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.

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.

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).

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.

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, 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.

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.

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

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