Here's the source.

Here's the quote:

quote:

---

NDP campaign spokesman Brad Lavigne confirmed that Leader Jack Layton had refused to attend with May present.

"We believe that as someone who's endorsed (Liberal Leader) Stephane Dion to be the prime minister of Canada, she has endorsed Liberal candidates throughout the country," Lavigne said.

"We said that if the Liberals were going to have two representatives, we would not accept the invitation."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by coeus:
Funny how most NDP'ers say they're for PR and knowing this would mean that the Greens would have 20+ seats, yet when it comes to debates, they quickly point to the fact that the Greens only have 1 seat.. I thought you guys were for PR.

---

I call bullshit on this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I'm not sure why people are insisting that Layton didn't do the same thing Harper did in this case. He did. A spokesperson for the NDP told the media that Jack refused to participate if May was going to be in the debate, and for the same reason as Harper.

Here's the source.

Here's the quote:

---

quote:

---

"I believe the consortium has been overly influenced by hints, and threats without actually having public statements on the record from any national party political leader that they would actually refuse to participate in the debates if I was included," May said.

Layton was hustled away by handlers when reporters tried to clarify if he had said he would pull out.

"I'm looking forward to debating the prime minister," was his only comment.

Before Lavigne spoke, another NDP official speaking off record said that a negotiator for Layton had told network organizers that he would have to "reconsider" his participation but had not threatened to boycott.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Did May make any public comment about it at the time?

---

To my knowledge, May has not made any notable criticisms of the Liberal Party and its actions, which included propping up Harper for most of that time, since the May-Dion deal.

Of course, she has taken multiple opportunities to critcise the NDP.

In point of fact Gilles Duceppe had won a byelection in Laurier, the Bloq had a caucus of about 10 members in the House, and it actually led all other parties in the polls in Quebec.

May has 7% in the polls and one non-elected MP.

quote:

---

Layton insisted the decision to exclude May was not his, but rather that of the consortium of television networks that will host the event, which takes place Oct. 1-2.

---

Where to begin? Is this a conspiracy between Jack Layton and Steven Harper to keep the Greens out? Or is it a conspiracy between Jack Layton and Bob Rae to drive home to the stalwart NDPer's like myself that the freakin'acorn NEVER falls far from the tree?

Lesson learned, Professor Jack.

Ah, but where to park my vote? Should I take the word of Laxer and Stanford, and vote for the one party state-- the party of Joe Volpe and Alfonse Galiano?

No, my impossible to outrage friends, I'll be parking my vote at Montgomery's Tavern.

Where ye'd all be if ye had a lick o' sense.

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
Yes and Layton said as much this moring as was printed here:

Layton defends keeping May out of leaders' debate

---

Liar, liar pants on fire. No wonder you support the lying fraud that is Elizabeth May.

Here are the quotes from the article.

"I'll tell you what the status quo is," the NDP chief fired back -- successive Tory and Liberal governments that represent the old-school establishment.

"We have someone else who wants to be in the debate who actually supports the leader of one of those parties," he said of May.

"I don't agree with that position. I think what we want to do is take on the same old same old, which is the Conservative and Liberal governments in power year after year."

Layton insisted the decision to exclude May was not his, but rather that of the consortium of television networks that will host the event, which takes place Oct. 1-2.

quote:

---

the party of Joe Volpe and Alfonse Galiano

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Politics101:

Well you could vote for the party of Dave Stupich and Svend Robinson or Tim Stevenson

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
Layton's position on these debates has taken up a lot of his time. If Jack Layton is being misrepresented in the media I would expect to see him or his Party defend himself and state that their position is being misrepresented in the media. They have not done so.

When Layton was asked to defend his refusal to support May's effort to join the televisted debates, he didn't reply that he did not refuse. He didn't say that his position was being misrepresented. He didn't say that when Lavigne said that Layton opposed May being in the debates the day before that Lavigne had misspook, or that Lavigne's position didn't represent his own. He didn't say that Nash misrepresented his position the day before on Duffy Live. He responded...well you already posted his response.

---

But you guys fill your boots with running against the NDP and giving EMay's former party the Conservatives a free pass. That's the ticket for saving the environment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
Layton's position on these debates has taken up a lot of his time.

---

Snip

Actually no. He is focussing on Harper and ensuring that the issues important to Canadians - the environment - are kept front and centre.

Take flying: those with oodles of money will continue to fly at whim, meanwhile the rest will be unable to afford to do so. It reminds me of publicly built highways operated by private consortiums. Private sector, in business for themselves or work for a corporation, submit this cost as a business expense, which in turn lowers their overall income tax - as the cost of doing business.

In turn, Sue, Bill, and Mary end up paying more income tax, because that private company can submit this as cost of doing business. Why - because they can afford to do this on the public dime.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Trying times, men's souls, yadda yadda yadda.

Where to begin? Is this a conspiracy between Jack Layton and Steven Harper to keep the Greens out? Or is it a conspiracy between Jack Layton and Bob Rae to drive home to the stalwart NDPer's like myself that the freakin'acorn NEVER falls far from the tree?

Lesson learned, Professor Jack.

Ah, but where to park my vote? Should I take the word of Laxer and Stanford, and vote for the one party state-- the party of Joe Volpe and Alfonse Galiano?

No, my impossible to outrage friends, I'll be parking my vote at Montgomery's Tavern.

Where ye'd all be if ye had a lick o' sense.

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

---

Ah Tommy - alas I canna join you at the pub, but I can tell yee that I am right this minute sitting down with a wee dram of Fettercairn as I write. It will no'be the same as being in the pub, but will'ave tu doo.

Personally I have had evough of these threads. It is just attack the NDP, ignore the Conservatives, attack the NDP, someone attacks the Greens back. Personally I am not going to give anyone a platform.

April 2007 - Dion and May formally announce, together, in a televised press release that they have entered into a formal agreement where they will not run party candidates in each other’s riding, and that EMay will endorse Dion for PM. An a collaborative undertaking, which has not been heard of before, in a general election setting, under a FPTP system.

This combined action, deprived the electorate in those ridings of a candidate of their democratic choice. Choices that the electorate in those ridings paid for by their votes in the last election and that both parties received on their behalf.

Further, the CN Liberal riding association and membership were furious, according to news reports at the time, (posted elsewhere here) at this undemocratic, and apparently sole decision, of Dion’s. As they had not been contacted. A prominent Green Party adviser/organizer (name in last thread) advises May that she should not be doing this, and resigns, when May makes the historical anti-democratic decision, apparently also on her own accord and without membership consensus.

During that joint news conference:

quote:

---

May touted Dion as the answer to Canada's climate change struggles, saying she has worked closely with him and has become convinced he is the best choice to lead Canada.

---

Thereby, she gave Dion her formal endorsement, as was pointed out in this article and many others across the net:

quote:

---

May’s most prominent misstep was her decision to formally endorse Stéphane Dion for prime minister, in return for an agreement that the Liberals would not field a candidate against Peter MacKay in Central Nova (where, last time around, the Liberals finished third and the Green Party barely registered).

Leaving aside the question of how Elizabeth May could bring herself to endorse an environmental record as abysmal as that of Dion and the Liberals (the planet has much higher standards), this move is a major affront to democracy. It’s not about “put[ting] the planet first” or “putting principle and progress above petty partisanship,” as May claims—it’s a blatant manipulation of the electoral process in an attempt to fix the outcome. As Central Nova NDP candidate Louise Lorefice put it, “If you have a hockey tournament [and] one team withdraws because they want a weaker team to win, you lose your fans pretty fast— to say nothing of team morale.”

---

http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2007/09/elizabethmay.php

In response to that formal joint collaboration announcement, at the time, Jack Layton made this comment:

quote:

---

NDP Leader Jack Layton criticized the alliance at a press conference Friday calling it a backroom deal that was unfair to Canadian voters.

"I have to say it's disappointing and somewhat surprising that Ms. May, as someone who professes to be someone who stands on principal, would so quickly slip into the muck of backroom wheeling and dealing, denying people choices in an election," said Layton.

---

Since that point in time, from when May formally, in front of the nation, endorsed Dion, we have had EMay constantly cheering for Dion, re-enforcing her endorsement, a google search brings pages of examples up. Also, we have had the examples given in the other threads about the further collaboration implications that would be additional to an already undemocratic state of being, where May has:

1. Endorsed other Liberal candidates in ridings where there is a GP candidate. (a state of being that should have made the GP membership furious that it hasn't says much)

2. Transmitted electronically, the message that the GP and Liberal Candidates could/would conspire together against another electoral candidate. (see former thread on this topic where email is posted)

European democracies, where there is a multi-party collaboration under PR, only allow 1 member of the multi-party collaboration to speak/debate for the coalition in public and election settings. This is done to prohibit/prevent such democratically unfair public message and debate actions, of the type EMay/Dion was/is attempting, and other equally undemocratic actions that arise from said collaboration, if such democratic measures are not taken.

Mentioned, in another thread about this, was the unfair advantage it would give the Liberal candidates in All Candidates forums in ALL ridings across the country. I will flesh this out further.

Beyond getting double the time of the other candidates, by the 2 parties basically having and stating the same policies, all a GP candidate would have to say is something like: "the esteemed Liberal candidate has policies very close to our own, and one could do no wrong for the environment, voting for either of us". Or something like; "as the Liberal party stole our idea of the "greenshift", as we invited them to, I would have no qualms about a Liberal federal government", as EMay said in June, 2008:

quote:

---

...the Greens had invited political parties to steal the idea of a "green shift" in taxation.

"My intention is to say that he (Dion) is being courageous by going forward in the face of all this nonsense," May said in an interview, referring to weeks of government attacks on the Liberals that included an advertising campaign featuring a talking cartoon oil blob.

---

Or even a closing remark in an All Candidates forum of; "If you cannot vote for the GP at this time, our leader has endorsed Dion for PM and I believe she is right".

Or in EMay's case all she had to do was say in her closing arguments, had she been invited to participate was; "If you cannot vote for the GP at this time, I endorse Dion for PM" and the anti-democratic damage would be done and not a damn thing could have been done about it, after the fact. And the Liberals would have gotten a double shot for themselves nationally.

So, you can see what a huge unfair advantage it is, or could further be, which again is why European democracies with PR have rules in place about party collaborations.

Moreover, when have you actually heard of a Liberal candidate, or indeed any other party candidate using the comments of another party's leader to endorse their run for office, we saw an example of it in another thread, and yet there is more here where we have yet another Liberal candidate actually using 2 of EMay's, statements, in support of the Liberals "Green Shift" to do just that.

Does anyone actually believe that the other candidates in her riding will have a fair shake in their All Candidates Forums, with both the GP and Liberals stating the same message and supporting each others points and actions?

That we don't have such rules, as European democracies do, as we don't have PR, is a loop hole that was used by Dion and May, to try and gain unfair advantage for themselves over, the other parties. They thought apparently, by disclaiming "official collaboration", but yet conducting themselves in such a manner, and even having May endorse Dion in national media coverage, that they could run roughshod over democracy and fair electoral practises, and go unchallenged.

That they are now claiming democracy foul, because they were correctly challenged on their unethical and anti-democratic actions, by the other party's leaders, is simply their trying to kick dirt over their own democratic deficit trail and indeed short comings on policies. Sadly, they will still get away with their undemocratic practises in the individual All Candidates forums.

Etd for clarity and formatting

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

Elizabeth May endorses Bryon Wilfert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
About 14 minutes into The National broadcast tonight, Keith Boag said the parties who don't want May in the debates are concerned about the price they will pay for opposing her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by largeheartedboy:
Funny how most Greens say they're for PR, yet when it comes to propping up another party, they prop up the one that is most strongly opposed to PR and has done the most to stall its long-overdue arrival in Canada.

---

As far as the "May working with the Libs" comment. Give it a rest. After all doesn't the NDP also support PR (whatever happened to that "priority"?). In a PR system there is collaboration and this should be made to be a priority putting both old line parties on the spot.

A few have already mentioned that May should be exposed for being the Liberal / Red Tory shill she is. Unfortunately as long as she has the sympathy of the vast majority of Canadians over this petty decision that won't happen and the media will use it to tar the NDP (who are always their first target when they have the luxury of choosing one).

Put May on the debates and let her defend her obvious contradictions in public instead of on the blogosphere.

quote:

---

What assurances can people offer that if Mini-D is in the debate she that she won't work in collusion with Dion?

---

Thing is in every political debate or all-candidates I've ever seen with 3 or more participants there has invariably always been some degree of ganging up and "collusion" usually against the frontrunner.

Opposition parties working together in various permutations in order to achieve some sort of procedural or legislative victory over the government is par for the course. For instance, in 1979 the Liberals seconded the NDP motion to bring down the Tory government. In other instances opposition parties have "colluded" in order to filibuster.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
And today, this Liberal Candidate proudly displayed his endorsement by EMay.

Elizabeth May endorses Bryon Wilfert

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
As far as the "May working with the Libs" comment. Give it a rest. After all doesn't the NDP also support PR (whatever happened to that "priority"?). In a PR system there is collaboration and this should be made to be a priority putting both old line parties on the spot..

---

Huh? You seem to forget from one part of your paragraph to the next that you were actually indicating the Libs. You know, one of those old line parties with whom EMay is working. Yet you say forget about it, but encourage people to put the 2 old line parties on the spot.

Moreover, under your premise, you are saying it is ok to put the cart before the horse, and have PR, without any rules, and without public consent.

As post of mine indicates above, the Liberals are equally culpable for unfair and undemocratic actions, as is EMay.

The general public are believing what they are being told by the media and misinformed others. That does not mean, because some of the general public believes something that is not true, that May and Dions undemocratic actions should go unchallenged and be allowed to continue.

In fact, it means quite the opposite, that they should be challenged on what they did and upon what were trying to do. Just as they were and are by some.

quote:

---

Put May on the debates and let her defend her obvious contradictions in public instead of on the blogosphere. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
In a PR system there is collaboration

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Is there a Green candidate there?

---

Yup:

quote:

---

Dylan Marando is an active member of the Richmond Hill community. He has offered his services to a variety of local community groups including: the Richmond Hill Soccer Club, the Richmond Hill Hockey Association, York Central Hospital, Saint Charles Garnier School, Saint Theresa Catholic School, Saint Mary Immaculate Church, and now the Richmond Hill Green Party. Dylan has been a coach, a teacher, an accomplished public speaker, a fundraiser, an event organizer, and a social activist.

---

I agree with the points about May being Dion's pawn but using that logic people could argue that Douglas was Pearson's pawn because they worked together after their elections.

Those who support PR should also support a full participation in the election process. Its boneheaded decisions like these that give our democracy such a bad name.

And unlike others who post, its clear where my loyalties lie which is why I'm so pissed at the spinmeisters in NDP headquarters for placing themselves in this position.

quote:

---

September 9, 2008

Fair Vote Canada FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ENOUGH OF CLOWN-CAR DEMOCRACY

TORONTO -- The crude attempt by four of Canada’s political parties to exclude a fifth from the national leaders television debate “reveals the clown-car aspect of Canadian democracy,” says the president of Fair Vote Canada.

“It’s obvious why the politicians fear fair competition on television,” said Barbara Odenwald. “Canada’s voting system is so wonky that shifting a few votes in a few ridings could drastically change the national election result.”

If Canada had fair voting the media consortium would not even consider excluding Green Party leader Elizabeth May from the debate, said Odenwald. The Green Party would already have the dozen or more seats in Parliament its supporters deserve based on the votes they cast in 2006.

“Personally I’m tired of politicians pretending that 37 or 36 or 35 per cent of the vote justifies a majority government, and I don’t think I’m alone in that,” Odenwald said. “They try to fluke into a phony majority, call it a mandate, and lord it over the country for four years. What’s democratic about that? Nothing.”

“It must be a mandate from God they’ll be claiming, because it’s sure not a mandate from the majority of a democratic people.”

“The voting system is a continuing national embarrassment,” Odenwald said. “The sooner we insist that Parliament make it fair and democratic – allow every Canadian an equal vote and equal representation – the sooner the politicians will be able to stop making fools of themselves and of us.”

“It’s time to put aside the ridiculous partisan gamesmanship and make Canada a democracy of which we can all be proud, “ Odenwald said. “Democratic voting is what we need more than anything now on offer.”

---

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: scott ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:

I agree with the points about May being Dion's pawn but using that logic people could argue that Douglas was Pearson's pawn because they worked together after their elections.

---

May has endorsed Dion for PM, which means that May has endorsed the Liberal Party. In other words, May is campaigning for the Liberals.

What does that have to do with NDP MP's working with another party's MP's in a minority parliament to advance the goals they were elected for?

"Long before the election writ was dropped last Sunday, the Green party leader had repeatedly touted Dion as her choice for Canada's next prime minister. [...] In April 2007, when May and Dion sealed a non-aggression pact -- agreeing not to run candidates against each party's leader -- the two issued a joint statement."We recognize that a government in which Stephane Dion served as prime minister could work well with a Green caucus of MPs, led by Elizabeth May, committed to action on climate change," they said. "Yes, Stephane Dion would like to see me in the House of Commons and I think that he should be prime minister," she said, adding with a laugh: "Of course, I'm my first choice for prime minister but he'd be very good as second choice." May also vowed to defend Dion's record and character, calling him a man of "deep integrity and extraordinary character."

Snip

During the 2007 Green leadership contest, rival contender David Chernushenko accused May of having actually asked some Green candidates to consider withdrawing from the 2006 election to avoid splitting the centre-left vote and thus helping the Tories.
May rejected Chernushenko's characterization of her actions but acknowledged that she did speak to some Green candidates one week before the 2006 vote.
"I was calling them in desperation to say, `What could we do?' Could you for instance interest the Liberals if they were interested in talking about proportional representation? Was there room for a coalitionthere?"

There have many press reports of May saying she wanted Dion as MP. For her now to retract that, is so much bunk.

But let's make sure that we all don't focus on Harper who has the most MPs and instead the 4th largest party.

As I have read elsewhere, "Jack wants to be in the debate as badly as May. Harper's threat to withdraw from the debate risks Jack's ability to confront Harper. Even Dion said that if Harper withdraws, he would withdraw as well. I repeat ... this so called 'scandal' is a contrived reason to attack the leader of the 4th largest party.

The one who actually stood up to Harper's conservatives in the House of Commons for the past 2 years.

So if we are moving to coalitions such as like European democracies have, let's ensure that we bring those regulations for fairness too. During elections only one person gets to be the spokesperson in the debates.

[ 10 September 2008: Message edited by: janfromthebruce ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Deciding how to vote in Canada is a false dichotomy.

They are all the enemy.

---

Damn, Tommy. Am I glad to see you!

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
Thing is in every political debate or all-candidates I've ever seen with 3 or more participants there has invariably always been some degree of ganging up and "collusion" usually against the frontrunner.

Opposition parties working together in various permutations in order to achieve some sort of procedural or legislative victory over the government is par for the course. For instance, in 1979 the Liberals seconded the NDP motion to bring down the Tory government. In other instances opposition parties have "colluded" in order to filibuster.

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

---

What we are talking about is the Leaders Debate where the number one question is: Who is the best leader? Mini-D has already passed on the main question. I am not aware of her offering a single substantive criticism of the Liberals since taking the leadership of Green Party.

And I must say that I am glad some of the media, at least, is finally getting up to speed on what was really going down with EMay and Dion and the debate. Too bad some others hadn't thought a bit more, about what bandwagon they were jumping on, before they started slamming the NDP and started setting anti-NDP conceptions.

The rabble election commentary links to this discussion end at page 3 for some reason, and IMV that is cutting the information/discussion parameters a bit short, especially considering some of the "non-alternative" media is mentioning the other pertinent factors regarding Dion's and May's attempts to circumvent democracy.

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

Stephen Harper is absolute scum.

He is the most mean spirited and vicious person I've ever seen in Canadian politics. There is no way he is 'an ordinary Canadian'.

Stephen Harper should not be Prime Minister.

Elizabeth May is leader of a party that got almost 5% of the vote in the last election and is polling at close to 10% this time. I think they definately meet the test of being a major party and the parties that want to exclude her from the debate deserve to suffer.

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

There is that. Which is the real reason they don't want her in the debate.

She's good, and they know it. She's a way better off-the-cuff speaker than any of them.

---

Green leader Elizabeth May shut out of televised debates II

[ 10 September 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Just as the barbarians are at the gate in an election where Canadians risk losing everything we have fought for in public support for the arts, women's rights, independence from U.S. foreign policy and action on the environment, the New Democratic Party is engaging in petty partisan politics.

By denying Elizabeth May a place at the leaders' debate, the NDP is betraying the democratic principles upon which it is based. As the only woman leader and the most qualified leader to speak on the environment, it is in the interest of democracy that Elizabeth May participate in the leaders' debate.

I would be laughing if I wasn't so angry at the argument that she is really a Liberal. As a long-term NDP member, albeit often a critic, this is the first time I have felt ashamed to be associated with the party. I hope the membership of the NDP will rise up against this decision and demand that Jack Layton change his position.

---

One from Judy Rebick it appears in there.

Joe Clark's take

This is something that I never thought I would be saying but I think there is a lot in his that is hitting on why all the reaction and why it is a story.

quote:

---

The tone of federal politics today is the worst I can remember in my 50 years in public life. Of course, there were angry partisan differences before, but they were tumultuous exceptions to a general rule of common public purpose, even civility. By contrast, the standard today has become consistently bitter and negative - personal invective routinely displaces any serious discussion of issues or differences.

This low standard helps corrode respect for the democratic institutions in which this mean drama plays out. It comes at a bad time, because there has been a general decline in the reputation of politicians, parties, legislatures and other institutions. Cynicism grows. Candidates are hard to attract. Citizens turn away from politics - especially young people, who see nothing to attract or inspire them. That constitutes a long-term threat to the authority of the pan-Canadian political institutions that have always been essential for citizens of this diverse democracy to act positively together.

---

[ 10 September 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]

The same liberal govt who started down the road to deep integration with the US, the same lib govt who got us into Afghanistan and kept extending the mission, the same govt who was allowing creeping privatization of health care, the same govt who was giving out taxcuts again, WHO MEAN THAT MESSAGE THAT MAY WANTED TO GET OUT?

Yap, the think twice coalition was about strategic voting, which was code for VOTE LIBERAL. Our buddy Buzz was a part of that coalition. Yes, I remember them with such fondness.

[ 10 September 2008: Message edited by: janfromthebruce ]

But, some politicians insist on thinking Canadians are stupid. Certainly Harper's advertising approach reinforces this. I suppose Layton thinks that there is some risk Canadians would be exposed to some argument connected with strategic voting or some underlying agenda connected with strategic voting, and no matter what Layton might put forth to counter this view, Canadians would fall for it and make the wrong choice in the voting booth.

quote:

---

As the only woman leader and the most qualified leader to speak on the environment

---

I can't believe Judy Rebick would say something that stupid. We have had Kim Campbell, Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa MacDonough in leaders's debates before.

What if Jim Harris were still leading the Greens and the only woman leading a political party in Canada was the leader of the Christian Heritage Party? I wonder if Judy Rebick would be playing the gender card to get that person into the debate?

Who says that May is any more "qualified" than Layton (or even Dion) to speak about the environment? I'd stack Layton's environmental credentials over the May's any days of the week.

This is an election campaign and parties are each others OPPONENTS. Its not up to the NDP to go to bat for a party like the Greens whose sole raison d'etre is to defeat the NDP and help the Liberals.

Why doesn'y May call up her buddy Dion and beg him to refuse to take part in the debate unless she is included - or maybe he isn't returning her calls either!

Incidentally, I suppose that because this is a leftwing board, all the focus is on the NDP and so-called greens. But by all accounts it was really the Tories who nixed including May in the debate. I'm surprised no one is speculating on their motives. You would think that if there was one person who had everything to GAIN from raising the profile of the so-called green party it would be Stephen Harper since having the centre-left anti-Conservative vote split three ways instead of four can only help the Tories win more seats.

To me the real question is what the Tory motive is for not wanting May there. The only thing I can imagine is that they figure that Dion is such a dreadful performer, the more people see of him, the better for Harper.

[ 10 September 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

All that is happening now is that the pressing issues of poverty, loss jobs, the environment, food soverignty and others are being lost. We need to have a national discussion on these issues. The Greens are playing you and others for dupes in a hugely cynical way. They know that they have little to say of substance on many of these issues and will soon be relegated to also rans, however they want to make as much partisan advantage of this situation as possible.

quote:

---

I think it's hilarious that the NDP wants to keep Elizabeth May out of the debates because, unlike the NDP, she's honest about the fact that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that she'll win a majority government, and has expressed her preference for which party she'd like to work with in a minority government due to agreement on certain issues.

Gosh, all that "trying to get along" and "building coalitions" stuff is just so anti-democratic! So against the rules!

---

May's bluntness gets read as honesty. I'd call her shrewd and calculating. One of the things she calculates is what sounds good.

But I honestly don't think that is what was going on when she supported Dion. It wasn't calculated in the Green Party's interest, and it wasn't the kind of considered 'in everyone's interest' spin she gave it and Michelle and others are willing to take at face value.

May has always heavily favoured the Liberal Party- and when Dion came along she saw it as an opportunity to be gaga over some Liberal.

Maybe I impute too much long standing motive there: that she just needed Dion for the Liberal within to come out and flower.

Maybe it doesn't have so much to do with the Liberal Party. But her being absolutely gaga over Dion and everything he did is a matter of historical record.

You can give her credit if you like for acknowledging that she isn't going to be Prime Minister. But she endorsed Dion, period.

[I certainly accept the point that should not in itself disqualify her from the debate. But don't say she didn't do it, or let her give it airs.]

And her 'getting along' and coalition building' is such a load of crap. It isn't even fair to call it 'insincere'.

She's entitled to her weird notion that she can promote both the Green Party and the Liberal Party at the same time. And GP members get to fill their boots with it.

quote:

---

I'm surprised no one is speculating on their motives. You would think that if there was one person who had everything to GAIN from raising the profile of the so-called green party it would be Stephen Harper since having the centre-left anti-Conservative vote split three ways instead of four can only help the Tories win more seats.

---

This is the thought that went through my head last night watching the puff piece on the National. This is the exact kind of strategy the Conservatives are capable of. The media, people like Judy Rebick and others are being played for fools. What are the forces on the left doing - are they fighting the Conservatives. No they are bickering amongst themselves while the NDP is forced to fend off attacks from all sides. It is absurd.

Only one group made the decison. One. It was the media consortium. You would have to be an idiot to actually believe that Harper, Layton, Dion or Duceppe would have risked turning down the debates if May was included. A serious idiot in fact. This is the fault of the media. Blame them, innudate them with complaints about their behaviour, and for the love of god could we focus on some damn issues.

I met a woman yesterday that lost her job after 17 years when her auto parts factory laid her and a number of other workers off. This is not a high paid worker either. She can't find another job anywhere and has begun applying to McDonalds at 50 some years of age. It is a real shame, and it is a real issue, not some phony balony crap. Do you really think a laid off worker gives a flying fuck about who is or isn't in a debate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I can't believe Judy Rebick would say something that stupid. We have had Kim Campbell, Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa MacDonough in leaders's debates before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
Judy Rebick's indictment of the old boy's network is excellent. Jack should be ashamed of himself.

---

(Why didn't she have a look-see over here? )

Afterward they switched to Colleen Jones the weather person who kept making cracks about "evasion" and "spin". It became clear - she was dissing Layton!

But the New Democrats soldiered on, and finally the Dion libs got on board.

When the Bill actually passed in the House of Commons, with ensuring the Harper Conservatives had to respect Canada's Kyoto legal obligations, May from the sidelines TOOK FULL CREDIT FOR IT. Unbelievable is this woman's gull. And so not-classy. She'd do anything to get attention, even taking credit for something she dished, wasn't at the table, and wasn't involved with.

Meanwhile, that same beloved Liberal leader who she wants to Dion as her PM ABSTAINED most recently here:

Harper’s agenda: Stay in power by defeating a NDP non-confidence motion criticizing the Conservatives for rejecting an all-party bill that environmental groups called the "breakthrough bill" to tackle climate change.
Liberals helped by: Abstaining (10 March 2008)

Before that:

Harper’s agenda: End Canada’s involvement in Kyoto
Liberals helped by: Abstaining (24 October 2007)

And there is such a democratic deficit that she wants Dion as her Liberal Leader so he can do this again?

Harper’s agenda: Kill NDP motion to restart study of electoral reform
Liberals helped by: Voting with Harper (2 May 2007)

Yap, strange bedfellows.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Meanwhile, where is Stephane Dion in all of this? I thought he was May's big ally and was pressing to have her included in the debate - but in the end it doesn't sound like the Liberals actually fought at all to have her included. i mean, Dion could have threatened not to take part in the debate if May wasn't there - but he didn't. I suspect that its probably because the Liberals are starting to really like Dr. Frankenstein that they have created a monster in Elizabeth May. She was supposed to be there exclusively to take votes from the NDP help help rightwing Liberals win back some seats. Instead it looks like she is actually drawing more votes from the Liberals than anyone else - so now all of a sudden, we don't see Dion putting up a fight at all to get May into the debate. they are probably the most relieved of all.

---

While there might be some truth in what you say with the Greens drawing Liberal votes I don't that may be the primary reason, one of the reasons maybe.
Dion whether by accident or because he or his advisors had some inkling of what the reaction of the public might be is in a position where he doesn't have to fight with the way it's playing out politically. Harper is getting the brunt with Layton coming up a close second but for the most part all of them are getting admonsished.

quote:

---

Why doesn'y May call up her buddy Dion and beg him to refuse to take part in the debate unless she is included - or maybe he isn't returning her calls either!

---

Why? Because of the way it's playing she doesn't have to and Dion doesn't really either. The people's reaction is doing the fighting right now. Dion is getting lumped in with the rest, to a point, especially with those that are seeing it as the old boys keeping an outsider out, and with those that see the whole crew as responsible but because he isn't initially being named as one of the ones who threatened boycott he's in a better position. In terms of the fallout that is.
Yes I know he essentially did say he wouldn't go if Harper wasn't there but since it appears that Harper is getting a lot of the blame he's getting a bit of a free ride on that account. This relative to the rest is good for him.

quote:

---

Incidentally, I suppose that because this is a leftwing board, all the focus is on the NDP and so-called greens. But by all accounts it was really the Tories who nixed including May in the debate. I'm surprised no one is speculating on their motives. You would think that if there was one person who had everything to GAIN from raising the profile of the so-called green party it would be Stephen Harper since having the centre-left anti-Conservative vote split three ways instead of four can only help the Tories win more seats.

To me the real question is what the Tory motive is for not wanting May there. The only thing I can imagine is that they figure that Dion is such a dreadful performer, the more people see of him, the better for Harper.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
The final decision is the media consortium's. Place the blame where it belongs. Jack Layton is not responsible for the exclusion of the Greens.

---

I would have liked to seen Harper standing alone in opposition to May's inclusion against a united front of the other parties.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
I think the fact that she is woman helps to give appearnces of sexism even if none exists. The point is the optics; Jack comes across as looking petty. His stand can only cost the party votes not gain it any.

I would have liked to seen Harper standing alone in opposition to May's inclusion against a united front of the other parties.

That being said, I wouldn't share a tear if there were not any televised leaders debates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
The point is the optics; Jack comes across as looking petty. His stand can only cost the party votes not gain it any.

---

This long debate about the televised debates will likely have the effect of garnering sufficient sympathy votes for May as to take votes away from all of the parties that are on record as opposing May's presence in the debates, and giving the greens their first-ever seat in the House. You blew it, guys.

quote:

---

I would have liked to seen Harper standing alone in opposition to May's inclusion against a united front of the other parties.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

That being said, I wouldn't share a tear if there were not any televised leaders debates.

---

The leaders debates in 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006 were all big yawns that ended up being just bumps on the road during the campaign. As a matter of fact, some may recall that in the 2000 election, the winner of the leaders debate hands down was seen to have been Joe Clark - he then took his party to 12% of the vote and 12 seats.

What does it say about us that we can have over 500 posts in two days about whether or not the leader of a party with no seats should be in a leaders debate that is three weeks away and that won't matter anyways??? Do we not have any issues to discuss or interesting local races to discuss?

quote:

---

I think the fact that she is woman helps to give appearnces of sexism even if none exists. The point is the optics; Jack comes across as looking petty. His stand can only cost the party votes not gain it any.
I would have liked to seen Harper standing alone in opposition to May's inclusion against a united front of the other parties.

---

Yeah, the NDP could have used this and shifted the debate to one about corporate control of the media, FPTP, etc and simply said they would have been happy to have debated the Greens. They would have looked principled, they could have highlighted policies where they are superior to the Liberals and Conservatives, and they could have subtly mentioned that under our current democratic system people who vote for the Greens don´t get any representation. Harper looks like the anti-democrat and the NDP looks like the strong principled opposition.

Instead we get five threads of NDP partisans on a progressive media message board telling us we have to respect the rules the media consortium makes.

[ 10 September 2008: Message edited by: melovesproles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
Yap, the facebook thing. Guess what? About 2000 "new supporters" joined in the last day. Said they were "long-term supporters", lifelong members, we know the drill, and posted their "displeasure."

Yap, we know the drill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Jack is the leader of the one progressive party we have in federal politics, and he could (should) have spoken out against the exclusion of May from the debates, and he chose not to do so. Shame on him!

---

Oh fuck off. I have had enough of this bullshit. The media made the decison. Get it. The fucking media. How many posts, or emails have you made to the media to demand May's inclusion. I'll bet none, and that goes for Rebick and all the rest of you who want to blame Jack Layton for not being the big Knight in Shining Armour and riding in on his white Charger to save poor little old Elizabeth May. Talk about sexism. That is the height of it.

Does anyone seriously believe that any leader would have skipped the debate with May's inclusion. I call bulshit on anyone making the claim. It is nice to see you all give a big hug out to poor Elizabeth May but don't give a rats ass for someone who has worked a job for 17 years to look after her family is called into the office, laid off, and then escorted out of the building to make sure she didn't break or steal anything. That is a real issue and not one progressive is talking about the economy or health care or anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

Snip
Jack Layton for not being the big Knight in Shining Armour and riding in on his white Charger to save poor little old Elizabeth May. Talk about sexism. That is the height of it.

Snip
Some progressives. Frankly I am ashamed of the whole lot of you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
I'll bet none, and that goes for Rebick and all the rest of you who want to blame Jack Layton for not being the big Knight in Shining Armour and riding in on his white Charger to save poor little old Elizabeth May. Talk about sexism. That is the height of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
In the meantime, after all this "debate about the debate" let's put things in perspective. In the vast majority of cases, the leaders debate ends up being a total anti-climax and doesn't change a single vote. The leaders are all so well coached and scripted that the days of anyone committing a serious gaffe or having a "defining moment" are largely over.

The leaders debates in 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006 were all big yawns that ended up being just bumps on the road during the campaign. As a matter of fact, some may recall that in the 2000 election, the winner of the leaders debate hands down was seen to have been Joe Clark - he then took his party to 12% of the vote and 12 seats.

What does it say about us that we can have over 500 posts in two days about whether or not the leader of a party with no seats should be in a leaders debate that is three weeks away and that won't matter anyways??? Do we not have any issues to discuss or interesting local races to discuss?

I know I have been as guilty as anyone in posting on this tiresome topic - but I really think that enough is enough.

---

Well it is still an issue and to me at least important and interesting to discuss because it's moved beyond whether or not she should be in the debates to the reaction it's causing from the public and at least for me why all the reaction. It's become a political issue and as much as people would like to see it go away because it's irrelevant to the 'larger' issues, that I fully agree should be discussed, it doesn't appear that it is yet.

I totally agree with your comment about the reality of useful of debates and how they affect people's votes. That's not the question for me at least. My question is that if the debates are so irrelevant in people's minds and I don't mean just political junkies, why are they now seeming so durn important to make a fuss over.

[ 10 September 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

So, if the GPC leader was a man, you'd still resort to this silly "Knight in Shining Armour" argument?

---

That's right blame me- it was me after all that claimed this was because May was a woman.

Just like it was Jack Layton who forced the media to exclude May.

See how this bullshit logic work.

How many letters/emails/phone calls have you sent to the media demanding May's inclusion. None. I am starting to get the sense that people just don't give a fuck about anything but this poor put upon woman. It is starting to have a real sexist undertone.

[ 10 September 2008: Message edited by: Caissa ]

[ 10 September 2008: Message edited by: Caissa ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

No talk about poverty, no talk about job losses, no talk about the environment, no talk about seniors being without basic care, no talk about senslesss deaths in Afghanistan. But thread after thread on this shit. And you call yourselves progressives. Shame.[/QB]

---

Yeah heaven forbid that 'progressives' actually talk about an issue that's getting major play right in the election because of public reaction in many other places besides just babble. Not talking about it here because it's not a good 'progressive' thing to do isn't going to make it just go away and become irrelevant and somehow filter out to the wider world with the message, 'Shaddup already, progressives shouldn't be talking about this'.

quote:

---

Some progressives. Frankly I am ashamed of the whole lot of you.

---

Allowing more political voices onto the national stage isa progressive issue. That's why we support PR. At least until it becomes inconvenient, like in Layton's case.

And really you think that a thread on poverty issues in this election would extend to thread five and counting?Oh yah that's likely.

And for the record I rarely use the word 'fuck' but it is a sign of how disgusted I am with people who call themselves progressive wasting this much time and energy on such a small potatoes issue compared to the real life problems facing real Canadians. It is an issue sure, but THE issue, hardly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
So the most important progressive issue facing the nation is whether Elizabeth May is in the leaders debate? As if.

---

That's not what I said at all. Not even close.

quote:

---

I ask again, do you really think the worker I met yesterday, laid off after 17 years, cares who is in the debate, or is it more likely we progressives, regardless of what political home we find ourselves in, should be talking to her about the economy and what progressives will do vs the Conservatives. I remain disgusted by how easily such normally smart people have becomed fooled pawns in a side issue.

---

No I don't think the worker cares and honestly I also don't think the worker cares whether 'progressives' are discussing issues that effect her on a discussion board either. She likely cares more about about what people are doing outside of discussion boards. Talking about it in a place like this isn't talking directly to her either. It's talking amongst ourselves.

[ 10 September 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:

No I don't think the worker cares and honestly I also don't think the worker cares whether 'progressives' are discussing issues that effect her on a discussion board either. She likely cares more about about what people are doing outside of discussion boards. Talking about it in a place like this isn't talking directly to her either. It's talking amongst ourselves.

[ 10 September 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]

---

Did I quote you? No.

Does that suggest I was maybe responding to the post right above mine? Yes

Are people wasting too much time yapping about this including me? Yes

Should we instead be talking about other topics with actual voters through which ever political channel we choose? Yes, that was my point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
Do I hold out much hope that progressives will figure out what fools they are being used as? No, unfortunetly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by melovesproles:
Instead we get five threads of NDP partisans on a progressive media message board telling us we have to respect the rules the media consortium makes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

No talk about poverty, no talk about job losses, no talk about the environment, no talk about seniors being without basic care, no talk about senslesss deaths in Afghanistan. But thread after thread on this shit. And you call yourselves progressives. Shame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ocsi:
But the attention the Greens are getting will not necessarily translate into votes...That's the silver lining I see in all of this.

---

[QUOTE]
species survival - all the species including us - must be first (among conceerns, my edit).

And folks, that blessed "market" is a counterproductive, dead end solution.

What does this have to do with Elizabeth May being allowed to present in national debate?

I leave that question to be resolved by the moral philosophers out there. Prioritized, as it were.
(END QUOTE)

-----------------------------

It is disheartening to see a political thread descend to endless debate of the idea that politicians should/should not act in traditional fashion.