Categories: Andrew Coyne

The Bloc breaks ranks

This is interesting. In justifying its decision to shut the Greens out of the…

by Andrew Coyne on Monday, September 8, 2008 8:10pm - 72 Comments

This is interesting. In justifying its decision to shut the Greens out of the debates, The Consortium (bwahahahaha) claimed that “three parties were opposed.” That would be the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois. But now here’s a release from the Bloc, claiming

Contrairement à ce qui a été véhiculé dans certains médias, jamais le représentant du Bloc Québécois auprès du consortium des médias … n’a mentionné ou même laissé entendre que la présence de la chef du Parti vert pouvait remettre en cause la présence du chef du Bloc Québécois aux débats des chefs. Mentionnant que le Bloc Québécois préférait que les débats se déroulent entre les chefs des quatre partis présent à la Chambre des communes, Stéphane Gobeil, le représentant du Bloc Québécois a explicitement affirmé que le chef du Bloc Québécois allait participer aux débats, avec ou sans la présence de la chef du Parti vert.

So they said they preferred that the debate take place among the four old-line party leaders, but they never said they wouldn’t show up if Elizabeth May was included.

I have a feeling this is backfiring badly on all concerned. Have a look at the CBC story on this sordid business: there are more than 750 nearly 2000 comments attached. (This Globe story: 590-plus.) A firestorm, in other words. I wonder who will be the next member of the Gang of Three to buckle.

MORE: What’s particularly galling is that every one of the players who made this entirely self-interested decision are funded in whole or in part on the public dime: the political parties, the CBC and Radio-Canada, but also Global, CTV and TVA, who make off with massive implicit and explicit subsidies. They’re conspiring against the public interest, on the public’s dime!

MORER: So as things stand, if you did hold a Greens-included debate, you’d pull Elizabeth May, Stephane Dion, and Gilles Duceppe. If Jack Layton could be prevailed upon to come, then the only remaining holdout would be Stephen Harper. (I know he’s nervy, but could he really duck the debate?)

What about it, Jack? Or does your membership in the emerging NDP-Conservative axis — same regulation-heavy environmental policy, same disturbing fixation on the leader, same interest in dishing the Grits — preclude it? I know it’s hard to back down when you’re busy telling everyone what a strong leader you are, but turn it into a selling point. Jack Layton: strong enough to change his mind. Weak is the new strong.

Ask yourself: what would Obama do?

MOREST: DemocraticSpace has a round-up of blog reaction. Favourite post title: Elizabeth May Scares 3 Out of 4 Party Leaders.

More by Andrew Coyne

gentry

“I think the fact there was no argument says it all. Anyone looking dispassionately at the situation can tell the Greens aren’t an electorally serious political party (yet) like those parties were.”

LMAO. I think this is probably the most retarded of many arguments I’ve heard for excluding the Greens yet. Congrats!
Jarrid

The case against the Green Party’s participation in the debate is twofold:

1. No elected MP’s in Parliament.

2. Elizabeth May is on record endorsing one of the other debate participants, Stephane Dion, as Prime Minister.

The relevance of the beady-eyed separatist leader’s position on the matter is not particularly relevant.
gentry

“The relevance of the beady-eyed separatist leader’s position on the matter is not particularly relevant.”

Right, as opposed to the relevance of the position of an angry Tory blogger?
http://JadedCanadians Murray R

Wow…read through the posts and you really get a picture of what’s was wrong with the current parliament. It’s somehow WRONG to actually agree with anyone from another party.

Harper’s wildest dreams would put him at 45% support, which means, for those of you who do math: THERE’S STILL MORE PEOPLE THAT DON’T LIKE HIM THAN DO. This is the most uncompromising, dogmatic, hypocritical, opportunistic federal politician we’ve seen in Canada in decades.

Harper doesn’t care about ANYTHING other than getting a majority. bear that in mind Cons – he’ll devour his own to get there if he has to!

We need MORE polticians that are actually trying to find common ground, and are open-minded to proposals by other parties – more like E. May!
http://challengingthecommonplace.blogspot.com Chrystal Ocean

Looks like CBC.ca has suspended further comments too. The number has been stuck at 637 for the one article and 22 for the Your Voice section for over an hour. They’ve probably been bombarded with them.
Pingback: Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy :: Layton and Harper are Yellow
http://www.hubbers.ca Glenn Hubbers

As a Green Party candidate, I’d like to address this comment:

“I’d love to hear from Green Party supporters.
What do you make of your leader’s public endorsement of Stephane Dion as Prime Minister?”

First, can he writer please do as asked and provide something to reference this claim, because many who want to cannot find a reference.

But I doubt you’ll find an actual quote to back this up.

In fact, Elizabeth May did not “endorse Stephane Dion for Prime Minister” as has been claimed by many.

What she said was that she thought Stephane Dion would make a far better Prime Minister than Stephen Harper.

In fact, Elizabeth lists Stephane Dion as her second choice for Prime Minister from the current slate of candidates for the position. She herself is her first choice.

Therefore, as a candidate, I have no problem being in complete agreement with this position.
http://www.abandonedstuff.com/ saskboy

Harper and Layton are showing what strong leaders they are. They couldn’t possibly debate May, lest she show people just how strong they are.
Finn

Right on, Coyne.
Jenn

Per Kody: “Apparently if the angry Green mob’s wishes don’t supercede what the voters have clearly decided,
its “undemocratic””.

When did we vote on whether to allow May into the debate Kody? When did I give my proxy vote to a consortium of broadcasters?

But you didn’t write that with a straight face, did you.

Jarrid: Although you didn’t provide a link, let’s say she did say something like that for argument’s sake.

Is it because she’s a woman that she’s held to a higher standard than the other leaders (who have NEVER said something they later reversed themselves on)? Can you honestly sit there with the Election Law and Income Trusts so fresh in our minds and stick with that “she said it, so should be punished” attitude? And even if you can, why is it that only the woman actually IS punished?
Jerry Otto

One must wonder why “the Consortium (bwahahahaha)” allows the Bloc to debate in the English debate when the Bloc does not run candidates outside of Quebec. Stupide, non?!
Jarrid

Mr. Hubbers, thanks for responding. It was reported in the media at the time of the Dion/May agreement. Here’s an excerpt from the Press Release issued by the Green Party dated April 13th, 2007 entitled “Statement by … Dion and … May:

“Out of respect for each other and out of our shared commitment to a greener Canada, we are not running candidates in each other’s ridings.

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, committed to action on climate.”

This was widely interpreted as a Green Party endorsement of Stephane Dion as Prime Minister at the time.

There you have it folks. Not an off-the-cuff remark by May but actually set out in a press release.
Andrew

She didn’t endorse him. She said she could work with him. *gasp*
http://nottawa.blogspot.com Mark

Pardon me if I’m mistaken, but at the time of the 2000 federal election, weren’t the Conservatives changing their name to “Alliance” and making weekly overtures to commit to having the PC party join them?

Really. It’s a tad hypocritical for Stephen Harper’s party to be lamenting the possibility of two like minded parties on a single stage.
sbt

I think this is the article people are referencing when they say May has essentially endorsed Dion for PM.

During the news conference May touted Dion as the answer to Canada’s climate change struggles, saying she has worked closely with him and has become convinced he is the best choice to lead Canada.

Personally, I don’t have any strong feelings either way for letting May in or not but to appeal to be let into debates on the basis of democracy when you’ve denied the people of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville the chance to vote Green is just a bit rich.
gentry

Mark, it was Reform that changed their name to Alliance, but your point stands.

Compared to the Bloc or Reform in 1993, the Green Party in 2008 is a freakin’ electoral powerhouse.
Smack

“I think the fact there was no argument says it all. Anyone looking dispassionately at the situation can tell the Greens aren’t an electorally serious political party (yet) like those parties were.”

The Green Party has more common interest to me than the Reform did or the BQ does. Unlike these regional interest group parties, the Greens are at least pan-Canadian.
Pingback: Ms. May - Jay Currie
Ben Hicks

I disagree with everything the Green’s stand for. But shutting them out of the debates is utterly disgraceful and anti-democratic.

Having said that, has anyone considered that Ms. May is not bilingual? How exactly would she participate in the French debate?
James T.

The so-called green party has never had a member ELECTED to Parliament. The only Member they do have is a disgraced former Liberal who crossed the floor after some shifty, shady backroom deal. Since the so-called greens DO NOT enjoy the confidence of the electorate, they do not deserve a place in the televised debates. I am very proud to be Canadian today. Very proud.
Wassim

Ben,

Elizabeth May is bilingual.

Even if she was not, however, that did not prevent Preston Manning from reading a prepared statement in 1993 and just stare at the camera for the rest of the debate.
Davey Boy

Is Obama campaigning to get Ralph Nader included in the presidential debates? I hadn’t heard that before.
Debra D

Dear Andrew,

I don’t get it. Why did the nameless, faceless, politically unaccountable Consortium members choose Oct. 2, the same date as the U.S. vice presidential debates for the one and only English language debate in Canada? How can they possibly compete with the boring fare they are getting ready to serve up? Seems like a dumb business decision to me. It’s as if they don’t want us to watch. What’s going on?
Peter Browne

re: Ben Hicks comment
You clam that you “disagree with everything the Green’s stand for. But shutting them out of the debates is utterly disgraceful and anti-democratic.”
You disagree with marijuana legalization, writing off 50% of student loans upon graduation, locally produced food, fair trade, reduction of income taxes, eliminating income tax for those making under $25,000, reducing carbon emissions, making transit passes tax-deductible, health care – not sick care, care for seniors, a Guaranteed Livable Income, water as a human right, universal child care AND bio-fuels from waste (as opposed to Ethanol which currently makes up as much as 10% of vehicle fuel and is made from corn)? WOW! So you enjoy not having preventative health care and having food wasted for fuel? I guess thats your personal decision, but it makes no sense to me.

Although I am glad to hear that you feel that it is un-democratic to exclude Ms. May from the debates.
Tintin

Do you think it’s easy to debate environmental policy?