Last night the Inglewood Community Association hosted another all candidates debate for the riding of Calgary Centre, and something truly remarkable happened: everyone showed up. Kent Hehr for the Liberals, Thana Boonlert for the Greens, Jillian Ratti for the NDP, and yes, Joan Crockatt for the Conservatives. There was even an independent seeking signatures to be approved as a candidate for the riding.
It's still a bit appalling to me that we're pleasantly surprised when politicians actually turn up for public forums to answer questions on their platforms. Still, I've already written an entire post largely dedicated to that topic, so instead I'm going to focus on the positive and just break down the debate's highlights.
The Nitty-Gritty
So to begin with, the format was a little bit...confusing. As I understood it, it went like this:
1. Candidates each had 2 minute introductions, in order of last name.
2. The Inglewood Community Association had pre-canvassed neighborhood residents for debate questions. They had selected 8 questions total. For each of these, a candidate would be randomly selected to answer.
3. The twist was, each candidate also had 2 yellow cards. With these cards, they could indicate their desire to respond to a question after the randomly selected candidate. Once a candidate "used up" their cards, they were done talking (unless randomly selected once more).
4. Following this initial Q&A, there was a short break. During the break, debate organizers collected questions from the audience and sorted through sixty-five (65!) of them to select four (4...).
5. Once again, candidates had yellow cards and could use them to jump in on someone else's question.
6. Finally, candidates each had 2 minute closing statements, in reverse order of last name.
There were some advantages to the card system. It forced candidates to think strategically about the questions they wanted to answer, and when. The order of questions was predetermined, but the randomization of responses meant you were never sure who would get what question when.
The problem with this, however, is that it meant we didn't necessarily hear everyone's thoughts on the issues. This was especially apparent in the final pre-made question, which went to Joan Crockatt, on ISIS recruitment. Other candidates were not able to respond, as they had used their cards, which meant Crockatt effectively had the floor on this issue unimpeded
I think that it was an interesting idea with a good aim, but could use a little fine-tuning.
Winners and Losers
From the get-go, this was a debate between Liberal challenger Kent Hehr and Conservative incumbent Joan Crockatt. These two are the experienced politicians, the veteran debaters. They also came equipped with the largest groups of partisan supporters in the room; determined pockets of people that were easily identifiable by their applauding the slightest motion their candidate made.
Still though, I can safely say there were at least SOME undecided voters in the room (including myself) and I can safely say that they narrowly outnumbered each single partisan group (though not, by my reckoning, the sum total of all partisans).
So, who did it seem that these undecided voters were siding with?
Crockatt, I must say, gamely defended her government, and came equipped with a dazzling array of tax break programs and statistics. She was well-prepared, willing to take flack and boos on some subjects from left-leaning partisans, and spoke clearly and, by my count, had the fewest verbal stumbles. She also was riding well on the announcement from her government that the finances will be back in surplus this year.
I think the format also worked in her favour; as an incumbent, Crockatt is in the position of defending her government's record, and as any government that has ruled for a decade in Canada, that is never a fun place to be. The natural ebb and flow of approval for the ruling party is always tempered by time. But, with the format set up in the way it was, she could simply ignore those questions not well suited to her or her party's interests: C-51 oversight, environmental responsibility, and climate change.
Hehr would likely have welcomed the opportunity to attack Crockatt directly on these issues, but as it was, his statements on these points (excepting C-51, for obvious reasons) felt a little bit more like him putting forward his party's position rather than an opposition to the government.
The only point of direct conflict between the two main contenders, at least in the first half, came early on, on the point of seniors housing. Crockatt was first up on the question, and responded that the issue is technically a provincial issue (which is more or less accurate), and went on to espouse her government's record of tax breaks for seniors. Hehr challenged her by stating that her government's attempt to blame things on the provinces is symptomatic of an attempt to blame others and to argue with premiers rather than meet them. It was one of the only times we saw a direct challenge between the two in the first half.
The second half, however, became more interesting. As these questions came from the audience, they were especially partisan in their style. And they kicked things off with a doozy: a question on Transgender Rights.
The question went to Kent Hehr. As someone who was largely responsible for the creation of Gay-Straight Alliances in Alberta, this is an issue that is right up Hehr's alley. He proudly touted his voting record in the Alberta Legislature, then pivoted to slam Crockatt over voting against C-279 (an act to amend Human Rights Act in favour of Trans rights). The applause was deafening, by far the biggest reaction of the night.
Following Jillian Ratti's echoing of Hehr's work, Crockatt took out a yellow card to respond. She started off with a fatal mistake: saying that the trans issue is complex. The boos, while not as loud or sustained as the preceding applause for Hehr, spoke volumes. It is never wise, on any issue, to prevaricate about the bush. Her position was further damaged by her own attempt to deflect the voting record back onto Trudeau, pointing out that the Liberal leader also did not vote for the bill. There are only a couple of problems with this argument. 1) Trudeau was absent. Crockatt was present, and voted against C-279. To say these actions are equivalent is simply false. 2) Even if Trudeau HAD been present and voted against it, to say that "he is just as bad as me" is still an admission of fault.
Indeed, for this question and perhaps this question only, I have to give the debate to Hehr. Were it not for this major gaffe, it might have been an even fight, as Crockatt gave decent answers on the economics issues and flood mitigation (though if one listened carefully to the latter, there was a great deal of vagueness on specific measures compared to Hehr's promise of the Liberals' infrastructure spending. This didn't seem to resonate with the crowd though) - two chief concerns of the community of Inglewood. However, her position on C-279 and her recent problems with Pride Calgary still seem to hold in the memories of residents in Calgary Centre, and they were only exacerbated by one of her supporters (I'll come back to this momentarily).
While Hehr would be my overall winner, however, I have to give special attention to a dark horse first-timer of Thai ancestry. Thana Boonlert is young and inexperienced, but I have to say I was very, very impressed by how much he improved over his previous debate appearance in Britannia. He was personable, engaged, and more developed in his strategy. He positioned himself carefully as an alternative to the big hitters rather than a second banana. I still don't think he garnered much support in the room, but I applaud Boonlert's effort and I hope this election only marks the beginning of a potential political career.
Line of the Night
I know it'll seem like I'm spreading the love around equally, but I have to give my one-liner of the night to NDP candidate Jillian Ratti. Sincerely, I did not think she had this kind of quick wit in her. I had mentioned before that a Crockatt supporter in the audience hurt the incumbent's position on Trans rights. Let me paint you a picture.
Having just taken a hit from Hehr on C-279, Crockatt then had to endure a further rebuke from Ratti. But no sooner had Ratti opened her mouth, than a woman yelled out "very proud of you, Joan!"
To be clear, that's: very proud of you for limiting trans rights, standing up for traditional family, etc. etc., to read between the lines.
Over the ominous murmurs of the crowd, Jillian Ratti grinned broadly, and proclaimed: "My first heckler, I'm a real politician!"
That, deservedly, got the biggest laughs of the evening.
In Closing
Whatever your opinions on the candidates, this debate was fantastic. Turnout was BIG. It was standing room only in the Inglewood Community Hall. I ballparked the crowd at 200, but I'd be prepared to edge that up to 250. I don't know if there are further community debates planned, but I sincerely hope all the candidates continue to turn up to every conversation whenever possible. What this debate showed is that when there is a real conversation with real opposition, the public is interested.
Kudos to the Inglewood Community Association for hosting, and thank you to Avnish Mehta for taking on the challenging task of moderating.
Onwards to October 19th!
It's still a bit appalling to me that we're pleasantly surprised when politicians actually turn up for public forums to answer questions on their platforms. Still, I've already written an entire post largely dedicated to that topic, so instead I'm going to focus on the positive and just break down the debate's highlights.
The Nitty-Gritty
So to begin with, the format was a little bit...confusing. As I understood it, it went like this:
1. Candidates each had 2 minute introductions, in order of last name.
2. The Inglewood Community Association had pre-canvassed neighborhood residents for debate questions. They had selected 8 questions total. For each of these, a candidate would be randomly selected to answer.
3. The twist was, each candidate also had 2 yellow cards. With these cards, they could indicate their desire to respond to a question after the randomly selected candidate. Once a candidate "used up" their cards, they were done talking (unless randomly selected once more).
4. Following this initial Q&A, there was a short break. During the break, debate organizers collected questions from the audience and sorted through sixty-five (65!) of them to select four (4...).
5. Once again, candidates had yellow cards and could use them to jump in on someone else's question.
6. Finally, candidates each had 2 minute closing statements, in reverse order of last name.
There were some advantages to the card system. It forced candidates to think strategically about the questions they wanted to answer, and when. The order of questions was predetermined, but the randomization of responses meant you were never sure who would get what question when.
The problem with this, however, is that it meant we didn't necessarily hear everyone's thoughts on the issues. This was especially apparent in the final pre-made question, which went to Joan Crockatt, on ISIS recruitment. Other candidates were not able to respond, as they had used their cards, which meant Crockatt effectively had the floor on this issue unimpeded
I think that it was an interesting idea with a good aim, but could use a little fine-tuning.
 |
| Special thanks to Cameron Perrier (@CP_stylebook on Twitter) for snapping this picture of the debate questions! |
Winners and Losers
From the get-go, this was a debate between Liberal challenger Kent Hehr and Conservative incumbent Joan Crockatt. These two are the experienced politicians, the veteran debaters. They also came equipped with the largest groups of partisan supporters in the room; determined pockets of people that were easily identifiable by their applauding the slightest motion their candidate made.
Still though, I can safely say there were at least SOME undecided voters in the room (including myself) and I can safely say that they narrowly outnumbered each single partisan group (though not, by my reckoning, the sum total of all partisans).
So, who did it seem that these undecided voters were siding with?
Crockatt, I must say, gamely defended her government, and came equipped with a dazzling array of tax break programs and statistics. She was well-prepared, willing to take flack and boos on some subjects from left-leaning partisans, and spoke clearly and, by my count, had the fewest verbal stumbles. She also was riding well on the announcement from her government that the finances will be back in surplus this year.
I think the format also worked in her favour; as an incumbent, Crockatt is in the position of defending her government's record, and as any government that has ruled for a decade in Canada, that is never a fun place to be. The natural ebb and flow of approval for the ruling party is always tempered by time. But, with the format set up in the way it was, she could simply ignore those questions not well suited to her or her party's interests: C-51 oversight, environmental responsibility, and climate change.
Hehr would likely have welcomed the opportunity to attack Crockatt directly on these issues, but as it was, his statements on these points (excepting C-51, for obvious reasons) felt a little bit more like him putting forward his party's position rather than an opposition to the government.
The only point of direct conflict between the two main contenders, at least in the first half, came early on, on the point of seniors housing. Crockatt was first up on the question, and responded that the issue is technically a provincial issue (which is more or less accurate), and went on to espouse her government's record of tax breaks for seniors. Hehr challenged her by stating that her government's attempt to blame things on the provinces is symptomatic of an attempt to blame others and to argue with premiers rather than meet them. It was one of the only times we saw a direct challenge between the two in the first half.
The second half, however, became more interesting. As these questions came from the audience, they were especially partisan in their style. And they kicked things off with a doozy: a question on Transgender Rights.
The question went to Kent Hehr. As someone who was largely responsible for the creation of Gay-Straight Alliances in Alberta, this is an issue that is right up Hehr's alley. He proudly touted his voting record in the Alberta Legislature, then pivoted to slam Crockatt over voting against C-279 (an act to amend Human Rights Act in favour of Trans rights). The applause was deafening, by far the biggest reaction of the night.
Following Jillian Ratti's echoing of Hehr's work, Crockatt took out a yellow card to respond. She started off with a fatal mistake: saying that the trans issue is complex. The boos, while not as loud or sustained as the preceding applause for Hehr, spoke volumes. It is never wise, on any issue, to prevaricate about the bush. Her position was further damaged by her own attempt to deflect the voting record back onto Trudeau, pointing out that the Liberal leader also did not vote for the bill. There are only a couple of problems with this argument. 1) Trudeau was absent. Crockatt was present, and voted against C-279. To say these actions are equivalent is simply false. 2) Even if Trudeau HAD been present and voted against it, to say that "he is just as bad as me" is still an admission of fault.
Indeed, for this question and perhaps this question only, I have to give the debate to Hehr. Were it not for this major gaffe, it might have been an even fight, as Crockatt gave decent answers on the economics issues and flood mitigation (though if one listened carefully to the latter, there was a great deal of vagueness on specific measures compared to Hehr's promise of the Liberals' infrastructure spending. This didn't seem to resonate with the crowd though) - two chief concerns of the community of Inglewood. However, her position on C-279 and her recent problems with Pride Calgary still seem to hold in the memories of residents in Calgary Centre, and they were only exacerbated by one of her supporters (I'll come back to this momentarily).
While Hehr would be my overall winner, however, I have to give special attention to a dark horse first-timer of Thai ancestry. Thana Boonlert is young and inexperienced, but I have to say I was very, very impressed by how much he improved over his previous debate appearance in Britannia. He was personable, engaged, and more developed in his strategy. He positioned himself carefully as an alternative to the big hitters rather than a second banana. I still don't think he garnered much support in the room, but I applaud Boonlert's effort and I hope this election only marks the beginning of a potential political career.
Line of the Night
I know it'll seem like I'm spreading the love around equally, but I have to give my one-liner of the night to NDP candidate Jillian Ratti. Sincerely, I did not think she had this kind of quick wit in her. I had mentioned before that a Crockatt supporter in the audience hurt the incumbent's position on Trans rights. Let me paint you a picture.
Having just taken a hit from Hehr on C-279, Crockatt then had to endure a further rebuke from Ratti. But no sooner had Ratti opened her mouth, than a woman yelled out "very proud of you, Joan!"
To be clear, that's: very proud of you for limiting trans rights, standing up for traditional family, etc. etc., to read between the lines.
Over the ominous murmurs of the crowd, Jillian Ratti grinned broadly, and proclaimed: "My first heckler, I'm a real politician!"
That, deservedly, got the biggest laughs of the evening.
In Closing
Whatever your opinions on the candidates, this debate was fantastic. Turnout was BIG. It was standing room only in the Inglewood Community Hall. I ballparked the crowd at 200, but I'd be prepared to edge that up to 250. I don't know if there are further community debates planned, but I sincerely hope all the candidates continue to turn up to every conversation whenever possible. What this debate showed is that when there is a real conversation with real opposition, the public is interested.
Kudos to the Inglewood Community Association for hosting, and thank you to Avnish Mehta for taking on the challenging task of moderating.
Onwards to October 19th!