« Home | British Columbia May Dump RCMP And Create Its Own ... » | And As The Liberal Party Crumbles Around Them - Li... » | Big Troubles In Liberal Land » | Tired Old 'Privatization' Solutions From Saskatche... » | BUSH GO HOME! Security Costs For George Bush In Ca... » | Columnist Apologizes For Backing RCMP Officers Who... » | The Way Iggy-Libs Are Treating Dion Says A Lot Abo... » | Liberal / Tory .... same old story ..... » | Iggy-Libs Afraid That Democracy May Break Out In O... » | Michael Ignatieff - "I'm the Leader of the Opposit... » 

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 

Oh Oh .... Elizabeth May Says She May Take 'Legal Action'

"If the consortium of TV networks doesn't include Green Party Leader Elizabeth May in the highly-publicized TV leaders' debates in the next election campaign, she says she will call on Canadians to help reverse the move and is also threatening legal action."
Hill Times

Don't get me started .......

Progressive Bloggers

Cartoon by kind permission of
Graeme MacKay
at mackaycartoons.net

This comment has been removed by the author.

Where was she this whole time? How come I dont see the Greens on the Grassroots? We had a huge anti-diesel fueled train rally in Western Toronto the other day, plenty of NDPers, not a single visible Green. WTF?

Graeme McKay has a way with caricature of our politicians ... his site is quite funny and he has a GREAT policy for bloggers using his work.

Jan .. here is his rendition of Obama and Harper!

... and here's Layton - Gilles - Ignatieff and Harper... pre-election

Who is or isn't in the debates shouldn't be left up to a consortium of TV networks. On that detail, Liberal Lizzie manages to get it right. (Heck, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.)

But the criterion for inclusion / exclusion needs to be simple, transparent and unambiguous. Based on the experience of the past 20 years or so, we have such a standard. If you have an MP, you're in. If you don't, you're out.

Liberal Lizzie and the Red Greens have implicitly accepted this standard based on the arguments they used to get her included last round.

Now, perhaps it should be a different standard. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that the leader of any party which passes the threshold for public funding should be included. In principle, I wouldn't have a problem with that criterion. It passes the test of simplicity, transparency and unambiguity.

But Liberal Lizzie should stop pretending this is about principle. It isn't. It's about partisan advantage.

If Liberal Lizzie had seats and (say) the Christian Hertiage Party had sufficient support to get public funding, I rather doubt she'd be making this argument.

My concern is that, if we lower the bar now, it won't be based on any principled analysis of what the rules are or ought to be. It will be because Liberal Lizzie has an inordinate capacity for whinging, pissing and moaning.

Note, Liberal Lizzie's argument isn't even based in proposing a new criterion. It's based on her own inflated sense of entitlement.

Let her propose a different and more inclusive criterion.

Let it be simple, transparent and unambiguous.

And let her make the case for that new criterion.

But so far, her criterion seems to be that we should include her because she's Elizabeth Bloody May, doncha know, and she's entitled because she said so.

Not a principle to be seen for miles.

Just like a Liberal.

Malcolm ... that was a great comment.

Inflated sense of entitlement = constant growing support from all regions of the country, 308 candidates, 8-10% national polling, and 77% of Canadians surveyed support in her inclusion in election debates. The survey can be seen at: (http://www.corestrategies.ca/Power%20Point/07-01-22%20-%20Leaders%27%20Debate%20Release%20Backgrounder%20%282%29.pdf).

You'll note the polling was done in January of 07, prior to the 08 election debate inclusion.

Furthermore, she does have her own set of criterion. You should read her book, "Losing Confidence." It's in there. It actually advocates for Elections Canada to run the debates (instead of for-profit TV networks) and set up criterion for inclusion based on a number of factors that are transparent and accountable.

But why would you want to read that Liberal tripe, eh? It'd probably turn you all stodgy and heartless.

Atta boy! Read only the party-approved literature! That's the balanced approach!

Yes, Dylan. "Inflated sense of entitlement" is precisely the phrase to describe EMay.

She claims that she's entitled to a free run at a seat. Even claims a non-existent political tradition to justify her demand that other parties not run candidates against her.

She inserts herself into the middle of the coalition fracas last year with the expectation that she should be given the taskless thanks of a Senate seat and a spot in the coalition cabinet.

She even announces her career plan of ordination in the Anglican Church once she's left politics without so much as a "by your leave m'Lord Bishop" or the usual requirement of a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Postulants for Ordination.

"I'm EMay and I'll decide the rules as I go."

And I'm quite confident that she'll come up with constantly moving debate inclusion criteria just so long as it serves the interests of EMay.

Defensive, you lot. If your party is so danged successful, why not just get included the old fashioned way - win a seat in a freely contested election.

Defensive lot, eh?

I'm not a Green. As I've stated before, I'm non-partisan. I believe, however, in inclusion.

Non-existent political tradition isn't non-existent. As an example, there wasn't a PC or Liberal running against Harper when he ran in Calgary-SW as CA leader. In the past, there have been more exceptions than that.

Furthermore, this speaks to the fact that you'd rather see the riding of Central Nova split even more on the left against Peter MacKay than seeing a Green win the seat. Ideally, you'd like to see a Dipper unseat MacKay. Would you mind if a Liberal defeated him? I can only assume so.

Concerning the coalition "facas," May didn't seek a Senate seat. That was a rumor that was never substantiated. And in fact, it was started by Ezra Levant. You're actually willing to listen to him? Her "insertion" was a press release supporting the coalition movement, something which the 940,000 Green voters were happy to hear. Furthermore, any voice in favour of the coalition was a good one and sorely needed by mid-December.

Lastly, you're actually going to call her commitments to the Church into question as she publicly declares her interest in serving the faith. I know, what kind of gal does the woman have to TALK about her future after politics without being properly ordained yet?! I mean... the nerve!

You're quite sure of a lot of stuff Malcolm. So am I. I'm quite sure you're full of it.

The hatred that Dippers have for Greens is mind boggling. I have heard CONSERVATIVES speak kinder of Greens than the people on this blog.

Wouldn't MMP be a real double-edged sword for you poor bastards. No doubt, you'd find some argument to withhold the Greens from having their votes counted in a mixed-member proportional voting system.

My, my Dylan. Such venom for a supposed non-partisan.

Lets deal with your points one by one.

1. The "tradition" of not running candidates against leaders. The "tradition" simply does not exist. Now, Liberals and Conservatives have sometimes not bothered to run candidates against other leaders in BYELECTIONS. The CCF-NDP has never played this silly game, and were the only major party to field candidates against the few party leaders where this "tradition" has been practiced - ie, against Stephen Harper in Calgary Centre, against Joe Clark in King's - Hants and against Jean Chretien in Beausejour. (I even seem to recal the CCF defeated a Conservative leader in such a byelection back in the 30s or 40s.) The fact that the Lib-Con duolopoly inconsistently play at this game for tactical reasons hardly makes it a "tradition" as much as Liberal Lizzie may choose to pretend otherwise.

Even so, the "tradition" such as it pretends to be has NEVER been applied at a general election. Liberal Lizzie claimed otherwise. She may have been lying. She may simply have been ignorant. I think it mostly had to do with Liberal Lizzie making things up on the fly.

2 I have no interest in seeing Liberals win seats anywhere at any time. I don't support right wing parties.

3 Liberal Lizzie made public statements during the coalition fracas to the effect that she would or should have a role in the coalition. No seats, just overweaning entitlement.

4 Liberal Lizzie is welcome to express whatever desire she might about how she might serve her church when she leaves electoral politics - or even while she's still there. She's welcome to discuss the possibility of pursuing holy orders if she feels such a vocation. The decision to ordain does not belong to her. In the Anglican Church of Canada, it belongs to a diocesan bishop in consultation with a formal process (with the delightfully Anglican name of The Advisory Committee on Postulants for Ordination).

5 I am sure of many things out here in the reality based universe, Dylan. You and Liberal Lizzie are welcome to join the rest of us out here.

6 Please don't confuse my disdain for Liberal Lizzie with contempt for all Greens. Many Greens are sincere and credible folk who just don't happen to agree with me about politics. Many of them also agree with me abpout the self-serving nature of Liberal Lizzie.

7 MMP is, in fact, my preferred form of PR. If the Greens can get enough votes, then they get seats. That final accusation just shows how delusional you are.

Elizabeth May and the Senate Seat...
Dec 2nd 2008
"At a press conference in Ottawa, she suggested she would be open to the possibility of becoming a senator or cabinet minister, but the discussions with Dion were not specific.

May said that her party gained a significant number of votes in the last election and she would like to influence what happens in Ottawa under a potential coalition government.

"I would be the only senator that received a million votes," she said.

May noted that the Senate would give her party an avenue of helping shape the direction of Canada. "

Post a Comment

Follow leftdog on Twitter

About Me



  • -Carmichael-
  • Things I Read

    • -Canadian Political Viewpoints-
    • -ZAG-
    • -Next Year Country-
    • -Huffington Post: Canada-
    • -Let Freedom Rain-
    • -Informed On Information-
    • -Wellington Post-NDP-
    • -Trapped In A Whirlpool-
    • -Larry Hubich's Blog-
    • -ROGERISM-
    • -Leftdog's Daily KOS Blog Page-
    • -Dipper Chick
    • -Ideagist -
    • -Al Barger's MORETHINGS.COM-
    • -Canadian Cynic-
    • Saskatchewan Progressive Bloggers
    • My Zimbio
      Top Stories
    • Blogarama - The Blog Directory
    • Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites
      View blog authority
    • Display Pagerank
    • Canada's NDP
Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates