The consortium of television networks, which initially announced that it would bar the Green Party's Elizabeth May from partaking in the televised debates prior to the October federal election only to "flip-flop" and cave to mounting public outcry, should be ashamed of itself. The move will undermine the familiarity of the current political landscape in Canada. While some will insist that Canadian politics is stale (especially when contrasted to the excitement south of the border) and in need of an infusion of new ideas and new personalities, some of us are less welcome to change. Do we really want to discuss the Greens' ideas on the environment or a new Student Loan and Bursary Program in which the Greens' would forgive 50 per cent of student debt after completing your degree? I, for one, fail to see where these issues fit into the comfortable predictability from which the other major parties refuse to stray.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh on the consortium. After all, they were simply allowing the other parties to dictate the terms for the debates. One can hardly blame the poor, defenceless media consortium when Stephen Harper and Jack Layton threatened to boycott the debates if the Greens were allowed to participate. That these two caved and flip-flopped has largely been ignored by the mainstream media. I thought to flip-flop was tantamount to shooting oneself in one's political foot ­-- yet, there has been very little criticism of their reversals.

Layton, at least, gave an excuse for doing so, citing the distraction the issue had become after being heckled at NDP gatherings in Ontario. Harper on the other hand, has no excuse. Sticking by his original claim that May should be denied participation, he reconsidered his boycott solely due to peer pressure. According to the CBC, Harper's communication manager acknowledged that the Conservatives still do not think May should be involved, but conceded that they would "not stand alone" after Layton abandoned the issue. Not stand alone? What happened to principle, to standing up for one's (less than democratic) beliefs? This sort of caving to peer-pressure reminds me of my own junior high days: "Hey Tyler, let's go to your place at lunch, drink your dad's whiskey and light fires in your backyard with gasoline."

"Hmm, I dunno guys..."

"Come on, it'll be fun."

"Okay, I guess..."

In hindsight, I was correct in my original suspicion of the plan and regretted caving. Perhaps Harper will have similar regrets if May's inclusion results in disgruntled former Progressive Conservatives voting Green ­­-- perhaps even costing Harper his long sought majority.

This is not the first time that the Greens have attempted to get into the debate and been turned down, so why the flip-flop this time? Sure, they are polling around 10 per cent nationally-- marginally ahead of the Bloc Quebecois-- but is this really enough to be included in a TV debate in a democratic country like Canada? Perhaps it's because the Green Party has an MP in Parliament for the first time. But the Greens have not had someone elected to the House-- Blair Wilson, an Independent who joined the Greens weeks ago, was originally elected as a Liberal. Crossing the floor, as it is known among we politicos, is a disdained manoeuvre and should not be recognized. Well, except for the examples of David Emerson, Garth Turner, Belinda Stronach, Jean Lapierre, Scott Brison and Lucien Bouchard to name a few.

By now, the astute reader may have picked up on some contradictions in this piece, so perhaps I should come clean: I have a vested personal interest in this issue. More than the arguments above, the reason I am opposed to the unprecedented flip-flop by the consortium to include May is that it immediately made obsolete and irrelevant the piece I had written condemning their initial decision to exclude her. Not even the Gauntlet would publish something so out of date. I, an unpaid volunteer, literally spent hours of my precious free time writing a masterpiece of an editorial, only to have the decision reversed before you fine readers could see it. So, while the historic decision to allow the Green Party to participate is positive for our political system and in May's own words, shows that democracy is "alive and well in Canada," it robbed me of several hours of my time. And for that, I cannot forgive this treacherous flip-flop.