I’m back from points west this week. Interesting week having been removed, at least geographically, from the hopper.

I took advantage of several times literally being at 35,000 feet, to figuratively see things from that perspective. As you can imagine, Chantal Hebert’s April 23^rd column Green party leader belongs in TV debate lineup, struck a chord with me. I had to read it five or six times.

For anyone who cares what I think, Chantal Hebert is a political analyst that is very near the top, if not at the very top of her profession. She is, in my view, one of Canada’s finest reads and political commentators.  

There isn’t much I disagree with in Ms. Hebert’s column, including the personal sentiment I still hold sincerely hoping Elizabeth May still gets into the debates. Despite being one of the voices suggesting recent events could play a pivotal role against it, I still believe Elizabeth May will be in the debates. Here’s why.

I am told that Mr. Layton, but Mr. Harper in particular, has a veto on the decision should the Media Consortium be thinking of inviting Ms. May to the gala event. If true, the veto would not be exercised after the Consortium makes its decision. Instead, the Consortium would “consult” with parties beforehand and this is where Conservative and NDP pressure could be applied and the public might never know.

None of this is a secret; the Green party consultation was in January and I was part of that presentation. My role, among others, was to report on polling results that showed support, across all party supporters, for Elizabeth May’s inclusion in the debates. The support level in January was 77.2%. Click here for more details. If that survey was repeated today, I think support would still be high, although not as high. Just my guess.

Despite my cautioning, I still believe Elizabeth May will be in the debates but not for the reasons most people might think, and not simply for the reasons outlined in Chantal Hebert’s column.

At this stage and depending on when the election is, I believe two of the primary drivers that will see Elizabeth May in the debates is the reaction against the Media Consortium which the Consortium believes would happen, if it was perceived to have summarily decided to exclude the leader of the Green Party. The second driver is far more basic, ratings.

To the first point, perception, there’s simply been way too much hoopla around the whole issue for the Consortium to now suddenly change the direction in which I believe it was heading, of having Elizabeth May in the debates.

Even if, as I have argued Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton will argue, that having Elizabeth May in the debates will be like a Red-Green tag team between she and Mr. Dion, I believe the Consortium fears – and is wise to fear – the possible backlash if it decides to exclude the Green leader. To now explicitly exclude Elizabeth May from the debates would be akin to the Consortium making its own statement; like she doesn’t belong. And I don’t think the Consortium wants to be seen in that particular light.

To the second point, ratings. Let’s face it, not since Brian Mulroney’s 1988 finger-pointing of John Turner have we had a decent debate in Canada. Since that debate the new rules have been so conditioned, by the parties, to ensure nothing like that happens again. It’s no wonder next day headlines since ‘88 have been a yawn. Put Elizabeth May in the debates and, debating rules or not, the Consortium will once again have both, eyeballs and headlines. Anyone who thinks the Media Consortium doesn’t see this prize, doesn’t know how things work.

Next is a change in circumstances I believe results from the unintended consequences of the Dion-May deal. Mr. Harper, and to a lesser extent Mr. Layton may indeed come full-circle to the idea of having Ms. May in the debates. Once again, it all depends on timing and anything else that could happen between now and the election, whenever that is.

Prior to the Red-Green arrangement, Mr. Harper legitimately feared the minced-meat Ms. May could make of him on the environment file. Now, however, Mr. Harper believes the embroiled leaders can be used as props to try and weave and showcase an entirely different story. This being the case, we may very well see a reversal of sorts, from especially Mr. Harper as soon as he and Mr. Finley figure out that having the duo in the debates might enhance their ability to coordinate vote-splitting on the Left, instead of taking votes away from the Right had Ms. May maintained her independence.

To Chantal Hebert’s second-to-last thought “If the Liberals really want to help May secure a place in the debate then, in their ongoing spirit of generosity, they could offer her a free run in one of their vacant Montreal strongholds…”. There lies further evidence of Ms. Hebert’s intuitions true brilliance for anyone who knows how to read between the lines.

But the more spirited generosity might have been London. If not in the last by-election, arguably because Mr. Dion wasn’t at the helm, then certainly next time out. No?

Curious, isn’t it, the deal is taking place in a Conservative stronghold. Was the heart truly that geographically focused or do we have a heck-of-a first debate question?