Previous Entry | Next Entry

The Unsinkable Elizabeth Green

  • Apr. 6th, 2011 at 7:01 PM

It's not easy being Green

For Elizabeth May, it's debata-vue all over again

Tuesday was a good news/bad news sort of day for the Green Party.

On the one hand, Elizabeth May's band of political upstarts lost their bid to have the Federal Court make an emergency ruling giving her a seat at the table for next week's televised leaders' debates.

On the other hand, if the results of a poll commissioned by the Globe and Mail are to be believed, a significant majority of Canadians either "strongly" or "somewhat" support her presence at the boys' table.

Now May is calling for a boycott of next week's debates by the other party leaders and hoping for a repeat of 2008, when an enormous public outcry more or less forced the broadcasting consortium to let her in (and, don't forget, for Jack Layton and Stephen Harper to rescind their threats to withdraw should she be permitted to take part).

But should the Green Party have a seat at the table? After all, they've never elected a Member to the House of Commons and the party managed only 6.77% of the popular vote last time out.

Read the full article at Edifice Rex Online.

Comments

jo: (BigBang)
[personal profile] jo wrote:
Apr. 7th, 2011 06:48 pm (UTC)
People forget that last time around the Greens actually did have a sitting MP - Blair Wilson who defected from the Liberals. OK, he wasn't really sitting because the House wasn't in session when he switched sides, but technically speaking, the Greens had an MP, however briefly, going into the 2008 election.

I'm with Chantal Hebert on this. I don't think May should be in the debates because she's turned the Green Party into an "elect Lizzie May" party. Maybe they shouldn't run candidates in all 308 ridings - maybe they should just really focus on half a dozen or so try to actually win seats where their numbers are pretty good, rather than scatter their limited resources all over the place.
ed_rex: (Default)
[personal profile] ed_rex wrote:
Apr. 11th, 2011 04:49 pm (UTC)
Strategy shouldn't be the criteria
Breaking into Parliament as a nationally-based party is a real bitch in a first-past-the-post system, but I don't think that a new party's electoral strategy should determine whether or not they're permitted to play with the big boys.

I still think getting two out of three points based on the criteria I proposed is both more fair and also manages to keep the genuine fringe parties out.