NDP and Conservatives mum on having Greens in debates
According to a Hill Times article today, the NDP and Conservatives are refusing to reveal their positions on Elizabeth May’s inclusion (or exclusion) in the next round of televised leaders’ debates. A spokesperson for the broadcast consortium, which makes the call, says a decision will not be made until an election is called. But everyone know the demands of the political parties factor heavily into the consortium’s decision-making process, and the consortium cited the Conservative and NDP’s demands for May’s exclusion as the reasons she was initially excluded in the 2008 eection.
I’m not interested in the Conservative position, as I wouldn’t, in a million years, expect that party to make decisions with democracy and the public interest in mind. But the NDP should know better, and director Brad Lavigne’s comment in the Hill Times story is unacceptable.
“Right now, we’re not focused on televised leaders debates. We’re focused on making Parliament work and that’s our big priority. That’s where our focus is right now,” said Mr. Lavigne.
Of course, Lavigne’s comment doesn’t indicate any true commitment to “making Parliament work”, but rather a commitment to avoiding the issue. The NDP’s refusal to reveal their position on allowing the Greens in the debates likely indicates they prefer May to be excluded. Otherwise, it would be a simple matter to say “yes, the Greens deserve a place at the podium”.
I’m disappointed that Jack Layton has so quickly forgotten the outrage that erupted last time he tried to subvert the will of the public by colluding with the Conservatives and the broadcast consortium. How can he forget that his own party faithful plastered his Facebook page with disparaging comments? Does he not recall prominent NDP activist Judy Rebick’s letter to the Globe and Mail, where she denounced his behaviour? The protesters that showed up at his campaign events? The fact that public outrage eclipsed the entire first week of his campaign?
Write to Jack Layton and tell him to learn from his mistakes, live up to his party’s middle name and respect the will of Canadians by publicly supporting the Green party’s inclusion in the televised leaders’ debates: LaytoJ@parl.gc.ca.
Scridb filter
I’ll say again what I said last time around. Come up with a set of criteria that will be applied consistently and then demonstrate how Elizabeth May qualifies. Originally the standard was that a party had to have representation in the Commons, i.e. at least one elected MP. So May recruited an independent who had been expelled from the Liberal caucus and on that basis claimed to meet the standard. Obviously that doesn’t apply this time so on what basis should she be included? If there’s a clear and unambiguous standard, then appeals to Jack Layton or any other individual politician will be irrelevant.
This is just like Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister (for grown ups). Start the whining and ballot stuffing.
Oh, it already has.
Silent Majority,
be advised that I’ve grown weary of your immature comments. You are clearly commenting on my blog for the express purpose of insulting me and others. You don’t usually contribute in any meaningful way to the discussion. I may disallow future comments from you unless you begin contributing respectfully.
Best,
Camille
Ha! You should be fun to watch in moot court. Waaaa!
Camille, you’ve completely hit the nail on the head with regards to the NDP: they really should be doing better at remaining true to their own ideology. But the NDP have shifted their focus from being true to themselves to doing whatever they can to score political points. If that means using a little bit of presto-change-o to contort themselves into numerous wildly uncomfortable positions with respect to their own policies, so be it. Clearly, playing the game and getting elected will always trump the NDP’s stated values. And that’s why I’m not a member of the NDP.
Clearly, the participation of an unelected fifth party (which gathered almost a million votes in the last federal election) in the televised debates is in keeping with the NDP’s values (hence the massive outcry). But don’t expect the NDP to do anything except oppose when the time comes. And this time, I strongly suspect that the Broadcast Consortium will buy into the NDP and Conservative’s, and dare I say, Liberal’s view that May has not place in the debate. Although everyone who has been paying any attention to this issue knows that there is no criteria at all for determining participation (it’s the whim of the Broadcast Consortium), no doubt they’ll trot out the lack of a sitting MP argument. Or worse: the other parties and consortium might actually end up arguing that it’s bad for Canadians to hear from May, because her Party has no realistic chance of forming or taking part in government, so why muddy the waters on Debate night? Let’s just stick to the real contenders.
All of which is nonsense of course. May should not be silenced by the other Parties and ultimately by the Broadcast Consortium. But after being so very critical of the media throughout the last campaign and in her book, will it be any wonder that May will be ignored this time around?
Dear Mr Layton
The NDP should really change the middle initial to U. U for UNDEMOCRATIC.
I was a long time supporter of the NDP back in the days when they truly represented many important social issues that we appreciate today.
The NDP has just become another party just like the Libs and Conservatives.
Not allowing or not stating if you will support Elizabeth May to be included in the Leader’s debate is non-Democratic. I really wonder if over one million people who support the Green Party are all wrong and should not have any representation in the debate and in Parliament.
Where would Canada be if the CCF had been treated this way. What would of happened to the Greatest Canadian and champion for Canadian Democracy, Tommy Douglas, if he had not been allowed to speak his mind and to fight for the rights of average Canadians.
Mr Layton get the D back in your party’s name and step up to the plate for Democracy.
Frances Coates
Ottawa
Whooee!
POGGE sez: Come up with a set of criteria that will be applied consistently…
Well, PogFeller, just who do you suggest come up with that set of criteria? Are you content to allow the criteria to be set by fatcat corporate executives?
The requirement that there be a sitting MP was an arbitrary rule, made up by the Broadcast Consortium. It was not a rule that applied when Preston Manning was allowed in the debates without any elected Reform Party MPs sitting. Since the fatcats make the rules and don’t even have the courtesy to put their own rules in writing or to be consistent, they can change them or apply them as they see fit.
I suggest the first step should be to turn over the administration of these important exercises in democracy to the same body that sets the rules and standards for other aspects of the election: Elections Canada.
Elections Canada has a funding formula that requires a party get 2% of the popular vote to qualify for government funding. Perhaps, that would be a more democratic method of determining who gets into the debates. After all, Canadaian taxpatyers are funding teh GPC to teh tune of about $1 million/year. Shouldn’t the TV debate viewers get a chance to see where there tax dollars are going?
The GPC consistently polls at or near the same level as the BQ and runs in ridings in all provinces. Perhaps, those are the things that should count. The BQ runs in only 75 ridings yet is included in all the debates, inside and outside Quebec.
I find the NDP position (or at least the position of NDP bloggers) to be quite hypocritical. The NDP is all for proportional representation but wants to play the FPTP card with regard to to qualification for inclusion in the TV debates. If we had the PR that the NDP says it wants, there would be a dozen or so GPC MPs sitting in Parliament right now. The support for FPTP results when it comes to bettering the NDPs odds in the TV debates is even more hypocritical than the NDP support for allowing corporate fatcat Broadcast Consortium to set the criteria… when it suits their purpose.
JB
Actually, Manning had one elected sitting MP, Deb Gray, when he was in the debates. With just one seat, Reform didn’t have official party status in the House. But the Liberals & NDP were both happy to have Manning there to split the conservative vote.
It was Lucien Bouchard who was in the debates without any “elected” sitting MPs (the way pogge seems to define them). They had all been elected as Liberals or PC (except Duceppe – Independent), not as BQ.
Of course, pogge’s definition isn’t quite correct, and is mis-defined specifically to smear May. Blair Wilson was an elected, sitting Green. It matters not that he was elected as a Liberal, then was Independent, then was Green. What matters (if you are using the “must have an MP” rule to determine participation) was the party he supported at dissolution, the GPC. Parties don’t exist in our constitution, so we have no laws which prevent MPs from switching parties (even only days after an election to get a cabinet seat). Crossing the floor can even change the tide of a minority government, as we saw with Stronach; despite having been elected as a Conservative, she later sat as a Liberal and her vote counted as such. Ditto vice versa for Emerson. What counts for them and the BQ founders counts for Green MP Blair.
Thanks for the correction, Erich. I knew there was precedent for a debater w/o any elected MPs but I shoulda done a bit more researchin’ before yammerin’ about PrestoManno.
Of course, pogge’s definition isn’t quite correct, and is mis-defined specifically to smear May. Blair Wilson was an elected, sitting Green.
Erich, do you mean “sitting” as in actually sitting in the HofC when it was in session? Because he never did. In fact, his marriage of convenience with May at the eleventh hour apparently got his campaign a cool $40k from the GPC as Report on Greens recently mentioned.
Also, May never had council approval prior to the last minute deal. Not last minute? Then why did she cut short out of David Suzuki’s daughter’s wedding to fly red eye that evening in order to have a press conference etc before the writ was dropped.
I think your comment is mis-defined specifically to smear pogge.
Blair was elected and had sat in parliament for years, so he counts as an elected “sitting” MP. It’s really splitting hairs to try and deny there was a Green MP merely because Harper broke his word & law to call an election before the current session had resumed. Blair was an elected, sitting MP; he became a Green; he even formally informed the Speaker of this.
Whether or not May had prior approval is beside the point, Council accepted his membership before he became “official” and sent his letter. Do you really think such negotiations could have been successful and private if the two-dozen-plus members of Council (which has generated leaks in the past) were in on the discussions beforehand? Sometimes things happen quickly in real life.
Erich, the only reason that Wilson made the move that he did was because Harper was setting the groundwork for calling an election. He had sat as an independent after being disgraced and removed from the Liberal Party for what, a year beforehand? Why didn’t he take up the Green banner then? Probably because he figured he had another year left before once again facing the electorate.
He was no more a “sitting” Green Party member than was Garth Turner, Bill Casey, or John Baird, for that matter.
<Whether or not May had prior approval is beside the point, Well, apparently not to individuals like Stuart Hertzog. It is foolish to so easily dismiss these concerns, which often arise from her autocratic top down approach. Rememeber her controversial deal with Dion? Same scenario.
Um, SM, what do any of those points have to do with the topic, participation of May in the next debate? Why Wilson made the move (were his motives less noble than those of Emerson, Stronach, or Khan?) doesn’t bear on the situation. It’s his right to choose his party, his timing, and his reasons. If voters don’t like any of the three, they can replace him (as they did, of course). Wilson’s timing was no more or less opportunistic than Harper’s.
Pogge said: “Originally the standard was that a party had to have representation in the Commons, i.e. at least one elected MP. So May recruited an independent who had been expelled from the Liberal caucus and on that basis claimed to meet the standard.” (Excuse me for introducing the word “sitting”. He didn’t, so I’ll drop it. If I mischaracterized his point, I apologize.)
It was the word “claimed” which set me off. Simple fact is, an elected MP (Wilson) was a member of the Green Party at the time of dissolution. That’s all there is to it.
Upon sober second thought (practicing for my Senate appointment), I must say that I heartily agree with pogge – we should have a clearly defined set of criteria and just stick to that, rather than let media corporations, or even worse, party leaders, decide which other parties to include or exclude. (I believe the per-vote funding cutoff is likely the fairest criteria for several reaons).
Um, SM, what do any of those points have to do with the topic, participation of May in the next debate?
May and the GPC have unwittingly set a precedent. Frankly, the party would have been better off had they not gone down this path. If you claim that you will do politics differently, don’t crawl into the gutter.
To do politics differently, first you actually have to do politics. You can’t show how different you are in the leaders debate if you’re not in the leaders debate, now can you? There are certainly MPs far further into “the gutter” than Blair Wilson ever was. They still happily sit on their party benches in the House. If Greens restricted ourselves to only allowing sinless angels to be members – well, we’d have even fewer than 56 people voting at a nomination.
I don’t think the no-MP-no-debate precedent would have been a better one to set. You do? (We already played that game in ‘04 and ‘06 and it didn’t help much then).
Canvassing today I met a man (not a Green voter) who said he was impressed by Elizabeth’s debate participation. I’ve heard this comment many times from a variety of people. The only criticisms I’ve seen of it (generally blatantly sexist or otherwise insubstantial) are on anonymous web comments. None yet from real people.