Sure, Wilson did the paperwork; he just never sat in the House as a Green MP. And when did the consortium announce that it based its decision on Wilson? I seem to recall that the threat of a court challenge was a stronger motivation.
"Hey! The anonymous executive committees of some student organizations like our plan! And you guys suck, anyhow".
The Libs really kicked ass and took names on that one.
Blair Wilson never sat in the House as a Green MP; moreover, the consortium never cited Wilson’s affiliation as the rationale for May’s eventual inclusion, nor did May ever cite Wilson in support of her right to be included.
That’s correct. The next set of questions is due to be posed at around the time the government plans to have met its emissions reduction target.
I take it the consortium is unacquainted with the concept of “precedent”.
Are they implicitly admitting that they made the wrong call last time around, or are they implying merely that their decisions on this matter have been arbitrary and provisional?
…one can only imagine how less iconic the Kennedy-Nixon debate would have turned out….
You mean JFK would have had a harder time winning the debate by way of a fresh tan and good makeup? Yeah, the American people dodged a bullet there (so to speak).
In point of fact, the debate was almost entirely barren of ideas of substance. Its impact on the election was exclusively (and literally) cosmetic.
It wasn’t that five were too many; it was that they were the wrong five.
A free and open democracy is not dependent on forcing privately owned media to cater to fringe political parties...
Fortunately, the CBC and Radio-Canada, comprising almost half the consortium, are publicly owned.
Whatever happened to the media as defenders of democracy?
Oh, nothing. It’s still the self-serving myth it always was.
The only thing media are prepared to defend is market share.
…the leaders of the Marxist-Leninist and Christian Heritage Parties…
…each of whom, like May, routinely score circa 11% in national polls, don’t you know.