header image
The world according to David Graham


acva bili chpc columns committee conferences elections environment essays ethi faae foreign foss guelph hansard highways history indu internet leadership legal military money musings newsletter oggo pacp parlchmbr parlcmte politics presentations proc qp radio reform regs rnnr satire secu smem statements tran transit tributes tv unity

Recent entries

  1. Why do lockdowns and pandemic restrictions continue to exist?
  2. Parliamentary privilege: an arcane concept that can prevent coups
  3. It's not over yet
  4. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  5. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  6. Next steps
  7. On what electoral reform reforms
  8. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  9. 2019 Summer newsletter / infolettre été 2019
  10. 2019-07-15 SECU 171
  11. 2019-06-20 RNNR 140
  12. 2019-06-17 14:14 House intervention / intervention en chambre
  13. 2019-06-17 SECU 169
  14. 2019-06-13 PROC 162
  15. 2019-06-10 SECU 167
  16. 2019-06-06 PROC 160
  17. 2019-06-06 INDU 167
  18. 2019-06-05 23:27 House intervention / intervention en chambre
  19. 2019-06-05 15:11 House intervention / intervention en chambre
  20. 2019-06-04 INDU 166
  21. 2019-06-03 SECU 166
  22. 2019 June newsletter / infolettre juin 2019
  23. 2019-05-30 RNNR 137
  24. 2019-05-30 PROC 158
  25. 2019-05-30 INDU 165
  26. 2019-05-29 SECU 165
  27. 2019-05-29 ETHI 155
  28. 2019-05-28 ETHI 154
  29. 2019-05-28 ETHI 153
  30. 2019-05-27 ETHI 151
  31. older entries...

Bloc, NDP, Conservatives against democratic debate

Three of four federal parties already in the leadership debate won't participate in it if Elizabeth May is allowed in. The Green Party has fulfilled all of the arbitrary requirements to participate in the debate, but the broadcast consortium responsible for organising them has allowed three parties to veto a decision that is not theirs to make.

I, for one, wish Elizabeth May luck in her now inevitable court challenge to get in to the debate. Even though I have no intention of voting for a party that pushes to change the electoral system to get in the back door of parliament, I believe it is the right of the leader of any serious party to attend televised leaders debates as a participant. The federal Greens have a slate, a platform, and a member of parliament. The time for excuses is at an end.

Posted at 14:29 on September 08, 2008

This entry has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.

45 days down, 37 to go | elections leadership | Day 50 of the Guelph campaign

Chrystal Ocean (challengingthecommonplace.blogspot.com) writes at Mon Sep 8 16:49:58 EDT 2008...

"I have no intention of voting for a party that pushes to change the electoral system to get in the back door of parliament."

That you won't vote Green is one thing and your right. But to suggest that the Greens want to change the electoral system - as the NDP also has claimed it wants to do - is dishonest. The NDP purportedly wants to change the electoral system because it's the right thing to do, for the sake of democracy no less (and then the party works to exclude May from the debates - yea, right).

Why should it be so hard to understand that the Greens want electoral reform for the same reason? To restore voters' democratic rights.

Sid writes at Mon Sep 8 17:08:27 EDT 2008...

I find it hard to believe as they are trying to get in the backdoor of the debates in a non-democratic way, seems a very poor way to show you are for reform.

Harry S writes at Tue Sep 9 00:34:08 EDT 2008...

May sold her soul to the Liberal party once she got into bed with Dion and their sweetheart deal. I bet Layton is pleased May is excluded so he can attempt to proclaim and reclaim the 'green' vote because Jack has been crying all along that the NDP is the true environmental party.

I'm betting Harper is right that before the campaign ends, May declares her support for the Liberal party and tells Canadians to strategically vote Liberal. You don't think this wasn't all arranged before their sweetheart deal .. and possibly a cozy sinecure for her as well courtesy of some Liberal-connected corporation or bank.

East of Eden writes at Tue Sep 9 05:18:15 EDT 2008...

May appears to be an opportunist who is out for herself; power-hungry and all that. The Green Party is not an established party and, yet, she is trying to force her way into the debate. To what end? Her "party" will not gain many seats, if any, so what is her goal? Methinks she just wants to make trouble. And to call Harper an anti-feminist is just so beyond the pale. She's shown herself to be the type who cannot accept that she doesn't always get her way and then she falls back on that old line about Harper hating women. I am sure that at some point, she'll join the Liberal party. This Green "party" shtick is just a vehicle to promote her own goal.

Chris writes at Tue Sep 9 19:51:40 EDT 2008...

Who is of more value to Canadian electorate, Elizabeth May or Gilles Duceppe. May has candidates in all ridings in Canada, Duceppe speaks only for separatists in Quebec. My money is on May

Deb Prothero writes at Tue Sep 9 23:06:34 EDT 2008...

It's starting to look like Harper and Layton are in bed together on this one. Seems like odd bedfellows. Preston Manning was able to participate in the national debates when he had one MP and Reform wasn't even offering a candidate in every riding at that time. There is no excuse for May not to be allowed to participate. It appears to be an editorial decision in the end, which is a sad reflection of our media.

Harry S writes at Wed Sep 10 17:47:46 EDT 2008...

From a G&M article today:

"The political path has been cleared for Elizabeth May to participate in the televised leaders debates after first NDP Leader Jack Layton and minutes later Conservative Leader Stephen Harper withdrew threats to boycott."

Now let's see if May will disagree with Dion's Green Shift Carbon Tax with only one paragraph(on page 16) on GHG targets and 44 pages on how and why he intends to collect a tax and promises to ensure that the Ottawa central government will be protected because the scheme is "revenue neutral" to the country's treasury.

East of Eden writes at Thu Sep 11 10:12:10 EDT 2008...

How is it that the three are against democratic debate? The four leaders of valid parties will be debating - that sounds pretty democratic to me. Unfortunately, one blogger has gone on and on about how he is the proponent of democracy and has managed to convince a lot of sheeple that this whole election is about democracy. Have we lost any rights? Have our lives changed? Uh, no. This whole "democracy" thing is just a sham - we have not lost one iota of democracy. Elizabeth May is being the undemocratic one - the majority decided to not include her and she is forcing herself in using very undemocratic methods.

(RSS) Website generating code and content © 2001-2020 David Graham <david@davidgraham.ca>, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Comments are © their respective authors.