News

SHOULD ELIZABETH MAY HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE LEADERS' DEBATES?

Rod Love (former chief of staff to Ralph Klein): Not if the Greens and the Liberals have formal agreements to not run against each other in certain ridings.

If there is no formal alliance, then let her in.

Scott Reid (former communications director for Paul Martin): By any objective standard Elizabeth May should be in the leaders' debate. Her party received half a million votes in the last election – and that was without the benefit of her leadership. She recruited a sitting Member of Parliament. She attracts a results-affecting level of support in public opinion polls. And Canadians have made it clear that hers is a voice they would like to hear during this election. Simply said, she is a political force to be reckoned with and she's indisputably dragged her party from fringe status.

But objective standards had little to do with her exclusion. The reason she won't be there owes entirely to the partisan self-interest of Stephen Harper, aided and abetted by Jack Layton. To say nothing of a network consortium that effectively yielded a veto to an obstinate Prime Minister. To beat all, they scheduled the English language debate to conflict with the U.S. Vice-Presidential tilt. And people are cynical. Go figure.

Ms. May isn't there because she's damned good. Too damned good as far as Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton are concerned. Her sincerity and energy would have shone an unwelcome light on the cynicism and calculation that defines politics as practised by the Conservative and NDP leaders. Most likely, she would have created headaches for and stolen votes from Mr. Dion as well. But hey, that's democracy. Or, at least it would be if the networks were willing to stand up to the powers-that-be on behalf of the public interest.

Gerald Caplan ( former NDP campaign manager) : Very forcefully yes.

I'm dismayed at the decision to keep Ms. May out of the debate. It's contrary to democracy, common sense and civil decency. I'm hugely disappointed that the NDP is party to this exclusion. I'm shocked that the Conservatives and NDP apparently have threatened not to participate if she had been included. I'm incredulous that Mr. Layton would use the Liberal-Green deal in a single seat to argue that they're virtually the same party. I can hardly believe Mr. Harper's brazenness in saying, without an iota of proof, that Ms. May intends to endorse Mr. Dion.

Now we are left with the spectacle of four men babbling to each other, while another man moderates. Nice work, boys.

Make no mistake: Ms. May is being excluded for no reason of principle. This is all about exploiting an opportunity against a potentially dangerous opponent. Another word for this is opportunism. This is a decision that may well come back to haunt both the Conservatives and the NDP. And they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

HOW DOES KEEPING HER OUT HELP OR HURT THE OTHER PARTY LEADERS?

Love: Keeping Ms. May out helps the NDP, because if she were in she would eat deeply into Mr. Layton's base. Which, by the way, would be okay with me.

I don't think her attendance affects the Conservatives one way or the other.

As for the Liberals, if they were to drop the alliance with Ms. May and she were allowed into the debates, I think it would because the many Liberals uneasy with Mr. Dion could park their vote with the Greens - this time.

Reid: It depends on the media. If they force Mr. Harper to defend his obstinate refusal to permit her onstage, it could alter the prevailing narrative of this still nascent campaign. Powder blue sweaters won't counter-balance the impression of a bully who refuses to play unless he gets to set all the rules.

But if journalists do as Mr. Harper has calculated and treat this as a one-day wonder, then Bob's your uncle. Truth is, debates tend to reinforce the intentions of already committed voters. The best hope Canadians had for a debate that would have departed from the norm went up in flames this afternoon, when the bully beat the networks.

Caplan: Debates are always unpredictable. The most eloquent can stumble and the least gifted can momentarily shine.

If Ms. May had appeared in the debate and lived up to high expectations, she could have hurt the NDP and Liberals, though she would have had a tough time explaining why she's doing deals with Mr. Dion. If Mr. Dion is so good on the environment, as she has said, who needs the Greens? This could help Mr. Dion, but it could make him and Ms. May look like they're playing too many tricky games. This could help Mr. Layton, though he might be hurt trying to explain why he hasn't wanted to co-operate with Ms. May.

All of this should have helped Mr. Harper as the three serious environmental leaders wrestled with each other, competing for progressive support. The split on the left side of the spectrum is already his greatest asset. On the other hand, all three would have hammered home the appalling Conservative record on global warming, which could have hurt Mr. Harper badly.

All together, it's why debates are pretty good for democracy and always unpredictable until the last punch is thrown.