The Bloc breaks ranks

@ Wassim

My apologies. I was under the impression she wasn’t billingual. Good for her.

@ Peter: Dude! Tax dectuctable transit passes?! I stand corrected. I don’t disagree with everything the Green’s stand for.

she has already stated her preference for PM is Dion. if she wants to know who made her irrelevant, she should look in the mirror.

how about this:

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/13.04.2007

“We recognize that a government in which Stéphane Dion served as Prime Minister could work well with a Green Caucus of MPs, led by Elizabeth May”

she did this to herself. if she hadn’t i would get behind the push to include her. in fact, i voted green last election. but you don’t get to bring cheerleaders into the debate.

“And then there’s a son of this city — Stephane Dion.

A man with whom I have fundamental disagreements about how Canada should build and renew itself.

But also a man who is, if I may say so across the partisan divide, distinct from his principal opponents in being a committed Canadian and a man of principle and conviction.”
- Jack Layton, September 10, 2006

Good grief, so you think our government shouldn’t make the best efforts to work together and make compromises where they can, but instead remain fractionaly and essentially divided on every issue?

This is essentially what May has indicated, that she’s willing to work with other parties, and would likely find the Liberals easiest to work with, much like the Bloc would probably find the conservatives easiest to work with (that is assuming that the conservatives were actually willing to work with anyone at all.)

tc,

It still sounds like advocating for Dion, at least to some degree: “… distinct from his political opponents.”

But moreover, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Layton saying it. It’s good to give a shout out across the partisan divide once in a while.

Canada could probably somehow survive.

TC, by Layton siding with Harper, he’s formed an implicit pact with the Conservatives, and has thus endorsed Harper over the other parties who have a chance of forming government this election.

layton siding with harper about what? every party has policy overlap, but he still isn’t openly endorsing harper.

but at least we’ve finally arrived at the crux: implicit vs. explicit.

Just to tell our senior journalist Paul Wells, quite welcome back in Ottawa. How do the Macleans
magazine does into play with a blog québequois
chatting line, just as a member of Bloc Québequois
i will reveal that Richard Nadeau will come strong
in Gatineau county.I have seen Paul at National
Press before he s got lots of info from francophones into the capital, with Le Devoir
and La Presse. Good to see an anglophone doing well into feed back, into other language the written press. I am rooting him about his comments
because i follow him about his easy language understangding. Just to tell every one that that i
am registerded to Richard Nadeau s helping hand to
install public party signs, just main streets post poles.
Thanks
Michel.

I think the issue here is about debate. The Greens are a legitimate party. How can it be anything but healthy for the quality of our democracy to have as many leaders as possible engaging in this debate? There are certainly more than 5 different positions held by Canadians. Anyone who wants to be leader of our country should at least be able to answer to 4 others.

A lot of focus in these responses seem to center around the likelihood of the Greens forming government and around Ms. May’s possible endorsement of Mr. Dion as PM. Respectfully, I don’t see how either of these arguments are relevent to whether or not she should be included in the debate. Whatever her comments in the past, it seems incredibly unlikely to me that Ms. May will endorse the Liberals IN the formal debate. She will be there representing her party, presenting their platform (not the Liberal’s) and arguing for herself as the best choice for Canadian Prime Minister. In fact, the debate is percisely the place for legitimate issues about political positions to be asked and answered. If Mr. Harper is concerned that Ms. May has inappropriately endorsed the Liberals, the debate would be the right place to air that issue and allow Ms. May to respond.

Actual likelihood of forming government should not be the meter stick by which inclusion is decided. If it is then based, on the history of our country, only 2 parties should really be in the debate at all. There is value in hearing a variety of opinions and positions and making our own decision.

I am outraged by the bad and thoroughly undemocratic behaviour of the politicians trying to limit political debate and of the cowardly media for bowing to it.

If a leader is unwilling to attend the debate because of the inclusion of another leader, it should be their right not to attend. They can choose for themselves if they do not want to be heard from. That in itself would demonstrate to the voters how interested they are in the process. They should not be able to use the threat of not showing up to allow them to dictate who can be part of the discussion. Personally I think the threat alone of not showing up was a snub at the Canadian people whose election this is and who this debate is supposed to be for.

Shame! Shame!