Don't know who won the debates, but that's a short-term question

... although the partisan spin machines are, no doubt, going full-tilt boogie right about now. Who can blame them, really. It's how the game is played, and it's what they're paid for.

Regardless of how this spins out, however, the long-term prospects for the health of Canadian democracy and civil society aren't promising. It's probably safe to assume that we won't see any serious discussion of meaningful electoral reform, for instance. Nor will there be any revisiting of the international bureaucratic / corporate structures we've been locked into. Reinvestment in the social safety net? Don't think so. A truce in the class war? An acknowledgement that it's legitimate for government to act for the common good? Well, you see where I'm going.

CBC gets it wrong on Elizabeth May and leaders' debates

We're going to hear a lot more obfuscation and misdirection before the controversy over leaders' debates settles down, but The Corp's performance this morning didn't help.

On Metro Morning, Matt Galloway was asking, in essence, if so many people want to see Elizabeth May included in the debates, why don't more of them vote for her?

I had to give my head a shake.

Um, Matt? Wanting to see someone included doesn't have to imply partisan support. It could just as easily be a matter of principle.

Carry on.

Elizabeth May, the 'consortium' and our democratic dysfunctions

  

Too many bytes, too much ink and attention devoted to the looming Iggy-Harpo smackdown. (Any time! Any place! Bring it on, mofo!) It may happen, it may not, and I'm still undecided about whether it's a good thing or not.

Lost in the drama, I think, is the discussion of how the door got slammed in Elizabeth May's face.