post though and good luck to the NDP, Greens and Lib!
[Edited HTML tags to correct formatting of block quote. No changes to content. - pogge]
Hmm, block quote should extend one paragraph on the advice to the NDP. That was what May said.
Back to your regularly scheduled program.
Your blockquote tags were in the right places. I added a paragraph tag between paragraphs. It seems to me I've had to do that before in comments, though not in the body of a post.
PLG, it is not that I don't expect voters to be influenced by the debates. I do expect some influence. It is just that all five people in the room have the freedom to say what they want and I cannot guess what that will be and how things will go. Layton obviously thinks having May in the room will hurt his votes. I do not see this as an act against May and her party so much as I do as an act against Canadians who might vote Green, or even Canadians who are unlikely to vote Green, but are interested in hearing what the Green leader has to say anyway. Layton is doing what he can to prevent Canadians from being able to hear from May. I would guess that actually irritates at least a million voters, some of these Greens, some of these good friends of Greens, some of these who just don't like to see other political leaders censoring things this way. I have never belonged to the Green party but I have received multiple messages from them already on Layton and his role and it sounds pretty compelling. Why should Layton prevent us from hearing May.
Hey, I just saw the headline "Layton backs down on blocking May"!!