I don't see any reason to gloat over this. I'm not sure what Blair's legal status is, but I believe he was cleared of the more serious allegations and took care of some more minor things which were not reported correctly. The LPC's decision is up to them.
The Green Party currently has no seats. It has been many years since the NDP was a party struggling with no or single digit seats. Yet, only last election, in 2006, the NDP saw fit to nominate Jeffrey Hansen-Carlson, and to stand behind his allegations against the Liberal candidate EVEN AFTER the NDP had evidence that these allegations were false.
So, I would say the NDP should not be haughtily pointing a finger at the Green Party for ethics. This is its very first seat. It should allow May into the debates and it should increase their visibility. Who have they hurt? Blair Wilson's problems are well known and he even alluded to them in the press conference. This move is likely to help in exposing Harper to Canadians. That is extremely important.
Meanwhile, Jack Layton's leadership of the NDP hurt someone. And for what? To try to pick up one extra seat from the Liberals when it was Harper taking over the government?
There simply is no comparison. So don't gloat.
So much comic relief, so little time.
Hansen-Carlson's allegations weren't dealt with until long after the 2006 election, and nothing indicated that the NDP had any reason to disbelieve what proved to be incorrect assertions from him.
Mind you, if they nominated him again after he'd been found to have been untrustworthy, that would be a serious problem - on roughly the same level as the Greens being willing to take in Wilson.
But as you say, the Greens' concern doesn't seem to be with Wilson's merit or lack thereof as a candidate - only with the idea that they can piggyback off his MP status for their own political gain. Which is probably right - but it's also about the strongest possible demonstration of the crass and cynical self-interested political calculation that May claims to be above. Which offers plenty more reason not to take her seriously in claiming to want to do politics differently.
Oh yes. Let's all hail self-proclaimed Noted Academic and Best-Selling Author Michael Byers as the next great thing for the NDP. The guy was shopping for a seat, and decided he'd like to make a name for himself by running in an unwinnable riding.
...and as for Blair Wilson: the Greens talk a lot about democracy, but when it comes down to it, they'll take whatever they can get. With Wilson, they just made their bed, and now they're going to lie in it. This guy is trouble. Trouble for the Liberals, trouble for the Tories (who also turned him down), and trouble for the Greens.
I think the bigger parties just have better private investigators.
Layton wouldn't issue the apology himself. Note: 40. And you think May is crass and cynical self-interested!
But yesterday, Davies revealed that party officials had "encouraged" NDP candidate Jeffrey Hansen-Carlson to repeat his bribery accusation to the media on 40 separate occasions even though NDP brass hadn't done "appropriate due diligence" to check whether it was even true.
It's a great day for democracy in this country. Too bad you're not enjoying it 
Blair was cleared of wrongdoing. You wouldn't like it if false allegations kept coming up against you, would you? So give his "dishonesty" a rest, ok?
Steve: That's a new one about Byers, but I don't see how it makes the least bit of sense - surely if he somehow preferred a long-shot campaign he'd have asked for a riding that wasn't already one of the NDP's top targets (and there's no reason why he had to choose the NDP over the Libs to get that either).
catherine: I won't try to defend the failure to better substantiate the claim before making it public. But that's radically different from the claim you made earlier about "evidence that the allegations were false", and likewise it's still a long way from embracing somebody was rejected precisely for his dishonesty.
Saskboy: I'm not about to prejudge the issues with Wilson's business dealings (and it appears at least some are still unresolved). But there's also a dishonesty issue in his providing inaccurate information to the Libs in seeking their nomination.
As for the "great day for democracy" line, I'll have to disagree. I'd be sympathetic to the Greens' call for a place in the leaders' debates if they hadn't signed on to shill for another party, but the Red Green pact has ensured that including them will raise at least as many legitimacy issues as it answers. And the fact that their case for inclusion is now based in large part on an MP who's never been elected under an explicit or implicit Green banner only makes the effort look even more shady.
Sorry, I was assuming Layton with his age and experience, after thoroughly talking to his young candidate and reading Oliver's version, would have the judgement to recognize that this was not a certainty and he should not put out 40 media appearances on it. However, if Layton could only recognize reality after the lawsuit convinced him, then so be it. Says a lot about Layton, not to mention the masterful deceptive abilities of an inexperienced 23 year old candidate to fool such experienced politicians.
-----------
"NDP leader Jack Layton, at that time, denounced the Liberals and said his 23-year-old candidate had suffered "a horrifying experience" while "trying to participate in the democratic process."
But the federal NDP and Hansen-Carlson, facing a defamation lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court, now acknowledge they misinterpreted a private discussion that led to the allegation." [Van Sun]
Now I'm not sure what you think you're arguing with. From my last post:
I won't try to defend the failure to better substantiate the claim before making it public.
So I'm not clear on what you think you're accomplishing, other than to signal that you're so focused on bashing the NDP that you're not even paying attention to what is and isn't in dispute.
Below is what I was refering to in my first post. Sorry for the confusion and for giving this out piecemeal -- I was going by memory as my first link didn't include this part. It is the last part that bothered me the most.
------
Davies admitted that the NDP erred in arranging for Hansen-Carlson to repeat his accusations widely in the media 10 days before the Jan. 23, 2006, election. And she said it made "another serious error in judgment" in failing to make public a letter from Canada's elections commissioner, three days before the election, which cleared the two Liberals. [from CBC]
"their case for inclusion is now based in large part on an MP who's never been elected under an explicit or implicit Green banner only makes the effort look even more shady."
Sorry, the case is already made, Wilson is just the last nail in the media conglomerate's coffin. Sorry the NDP will lose seats next election, but it's really not the Green Party's fault, so stop worrying so much.
catherine: Agreed that that too is a problematic decision. But that was also followed by the NDP admitting that it had done wrong, and then putting processes in place to prevent anything similar from happening again.
Saskboy: Congratulations, I didn't know you'd been put in charge of deciding who has a sufficient case to participate in the debates (not to mention how many seats the NDP will get in the ensuing election). But why does Wilson's joining the party matter if you have that kind of power?
You know perfectly well who is in charge of "deciding" the debate participants, and if you're truly satisfied with that situation, you're more authoritarian than the NDP really care to be.
The NDP are going to be losing seats next election, it's just a matter of having good predictive skills to know it.
Saskboy: Again, I've dealt with the problem facing the broadcasters earlier in the thread:
I'd be sympathetic to the Greens' call for a place in the leaders' debates if they hadn't signed on to shill for another party, but the Red Green pact has ensured that including them will raise at least as many legitimacy issues as it answers.
Unfortunately, it's May who's ensured that there won't be an entirely satisfactory solution.
And it's far too early to be making any judgments about the next election until we've seen how the campaign plays out (though I know you've had trouble with the concepts of time and causation before). In reality, each of the three main national parties is within range of its 2006 share of the popular vote, which means that there's plenty of room for each to rise or fall depending on how the campaign goes.
Mind you, it's worth noting that Wilson's arrival also raises an unfamiliar problem for the Greens: now, they actually have a seat to lose. Which means that we can add them to the list of parties who may well end up with less after the election than when they started.
True, that bit about losing a seat like the rest.
"if they hadn't signed on to shill for another party, but the Red Green pact has ensured that including them will raise at least as many legitimacy issues as it answers."
So you're saying Jack shouldn't be in the debates either because he's a shill for Harper on a climate change plan?
It's your attitude that she's "shilling" for the Liberals which defines the NDP's inability to govern the country. They will realistically never have more than 100 seats, and so if they ever hope to govern they'll have to do so in a coalition, yet are completely unable to with an attitude such as yours driving the discussion and thought. It's not shilling, it's called strategizing and "cooperating with". It's something politicians are supposed to do in a democracy. I'd suggest you think about it.
If you'd like to point out which part of the NDP's message on climate change constitutes shilling for the Cons, please be my guest.
But in May's case, the specific problem is her endorsing Dion for PM. Which certainly makes her the only current federal leader who's actively promoting another leader and party for government, and as far as I know also makes her situation radically different from all the other leaders who have been allowed to participate in past debates.
Commenting by HaloScan
