Still annoyed by the arrogance displayed by Stephen Harper. Annoyed and infuriated by the fact that he thought it suitable to use his power as the defending Prime Minister - the one everyone wants to debate, needs to debate - to hogtie the broadcasters into excluding Elizabeth May, under the threat of his refusal to participate.
Still annoyed by the whole 12 year old, childish, "If she's invited then I won't play" whine.
Still annoyed by the weak partisan argument of 'she's just another Liberal candidate' - which is crap. Saying this is less accurate than saying Preston Manning was just another Conservative candidate when *he* was permitted to participate in the debates - when his party had no seats and no federal funding. The Green Party is a full fleged party with a full platform and candidates in nearly every riding in Canada. But Stephen Harper is playing political games in order to marginalize them instead of debating them on the issues.
Still annoyed by Jack Layton aligning himself with Stephen Harper on this one, being opportunistic and smug and looking out for his own ass rather than the people of Canada.
Still annoyed by the massive undertone of sexism running through this whole issue.
Still annoyed by this whole thing, and the utter refusal of Stephen Harper to listen to the Canadian people who overwhelmingly believe that Elizabeth May should participate in the leadership debates.
This man is our Prime Minister? This man who wants his way or the highway? This man who refuses to listen to the will of the people he wants to represent? Seriously? If this is how he acts during an election... what's he going to act like if he gets a majority government?
Yeah. Still really, really annoyed.
4 things to say:
I came across your post via a social media buzz tracker that we've created at the UBC School of Journalism.
The aim of NetPrimeMinister.ca is to see what people are saying online about an issue, such as about decision on the debates. Please take a look, tell your friends if you like it or tell me if you don't.
Alfred
I like Alfred's site, it brought me back here :-)
Good post. I'm still annoyed too.
As someone who is not at all impressed with the recently called election, I nevertheless need to throw in some comments here about Elizabeth May being denied a seat at the upcoming leaders' debate.
I really don't see this as a "sexist" thing, as we have had several female party leaders in recent memory, all of whom have been allowed to participate in leaders' debates (e.g. Alexa McDonough, former NDP leader, Audrey McLaughlin, former NDP leader, and Kim Campbell, former PC leader, as well as former Prime Minister). While the majority of Canadian politicians are obviously men, I really don't think Ms. May is being asked not to attend the leaders' debate because she is a woman. The fact that the previous Green Party leader, Jim Harris, was also denied a seat at the 2004 and 2006 leaders' debates, even though they ran candidates in nearly all of the 308 ridings shows that it is not an issue of sex.
There is some validity to not allowing a party leader who has no elected MPs in the House of Commons a seat at the debate. You mention Preston Manning, but the fact is that in 1993, the Reform Party had Deborah Grey as a sitting, elected MP in 1989, so he should have been allowed to atend the debate. And note that in 1988, when Reform had no seats, Mr. Manning was not in attendance at the leaders' debate.
The main reason why she is being denied a seat at the debate is that she has publicly supported Stephane Dion, and in fact, they have worked together to ensure that in some ridings (specifically her NS riding), that the Liberals wouldn't run a candidate against Ms. May. The comments from both Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton that having Ms. May in attendance is essentially allowing a second "Liberal" voice, doesn't seem all that wrong. In fact, on the Green Party website, there is a quote acknowledging this partnership: "We have to make it clear that although there is some agreement between the Liberal and Green Party...".
Lastly, if we allow Ms. May to attend a leaders' debate with no elected MPs, then really, we need to open it up to any leaders of the other parties, like the Libertarian Party, the Marijuana Party, and the Christian Heritage Party, all of whom received votes in the last election.
The reality is that it isn't sexism, and it isn't undemocratic. It is simply keeping some structure to the debates, ensuring that only parties with elected MPs, who are not partnering with one of the major parties, be allowed to debate strategies for the future of our country. With Vancouverite Blair Wilson as their first official MP, I can only assume that if the Green Party runs a solid campaign, that number may go up.
Lee,
I see you've taken your talking points straight from the Conservative Party of Canada. :)
The main reason she is being denied a seat at the debate is not because she supports Stephane Dion; that's simply a convenient excuse.
However, I'm glad you raised that point. Riddle me this: Why is it so wrong that she says she would prefer to work with Dion over Harper? It's a foregone conclusion that one or the other of them will be Prime Minister. May won't be. Nor will Duceppe, nor will Jack Layton. This is a two horse race, as far as the PMO is concerned. Elizabeth is a realist, and she's saying that she knows that the Liberal party will be better for this country and that she can work constructively with that party rather than attempt to work with the Conservatives, who have already shown themselves to be dismissive of her party and her policies. It's a no brainer to say the Reform party would have worked better as a coalition with the PC party than the Liberal party.
Having said that, though, the reason Harper threw his toys out of his carriage was that he just wanted his way. Like Stephen Harper does. He thinks he's in charge of the country the same way he's in charge of the Conservative party - ruling with an iron fist, muzzling his MPs and refusing to let them talk to the press, and essentially practicing republican-style politics. He didn't want to debate Elizabeth May because he's afraid of her. And he should be. She will be able to talk circles around him.
But, it doesn't matter anyway since your boy Harper backed down, your talking points have been debunked and Elizabeth May is back in the debates, as the majority of Canadians wanted.
Post a Comment