It's a petty bourgeois party whose appeal is more to small business and disaffected Tories than to socialists.
Hmm. Quite a few "petty bourgeois, disaffected Tories" have also been socialists, including a good chunk of the League for Social Reconstruction and founding members of the CCF (e.g. F.R. Scott, Eugene Forsey, etc).
But, to your point: May's exclusion is an absolute disgrace and strikes at the legitimacy of this election (whose legitimacy, even without this outrage, was already spectral at best).
It must be said, though, that karma can be a bitch. During the 2006 London North-Centre by-election, May made a pact with the other "marginal" candidates: she promised not to appear at any debate to which they had not also been invited. This act of solidarity seemed impressive.
Soon afterwards, the Progressive Canadian candidate learned that he had been excluded from a debate to which May had been invited. May's response: "Tough shit". She claimed to have spoken up to the organisers on his behalf, to no avail. Having discharged what she thought was her only ethical responsibility, she went on to appear at the debate with a clean conscience.
What goes around...
Whooee! Good boogin', Doc. I'm encouraged by the number of NDP bloggers who've come out against this anti-democratic move by Harper, Layton and Duceppe. I hope a lot of them take your advice and write Jack to let them know how disappointed they are in his self-serving affront to proportionality and democratic debates. I wasn't too surprised at Harper but I must admit, I expected better from Layton.
Duceppe? He's just worried somebody'll say 5 leaders is too many for a debate and he'll get bumped by a leader that represents voters across the whole country and doesn't advocate the dissolution of our confederation.
JB
SF:
I didn't know that F.R. Scott was a disaffected Tory. In any case, I see in the NDP certain possibilities; but the founders and supporters of the CCF included people like cold warrior M.J. Coldwell, turncoat Hazen Argue (great name, though) and Doug Fisher, who ended up pretty far on the right (he attacked me once in a column, to declare interest here), so there it goes.
Wrt Elizabeth May, though, this isn't about her character, but about ours.
JB:
I'm really disappointed in Jack, to be honest.
Since I'm already in your bad books for opposing the ridiculous Single Transferable Vote proposal in BC, let me add to that by saying there is no way Elizabeth May should be in the federal leaders' debates.
The Green Party does not have a "sitting member" of Parliament - check Hansard for comments from that MP and you will find none as a "Green". Blair Wilson is an MP embroiled in controversy who has been rejected by his former Liberal Party - certainly it shows the Greens will drop principles when it benefits them but it does not indicate any level of support.
The reality is the Greens haven't elected a single member of Parliament or a provincial legislature in over 20 years of trying. So why then should they be accorded the status of participating in a leadership debate with parties who actually can elect members?
The old Reform Party managed to elect dozens of members in less than 4 years of trying - so did the Bloc.
And don't whine about the First Past The Post electoral system being the only reason they aren't in the House. Surely one riding in this entire country in dozens of elections has enough environmentally-minded Green supporters to win a measley seat?
Or maybe, just maybe, the Green Party isn't representative of Canadians' political views.
When it comes to party status for debates it should be based on holding seats in Parliament, not nebulous polling numbers or running candidates in a large number of ridings.
Should the Natural Law Party leader have been included in past debates because they ran hundreds of candidates? The yogic-flying would have been amusing during a debate but these nutbars didn't deserve to be there.
The answer for Greens is simple - elect some MPs and then we can talk about participating in the debate.
I am disappointed in the leaders of the main parties but I also am amazed at the cravenness of the networks. Had they simply said, "May is in because there are no reasonable grounds to exclude her" and then told the mainstream parties to lump it the parties would have folded their hands.
This is sufficiently horrible for me to consider voting for my Green candidate - providing he or she is not a complete loon or anti-Semite - just to up the Green national vote.
Wrt Elizabeth May, though, this isn't about her character, but about ours.
Absolutely. As I said, I'm probably more incensed than you are, despite the poetic justice of the situation.
...elect some MPs and then we can talk about participating in the debate.
Yeah, because having about 3.4 million supporters doesn't mean jack shit...
Bill:
Under FPTP, the Greens could have considerably more of the popular vote than they do, and they still might not get a single seat.
To win seats under FPTP, you need to concentrate the vote in a few ridings, at least to begin with. That's how Reform got started. Green votes aren't really concentrable in that sense. But they still win a lot more voter approval and support at the polls than the Natural Law Party. Mentioning the latter in this context is plain silly.
But you know all this. You're a pol from way back. So let's cut to the chase:
You opposed what 58% of your fellow BCers supported because the NDP has won majorities in BC under FPTP. And you oppose giving us the right to hear Elizabeth May in debate because you fear a bleed-off from the NDP if she does well. It's all about party; very little about principle.
No matter: I'll still support the NDP. The party is bigger than you, and bigger than Jack, and, as I've said, it still has real possibilities. But I'm bitterly disappointed in this latest anti-democratic impulse.
I'm familiar with that impulse, by the way: I lived with Bob Rae and his Rae Days, and watched the labour movement in Ontario damn near come apart because of this "my party right or wrong" approach by the Pink Paper crowd. I was in the thick of it, representing the PSAC on the OFL Board, and fighting the battles at Convention.
Perhaps I'm lucky at this point in my life: I support the party, but I'm free to be critical of it as well. And free to keep my principles in working order, and my eyes on the vision rather than on power for its own sake.
Now the Bloc have backed away from the media consortium? Will you convince Jack Layton that he's acting like a coward, and render the media consortium's excuse invalid by having him change his 'vote' to one of inclusion?
And the NDP's Michael Byers calls the Greens a "single issue party,"
As my 21yo son pointed out tonight: And the BQ *isn't* a single-issue party?
Doc, what DO you consider to be the benchmark for inclusion vs. exclusion?
With less than 5% of the popular vote, they seem too much in the political wilderness, in my mind, to be considered as players. This is especially true given the number of years that they've been at it.
If asked to design the rules, my feeling is that 5% might be an acceptable threshold. While 5% "feels" a touch low, 10% is most definitely too high. 7.5% might be a reasonable compromise, but I think that I could support that 5% threshold.
In addition, I'd say one elected MP (no defectors counted) would also suffice.
What say you?
Now the Bloc have backed away from the media consortium?
Do you have a reference, Sask? I can't find one.
I don't reduce this to stats, JS, but favour as a matter of democracy the inclusion of ideas and choices in a national debate.
But 10% of the population now supports the Greens, and (according at least to a Green-commissioned poll) 77% of Canadians want to the right to hear what Elizabeth May has to say.
That's good enough for me, even without lofty appeals to principle. : )
Coyne has the BQ backing off story.
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/09/...c-breaks-ranks/
This is backfiring so badly that I think we'll see Jack change his tune or, like Gilles, say he never said what the consortium says he said.
Thanks JimBobby. H/t to you and Sask in an update. Let's hope (at least, I do) that Jack does the right thing.
It's interesting to read comments from multiple people proclaiming that since the Green Party has been around for many years, it therefore isn't serious or relevant.
I guess there are always those that come to a conclusion first, and then try to think of supporting arguments.
Nice to see the various NDP and Con aparachiks desperately trying to justify this complete affront to the idea of democracy.
This kind of abandonment of principles was one of the reasons I first began my journey out of the NDP about 2 years ago. It is this kind of thing that convinced me the system can't work, that our "democracy" is a sham for the power mad and we should abandon it and create something better.
Bill, the Greens have a sitting MP and are at 10% in the polls - in someplaces they out pol the NDP.
I'm with Jay - I may just vote Green out of spite (sorry Marijuana Party) - a nice f*ck you from a former Dipper.
Cowards, the lot of them...
This is appalling, but not unexpected. One might have thought Harper would want to include May, since the Greens are more likely to draw votes from the Liberals and New Dems than from the Tories. Perhaps he wants to keep NDP strength up in order to maximize destruction of the Liberals. Obviously, I don't think anything but narrow self-interest was behind May's exclusion. Layton is as unprincipled as Harper on this one.
A democratic political system would not only have some form of proportional representation, but would go out of its way to give air-time and funding to smaller parties, on the basis that the public needs to hear ALL points of view in order to make informed decisions. Where a party stands in the polls or how many seats it has in Parliament should have nothing to do with it. (No school or university would allot speaking time in a debate on a contentious issue in proportion to the public support for each side BEFORE -- even years before -- the debate takes place.)
"No matter: I'll still support the NDP. The party is bigger than you, and bigger than Jack, and, as I've said, it still has real possibilities. But I'm bitterly disappointed in this latest anti-democratic impulse."
Dr. Dawg, I've never seen your blog before tonight, but it's already one of my favourites, with your honourable take on this issue and your deft slap-down of a principle-challenged power-monger like Tielman.
DD:
I completely agree with your position regarding May’s exclusion, but unlike you I am not surprised at all by Layton's part in this. As I have said in the past Layton has made the NDP federally a non-option for me for the first time in my voting life because his actions since becoming leader show to me that for him power is more important than principles. I always admired the NDP prior to Layton for it's consistency in placing defending core principles above sheer expediency for seats/power unlike both Libs and PCPC, and this made it a favourite place for me to park my vote whenever I was unhappy with the choices from the other two.
Ever since Layton decided it was more important to beat the Libs for seats instead of fighting Harper first and foremost back in the dying days of the Martin minority (while I had no problems with opposing the Libs I was very disturbed by Layton's clear placing the Libs as enemy number one instead of Harper given Harper's clear record that made him a threat to all progressive beliefs/principles in a manner no prior Lib/PCPC leader ever was, not to mention the clear contempt for the rule of law and Constitutional precedent Harper always espoused) through the last election and well into the life of this government I had to view Layton as not only a sellout to NDP principles but no better than Harper in terms of placing any principles as secondary to lust for power (just because I may agree with more of Layton's aims for use of that power than Harper's does not make it any more moral, ethical, or acceptable to me to use such methods especially from someone hypocritically claiming to care first about principles while everyone else is power-hungry, that really grates on my nerves same as holier than thou “warriors” of a faith that do not practice what they preach).
I wish I shared your faith in the party despite Layton but what really damaged my ability to do so was how the party rallied behind everything Layton chose to do to advance this approach/agenda, despite this placing the core principles that party always stood for in great jeopardy, especially if Harper got to a majority in the last election (which could easily have happened given how bad off the Libs were in public opinion). Layton made the NDP toxic as a choice for me, and so did the willingness of the party to follow him despite the clear betrayal of core NDP principles and the willingness to risk a Harper majority despite the clear threat he posed to all progressive principles. I said during the last election the problem was Harper was qualitatively different and that I would not mind this play by Layton if we were talking about the old PCPC.
To be concluded…
Conclusion:
Indeed I would cheer Layton on if that were the case, but it obviously was not and that if I, a disabled man could tell this from my hole in Halifax via media and basic research then Layton a political leader/operative had no excuse for ignorance of the threat Harper presented (and still presents) and therefore Layton considered it less of a concern than gaining Liberal seats. I know I have been a broken record on this topic for the past couple of years DD, but I cannot understand how people like you can excuse this, not just of Layton but of the party leadership following along and still have faith that the NDP is now any less expediency in the name of power driven than either Libs or CPC.
I value your thoughts and arguments, but this is one thing I simply cannot understand about many NDP adherents/supporters like yourself. At least the Libs don't pretend to the piety/sanctimony about placing principles before all that Layton's NDP does, which gives them a bit (not much, but still a bit) more credibility with me. In any event, I am going to argue in this election cycle as I did last time out that the main thing is to stop and preferably crush Harper, and to discredit him and his approach to politics, and the best way to do that is to give the Liberals government. Minority is fine by me, especially if the NDP is needed with enough to make a coalition work, but if Harper stays PM even in a minority then we will all lose in the end, at least all of us that believe in progressive principles and a progressive Canada, which I might add the Liberals as a government were largely responsible for implementing throughout the 20th century. They may have taken NDP ideas to do it with but they still actually did it, which is more than we will ever see from the Harper CPC.
For me there is no other way to look at the current political environment, despite how much I know many bloggers I enjoy reading and respect disagree with me. I have been branded a Liberal partisan for this view, which is wrong, I am more concerned with stopping the Harper approach to governance and I see this as the only way to do so. I would have preferred him to lose to a weakened Liberal party because it would have discredited him within the CPC and hopefully given the old PCPC elements a chance to take control, hopefully losing this time out will do so too. The PCPC I disagreed with but I knew at least were pro-Canada nationalists and not just American GOP wannabes unlike the Harper CPC.
I do appreciate that you unlike many NDPers who have seen me write this accept I am not a Liberal partisan or operative despite your past disagreements with me about all this. And this is the only time I am going to go into this detail on this again here too, I will not abuse your hospitality by being a broken record about this in every post, at least not with this kind of detail. Thank you for your hospitality.
I was thinking that while Harper is claiming that letting May in would be like having two Liberals at the podium, the Greens seem more like where Progressive Conservatives exiled in the desert might start gathering. The "before McKay Jr. lied with a straight face and sold the PC party to the Reformers in the next breath" remnant.
If he really thought the Greens would make a mess of the Liberals and split the "left centre" support, he'd have her out on stage so fast we'd think she teleported in.
"I was thinking that while Harper is claiming that letting May in would be like having two Liberals at the podium, the Greens seem more like where Progressive Conservatives exiled in the desert might start gathering. The "before McKay Jr. lied with a straight face and sold the PC party to the Reformers in the next breath" remnant."
Sure that makes sense... if you just completely ignore the fact that the Liberal/Green alliance is fact and not a Harper 'claim'.
Whooee! Brian Mc, there's no "Liberal/Green alliance." Greens are running against Liberals in 305 ridings. Greens are taking votes away from Liberals and we're going to continue to do so.
Green policy is diametrically different than Liberal policy on at least 29 major issues.
NDP strategist Gerald Caplan put it this way:
"I'm dismayed at the decision to keep Ms. May out of the debate. It's contrary to democracy, common sense and civil decency. I'm hugely disappointed that the NDP is party to this exclusion. I'm shocked that the Conservatives and NDP apparently have threatened not to participate if she had been included. I'm incredulous that Mr. Layton would use the Liberal-Green deal in a single seat to argue that they're virtually the same party. I can hardly believe Mr. Harper's brazenness in saying, without an iota of proof, that Ms. May intends to endorse Mr. Dion.
Now we are left with the spectacle of four men babbling to each other, while another man moderates. Nice work, boys.
Make no mistake: Ms. May is being excluded for no reason of principle. This is all about exploiting an opportunity against a potentially dangerous opponent. Another word for this is opportunism. This is a decision that may well come back to haunt both the Conservatives and the NDP. And they'll have no one to blame but themselves."
The fact is that the Green Party cannot by easily categorized on a simplistic, linear right-left spectrum. Fiscally, the party is conservative and a bit to the right of the Liberals. Socially, the party is liberal and well to the left of the Liberals. Just because you can't tie it up neatly and place a red bibbon on it, doesn't mean that GPC doesn't appeal to a significant number of Canadians who've bothered to take the time and investigate the party's platform.
JB
Really? And in which riding are the Liberals pulling their candidate to help out the NDP? The Bloc? Hm?
The Green Party is a place Canadians park their votes. The actual number of supporters are far less than what any vote count would suggest. I already have to listen to two party leaders with no prospect of forming a government, don't need another one.
The Con's are pulling a candidate in Quebec to help an Independent. Does that make Harper an Independent? Dion is trailing badly in the polls. That means there are probably three party leaders in the debates with no prospect of forming a government. How about Harper just debate himself? That sounds like the sort of democracy you'd like.
JB
Yep, that's exactly what I said JB. You can most definitely compare the support of the Greens to the support of the Liberals.
I hate democracy because I'm not flying off the handle at the idea that a party leader who hasn't been elected can't take part in a scripted "debate" that nobody watches. Sheesh.
JimBobby:
I disagree entirely with everything you say but I'll fight to the death for the right of your leader to shriek it. 
I have waived back and forth on this, but one thoughtful person who looked into how European democracies deal with "formal coalitions" in terms of regulations during elections.
Remember May and Dion did give a press conference together where they stated their intent to collaborate. And May is on record stating that she supports Dion in his run for Prime Minister, which means that she supports the liberals winning government, under a FPTP system.
Both May and Dion have shown their undemocratic tendencies in both of ridings (where they unilaterally bypassed their respective riding associations).
As read elsewhere, in order to prohibit such democratically unfair public debate actions, of the type EMay was/is attempting, and other equally undemocratic actions that arise from collaboration if measures are not taken, European democracies, where there is a multi-party collaboration under PR, only 1 member of the multiparty collaboration is allowed to speak/debate for the coalition in public and election settings.
Because we have FPTP and not PR, means that these lack of regulations allowed them a loophole.
As this poster stated,
"That we don't have such rules, as European democracies do, as we don't have PR, is a loop hole that was used by Dion and May, to try and gain unfair advantage for themselves over, the other parties. They thought apparently, by disclaiming "official collaboration", but yet conducting themselves in such a manner, that they could run roughshod over democracy and fair electoral practices, unchallenged."
Pure bull, janfrombruce.
Your issue with May over what you perceive as her anti-democratic actions, a concern you share with Harper apparently is a sideshow.
Does the fact that some seem to think, based on specious evidence that May is a disguised Liberal plant, mean that the NDP should now embrace an anti-democratic stifling of free speech and open debate by trying to rig the leader's debate?
This is about principles, as Dr. Dawg states. The NDP and Layton should be standing up for principles and if Layton has a problem with May's political alliances, then bring it up in the debate.
At present all that Layton is doing is making May look like a victim of his and Harper's bullying and pumping up her election chances.
I'm with the majority on this one. May should be given her kick at the can. Sure, she's a shrieking goof who will contribute nothing of value to the debate but, there are plenty of shrieking goofs in politics. In my opinion, she's earned her political spurs by luring a sitting MP into her camp.
The "debates" have become such a joke, with ineffective moderation and toleration of so much silliness, that I'm betting that both Harper and Layton would love to avoid them, and May's insistance on participating would give them a convenient "out".
We watch the debate spectacles with the same bemused semi-disgust with which we view Question Period. Little of consequence comes out of them, and I'd be really surprised if more than a tiny minority of viewers have their positions changed by them.
What a contrast with the serious and meaningful presidential debates south of the border!
Commenting by HaloScan
