Up for debate

If I'm reading things correctly, none of the four main party leaders has  a problem with Green Party leader Elizabeth May appearing in the TV debates.  In the story today from my colleague Joanna Smith, we are reminded that three leaders threatened to boycott in 2008 if May participated, but this year, it seems they've all decided that to protest this time would be a bad idea.

The Conservatives have been a bit ambivalent, saying May is "fully capable of arguing her own case," but NDP leader Jack Layton was more definitive  in a statement: "We're fine with her in the debate." Michael Ignatieff himself weighed in late last night from Vancouver: “I think Elizabeth May belongs in the debate, it's as simple as that."

Now the TV consortium finds itself with a flaming bag of something or other on its doorstep, left alone to withstand the same kind of firestorm that May's exclusion provoked in 2008. Or, if you want to go farther back, the same kind of popular protest that arose in 1993, when Reform Party leader Preston Manning was initially shut out, because he didn't speak both languages. Either this will be solved quickly today, and May will be involved, or this is going to get very complicated.

I've had a nagging feeling, which I've shared with colleagues, that we aren't going to have TV debates this time, or that they're going to look quite different (one-on-one encounters, etc.) I can actually envision a situation in which the battle over May goes on for days and one or the other parties just declare that the whole thing is a mess, let's call the whole thing off.

Is that a bad thing? Though  many have reservations about the staged, canned nature of these debates in recent elections, one thing is clear: they spark voter interest, even temporarily. No debates would probably mean lower voter turnout, already at a record low in 2008.  Presumably no party is interested in that. Or is there a party that would benefit from fewer people at the ballot box? 

 

 

Comments

[LloydG]

Yes the CONS benefit from not having people turn out. No Doubt.

They and Harpo have got to go...

[Phil]

The leaders may not have a problem with May in the debate but I sure do. At the end of the last election she openly campaigned for Stephane Dion. If they let May in then all the other leaders should be allowed another person who will campaign for them as well.

[Darwin O'Connor]

"Though many have reservations about the staged, canned nature of these debates in recent elections"

Aren't they at least slightly less staged and canned then everything else the leaders do during the election?

[Rudy Haugeneder]

Boycott TV advertised products.
Unless Green Party leader Elizabeth May is allowed to participate in the debate, people who feel this is totally unjust should protest by boycotting the products advertised on television -- and tell the companies that advertise why you are no longer buying their products.
Boycott TV advertised products.
Boycott them now.

[Jason Cherniak]

I'm more inclined to wonder what would happen if only Harper refused to show up. As long as it went ahead without him, I think it would be a silly move on his part.

[Bronwyn]

I want May in the debates. Nothing really excites me about the other leaders. I want her in the mix to shake things up. Honestly don't think I'll tune in if she's not there.

[CJ Williams]

May and Duceppe certainly made the previous debates worth watching and likely the same this time around if the consortium gatekeepers agree to May. Conversely, why not propose a full leaders debate on another broadcast venue--TVO, Knowledge networks...an online alternative? If the "consortiuum" blocks democracy let's bypass these egos. Why grant them authority over voters expect--that all parties equally participate in the political conversation.

[Sara-Anne Peterson]

Debates should be arranged by Elections Canada after debate on the format. In parliament Stephen, not your dectatorial decision. And if a millions votes doesn't qualify you it should.

[Louis]

Does Mr Harper really understands the parliamentary system of government in Canada of which he has been PM for years?

Mr, Harper either does not understand his own system or he is consciously preying on the ignorance of other Canadian voters who do not fully understand the Canadian system.

Mr Harper will need some education. Mr Harper, please note these facts:

Fact 1--Canada's parliamentary system is a hybrid of the British Westminster Model.
Parliament is supreme only limited by our Charter of Rights and our federal system.

Fact 2--In Canada a government is formed from Parliament. Canadians do not vote a government into power. We vote for a parliament. When a parliament has been voted then the leader of the party with MAJORITY seats (not just the one with the most seats) form a government. Failing that there is a party with majority seat (more than half of all seats), forming a government is by negotiation and working together!

Fact 3--The idea of a minority government is a misnomer because a so-called minority government can continue to operate on the basis of always getting MAJORITY votes to pass its financial bills. In a parliamentary system, if you cannot command majority to pass your financial bills, the government falls (automatically)

Fact 4--Mr Harper, Mr Ignatieff and other leaders all have have ridings and they can only come to the parliament if they are voted in their ridings. Their campaigns in other ridings have no direct voting effect on their own outcomes. Theoretically, their parties can form a government without them.

To be Continued: