I do not know all of the issues that the consortium of broadcasters examines in determining who will be included in the debate. I am moved, but not convinced, by the Greens arguments as to why they should have been included.
Is two-straight elections winning no seats but more the double the number of voters required to get federal funding and a floor-crossing MP enough to qualify? That is a pretty subjective question so one needs to look to precedent. The obvious precedent being the inclusion of the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois in 1993.
Let's look at their situations then:
It would be fair to argue that the Greens have about as much legitimacy as those two precedents and those two parties went on to win the second and third most seats in 1993. Would they have been able to do that had they not been included in the debates?
- Reform: Contested one general election before in which they won no seats and 2.1% of the vote and later elected one MP in a by-election;
- Bloc: Never before contested a general election, elected no MPs (though one MP was elected as an indpendent and immediately joined their caucus before they were a registered party) and about 7 floor-crossing MPs.
To quote Barack Obama, "it is above my pay grade" to rule whether or not the Greens have as much right as Reform and/or the Bloc did in 1993 (which is the fair measure).
But frankly, this point is moot. As far as I can read it, the consortium did rule that the Greens met the test (emphasis added):
During the debate negotiations, (Conservative representative Michael) Coates told the broadcasters that Mr. Harper would not share the stage with the leader of the Green Party, which dashed Elizabeth May's hopes of participating.Indeed, if you read the consortium's own release, it seems even clearer:
The Consortium approached the parties to explore the possibility of including the Green Party in all or part of the Leaders' Debates. However, three parties opposed its inclusion and it became clear that if the Green Party were included, there would be no Leaders' Debates. 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.It is frankly pathetic that this group would allow themselves to be bullied. These are journalistic organizations who are supposed to be the "refs" in an election and ensure fairness. We all know that they largely fail to live up to that standard, but this is one of the worst examples I've ever seen.
The media, who claims its goal is to present us with a fair picture of what is going on, determines it is fair to include the Green Party. Some of the other leaders say they don't like it, so the consortium buckles. Instead, they should have invited all participants who they felt it would be fair to invite and let the leaders decide if it was in their interest to boycott an event and allow their opponents to criticize them without being answered. The media should have called the other parties' bluff. This is a disgraceful forfeiture of their supposed high ground.
Update (nb taxpayer)
Be careful what you wish for nbpolitico, cuz you just might get it.
I have reincarnated this old blog and will be following both the national as well as the local developments in the New Brunswick region leading up to the 2011 federal election.
Posts
6 comments:
To further muddy the situation, the "leaders" debates should only include those that have a realistic chance of becoming the country's "leader".
It should be Dion and Harper, that's it. Maybe Jack but even then..
I don't necessarily disagree with that approach. What I think would work really well is what was proposed on Calgary Grit's blog:
-Four debates of different formats (town hall, youtube, topic specific, etc...).
-Get rid of the separate French and English debates and make them all billingual.
-Open up the first three debates to May and the Greens.
-Make the fourth debate open only to the PM and the leader of the opposition. Make it a Bartlett-style no holds barred debate since, after all, these are the two individuals fighting for the right to be Prime Minister under our British Parliamentary system.
You know, the Marijuana Party runs in ridings across Canada, and the one time head of the Marijuana Party is running for the Libs this election. What is to stop him from crossing the floor to the MP before the next election, and demanding a spot in the debate like Elizabeth May? Nothing.
I'd prefer to see:
Have one debate open to all and sundry, attendance is optional of course)
Have one debate with only party leaders that have official party status in the house of commons.
Well, two official party status debates..have to keep the seperate language debates, two seperate cultures, two sets of important issues. (but only one Strong and United Canada :)
As I said, I am not convinced that May has crossed the threshold. I am convinced that the consortium thought she had but then was bullied into backing down and that is a shame.
I somewhat agree with le politico as a handful of candidates tends to shorten rebuttals, opening and closing statements. Not to mention, less topics are addressed by the two potential candidates who will control the purse strings. So in the end, Canadians might go away still wondering where their potential leader stands on a host of issues.
It's very nice of the Mr Layton and Mr Harper to finally accept Elizabeth May at the televised Federal Leaders Debate. There all heart. Her participation in the Debate should not have been opposed or boycotted in the first place, she is the Green Party Leader. She's entitled to be there and be heard. Are the NDP and PC Leaders afraid of her? Anyway, good show Elizabeth.
Post a Comment