Elizabeth May Scares 3 Out Of 4 Political Leaders
Am watching Mike Duffy on NewsNet interviewing the a broadcast consortium representative Jason MacDonald about the Green Party being shut out of the debate – he said that when approached 3 out of the 4 main political parties said they would not participate in the debates if the Greens were allowed in.
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has said he would welcome the chance to debate May on television.
So that means:
Stephen Harper: Would not participate if the Greens were allowed in
Jack Layton: Would not participate if the Greens were allowed in
Gilles Duceppe: Would not participate if the Greens were allowed in
Three political peas in a pod working as hard as they can to suppress debate.
Updated: Just who the f*uck is the media to determine what “is in the best interests of Canadians” anyway?
“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.”
The next time some hyper-partisan Conservative starts muttering about media bias remind them of their agreement with this.
May is an effective and articulate leader, with small but growing national support. Methinks this may end up biting those 3 “leaders” in the ass.
Whooee! Sounds like the so-called leaders were given a multiple choice quiz. Media manipulation and political chickenshitism. The TV suits were cornered by the GPC’s threat to sue them if Lizzie wasn’t included and they found a way to shift the blame to Harper, Layton and Duceppe.
A couple weeks ago, I was chatting with a fellow Greenie about this. He suggested it has a lot to do with where the TV networks’ bread is buttered. I was skeptical then but now it’s making more sense. TV is all about selling stuff — selling gasoline, cars, erectile dysfunction tablets, restless leg syndrome tablets, vacation trips, cruises, McHappyMeals, and a host of other unnecessary crap. The Green Party is all about reducing needless consumption. Not exactly the message the fatcats or their corporate masters want on prime time.
There’s a growing call for a viewer boycott. Good. There are some rumblings of a YouTube debate-type event. Better yet. Steal the TV’s viewers and give them something they can participate in.
I posted on this over at my boog but be warned: I didn’t talk like a family-man or even a presumable a family-man.
JB
Outside the blogosphere, I don’t think the denial of Green participation in the debates will influence many voters. This issue will be a blip in the campaign.
They must be scared shitless of May if they refuse to even show up. Could you imagine how much it would have hurt them to have a debate with every party but their own.
Elizabeth May must be a bloody tough women if they don’t think that they could successfully stand up and debate her man-to-man.. I mean man-to-woman.
May should do a live-blogging of the event, or perhaps a live webcast with running commentary…
I heard elsewhere that Stephane Dion should boycott if she isn’t there, but I think that is risky as it would possibly just suit everybody else fine. Therefore, one is left to wonder whether the proverbial fix is in.
[...] included, but I also see a lot of Liberal bloggers, NDP bloggers, and non-partisan bloggers with no political affiliation all coming out and condemning the consortium’s ruling, and that they should not have wimped [...]
Whooee! I like your idea of a YouTube event or live blogging thing. In fact, I like it so much that I’ve emailed the gal I adore and suggested she look into a competing event that allows citizen participation. And, yes, I gave you credit, Scott.
I don’t realistically expect Dion to boycott. He’d be called the chickenshit if he refused to debate the real chickenshits.
On the plus side for the Greens, I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many blogs coming to Lizzie’s defense before. FWIW, there are several NDP bloggers upbraiding their chickenshit “leader” for his undemocratic stance.
JB
Man, this one’s got us all pissed off! We should be sending emails to our respective parties, giving them hell or (in the case of the Liberals), kudos.
All of us wrote furiously, it seems, as soon as the news broke. I’m deeply envious of those who can write faster than I.
The proper thing for the networks would have been to issue an invitation to all party leaders, then continue with the debate featuring those who showed up.
As much as I think the parties who refused to debate with her are [insert favorite cowardly/thuggish synonyms here], I hold my far greater contempt for the consortium that allowed the bullying to succeed.
ohhhh….so now some of ‘em are going to trot out: “I’d welcome the chance…” BRAAAAAAP! Time’s up. Too late. Question was already asked. Next question.
Duceppe has changed his vote to that he’d prefer not to have to debate (because he’s chicken) but would anyway!
Duceppe’s now saying he never said he wouldn’t debate if May is included. Coyne has it:
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/09/08/the-bloc-breaks-ranks/
This is backfiring badly on Layton in particular. I think he’ll bow to pressure from his pro-democracy base and do the right thing. Maybe it will be too late. He’s painted himself into a corner and Harper’s right in there with him. Two self-serving peas in a pod.
JB
[...] MOREST: DemocraticSpace has a round-up of blog reaction. Favourite post title: Elizabeth May Scares 3 Out of 4 Party Leaders. [...]
[...] am not alone in calling Layton and Harper the cowards that they are. The media has some explaining to do as well, for why they caved in to [...]
I am absolutely f’ing astounded to find the ‘oh woe is us, the media is so biased‘ Conservative crowd agreeing that the media should be allowed to decide what is, or is not, “in the best interests of Canadians“.
Bunch of hypocrites the lot of them.
This is turning out to be a nice start to the campaign. While I usually like Layton, Dion has to be happy with the way things are going (end of the world inefficient choice of Airplane notwithstanding).
I admit, as a New Democrat, I’m a bit pissed my party is one of the ignoble three.
OTOH, I remember well that the NDP were excluded from these sorts of debates on the national, provincial, and riding level for many years by the Tories and the Liberals for exactly the same reason: that we hadn’t crossed some sort of “bar” yet WRT elected members, popular vote, etc.
At the same time, I’d like to think we’d got beyond that. But politics is for keeps, baby.
As an aside, my younger brother, who I believed to be a life-long Con, told me a couple of weekends ago that he voted Green in the last election, and plans to do so again. He loathes Harper, and is basically parking his vote until Harper is gone. Strictly anecdotal, of course, but anyone who says the Cons aren’t losing votes to the Greens is wrong.
I agree, politics is for keeps. But Layton should try to remember it works both ways, to AND fro.
Let’s hope your bro is one of many.
One thing, though: I don’t understand why anybody is really surprised at this story. When it comes to public political debates during elections in Canada all minority parties have a hard, hard time getting included. The smallest minority candidates (independant individuals, a minority of *one*) are always essentially shut out completely.
I remember running as a Libertarian candidate (back when I used to think pushing each other around by voting was the right idea, sorry) in northern BC when the local NDP/Solidarity folks widely announced an all-candidates forum.
I wasn’t on the list, even though an independant anti-nuke guy and a Rhino were, so I phoned and asked for an invite and got told in angry, derisive and not uncertain terms they didn’t “need my kind” at their forum.
I told ‘em “no problem, it’s your forum, your rules…but in fifteen minutes I’m going to call up the local radio and TV folks and tell them your ‘All Candidates Forum’ is a ‘Some Candidates Forum. I think they’ll run with that. It’s kinda funny. Headline material maybe. Anyways,get back to me, y’know, if you change your mind.”
Amazing change of heart in about 10 minutes. received a very cordial invitation and was treated well by both hosts and audience
The debates are unmanagable with 4 leaders, just picture the clusterfuck with 5.
They need to rethink the way the dabates are conducted.
nastyboy: by “The debates are unmanagable with 4 leaders don’t you really mean: “just get too long and boring”?
After all, anything you can do with three, you can do with four if you have a bit more time. Five: ditto.
Anyways, I’ve seen local debates with 6 or 7 candidates, and no one was injured…at least as long as the audience didn’t listen.
Maybe people are simple fed up with being told by the party talking heads that they live in a democracy while seeing less and less actual evidence of that in daily practice.
The debates are pretty freakin boring. Elizabeth should count her lucky stars for the platform the exclusion has provided. I checked out her website last night. I tried to listen to her videos and find a platform or policy statements. Other than the environment and co-op housing what was there was so general, so broad-speak, so nothing substantial.
Even if the Green’s are a “one issue” party that should not exclude them. The Bloc are a one province party and are separatist to boot and still we give them a voice.
And I don’t get why everyone says the Green’s are Left. Is it because of the environmental issues, is that the criteria for Parties to be Left of Centre? She worked for the Conservatives (I admire her reasons for resigning but that was one issue and an highly unethical issue) and a friend, far more politically aware than I, scoffs at the notion that Mz May is a Left – “She’s further Right than Harper on many issues.” He told me on many occasions. So I am kinda not surprised to hear some Conservatives are more comfortable parking their votes with the Green’s just like Liberals will often park their votes in the NDP. Does this make sense?
But like you SL I cannot believe the arrogance of a bunch of (probably) old (no doubt pale skinned too) men behind desks think they can decide what is in my best interest. So typical and so why I suggest we begin a campaign to boycott the “consortium”.
Wideye, with all due respect, I think you may have missed some stuff at greenparty.ca. Vision Green is a 150 page policy statement that encompasses, if not all, a wide variety of issues from foreign affairs to the economy to social safety nets to First Nations relationships. In almost every case, specific actions and solutions are suggested. Granted, environmental sustainability guides these solutions where applicable but the party does address myriad important issues with concrete solutions and actions.
As to whether the Greens are right or left, we don’t claim to be either. I realize that confounds the pundits and those who must quickly and easily categorize a party or movement. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal has been the definition I’ve used to try describing where we stand. On a linear right-left spectrum, we cannot be pegged. That’s one reason I respect the StageLeft crew for their references to URQs and ULQs and LLQs and LRQs.
The televised debates are important. Inclusion puts the party leaders in front of a national audience and allows voters to judge for themselves outside of an advertising milieu. Inclusion confers a certain sense of credibility and equal footing. Some argue that it was Preston Manning’s inclusion that spearheaded the rise of Reform in regions outside Alberta and ultimately led to the collapse of the PCs and the rise of the CPC.
The cynical and self-serving actions of Harper and Layton are not going unnoticed. The heavy-handed tactics of the Broadcast Consortium are now well known not just to Greens but to all Canadians. The exclusion of a national party leader of Elizabeth May’s stature and popularity has fence-straddling NDP and Con supporters moving to the GPC in sympathy and protest. Hey, we’re still small. We’ll take sympathy and protest votes, too.
Over at my blog, I’ve listed 29 Green party policy positions that are unique to the Green Party. We ain’t Liberals. We’re running against Liberals in 305 ridings and we’re running to win. If we can’t win under the absurd, archaic and undemocratic FPTP system, we can at least increase our popular vote count — and, dammit, we will increase it.
JB
““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.””
I can’t remember…who wrote that, Franz Kafka or George Orwell?
Perhaps Johnathan Kay, David Asper and the other ya-hoos on the “consortium” should remember that it is their job to present debate and I’ll decide what is in my best interest all by myself.
Hi JimBobby,
I am so sorry. I was at Elizabeth May’s website not the Green Party. I am now at the correct site and have the 160 page policy document Vision Green for 2020 in front of me.
And I don’t disagree that debates can be important opportunities to present views as well as showcase an ability to perform under stress. But debates are weird..they follow a format that not everyone excels at. And they are still boring and offer only one kind of forum to test for leadership qualities.
I’d have to do some research (I won’t) but what is the viewer rate for these debates anyway? Does a large percentage of Canadians tune in? Seems to me if a Leader wanted to grab the attention of the eligible voter they would try something more contemporary – not old boy school stuff.
And I also offer this apology. I think I have turned the corner and have become bitter and cynical. I have loved politics since childhood and have faithfully tuned in and done my bit for civic engagement. But not this time. This election really really angers me. I’m tired of the massive ego that runs this country and I’ve lost faith in the other massive egos that take up space with their bullshit.
I hope the Greens do shake things up. Someone needs to.
I am so sorry.
Apology accepted with gratitude, Wideye. Thanks.
Like you, I’m getting angrier and angrier with the way this election is playing out. As a young feller, I was cynical and refused to vote. My attitude was that the fatcats and bureaucrats ran the world and voting was merely a ploy to make the little man think he had a voice. Later in life, I decided that if I didn’t at least vote, I had less justification for kvetching. Being an inveterate kvetcher, i vote to add some legitimacy to my ranting.
Lately, I’ve been voting Green. I do a bit more than just vote, too. I’m a riding association exec and I’m playing a part in this election. My enthusiasm for the Greens comes with a love of the planet anda concern for what we’re leaving to our grandkids. My second grandchild was born just over a week ago. While I’ve always been environmentally aware and concerned, becoming a grampaw a couple years ago reinvigorated me. I’m looking a lot further into the future these days.
I’ve met Elizabeth May a couple times and we email back and forth fairly frequently. She’s a sincere, dedicated human being and I’m proud to support her — even if I’m not too proud of the system in which she must operate.
JB
During the last election, I was very annoyed that the Green Party was not included in the debate, especially when the Bloc was (but we are all used to bending over in that regard). The green people that came around knocking on my door were very well versed in their positions, and obviously believed in what they were selling. This led me to their website, and I was very impressed that they had a concrete vision and platform, dealing with every issue that concerned me and seemingly every issue in Canada. They had obviously done their homework and were quite prepared with a policy. This led me to research the other Green Parties around the world, and was pleasantly surprised to find sitting members in governments around the world. I put aside my annoyance at their exclusion from the debates, and figured that they would be in the next one for sure. Surely such a party would win at least one seat in the house.
Many of you are quite bitter towards the Conservative government. Personally, I felt a pinch in my line of work with the income trust change (lie), and then the next year with our provincal cons complete disregard for time schedules and almost three months of “no comment” from when royalty review was finished to when an announcement was made. Apparently, I was “one of the insignificant” Albertans. My father lost a great deal of money in the income trust lie, and will NEVER vote for Harper again. Funny thing is, if Harper came out in public and apologized for that lie, he would probably vote for him again… anyways, I’m rambling.
The point I was going to make, you can’t have a televised political debate with 20 different debaters. It just wouldn’t work. It would take two and half days just for everyone to have a decent opening statement. So you have to come up with some form of rules for who gets included. I thought that you had to have one sitting member of Parliament. That made sense to me. Now, I guess it’s just whatever you want to do, and whatever lies you want to spew, in order to justify your position.
I’m beginning to see what the bunker is all about.
I’ve been thinking about this a little more.
This whole Blaire Wilson thing bothers me. He has some credibility issues that voters might not forget. A easy sacrifice to make for the libs, especially for a party basing an election campaign on calling out lies. It was supposed to be the ticket into the debates for the Green Party of Canada. The resulting debate would most likely pull some undecided voters away from the Conservatives. The Greens would get no opposition from the liberals in May’s questionable (even by her own members) choice in riding .
This sounds like May and Dion have had some sort of (very non transparent) agreement. And then the old dogs shut her out anyway.
Welcome to the big leagues Miss May.
Can anyone tell me if the Greens are running a candidate in every single riding this time around? Or does this have some merrit? I’m too busy reading about carbon.
It has no merit – the BQ is not running candidates in all ridings so why should any other party involved in the debates have to meet that criteria?
So not only do the Cons treat the earth as a dumping ground, they also desire to toss the Green party into the corporate media dumpster.
stageleft, put down the bong, and I’ll type slower
Ahh never mind.
Maybe vonrock should stop megadosing on lethal & addictive pharmaceuticals, alcohol and tobacco.
Elizabeth sure gained a mighty platform from the exclusion. Probably even swung some votes her way. I never said it was right that she be excluded but after reading several news outlets this am – that’s all I am reading about.
She should feel blessed for the opportunity the exclusion has provided her and for the manner in which it was done. If Elizabeth had been included in the debate with no argument, it would have been a none issue. She would have had to wait until the debate. Maybe she is a brilliant debater and would steal the show and maybe she would do just ok. But she has the ears and eyes of everyone now and I don’t think she would have gained this much attention without the insult.
The G&M is reporting that Layton AND Harper have caved.
Things are unfolding as I had predicted.
Throbbin for Prime Minister!
[...] on the stage – that’s bullsh*te. I sat here on this very couch not 2 days ago and heard Jason MacDonald say out loud and publicly that three of the four political parties had said they would not attend is Elizabeth May was [...]
Jim Bobby: re Fiscally conservative and socially liberal has been the definition I’ve used to try describing where we stand.
I’ll take that over fiscally liberal and socially conservative anyday.
Me, I don’t vote anymore but it’s because I’m not cynical.
It’s because I’m confident enough in human nature, meaning generally but also also *my* human nature, that I’ve decided the best way to get folks to stop pushing each other around is to be brave enough–and consistent enough–not to do it myself. My thinking is that y’ don’t stop the game by winning goals, you stop it by leaving the field.
Or, as I put it somewhere else: only 22% of voters turned up for the last Alberta provincial election. I work to get that to 0%.
But what will happen if you get the vote down to 0%? I’m ask this with a serious frown on my brow. I know you and SL both don’t vote for your reasons but….let’s imagine nobody shows up. (the crickets are chirping outside my window right now – very appropriate eh?)
It’s already well established that the public is disaffected by politics today. Voter turn out is at its lowest and expected to drop further. How will things change? That’s my biggest question.
Or maybe we are changing things?
wideye, with respect:
1) it’s hard for someone to claim a mandate when *nobody*
says yes. It’s especially hard to claim enough of a mandate to force folks to comply. Here’s how you get a mandate to do something: acquire voluntary paying customers.
2) It’s not that none of the jobs government does need to be done; it’s that those jobs don’t need to be done by “one choice only and that choice for all” bureaucratic functionaries with guns on their hips.
The closer we get to -0- the more difficult it becomes for governments to use the words “will of Canadians” a crap phrase tossed out by politicians of all political stripes to justify one thing or another that they have done, or are contemplating doing.
At some point turn out will become so low that no party will be able to look into the camera and even pretend to represent Canadians – and when that happens so will real electoral & democratic change.
Such apathy only enables the Neo-Conservatives…. all Canadians should vote. Vote ABC – anything but conservative. Liberal, Green , NDP or even Libertarian.
An absent voter simply gives more statistical DOMINANCE to Fascists like Harper and Bush.
Precisely.
Jake, with respect: don’t mistake a difference in methods for apathy.
Jake is right. We have 3 parties to vote for who aren’t Neo-Conservative. The Liberals, NDP or Green Party deserve your vote as a protest vote if nothing else.