The Green Party has never elected a member to parliament. The fact that an opportunistic ejected Liberal MP saw a way to gain some favourable media coverage and used the Green Party to do it does not mean that May belongs in the debate. Blair Wilson could have called himself a Communist, or resurrected the Natural Law Party. That would not then qualify either of those leaders to be in the debate.
As an aside, if I were in the Communist Party (who, interestingly enough, have elected a member to parliament before) or another fringe party, I would take this opportunity to get some media attention by trying to get in on a class action suit with the Greens. It wouldn't be the first time that the fringe parties have banded together- their last class action suit was even filed by the same lawyer that is representing the Greens in their current case.
Miguel Figueroa of the Communist Party, Connie Fogal of Canadian Action and all other fringe party leaders actually have a much stronger argument for being in the debate than Elizabeth May does. That is because there is a much more important reason why Elizabeth May, specifically, should not participate in this debate. She has pledged her allegiance time and time again to Stephane Dion and it would be highly undemocratic for the Liberals to have two representatives in the national, televised leaders' debate.
I don't care how many times Elizabeth May calls assertions of a Liberal-Green alliance absurd. Her previous statements on the subject speak for themselves. Here are just a few of them:
"We'd like to be participants in a coalition government," she said. It would be great if the next federal election led to a minority Liberal government, May said
-The Daily Gleaner (Fredericton), 12 February 2008
"It's a no-brainer. We can make the most progress with Stéphane Dion as prime minister in a minority government. I think Dion's record is a lot better than the other parties want to say it is. I'll defend it."
- Elizabeth May, Globe and Mail, 21 January 21, 2008
"We recognize that a government in which Stéphane Dion served as Prime Minister could work well with a Green Caucus of MPs, led by Elizabeth May, committed to action on climate."
- Joint Statement with Dion, GPC Release, May 13, 2007
"Well, what I'm trying to do is send a clear signal to Canadians. When I heard Rex Murphy say on the national news that the Harper budget was so green that I could now join his party, I thought it was pretty important to make sure people knew that while the Green Party policies are the very best, a government of Stéphane Dion as Prime Minister with us in the House of Commons, with many Greens in the House of Commons, we could deliver very good government to Canadians."
-Elizabeth May, Adler On-Line, CJOB, 13 April 2007
And for my final bit of proof of Green-Liberal collusion- perhaps the most compelling proof of all muahaha:
This is from the Green Party website. They used terribly unflattering pictures of everyone except May and Dion. Coincidence? Highly doubtful. I'm surprised that they restrained themselves from photoshoping a green halo onto Dion.
Posts
29 comments:
Hear, hear
good to have you back in action
There's a REALLY SIMPLE solution to this. The consortium should do what they should have done five or ten years ago and publicly release the criteria that will be used. If there are problems with them, they can be challenged. If not, we live with them.
But the opinions of party leaders have no place in the decision. Any alleged coalition between Dion and May is no different than when parties suggest strategic voters to get rid of an unpopular government.
I have seen no coherent explanation of why May should be excluded which also accounts for the consortium's decisions in the past decade or so.
I suppose this is what happens when one speaks in non-partisan terms.
Dare to mention that you could work with someone in another party, or *gasp* say that you like and/or respect some of the ideas of another party leader and the hacks come out of the woodwork.
Would you prefer our candidates to tear each other apart for the amusement of the crowds *regardless* of where they share common ground?
I am ashamed of my former party (NDP) because of Jacks role in this. I thought he was more principaled.
HEADS UP!
Brace yourself for a crew of Libloggers who are now suddenly Elizabeth May's biggest defenders! They will be here momentarily to attack you .... and they are mean and nasty!!! LOL!
Oh ... and the code words that they use generally involves a reference to the fact that they 'used to be dedicated New Democrats '... at some remote point in the past'!
Thanks for the heads up Leftdog.
Hey Libloggers: bring it.
It's precious that you'd defend Jack Layton over your country's democracy. You'd rather silence similar political voices, than dare let Jack's spin (that matches Harper's even!) put him behind in the campaign? Shameful.
If you think you're sick of hearing about this scandal now, just wait until it's been a month.
Actually Leftdog, I've seen more then a few NDP bloggers who believe Jack was out to lunch on this. Pretty hypocritical to want electoral fairness or standing up for the little person, and then turn around and deny a smaller party trying to participate in democracy.
The fact of the matter is Dipperchick, that the consortium said before hand to May that the only way they'd be let in is if they had a sitting MP. They never said ELECTED... they said sitting. The BQ got into the debates many years ago when they first formed from the PC defections. Those were sitting MP's. The Reform Party got in when they only had 1 MP elected.. so there is precedent.
The other fact is.. the COnsortium has been trying to move the goalposts each time May and the Greens pointed out reasons (good ones) to be in.. now they've caved to a bunch of leaders who are afraid of losing popular vote and seats to a party that is on the rise. And the excuse about endorsing Dion is total bunk.. you see coalition parties in Europe all the time.. and the fact is May said that she'd like DIon to be PM if she couldn't be.
Most important of all.. 75-80% of Canadians polled on this issue wanted May and the Greens to be in those debates.. so you folks are running against the public tide, and making yourself look pretty hypocritical as "the people's party" when you go against the people's wishes.
Similar political voices Saskboy???!!!
Clearly you haven't heard about May's anti-choice beliefs. Read up.
http://dipperchick.blogspot.com/2006/12/elizabeth-may-and-helena-guergis-social.html
PS - all in all.. this arguing over who gets in and who doesnt should be enshrined in the ELection Act and not let a group of Tv broadcasters dictate it.. particularly if they;re going to let Parties with a direct conflict of interest bully them on who they let in.
I agree that there should be rules about the debate enshrined in law. I think we have all learned a big lesson here.
But the real bully in this equation is Elizabeth May. Her party is not new and they have consistently received under 5% of the popular vote. Now, because she has made some powerful Liberal friends and become a media darling, she expects to be in the leaders' debate? (She has the Liberal sense of entitlement down.) She is berating the other leaders for not recognizing her and her fringe party's attention-grab as anything more than a Liberal ploy.
Any non-Liberals who are fighting for her to be included in the debate will likely feel a lot like the people who voted for David Emerson in 2006 when she inevitably sells out her party.
Don't really have to "bring" much of anything. Using the Communist Party, that's your fallback argument? How belittling, isn't that what Liberals do? Is this like a weird role reversal thing now?
The other killer point, the bad picture of Layton on the website. See, look? Hey, maybe if Jack agreed to a freaking COFFEE in the last two years, Greens might have a better impression of him ;)
Here's the deal. NDP supporters are developing their counters, but it's not selling in the real world. It's all just so easy really, the casual observer sees the red flags. May in the debates isn't a plus for the Liberals, I've always felt it splits the vote, she will do well and look credible, strong and refreshing. May in the debate is a dicey proposition. Still, it's just a fundamental principle at this point, and the N D P of all parties, to take this elitist stance, my goodness.
Erin, you provide a source to the same one with an anti-democratic view that dozens of multi-partisan bloggers criticizing?
May's pro-choice, but prefers that women not have to see abortions. The comparison is she'd like to see a decrease in chemo too. Spin away.
The CONspiritorium moved the goal posts, and you're cheering on cheaters. It's shameful behaviour for a progressive who should support democratic and open government.
"see" - I meant seek.
You don't need an elected MP. You simply need one. That was the consortium's criteria.
And the Communist party didn't have a sitting MP in the 39th Parliament. The Greens did. His name was Blair Wilson and he was the MP for West Vancouver- Sunshine Coast -Sea to Sky Country until last Sunday. Or was he? Yes. Yes he was.
It's also hilarious that for the first time in my life, LIBERALS are defending someone's right to speak! That Liberals want to be inclusive in the debates. That Liberals want to recognize the Greens first sitting MP.
Tommy Douglas is turning in his grave and Dippers alike should be ashamed of their leader for boycotting a debate because he doesn't want to play nice with someone from another party.
I wonder, will Jack Layton not show up to the 40th Parliament if a Green is elected? To "boycott" their presence in Canadian federal politics?
Jack would rather stand beside the separatist Duceppe than May? Jack would rather have Duceppe and the Bloc Quebecois at the debates than the Greens?
Pathetic! Jack just jumped in Harper's boat!
Saskboy- I'd "prefer" it if May didn't tell me what she thinks I should do with my body or cast judgment upon me and other women's choices.
Saskboy .... "It's precious that you'd defend Jack Layton over your country's democracy." You are stating to sound moronic with your soupy invictive!
You have had a personal hate-on for Layton and the NDP that goes back as long as I have been reading your blog! Last fall during the Saskatchewan election, you sounded more 'saskparty' than the Sask Party. Your anti-Layton rants are getting so old ...
Oh and Scott ... my heads up to Dipper chick was to prepare her for the inevitable arrival of Saskboy who I knew would arrive to wax moronically about the 'evils' of Jack Layton .... yawn.... how right I was ....
This is a perennial problem.
I must agree with Scott Tribe's comment above.
Yes, the debates are televised by an independent consortium of broadcasters. Being private, these broadcasters cannot (and should not) be told what to put on their networks. It would be an interference with the freedom of the press.
Nevertheless, we have to accept the reality that the televised debates are central to a modern democratic election.
What should happen instead is a government provision for televised election debates. Elections Canada should, using public funds, produce and broadcast televised debates on CPAC. Other networks should be free to pick up the feed.
Criteria for inclusion in the debates should be transparent and written right into the Elections Act.
Yay for CPAC! I agree...as long as Peter Van Dusen moderates them. I love that guy.
I agree about using CPAC, but require CBC to pick up the feed since not everyone gets cable.
Leftdog, I'm sure Dipper Chick can handle criticism without a pointless "heads up". If you stand on the side against democracy, you have to be tougher than those who defend it.
I DO find it a bit rich that the Liberals are all of a sudden the big democrats. Where where they in the Ontario election when there was a push for electoral reform? Where were their votes for Peter Stoffer's election reform bill?
I don't even have to mention why the grits are in such troubled times in la belle province.
nice try, grits, but I'm not buying.
This entire 'scandal' is contrived so that the Greens and the Libs can attack Layton.
Layton leads the fourth largest Party in the nation and is taking MOST of the heat for May not being in the debate!
This is a contrived excuse by some ... (do I need to spell out names) to launch an attack against Layton.
Leftdog, it's absurd that you claim it's "contrived" to attack Layton. There'd be nothing to attack Layton over if HE hadn't threatened the media with a boycott if they allowed May to debate him and the rest.
We know you're a hyper partisan NDP supporter who would excuse Layton's passed gas as your own, and I'd probably lay down tracks so May could visit Regina by train, but get a grip. Layton screwed up big time, and has to pay the piper. If May acted so terribly undemocratically, and spoiled the chances of new parties from ever getting national media coverage in the televised debates, both you and I would be screaming at her. It's absurd that you're not working with me on embarrassing Layton to the point where he has to relent and support fair media.
Busy day, Dipper Chick.
I did want to respond to a comment made by Scott Tribe, when he said, "And the excuse about endorsing Dion is total bunk.. you see coalition parties in Europe all the time.. and the fact is May said that she'd like DIon to be PM if she couldn't be" [well in the last part was in subsequent interviews, but in her original press conference she stated wanted him as PM].
Scott is right that we see coalition parties in Europe all the time, but they also have rules during elections around these coalitions to ensure FAIRNESS.
One rule is that during the election and debates, the coalition can only be represented by ONE SPOKESPERSON. So at a debate, for instance, the coalition picks their spokesperson who represents them in that debate.
So I am real glad that Scott brought up the coalition and European countries in the same sentence. We have much to learn from European countries. I can see futuristically, Canadian politics moving in that direction, and thus adopting the same regulations that govern their political alliances and ensure fairness to all parties concerned.
I wouldn't call any of those pictures flattering.
The kvetching of the Saskboy's and Scott Tribe's on the NDP blogs lets me know Jack is doing something right.
I've spent a couple years listening to these same folks go after Layton relentlessly for focusing on the Liberals instead of the Conservatives.
They are now scared as hell as this is what he is doing and they are all banding together to attack.. the NDP instead of the Conservatives.
Also, doesn't a "Sitting MP" actually maybe have to sit in parliament, as I understand it, no Green MP has sat in parliament.
And finally to the cries for democracy from the Layton haters, again no Green MP has been democratically elected!
For all the rulez are rulez folks, I can just imagine the cries of outrage if the Greens managed to elect a single MP, who then a couple days before an election switched to, say the Communist party (never sat as one though) and thus the Greens were removed from the debate.
How about you democratically elect an MP (or do the Greens not support Democracy!) then get back to us.
Oh yeah, and someone should point out that Dion is guilty of "threatening" about the debate too, he said he wouldn't debate if Harper wasn't there, not sure how this is any different other than it wasn't Layton.
Wow Anonymous, way to support democracy. How'd it make you feel to know that Layton conspired with Harper to boycott the debate to blackmail the media in a failed attempt to keep May from the debates?
I defy you to find proof of a conspiracy Saskboy. And ridiculous videos made by Jason Cherniak don't count.
You missed Boag's report on CBC? Jason even included it in the video.
http://richardmahoney.blogspot.com/2008/09/conservatives-admit-harper-and-layton.html
Post a Comment