Networks Decide not to Allow The Green Party in Debate

[M.Dancer]

On the matter of the Green Party, the consortium of broadcasters will issue the following statement: “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 their 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.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

I can certainly understand their reasons. Aside from the normal reasons, no elected members sat in the House, it would be fair to have the Original Coke party at one podium and New Coke at the other....

Edited September 9, 2008 by Charles Anthony
edited thread title

[Moonbox]

Personally I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect that they would be allowed. Where do you draw the line on when they should be allowed to participate? I think they've drawn it in the right place.

[guyser]

In the heading on the forum front page it read "Networks Decide not to allow F"

i thought the F word wasnt going to be allowed........

Fringe Party? So sad too bad.

[eyeball]

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 their inclusion and it became clear that if the Green Party were included, there would be no Leaders' Debates.

Democracy by consortium eh?

I'd like to hear this directly from the consortium of leaders, Harper, Layton and Duceppe, who have apparently said they will not attend the leaders debate if May is included. I'd particularily like to hear why from Harper given he was singing a different tune when Preston Manning was in Elizabeth May's shoes.

I think I just concluded which three I won't be voting for. You can see how that little Federal Political Party Test that Morris posted this AM and similar poll-like devices are pretty limited in what they gauge - Morris' completely fails to capture any sense of principles amongst Canadians. Go figure.

In the meantime we have some consortium of media deciding what's in the best interest of Canadians, including the 77% who said they support Elizabeth May's inclusion in the debates.

The most recent Harris-Decima poll found that 77 per cent of voting-age Canadians want to see Elizabeth May in the televised debates.

Source

Edited September 8, 2008 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

Democracy by consortium eh?

I'd like to hear this directly from the consortium of leaders, Harper, Layton and Duceppe, ......

The consortium is the NETWORKS......jeesus

I think I just concluded which three I won't be voting for. You can see how that little Federal Political Party Test that Morris posted this AM and similar poll-like devices are pretty limited in what they gauge - Morris' completely fails to capture any sense of principles amongst Canadians. Go figure.

Smoke another one...I didn't post it..

[capricorn]

Thank God for small mercies.

On Duffy just now, Lizzy said the Conservatives and the NDP made a secret pact: to work together to destroy the Liberal Party.

[madmax]

Thank God for small mercies.

On Duffy just now, Lizzy said the Conservatives and the NDP made a secret pact: to work together to destroy the Liberal Party.

[Moonlight Graham]

The Greens have enough support among Canadians & in the polls that i think they deserve a spot in the debates. If the party is supported enough to be on my ballot, i don't understand why they can't be on a freakin TV debate.

[betsy]

CPAC Radio host gave a leading question to Elizabeth May whether she thinks she's being shut out because she is a woman. This radio host (I think it's Mike Harris?) trashed Harper, Dion and Layton...and suggested that they are afraid of May because she "knows a lot." He is a Green supporter, no doubt about it.

Elizabeth May is now invoking the gender card.

The good old boys keeping her from debating. She said she's almost sure Harper was the one who has a hand on this.

At MDuffy Live, it turned out it's only the Liberals who agree to let her join the debate.

Something smells fishy about this cozy and convenient scenario between Dion and May. The other party leaders are being painted as sexists....and Dion is coming out smelling like a rose...the "champion" of women.

I hope women realize when they're being used and made into fools.

Their side-deals may not just be the sweetheart deal of not running against each other in some ridings but could also include duping the public and turning our democratic debates into a banana-republic type of politics.

She said she is taking this to court....to have it that the consortium cannot have the debate without her, and that it's up to the other leaders if they don't want to show up.

Edited September 8, 2008 by betsy

[eyeball]

The consortium is the NETWORKS......jeesus

That's right and they're basing their decision on a threat or some such thing from a consortium of cowards - Layton, Harper and Duceppe.

Smoke another one...I didn't post it..

Your right, by golly. Made your day did it?

Edited September 8, 2008 by eyeball

[blueblood]

It's the networks choice, they can invite whoever they want. If May wants to be in the debate, have her party actually win some seats.

[jdobbin]

I guess we'll see if the courts weigh in.

I wonder how some of the NDP feel about Layton smacking down the Greens.

[eyeball]

I hope they do, it would provide a good back drop to the campaign.

I'd be just as interested in knowing how Reformers feel about Harper denying May the same thing his old fringe party got.

[August1991]

I have never quite understood why Gilles Duceppe was invited to the English-language debate or even why he accepted to participate in it.

[Smallc]

I have never quite understood why Gilles Duceppe was invited to the English-language debate or even why he accepted to participate in it.

I'm not sure why he accepted, but he's invited because there are English speakers who vote for him.

[betsy]

I'd be just as interested in knowing how Reformers feel about Harper denying May the same thing his old fringe party got.

I'm not sure about this but, didn't the Reformers have an elected MP who actually ran and won under the Reform Party?

The Green Party do not have an elected MP who ran and won under the Green Banner. They got this now-independent MP who ran and won under the Liberal banner. So it is not the same thing.

[eyeball]

I'm not sure about this but, didn't the Reformers have an elected MP who actually ran and won under the Reform Party?

The Green Party do not have an elected MP who ran and won under the Green Banner. They got this now-independent MP who ran and won under the Liberal banner. So it is not the same thing.

What do you mean by the same thing though? The whole process of deciding who gets to participate in a leader's debate is just a back room affair held in secret with no official rules or standards and no accountability to anyone but the handful of TV execs and established party leaders that call the shot. Is there a Leader's Debate Act or anything in the that spells out the conditions required to participate? I don't think so.

I only hope the 77% of Canadians who think Elizabeth May should participate in the debate boycott it now that its been denied her. A boycott will hurt the networks bottom line more. I imagine I'll even care less about cutbacks to the CBC after this. Excuse the pun but shame on them for being a party to this.

Edited September 9, 2008 by eyeball

[peter_puck]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

I can certainly understand their reasons. Aside from the normal reasons, no elected members sat in the House, it would be fair to have the Original Coke party at one podium and New Coke at the other....

First of all, I would hardly call them a fringe party. They get near double figures in the polls. They have a sitting (if crooked) MP

Harper's decision to kick them out confuses me however. The Greens are extremely unlikely to defeat a Conservative candidate. The percentage of small c conservatives in their ranks is rather small, so if their vote total went up, they would mainly suck from the other parties.

This would be the reason the NDP and the Liberals should want them out of the debate. Most Greens were probably NDPers before, and the split of the left vote is just killing the NDP. The Liberals, with the green shift, are also competing with the Green party.

Harper is a cold, calculating, very smart guy. I am wondering why the heck he is doing this ? The idea that the Greens would endorse the Liberals seems a little silly (though it is a scary though, the Liberals would be close to a majority if those votes actually went). Why wouldn't he want the vote of the tree huggers split ?

[Bryan]

I'd be just as interested in knowing how Reformers feel about Harper denying May the same thing his old fringe party got.

Reform won 52 seats in their second election, and were the official opposition by their third. The Greens have yet to elect a single member in seven elections. Big difference.

Hopefully, one good thing that might come of this is a codified set of rules for participation.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Bryan

[PoliticalCitizen]

I have never quite understood why Gilles Duceppe was invited to the English-language debate or even why he accepted to participate in it.

I have never quite understood how is Bloq Quebequois allowed to become a Federal party - is that in the Constitution someplace?

I think we should fix that...

Green party has half of their popular support, except it's truly National and not Provincial.

Edited September 9, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[Smallc]

I have never quite understood how is Bloq Quebequois allowed to become a Federal party - is that in the Constitution someplace?

I think we should fix that...

Green party has half of their popular support, except it's truly National and not Provincial.

It is in the constitution. Section 2 and 3 cover it and there may be more that does.

[betsy]

Harper is a cold, calculating, very smart guy. I am wondering why the heck he is doing this ? The idea that the Greens would endorse the Liberals seems a little silly (though it is a scary though, the Liberals would be close to a majority if those votes actually went). Why wouldn't he want the vote of the tree huggers split ?

I don't think May will openly endorse Dion in a debate. The problem is since these two had side-deals and May had already publicly endorsed Dion, the fairness in the dynamics of a debate will be gone if Elizabeth May is allowed to join in.

Any endorsement by May of Dion will be subtle, but I would bet that the unmistaken message will be for all supporters of the NDP, Green, Bloc and Liberals to stop Harper.....by voting "strategically."

Besides, it's like giving Dion an extra air time with May as his mouthpiece.

Edited September 9, 2008 by betsy

[August1991]

Besides, it's like giving Dion an extra air time with May as his mouthpiece.

On the contrary, they are opponents.

This is another situation where whatever happens, Harper wins.

If May participates in the debate, she draws votes away from the NDP and Liberals. If she doesn't, it won't matter to the Tories.

I frankly think that Harper should consider doing what Trudeau did in 1972, 1974 and 1980 and simply refuse to participate. The Tories can "try" to negotiate terms and then let the whole thing collapse when nothing can be agreed. I'm not certain that harper has anything to gain from a televised debate in this election.

Harper's decision to kick them out confuses me however. The Greens are extremely unlikely to defeat a Conservative candidate. The percentage of small c conservatives in their ranks is rather small, so if their vote total went up, they would mainly suck from the other parties.

Harper may be aiming to cancel the whole debate scenario. This is exactly what Trudeau used to do. Edited September 9, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

I frankly think that Harper should consider doing what Trudeau did in 1972, 1974 and 1980 and simply refuse to participate. The Tories can "try" to negotiate terms and then let the whole thing collapse when nothing can be agreed. I'm not certain that harper has anything to gain from a televised debate in this election.

Harper may be aiming to cancel the whole debate scenario. This is exactly what Trudeau used to do.

You could be right. It would be the same type of cynical move that one might expect from a leader dismissive of the electoral process.

[M.Dancer]

First of all, I would hardly call them a fringe party. They get near double figures in the polls. They have a sitting (if crooked) MP

In the polls that count they got less than 7%.

And although they have an MP, he has never sat nor has he been elected as a Green MP