quote:

---

"It became clear that if the Green party were included, there would be no leaders' debate," the consortium said in a press release.

"In the interest of Canadians, the consortium has determined that it is better to broadcast the debates with the four major party leaders, rather than not at all."

---

In brief, the Greens would be debating, except for that at least one party leader threatened to boycott.

Does that sound fair? At all? To anyone here?

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

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.”

---

Brent Fullard of CAITI fame and babble spammer of dubious note?

what with getting a dodgy former Liberal to jump ship and getting excited by the likes of Fullard, on top of her past comments endorsing Dion and praising the Liberals, it seems like the train is heading for a wreck.

My first impulse reading this is to boycott my ballot this election. Or vote Green. Except I don't think I can hold my nose and vote for eco-capitalists.

I am absolutely disgusted.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Because her party is too small even though it now has one MP or because Ms. May gets emotional and doesn't stay on message?

Do the suits get to frame the debates in their image so that outsiders must conform to the old boys' rules?

quote:

---

"The consortium (of television networks) approached the parties to explore the possibility of including the Green party in all or part of the leaders' debates," spokesman Jason MacDonald said in a release.

"However, three parties opposed its inclusion and it became clear that if the Green party were included, there would be no leaders' debates.

---

So, apparently, the Bloq, NDP and CPC all refused her participation.

Correctly so, as their anti-democratic move in Central Nova, and in Dions riding, their comments to support one another, along with EMay's endorsement of Dion for PM, sealed her fate.

quote:

---

...Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has said he would welcome the chance to debate May on television.

---

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
How fucking gross is that?

My first impulse reading this is to boycott my ballot this election. Or vote Green.

I am absolutely disgusted.

---

quote:

---

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.”

---

There can be no clearer example of what I was saying about the tag teaming plans of May and Dion, across Canada, in All Candidates forums, and in public speaking venues.

quote:

---

“The Consortium approached the parties to explore the possibility of including the Green Party in all or part of the Leaders' Debates. However, three parties opposed their inclusion and it became clear that if the Green Party were included, there would be no Leaders' Debates.

---

Its not about feminism, or the alliance, or May's competence, or thresholds, or anything else. It is singularly about the networks being strongarmed into this arrangement by poltical interests.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

There can be no clearer example of what I was saying about the tag teaming plans of May and Dion, across Canada, in All Candidates forums, and in public speaking venues.

As far as I am concerned, that is what is truly disgusting, anti-democratic, and playing Canadians for fools. Even more disgusting is those who are claiming outrage and declaring the other parties absolutely correct actions as un-democratic.

---

if May and the Greens don't like the reason, perhaps they shouldn't have her run a campaign endorsing the leader of another party.

pretty simple to me. the media as a whole and the televised debates are not democratic in any way nor is the process. crying the greens about being shut out based on your own comments coming back to bite you in the ass is just silly.

all i can say is that the Greens are now getting a taste of what it's like to get the shaft from the corporate media, just like the NDP has for ages.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red T-shirt:
WCG I understand the frustration of you and other green supporters, but I also understand the decission. The Greens still have never elected anyone and time at the leaders debate will be limited. Given the "alliance" between Dion & May I also get the point about the Liberals effectively having two dogs in the fight if she were permitted to join.
Interesting that she considers her exclusion "anti-feminist". Given her musings about a women's right to choose, I'd never have considered her to be a feminist.
Perhaps May and Dion could arrange their own two-way debate, but given that she adores and endorses him I think it would be quite dull.

---

quote:

---

In the past, both Jack Layton and Stephen Harper stated publicly that they it was the broadcasters who who get included. Now we find out that both said they would boycott the debates if the Greens were included.

This is flat out lying and cowardly and everyone associated with CONSERVATIVES and the NDP should be ashamed until new honest leadership can be allowed for both parties.

You can give what ever justification you want. Refusing to participate in a debate because you have an opponent there is an affront to democracy and an embarrassing act of cowardice. I expected this from Harper but to learn that Layton was as complicit it this just puts me over the edge. I like a lot of your party members and some of your MPs, but your leader for me shared the same disregard for democracy as Stephen Harper.

I hope the Green vote eats into the NDP vote.
I hope we actually cause you to lose seats.

---

Interesting. You hold both Harper and Layton responsible for excluding May from the debate but, in retaliation, you will ill for Layton and the NDP but have no similar ill will towards the Tories.

Well that makes things much clearer, doesn't it?

Personally, I think May should be included even if, unlike in 1993, her party has never had an MP returned via a by-election. But I find your selectivity quite revealing, particularly as the CP article names only Harper and makes no reference to Layton or the NDP.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
It is singularly about the networks being strongarmed into this arrangement by poltical interests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
You can sign this petition if you would like, Michelle, and others who are upset with the decision. It's obviously sponsored and created by the Greens, but I don't believe you'll be messaged by the party. Send it to friends too, if your interested.

web page

---

Thanks. I just did.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Especially considering that the Green Party and the Liberals, are indeed actually 1 party, pretending to be 2 parties,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
How fucking gross is that?

My first impulse reading this is to boycott my ballot this election. Or vote Green. Except I don't think I can hold my nose and vote for eco-capitalists.

I am absolutely disgusted.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ForestGreen:

People forget the fact that the Greens are running against the Liberals in 305 ridings

---

May's backroom deal with Dion wasn't democratic. Did the Green Party and Liberal Party riding associations in both cases vote on this, was this later approved by any other governing body of either party? May approached Layton regarding such a scheme, but in the NDP, the riding association would have to approve of such a deal. May couldn't understand this fundamenral democratic reality and said that the NDP didn't want to work with her or something to that effect.

In what kind of democracy can an MP switch parties without running under that Party's ticket. Here again May makes a deal with a Liberal who has been kicked out of caucs for corruption. Now May claims that they have a Green MP. No, in a democracy, this person should resign their seat and run under their new party, then that party can claim to have a seat.

I saw May's speech about giving back power to citizens etc. Her actions and backroom deals without consulting electors spoke volumes. The Green Party of Canada uses the rhetoric of European Green movements without having any iota of where these movements come from. This is not a party steepd in the tradition of Social Ecology (the origin of political ecology which was born out of the libertarian) socialist revival that took place after May '68). Unfortunately they use a name that has a long tradition of participatory democracy something that this group doesn't seem to understand structurally.

The Conservatives and the New Democrats brought up the deal that was made between Dion and May. The Bloc brought up the fact that they have elected no one as a Green.

Only Dion agreed and he's the guy who made a deal with May (who supported him publicly).

Imagine if the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance had made a similar deal should both parties then be allowed to have both leaders on a debate?

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
...It is singularly about the networks being strongarmed into this arrangement by poltical interests....

---

you can't be serious. the networks being "strongarmed" by the political parties? sorry, but i couldn't let that pass as it is completely delusional.

your leader endorsed Dion for PM. not herself. ALL THREE PARTIES were "asked" about Green participation and all three opposed it. as far as we know, they opposed it for the simple reason, as stated in the articles about it, that the LIberals shouldn't get two spots. are there quotes from Layton? how about Dion?

who were the "all three"? do we even know if the NDP was on that list? no, not yet. why? because the networks are not transparent or accountable. boo hoo. we know that.

how to fix that? regulate the industry again. wait a minute! that would be messing with the market! well, the Cons, Libs and Greens all oppose govt. intervention in the market.

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Grice used to respect the NDP, even if he didn't support him. He's not surprised by Harper. He expected nothing out of him.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

---

Grice wrote, "Refusing to participate in a debate because you have an opponent there is an affront to democracy and an embarrassing act of cowardice. I expected this from Harper but to learn that Layton was as complicit it this just puts me over the edge."

Well at least we finally know why Jack Layton was weaseling out of the question yesterday. The next step will be when the media admits that the GPC was excluded from the last election because of the exact same reason as the CBC already hinted in their response to the Green Party back in 2006:

quote:

---

In other words, organizing a televised debate involves negotiations between the broadcaster and the various parties contesting the election. The parties play a decisive role in fact: if there is no agreement, there is simply no debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Grice used to respect the NDP, even if he didn't support him. He's not surprised by Harper. He expected nothing out of him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Complaining about other parties political interests, while wanting to insure your political interests are met, is a joke. Especially considering that the Green Party and the Liberals, are indeed actually 1 party, pretending to be 2 parties, and are just wanting to ensure that their politcal and anti-democratic interest are met, at the expnse of the other parties, and the Canadian electorate.

Talk about an ill founded sense of undo privilege. Their can be no indignation here by either the GP or the Libs, let alone righteous indignation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:

...no wonder we're afraid of the Green Party. It's like a hive mind. They communicate telepathically, and can answer questions for each other without hesitation.

---

In terms of precedent-setting, as has already been pointed out, although parties or groups with only one elected MP have been included in the debates;

i) a party or group with no elected MP's and only one defector has never been included ...

AND

ii) parties in alliance or partial alliance with each other have never been included ...

Given these two radically different situations, much as I would like to see a Green leader in the debates, I can understand the reluctance in granting more than one soapbox to Team-Dion-May.

If the Greens had attracted two defectors who were actually sitting as Greens in the House, things might be a bit different, even with the awkward alliance. Perhaps next time.

Morale d'histoire pour Madame May:
The moral of the story for the Greens is to restrict alliances to by-elections for now until someone is actually elected .. e.g. Garneau could use some help in Westmount and May would have had a much better chance in Saint-Lambert than Roxanne Stanners has (and a much better chance than she herself has in Central Nova)

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: montrealer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
If this is true, then you're being a hypocrite, you're still justifying anti-democracy with anti-democracy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the grey:

Grice wrote, "Refusing to participate in a debate because you have an opponent there is an affront to democracy and an embarrassing act of cowardice. I expected this from Harper but to learn that Layton was as complicit it this just puts me over the edge."

There is no evidence that Layton refused to participate; opposition leaders aren't ever really in the position to boycott debates. There are only reports that Harper said he wouldn't if May was in, and that Dion said he wouldn't if Harper was out.

---

it would be pretty stupid. who's to blame for that? only one person. the "leader" of the Greens.

and why would the NDP be inclined to think favourably towards someone who outright fabricated an exchange outside parliament where she claimed jack wouldn't talk to her, which was quickly proven bullshit, and then called him "Taliban Jack" for his efforts to promote dialogue with all parties in Afghanistan, something that has now been admittedly going on by NATO and the Afghani govt.?

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
[QB]

you can't be serious. the networks being "strongarmed" by the political parties? sorry, but i couldn't let that pass as it is completely delusional.

Your leader endorsed Dion for PM. Not herself. ALL THREE PARTIES were "asked" about Green participation and all three opposed it. as far as we know, they opposed it for the simple reason, as stated in the articles about it, that the LIberals shouldn't get two spots. are there quotes from Layton? how about Dion?[QB]

---

She is not a Liberal. She never was a Liberal. She has not expressed any desire to join that party. If she really wanted to be so opportunistic, she would have run as a Liberal in a riding not as impossibly hard to win as Central Nove.

quote:

---

who were the "all three"? do we even know if the NDP was on that list? no, not yet. why? because the networks are not transparent or accountable. boo hoo. we know that.

---

I didn't say, "all three". I said "at least one". It turns out it was Harper, Layton and Duceppe. They made clear "if the Greens were to be included in the debate there would be no debate."

quote:

---

how to fix that? regulate the industry again. wait a minute! that would be messing with the market! well, the Cons, Libs and Greens all oppose govt. intervention in the market.

you reap what you sow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

At least most GPC supporters here opposed May's deal with Dion. It seems most NPD supporters here are whole-heartedly supporting Layton's anti-democratic actions.

---

I completed support electoral reform and voted for such in Ontario. Take note, the liberals provincially did not and ensured that Ontarians voted against it. I also know federally, the liberal party is against electorial reform. That seems odd, as they were/are so gong-ho to have May in the leaders' debates.

Supporting one whole-heartily and not the other, seems counter intuitive - they fit like a ball and glove.

Ditto for the New Democrats - supporting and promoting election reform while not wanting May in this year's leader debate.

For the Bloc leader, it's obvious that he neither supports electorial reform or May in the debates - FOR OBVIOUS REASONS - electorial reform would wipe out the number of seats for the BLoc based proportional representation. Although he wouldn't have to worry about May in the French debate because she doesn't speak French, he too probably thinks along Harper's wavelength - that May and Dion are going to tag-team.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
You know, I wouldn't have been unhappy if the broadcasters had let May into the debate, but I'd just like to say that Elizabeth May is not going to lecture me or anyone else about democracy after the way she's conducted herself as leader.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
You know, I wouldn't have been unhappy if the broadcasters had let May into the debate, but I'd just like to say that Elizabeth May is not going to lecture me or anyone else about democracy after the way she's conducted herself as leader.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
how stupid would a debate be with Harper, Layton, Dion, and Duceppe, answering questions, and May just saying "well, as Stephane was saying..." or "what he said" after every time Dion spoke.

---

Then the other leaders can highlight that during the debate if that happens. The other leaders can call her on it. They can say, "Hey, Lizzie, why are you making backroom deals with the Liberals? Hey Stephane, why are you making backroom deals with the Greens?"

Instead, they're all just too chickenshit to have her on the same stage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

Can you please cite a news source that says Layton threatened to boycott?

---

Are you serious? Read any story like the one in the Toronto Star.

Not only did Harper, Layton and Duceppe say no. They wouldn't even allow any discussion of any type of debate format until May was gone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Are you serious? Read any story like the one in the Toronto Star.

Not only did Harper, Layton and Duceppe say no. They wouldn't even allow any discussion of any type of debate format until May was gone.

I know we don't have specifics as to what Layton said because he doesn't have the guts to say anything in public - at least Harper does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
You know, I wouldn't have been unhappy if the broadcasters had let May into the debate, but I'd just like to say that Elizabeth May is not going to lecture me or anyone else about democracy after the way she's conducted herself as leader.

---

As WCG already said, it is time to leave the consortium out of this. They care about democracy more than the party leaders.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
Not only did Harper, Layton and Duceppe say no. They wouldn't even allow any discussion of any type of debate format until May was gone.

---

Actually, it didn't say that in the article. It's bad enough without exaggerating. It said that they didn't get to talking about the debate format because they were resolving this issue of including the Greens.

I think Elizabeth May also has an interesting angle on it - basically, these are all backroom media boys talking to the boys leading the other parties, excluding the upstart woman who has managed to earn enough support for her party to cross the federal funding threshold. And they're trying to keep her out.

Way to go, old boys.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
I called the NDP and they said that they had no objections to May being in the debate. I asked that they request a retraction from CP then.

---

If the NDP didn't oppose May's participation they can clarify the record.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[QB]
Not only did Harper, Layton and Duceppe say no. They wouldn't even allow any discussion of any type of debate format until May was gone.
[QB]

---

Yeah, cite that part of the post or retract it. Michelle is actually agreeing with us, don't ruin it.

As a New Democrat I want the NDP to make a very public statement and explanation. I have asked them to do just that in my phone call. Some principles have to matter-- I don't vote for a party that has little chance of winning in my riding time after time to expect that principles be less important than expediency. I would be delighted to learn that this is not the NDP's position. Any other New Dems out there-- please consider the value of standing up for what we believe in -- even if there is a price. This is the time.

As far as bogus arguments like the unholy alliances made with Dion-- these are the stuff of questions and explanations that ought to be asked in such a forum not an excuse to bar a party that is running in over 300 ridings, with public money behind them that represents a choice many Canadians are considering.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Actually, it didn't say that in the article. It's bad enough without exaggerating. It said that they didn't get to talking about the debate format because they were resolving this issue of including the Greens.

---

You are right.

quote:

---

He said the broadcasters tried to explore different ways of including the Green Party, but never even got to the point of discussing an appropriate format because of the opposition to May's participation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

...As WCG already said, it is time to leave the consortium out of this. They care about democracy more than the party leaders...

---

more delusion! the networks care about democracy?????

how about taking it out of the parties and the networks' hand altogether and let Elections Canada decide who gets in, based on clear criteria? then let's pass legislation requiring the PUBLICLY OWNED BROADCASTER to air the debates with no advertising permitted during the broadcast.

So Dion said that if Harper wasn't in the debate he wouldn't be in the debate, and Harper said he wouldn't be in the debate if May was in the debate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
And I think the Liberals mention electoral reform a grand total of 33 times and tucked away in dusty nether regions of the party's web site for some future time when NDP'ers and Canaidans in general push and prod them into it.

---

ETA: I just saw the email petition, and I signed it. Unlike other email petitions, there's no link to see your own signature, or to see who else has signed it. That's odd.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:

how about taking it out of the parties and the networks' hand altogether and let Elections Canada decide who gets in, based on clear criteria? then let's pass legislation requiring the PUBLICLY OWNED BROADCASTER to air the debates with no advertising permitted during the broadcast.

---

There was also a very good point before about the Greens being federally funded (i.e. taxpayer-funded).

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
more delusion! the networks care about democracy?????

---

Elections Canada should set up the debates, based on clear rules.

The public broadcaster should be required to air it.

The private networks/media can cover it at their own expense and in their own way if they are so inclined from a media pool.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I think Elizabeth May also has an interesting angle on it - basically, these are all backroom media boys talking to the boys leading the other parties, excluding the upstart woman who has managed to earn enough support for her party to cross the federal funding threshold. And they're trying to keep her out.

Way to go, old boys.

---

can totally see where that kind of thing would happen.
Not to mention, it STILL leaves the Greens beating the drum of righteous indignation with that "Let Elizabeth Speak" campaign. That resonates with a lot of, especially disenfranchised people.

Just let the woman talk.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Thanks for bringing up electoral reform in a thread about the debates. Let me know when one of the NDP provincial governments has a vote on PR, as so far Canadians in several provinces has voted on the matter and in not one of those cases was it an NDP government that brought forward the matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
Not to mention, it STILL leaves the Greens beating the drum of righteous indignation with that "Let Elizabeth Speak" campaign. That resonates with a lot of, especially disenfranchised people.

---

from CanWest (who incidentally would be a member of "the consortium"

quote:

---

...Three parties opposed the Greens inclusion in the debate, the consortium said in a news release, "and it became clear that if the Green party were included, there would be no leaders' debates."
The consortium did not specify which parties - out of the Conservatives, the New Democratic Party, the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois - opposed May's inclusion in the debates.

---

shall we wait for official statements from the parties themselves on the matter before we get into bashing anyone in particular or floating sexist red herrings? that would be the democratic thing to do.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
I have supported the Greens being in the debates going back to the 2004 election when I was a NDP member, not because I thought being in the debates would help the Greens (as I am not sure it will), but because I support Canada becoming more democratic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sombrero Jack:
Just pointing out that Elizabeth May's
"old boys' club" argument is a bit flawed given that she hasn't led the Greens to anything as of yet. Jim Harris was leader in each of the last two federal elections.

---

quote:

---

That said, I think it is disappointing from a democratic perspective

---

Democracy is not served by Dion and May's actions, nor would it have been served by allowing them to in essence to say exactly the same thing.

Liberals helped by: Voting with Harper (2 May 2007)

quote:

---

Originally posted by ocsi:

Then you should support the leaders of all registered political parties being included in the debates. It would be more democratic, no? But you'd better set up three tents for the spectacle.

---

However, On CBC Newsworld, Michael Byers (the NDP "star" candidate) was on shortly after the announcement beaming about how it was the right decision and lying about Elizabeth May and the Greens throwing their support behind the Liberals. He used almost exactly the same words as Stephen Harper did in the press conference in Richmond this morning.

I did respect Byers as an academic and have had plenty of conversations with him in the past, but as a potential politician, he could have shown some class before spouting off Harper's talking points.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: montrealer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
Yes, it wouldn't surprise me if leaving May out of the debates not only stirs up voter support from those who think that she is being treated unfairly,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Harper’s agenda: Kill NDP motion to restart study of electoral reform

Liberals helped by: Voting with Harper (2 May 2007)

Greens should have over 30 seats in the House of Commons. Instead, Canada's two old line big money stoogeocratic parties are intent on squabbling over the next phony-baloney majority.

---

Also, note exactly what the consortium said. The consortium said "the leaders" don't want her and they "threatened to boycott." We don't know exactly which leaders or what was said, which is important. The consortium knows that there is public support for the Greens being in the debates, and they are quite clearly ducking responsibility for making a decision they knew wouldn't have gone over well with many people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Democracy is not served by Dion and May's actions, nor would it have been served by allowing them to in essence to say exactly the same thing.

---

Why not?

Let's see, Elizabeth May wants to lecture us all on democracy?

The same E. May who cut a backroom deal with Dion to help her political chances, thereby depriving voters of choice in Central Nova?

The same E. May, who in doing so, helped get Peter MacKay re-elected--just like she did last time when she shilled on behalf of the Liberal front, the Think Twice Coalition?

The same E. May who declared the hapless Dion her choice for Prime Minister, despite his disgraceful environmental record?

The same E. May who has spent the last couple years shopping around Parliament in an attempt to woo a bunch of MPs (hello Tony Clement and Garth Turner!), and even a Senator (Marjorie LeBreton), before scoring with the discredited Blair Wilson?

In the last election, a slim minority of voters in Central Nova and Sunshine Coast chose the GPC as their preferred choice, yet May has no qualms steamrolling their democratic wishes aside in her egotistical pursuit of more media exposure.

Elizabeth May's behaviour has done neither her, nor her party, any favours.

The TV execs were right in their decision. The other parties were right to object to Dion and May tag teaming them in the debate.

If May wants to be taken seriously then she will have to earn her place in Parliament like the rest of the 308 MPs: by convincing enough voters to elect her on her own merits, and her own steam.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: JimmyRiddle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daniel Grice:
However, On CBC Newsworld, Michael Byers (the NDP "star" candidate) was on shortly after the announcement beaming about how it was the right decision and lying about Elizabeth May and the Greens throwing their support behind the Liberals.

---

And perhaps one should be worried when one has just lied, in a very public place, about a very prominent public figure in your own community of Vancouver, and especially so considering you have stated you are going to continue to defame him.

quote:

---

He used almost exactly the same words as Stephen Harper did in the press conference in Richmond this morning.

---

It would seem that a good many do not understand, people/parties do not have to tolerate anti-democratic actions, in the name of being democratic. Particularily when there is every indication that Dion and May would have been continuing down the anti-democratic campaign trail. And perhaps they still are, public events and All Candidates forum are going to have to be watched closely.

quote:

---

as a potential politician, he could have shown some class before spouting off Harper's talking points.

---

Class has nothing to do with it, nor does Harper's similar stance.

What is at work is democratic principles and fundamentals, you cannot endorse another candidate, before and during an election, when you yourself are running for that very position. You would have to exclude yourself, then endorse, for it to be democratic.

quote:

---

If the NDP office is saying they had no part in this, they are being dishonest.

---

It so sickening that some people believe the NDP should take the fall, for every other parties failings that the parties themselves have manufactured.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Lizzy is pulling Greens out in BC now, to support the Libs. She's a Liberal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
What is at work is democratic principles and fundamentals, you cannot endorse another candidate, before and during an election, when you yourself are running for that very position. You would have to exclude yourself, then endorse, for it to be democratic.

---

I truly don't understand why that is necessarily so. For example, in the recent, now defunct byelection in our riding, we had an animal rights activist running. She endorsed another party -- why not? I mean, it would probably become unmanageable if candidates were to register only or primarily so as to provide extra air time to another party. But I really don't see that as the case here.

Seriously -- what is the problem for democracy when two political parties cooperate, come to an agreement and form a working alliance to try to gain control of the government? Particularly when they are open and above board about doing so?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
...once you cross the federal funding threshold the people of Canada have an investment in your being included fairly.

---

So I will just say:

2 parties are receiving funding from our tax payers dollars to be 2 independant parties, not 1 party masquerading as being 2. It is unfairly exploiting the electoral system.

You do not cut deals to take over a government prior to an election by pretending to be 2 parties to the electorate. It is deceitful, at best.

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:

Doesn't this kind of thing happen all the time in some European countries?

---

Yes but they have real democracies and don't use the first past the post system which is inherently feudal ...

In any case, the decision was clearly Harper's all along.
If Harper had said yes, Layton and Duceppe could hardly have refused without looking like complete idiots.

Actually on second thoughts it would not be completely out of character for them to look like complete idiots.

However, both Harper and Dion would most certainly have objected to the absurdity of a May-Duceppe-Harper-Dion debate without Layton.

Only Duceppe (and apparently, Dion) have nothing to lose from May participating in the debates.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: montrealer ]

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: montrealer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

2 parties are receiving funding from our tax payers dollars to be 2 independent parties, not 1 party masquerading as being 2. It is unfairly exploiting the electoral system.

You do not cut deals to take over a government prior to an election by pretending to be 2 parties to the electorate. It is deceitful, at best.

You do not waste other peoples time, money and energy, running, if you are going to endorse another party/person from the get go. You are actually shilling for them, by taking away time from the other REAL candidates and their platform. Thereby, unfairly giving 1 party/person double exposure at the expense of the other cndidates. It is the antithesis of democracy.

---

Up until May became the leader of the Green Party federally, the 2 for 1 sell was not a part of their platform.

That said, the strategist in Harper has just won a divisive shot across the bow in his divide and conquer strategy. It is masterful - a la Harris and Ontario Neocons. Get the opposition parties scrapping amongst themselves, ensurING confusion, and ensuring they attack one another and leaving the Conservatives out of this. Note: this board posting is a perfect example. Note we are not talking about Harper in this thread.

To his base, Harper looks clean and solid. He is not taking a bashing over this, and thus worked to his advantage. This is not about poor EMay not getting into the debates, this is master strategy unfolding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by V. Jara:
...once you cross the federal funding threshold the people of Canada have an investment in your being included fairly.

This is the best argument I've heard to date.

---

Fairness goes all ways, not just for the new comer on the block that aligns themselves immediately with another party, and endorses that parties leader.

quote:

---

Also, for babblers that don't know Dan Grice, he has been campaigning hard against Byers for a while now, because he wants & hopes that Adrienne Carr the former BC Greens leader that is running in the same riding as Byers will win. So this great "respect for Byers" is a bunch of caterwauling.

---

Also, I have maintained consistently here that EMay would end up some how running for the Liberals in Central Nova, as there is no way she could win, and I am sure she knows that. The Liberals also have kept the CN riding open, allegedly because the "deal" was made.

Maybe her failure to get into the leaders debate in order to double dip...would/will give a reason to signify her move?

The trick would be to keep her GP supporters for the Liberals... are we seeing the early manifestation of that trick? Given the rumours on the ground in BC.

After all, "their platforms are so close".

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:

the strategist in Harper has just won a divisive shot across the bow in his divide and conquer strategy. It is masterful - a la Harris and Ontario Neocons. Get the opposition parties scrapping amongst themselves, ensuring confusion, and ensuring they attack one another and leaving the Conservatives out of this. Note: this board posting is a perfect example. Note we are not talking about Harper in this thread.

To his base, Harper looks clean and solid. He is not taking a bashing over this, and thus worked to his advantage. This is not about poor EMay not getting into the debates, this is master strategy unfolding.

---

Wow! I must say I think that you are right that this was a diabolical strategy hatched by Harper (or more probably by the backroom wizard Finlay).

While publicly discounting the possibility of May's participation, Harper may well have agreed to it in the private meeting with the CBC, thus forcing Layton (who has the most to lose) to show his hand.

Then what would have happened next ...?
Well more or less exactly what has happened, internecine squabbling and distrust, as you describe.

Not Dion or Layton or Duceppe would dare spill the beans, because, heaven forbid, it would make Harper look good (and it would make Layton look really bad).

Diabolically clever. Perhaps we have underestimated the Machiavellian cunning of the CPC.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: montrealer ]

Another attempted Con job by the Liberals backfires. Boo! hoo!

quote:

---

Originally posted by ocsi:
Her back room deal with Dion has backfired. Good!

---

Her statement on abortion and allying with evangelicals on the social right put her opinions in league with that of the old Reform Party.

Harper's oft-cited secret agenda is no secret at all. He is out to kill off Ottawa's fiscal capacity through big ticket items and budget cuts. And it's that which is the biggest single threat to health care, child care and poverty reduction in Canada. Yet Dion is right with Harper slashing business taxes further, so we can't build the country we want. And this is the man Elizabeth May wants to be Prime Minister?

May has turned herself, and sadly a hopeful party into "Swift Boaters for Dion," out gunning for Jack Layton. There is nothing progressive or good for the environment about what she's doing at all.

There has to be some standard applied to determining whether a leader is allowed into the national debate or the debate will degenerate into the chaos I witnessed in the meeting I mention above. No-one had enough time to answer questions fully. There was little chance to respond to the points made by the other candidates. The audience had little idea where anyone stood. Many left early.

I recognize that there are no clear standards for inclusion in the national debates. But the one rule that seems to have been consistently applied is that a party must have ELECTED at least one MP. That is a completely reasonable standard and one that the Greens failed to meet.

Elizabeth May bothers me SO much- because she is SUCH a crass opportunist who will do ANYTHING that looks good- that I think when she finally gets bit for it, the only thing I can think is that it could not have happened to a better person.

Yes, all the parties didn't want her in the debate. But none [except possibly Harper] would have wanted to stand out by being the one to stop her. But her explicit support of Dion changed that.

May does so much play acting at "fair play" and finger pointing projection onto her opponents. I don't expect the general public to see her that way. But big surprise that from inside the political world she doesn't get even the partial measure of fair play frequently extended to political opponents. Cry some crocodile tears for her.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicky:
But the one rule that seems to have been consistently applied is that a party must have ELECTED at least one MP. That is a completely reasonable standard and one that the Greens failed to meet.

---

Given that I have never helped elect a single MLA or MP, I'm not very inclined to support that as a reasonable standard.

quote:

---

I'm dismayed at the decision to keep Ms. May out of the debate. It's contrary to democracy, common sense and civil decency. I'm hugely disappointed that the NDP is party to this exclusion. I'm shocked that the Conservatives and NDP apparently have threatened not to participate if she had been included. I'm incredulous that Mr. Layton would use the Liberal-Green deal in a single seat to argue that they're virtually the same party. I can hardly believe Mr. Harper's brazenness in saying, without an iota of proof, that Ms. May intends to endorse Mr. Dion.

Now we are left with the spectacle of four men babbling to each other, while another man moderates. Nice work, boys.

Make no mistake: Ms. May is being excluded for no reason of principle. This is all about exploiting an opportunity against a potentially dangerous opponent. Another word for this is opportunism. This is a decision that may well come back to haunt both the Conservatives and the NDP. And they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Gerald Caplan, former NDP campaign manager:

---

quote:

---

Now we are left with the spectacle of four men babbling to each other, while another man moderates. Nice work, boys.

---

I suppose Caplan would find it preferable to have four men babbling to each other, while one woman exclaims about how awesome one of them is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
[QB]If the NDP backed the exclusion of the Greens from the debate that is unfortunate and hypocritical.

---

Shorter: During the 2006 London North-Centre by-election, May made a pact with the other "marginal" candidates: she promised not to appear at any debate to which they had not also been invited.

snip

Soon afterwards, the Progressive Canadian candidate learned that he had been excluded from a debate to which May had been invited. May's response: "Tough shit". She claimed to have spoken up to the organisers on his behalf, to no avail. Having discharged what she thought was her only ethical responsibility, she went on to appear at the debate with a clean conscience.

What goes around...

Also Bill Tieleman weighs in on the debate. It's a good read. He said that May does not belong in the debates. His bottom line appears to be that in Hansard there is no "Green listed" and no Green ever elected, and until they do, they are not in the debate.

He brings up that Reform and the Bloc as grassroot movements were able to elect an MP and thus allowing them into debates.

Anyway, I was most surprised to read that May appears to be selective in her own principles and so her outrage appears over the top.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alone30s:
...and the new democrats breath a collective sigh of relief.

665 000 people silenced. That's NDP democracy for ya!

---

And as usual, many babblers, the moderator included, go apeshit on the NDP before hearing the whole story.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alone30s:
The Liberal, Bloc Québécois, and NDP camps all say they didn't threaten to pull out of the debate if May were included, but said they wouldn't be interested in a debate without Harper.

---

That being said, the Greens aren't exactly playing on a level playing field themselves. The Harper accusation seems almost plausible.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: hfxdad ]

well at least the rules, or should I say the absence of them, are now abundantly clear

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

My thoughts when I first read the media consortium spokesperson ratting out the NDP, Conservatives, and Bloc was that this was the only way the media consortium could pressure those parties to budge was to expose them.

---