The first debate was held between Annamie Paul, David Merner, Judy Green, Glen Murray and Amita Kuttner. The second involved Dimitry Lascaris, Meryam Haddad, Dylan Perceval-Maxwell and Courtney Howard and Adam West - the latter two of which were both absent from this past Sunday's Fair Vote Canada debate (Howard did submit videos to Fair Vote in advance of that debate).
Winners and Losers
Look, it's still so early in the campaign that being a "winner" or "loser" in a particular debate really doesn't matter that much. It's June - is anybody really paying attention yet?
Cross all of that out - of course this TVO debate matters. It's not so much that people will be looking at at this at the end of June and thinking, "Hmmm...I really liked so-and-so, maybe I'll try to remember who they are and in September, I'll vote for them". The fact is these TVO debates are going to be up online for the remainder of the leadership contest. They will be go-to sources for Greens - including many in the Green base who want to be a little more informed about the candidates. The fact that Paikin and TVO are involved automatically bump up the importance of these debates. So make no mistake, these debates were important.
And you know what? All of the candidates impressed today. I don't have a lot to say that's particularly negative. The debate itself was mostly civil, and the candidates were generally well spoken. There was only one real exchange that stood out for me, where Meryam Haddad called out Dylan Perceval-Maxwell's "$20 solution" to the police issues as "completely racist" right at the end of the second debate - just as time ran out for any rebuttal - was probably the one moment where I felt a bit of a knock-out punch - and let me be honest here about this: from what I've seen of Haddad, I'm not a fan - I won't be voting for her - but with regards to this moment, she was 100% right to call out her fellow leadership contestant in the way that she did. And if it had been anybody but Perceval-Maxwell, it might have meant something.
Dylan Perceval-Maxwell
So let's start with Perceval-Maxwell. He clearly doesn't belong in this contest. He may be all right to listen to, and perhaps it's true that every leadership contest needs someone on the fringe who can say things about political opponents that legit contestants can't, but all of that is offset by his meandering answers to questions. And that top hat just screams "I'm not a serious candidate". And he's not.
It's also been twice now that he's brought up endorsing strategic voting as a way of helping the Green Party. Yes, if you can believe that, we have a leadership contestant who actively wants to tell Green members and supporters in certain parts of the country NOT to vote for the Green Party. I don't know how many times it needs to be hammered home: strategic voting doesn't work. Greens should not be supporting Liberals and New Democrats. And the Green Party will *never* get the NDP to not run candidates against us somewhere - anywhere.
I think I'm pretty much done with Perceval-Maxwell.
Andrew West
Today was West's first debate with some of the candidates, as he had missed the Fair Vote Debate for some reason (I'd still like to know why, Andrew....). West came across as affable, if a little off his game. He was the only contestant who dared admit that he was a centrist and viewed the Party in the same way. West's whole thing is that the Party should be promoting the fact that it is fiscally responsible - but it was pretty clear from an exchange he had with Dimitri Lascaris that his version of "responsible" differs significantly from Lascaris' - and frankly from mine, too. Although I'll give West the benefit of the doubt that his half-hearted and quick rebuttal to Lascaris could have been more substantive had their been time, so I don't want to suggest that West and I are completely out of line with another on this.
But about "time" - if West is going to be taken as a serious contestant, he's going to really need to up his game to compress MORE into the time he's been given. If Perceval-Maxwell's responses were wandering, West's were needlessly pedantic. And since one of the things I've stated time and again that I'm looking for in a leader is someone who can be a good spokesperson for the Party - well, West just isn't there yet.
Meryam Haddad
Haddad had a good debate. She came across as being far less radical that she was at the Fair Vote debate. That doesn't mean that I believe something has changed in her heart since Sunday - but rather that she was able to present herself a little more seriously for a broader audience while still staying true to herself. For example, she appeared to throw moderator Paikin for a bit of a loop when she brought up abolishing the police - but she continued to carry on as if the idea was simply one that perhaps others hadn't arrived at yet, but through the force of history, would get there some day, while being very personable. It's difficult to walk that tightrope - especially in a Party where many members would NEVER consider themselves to be left-wingers, much less socialists like Haddad.
I'm not going to vote for Haddad because I still believe she wants the Green Party to be something that it's not. But if all you knew about Haddad was what you saw on TVO today, you certainly might want to rank her high on your ballot (even if fools like me are whispering in your ear, 'don't be fooled').
Annamie Paul
Perhaps my biggest disappointment today was Annamie Paul. In contrast to some of the other contestants that Paul was debating, her answers to questions generally lacked specifics. The vagueness, though, wasn't a particular problem (how much detail can you really get into with just 60 seconds? Ok, maybe Judy Green could pull it off - and did, but not everyone can). What turned me off more than anything was that Paul just seemed less than genuine.
Clearly, Paul had been well-coached: don't ever yield the floor, just keep on talking (because when you're talking, your opponents aren't talking). Speak over others if you can (because then no one hears your opponent). Interrupt. Try to take the floor back. All of these are classic techniques for winning debates. And she did a very good job of employing those tactics. Thing is, though, none of the other contestants were going to play those games, so the fact that she was employing these tactics really stood out for me. And I'm sure I wasn't the only one with whom she's left a negative impression.
The Fair Vote Canada debate didn't really allow any of the candidates to do what Paul did today. But even in that debate, Paul's answers to questions were a little vague and lacklustre. After watching her in two debates now, it's becoming clear to me that she's just a little underwhelming in circumstances like this. Now I know that we should never judge leadership on "debates" - but I also know that being the Leader of the Green Party means that you're going to have to explain yourself (very quickly, because the media isn't going to give the 5th party much time to get into the weeds). And from what I've seen, there are better contestants to do this than Paul.
Amita Kuttner
I don't know what to say about Kuttner. They had a better debate this time than the Fair Vote debate for sure. They answered questions directly and succinctly - which was really great and in contrast to Perceval-Maxwell, West and Paul. I like that (again, I think there's a reason Elizabeth May speaks so quickly, because you're not going to have much time to - oh, just re-read what I wrote above!). Kuttner is clearly in touch with issues that have suddenly been thrust to the forefront of political discussion. But there is clearly something of a hard edge to Kuttner that I find off-putting and unfriendly. They may know the issues very well, but I think they've got to work on that whole "spokesperson" thing a lot more. And again, maybe in a few years, who knows?
Courtney Howard
This was Howard's first leadership debate - and as far as I know, it might also have been her political debate. I don't think Howard's ever run for anything before. And yes, I do find it kind of odd that not having run for anything before, she'd want to throw her hat into the ring to lead the Green Party of Canada - a party that she seems to have no history with. That lack of history came through a little today. Howard seemed a flummoxed and vague when discussing the Green Party in today's political climate - in a way that Haddad, Kuttner, Lascaris, Green and Murray weren't.
Howard came across as being very intelligent, and fairly engaging. She does speak well, and it's clear that she knows how to integrate data and evidence into the conversation. She struggled a little with some of the issues of the day that most of the other candidates really nailed. Generally speaking, though, I wasn't particularly impressed - but nor was I unimpressed. I'll have to keep watching, I suppose.
Judy Green
I have to say, Green really impressed me. In this format, she was a bit of a stand-out - even among some of the more formidable leadership candidates. Green clearly knew her stuff, understands what the Green Party is, where it's come from, and where the Members seem to want to take it. She was charming, engaging and trying to cram as much as she could into the little time that she had. She was able to express her varied life experiences and relate to others while answering questions.
I think we all need to keep our eye on Green. She's got a little touch of Elizabeth May about her, mingled with a folksy Maritime charm. Could Green be the populist in this leadership contest? But a populist in the true sense of the word - someone with their finger on the pulse of the times. In a field riddled with laywers and policy wonks, Green is offering up something a little different.
Three Stand Outs
Dimitri Lascaris
I always feel the need to put this disclaimer in front of anything that I write about Dimitri Lascaris. I do not believe that Lascaris should be running for leader of the Green Party of Canada due to a number of serious matters in his past that really ought to have disqualified him. That the Party has greenlighted his leadership bid is a real problem, I believe, one that the Party is going to have to wrestle with at some point in the future. I'm not going to get into specifics here, as Lascaris' toxic backstory is easily found with a quick Google search.
All of that said, even I have to say that Lascaris was one of the stand-outs of the day. That he found himself in a debate with some of the less-tested candidates (Howard, Perceval-Maxwell and West) may have helped him a little, but really Lascaris is a great speaker - and he himself has had a lot of practice at this sort of thing. If you didn't know much about Lascaris and just tuned into the TVO debate, no doubt you'd be wondering now about whether this is someone to be supporting.
Lascaris clearly has charisma and charm, and he knows how to engage with everyone - the moderator, other candidates, and with his audience (correct me if I'm wrong, but he was also the only contestant to do a land acknowledgement - something that there's really no excuse for any leadership contestant not to be doing first thing when they're given the floor to speak). Lascaris also really seemed to think quickly on his feet, and his rebuttal of West on the matter of what it means to be 'fiscally responsible' was probably the highlight of the day - and a serious showcase for Lascaris' talents.
David Merner
What can I say about David Merner? This is twice now that Merner has proved to be the complete package: knowledgeable, empathetic, charming, engaging, considerate. There is really something about him that I am growing to like. It's clear that Merner has spent a lot of time connecting the dots, and thinking on his feet. He shows all of the qualities that a national party leader ought to show. It was all on display today. And although today's discussion was not particularly combative, I'm sure that Merner could mix it up with the best of them if push came to shove.
I'm just going to leave it at that, after saying one last thing: I'm still not convinced I will vote for him, because I continue to feel that the Party would be best led by someone who is not an older straight white man.
Glen Murray
Equally engaging as Merner, and so clearly able to discuss politics and everything political, Murray has a depth of understanding based on his years of experience in the political realm. It is so clear to me that Murray possesses all of the leadership qualities one could ever hope for in a leader. And I am sure that if the Green Party elected Murray, our future would be in really good hands. I can already picture Murray on stage with Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh and Peter McKay - not just holding his own, but seriously dishing it out to all of those leaders.
There's something very genuine and engaging about Murray too. It's not so much charm as it is, I don't know, gravitas. But that's not to suggest that he can't connect with people, because clearly he was able to do that in today's debate. Some of the candidates like Merner and Lascaris might approach him in this area, but it's clear to me that Murray is just on another level.
But...today he completely lost my vote.
Look I know that I've said time and again that PR matters more than policy. But sometimes policy matters - and when it does, it really does. Today, Murray made it very clear that he would try to get the Party to abandon our long-standing Carbon Fee & Dividend policy in favour of something like his Ontario Cap & Trade program - which he continues to believe is more "efficient" with money and will lead to a larger reduction in emissions. Annamie Paul was right to point out to Murray that economists don't agree with him on this (like Sudbury's own Dr. David Robinson, Professor of Economics at Laurentian University, who wrote, "What Glen Might Be Saying if He Understood," Dr. David Robinson, Economics for Northern Ontario, December 3 2016).
But Murray sure as hell didn't listen to those economists when the Ontario Liberals had their dog and pony show, er, province-wide public consultation sessions on carbon pricing back in 2016. At that time, the Liberals were overwhelmingly told to go with carbon fee & dividend. I don't know if it was through Murray's force of will or because of something else, but the Wynne Liberals opted instead to go with Cap & Trade - better than what Ontario had before (which was nothing), but absolutely not the program that is ever going to price carbon at a level that can be both economically sustainable and meaningful for emissions reduction. I wrote about the problems with Ontario's Cap and Trade program back in 2017 (see: "Cap and trade doomed to fail," Steve May, the Sudbury Star, April 8 2017).
And that Murray wants to push this now on the Green Party - a party that had this very conversation over a decade ago - sorry, that's just unacceptable. And frankly more than a little disrespectful.
Well, I guess by disqualifying himself from my list of "those whom I might support for leader", he's at least done me a favour today.
(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Green Parties of Ontario and/or Canada)
6 comments:
Steve, I read your blog and found myself agreeing with everything you said, as if I had written it myself, except you did it a bit more eloquently than I would have - and then at the end I found I didn't agree. Glen Murray could try to get the party members to support Cap and Trade, but the members would not agree to that and he knows he needs to represent party policy. I have no doubt he would stand by whatever the membership stands fast to. We would spell that out loud and clear to him - Fee and Dividend is our way.
I had been leaning toward Paul and then Glen Murray came along and tied it up for the lead. But in the Fairvote debate, Paul said she would want a referendum in order to bring in PR. We know that referendums are designed to fail and keep the status quo. That, along with your points, have dropped her in the rankings to third for me. I see a very tough choice between Merner and Murray. And Dimitris is steadily making me forget the season of discontent he had - which he seems to be doing well at putting behind him.
Great blog Steve!
I thought that Mr. Murray did make a good reason for his liking of Cap 'n Trade position and I still like him as a leader.
I also like Mr. Merner for his well rounded approach to the entire process.
There was a statement by Ms Kuttner which I found important though and that was we need to start on climate change NOW. Now folks could say we already have but it's in a very wishy washy political way. There are too many vested fingers in the pot on this issue that are going to be the end of us a species.
Glenn Murray
Dear Mr. Steve May,
Thank you for your comprehensive analysis on the GPC Leadership candidates interviewed by Mr. Steve Paikin, The Agenda.
I also read the two comments by Mr. David Weber and Mr. Glenn Murray.
I think we have a consensus (kind of) that, so far, Mr. David Merner and Mr. Glenn Murray rank at the top two best amongst all candidates (for most of them excellent candidates) for the Leadership of the GPC. If this is the case, I do not want to lose any of the two and wish to keep them both as Leaders of the GPC along with a third person. And I do not want to lose other candidates neither. Most f them precious GPC human resources.
It would look fantastic and we should be very content if the third person is a woman. Although, personally, I am not sexist and not following the new fashion to elect politicians based on their gender or sexual orientation or the color of their skin (but just the other way around compared to the past).
I proposed, and I continue to insist we aim to push for a Leader and two Deputy Leaders working together as a trio, as a Triumvirate.
Steve, you and most others might not feel comfortable with the idea" It is because it is unfamiliar and because people are not REALLY ready for the BIG change. Including in the GPC.
But TRUST ME (consider me more than a Senior "political scientist" and "peace strategist"), a Triumvirate is the way to go. To show CHANGE IS COMING in practice, and to make better use of our Human Resources.
Not only Canadians will welcome it, after some hesitation at the beginning, and after seeing the difference of three people running simultaneously each in different directions from coast to coast to coast but in perfect HARMONY, the world will start paying attention.
In Canada and around the world, media will look at the GPC and look at Canada as the new model to protect our unique Green and Blue Earth, as a model of change based on collaboration and not based on the competition!
This is the time... or never. There is not much time left.
Just imagine each member of our Triumvirate, Leader/Deputy Leaders be present campaigning exactly at the same time and place where each other 3 Leaders of the three other parties are campaigning! One in the East, the other one in the West, the Third one in Central Canada. Our Leader shall be present wherever the Prime minister is showing up, and the Deputy Leaders wherever Jagmeet Singh and Peter McKay or whoever the PC Leader are campaigning. We will be on the media's radar permanently.
A big chunk of Party resources shall be directed in the three ridings of our Triumvirate.
Look! The one RENEWED Party for Change, the reNEWed GPC, is equalizing its positive presence with the three old parties combined, and is challenging alone the three other traditional parties!
They might steal our ideas (to then act differently), but they can't match our actions. And action speaks more than word!
Shodja Eddin Ziaian
I am always so impressed with he way you can summarize complex issues and describe complex events. I do agree with your assesments.
Post a Comment