Poor Elizabeth May. She continues to be upset that the national broadcasters consortium excluded her from the upcoming televised election debates.
On first glance it appears she and Green Party supporters have a valid point. The Greens have fielded close to a full slate of candidates in the past three federal elections. The party’s percentage of votes nationally has climbed in every federal election since 1993. In the last federal election in 2008 the Greens’ popular vote nationally was close to 7 per cent.
What’s more is that the Green Party is one that attracts votes in every Canadian province. One argument for the party’s inclusion might be that if the consortium of broadcasters, who have repeatedly denied her entry into election debates, allows the separatist Bloc Quebecois to take part it should allow the Greens as it is in the national public interest to do so.
But is it really? Neither May nor any Green candidate has been elected and it is doubtful they will this time around. And it must be pointed out that May, who has the best shot at being elected, is attempting to win a seat in B.C.’s Saanich-Gulf Islands riding, which is hardly appealing to Canadians in Alberta, Ontario or on the east coast who were at least giving passing thought to the Greens as a national party.
Since the Greens’ inception in 1983 it has, rightly or wrongly, been stroked with a one-dimensional label of being the conscious for Canada’s ecological welfare. The party does in fact have a broader platform beyond the environment, including reduced payroll and income taxes, a national childcare plan, government transparency and its own model for income splitting for families.
However, there is still a broad public perception it is a left of centre party dedicated to the environment, and because of that, the Greens are destined to be an interesting footnote in future federal politics, as noble as its cause is.
There has been much criticism aimed at the consortium for its decision. Some of it is because May is a woman, and that her exclusion came about, say critics, because the so-called boys’ club is still a mighty force. This is nonsense. But while the consortium got the May issue right it should look at other ways to improve the debate formula.
Having four party leaders on a broadcast debate is becoming too cluttered and restrictive. It makes for boring television. With this format it is rare any one leader can score successfully on important issues because there is a tendency to be fair to all as far as time allotments go. The days of scoring the knock out punch are long gone.
And why have a separatist included. The Block Quebecois speaks for only one province. Gilles Duceppe does not speak for any Francophones outside Quebec. This is not in the national interest. If we boot out Elizabeth May, who at least is a loyal Canadian who in 2008 represented close to a million voters coast to coast, then giving Duceppe the same treatment would at least be fair.
