Architecture Of A Debate

Seated in a packed Great Hall on the 3rd floor of the St. Lawrence Hall last night awaiting the most recent mayoral debate, this one hosted by Heritage Toronto, I took in the (mercifully) air-conditioned magnificence of the room. Its salmon coloured walls… or were they pink? Hard to tell in the dim light cast by the gas-powered chandelier and wall sconces. Is that what they’re called, sconces?

Politics runs deep in this building, having hosted the likes of John A. Macdonald, Thomas D’Arcy McGee, George Brown and abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Maybe tonight we’d witness a politician rising to the occasion to match the august surroundings. A breakout performance that would signal a turnaround in the so-far dreary race. One has to maintain hope in such possibilities if one doesn’t want to become totally disillusioned with the process.

After two hours, it was obvious nothing of the sort was going to happen but… but… Let me say this as we head humidly toward Labour Day, the unofficial end of summer and beginning of the campaign’s witching hour where carriages turn into pumpkins and us Prince Charmings run around in a desperate attempt to find someone who fits into the glass slipper. George Smitherman looks as if he’s getting into fighting form.

There were flashes during the debate where, for the first since he declared his intentions to run for mayor, we actually caught glimpses of humanity in George rather than a political machine. Hey, I found myself thinking a couple of times last night, the man actually likes this city he wants to lead. Maybe City Hall isn’t just a stepping stone for him on his way to a higher profile political gig. Who knows how much smoother the campaign trail might’ve been had he embraced a more conciliatory stance toward the current governance of this city from the get-go instead of joining the chorus of blind ragers looking to do nothing more than stir-up a pool of discontent with loud bellowing.

Smitherman was primed and ready for a healthy debate, having released his 5-point Heritage Plan earlier in the day. He came across as one-step ahead of everyone else on stage (football fields ahead in some cases), weaving policy talk in with personal anecdotes of living a heritage related life, not always seamlessly but more often than not effectively. His response to the question about the disparity between heritage preservation in the downtown core versus the suburbs, slyly extended an olive branch to the suburbs with his vow to empower community councils to deal with such matters. There was the odd political swipe, left and right, here and there. He also expressed a surprising antagonism to the idea of putting a Toronto museum into the old City Hall building ‘sometime in the future’ after the courts had been moved elsewhere which seemed an unnecessary shout-out to the fiscal conservatives surrounding him.

Still, to our eyes, it was Smitherman’s strongest debate performance to date and should make Team Rob Ford look down from measuring for new curtains in the Mayor’s office (paid for entirely by Rob Ford, of course) and realize that it may take more than name-calling and scandal mongering to put their candidate into office. For his part, Mr. Ford once again looked out-of-place and ill at ease addressing one of them downtown, elitist crowds. Although he did zero to help his cause like, maybe, brush up on the topic at hand a little. He seems pathologically unable to veer from his script and eventually drew derisive groans, mocking laughter and the odd heckle as he refused to answer many of the questions asked of all the debaters, and drifted off onto inane non sequiturs and pat responses.

It’s almost painful to witness over the course of 2 hours. Almost. To the point where I wonder why he participates in these particular debates at all. Then I remember this is primo campaign strategy. The laughing and jeering has nothing to do with Rob Ford being ill-informed and thick-headed and all about the smug, condescending downtowners who’ll get theirs when Rob Ford becomes mayor. So far, it’s been working for him but they may have to add to the repertoire if Smitherman continues to perform like he did last night.

As for the others?

Rocco Rossi, despite his campaign team shake up over the weekend, remains almost as single-mindedly fixated on a ‘single money for value’ issue as Ford although he’s added another neo-conservative trick to his… wherever you add a trick. A trick bag? Voter Recall which has done wonders for places like California. Rossi just seemed louder than he usually does but did pronounce his love of the city’s ravines. Loudly.

Joe Pantalone was performing in front of a supportive crowd and, as usual, had nice moments especially when he responded to a question of ‘cultural landscapes’. But he seems unable to deliver a sustained performance over the course of an entire debate, lapsing back into soft platitudes when he doesn’t appear all that interested in the topic. He’s also developed an annoying tic of punching a single point relentlessly from the morning’s strategy meeting. Last night? The Fort York bicentennial, coming up in 2012. Again and again. Yeah, we get it, Joe. Fort York = Heritage.

Once more, Sarah Thomson appeared out of her depth, saying little more than ‘let’s preserve old buildings’. How can a candidate (aside from Rob Ford) seem continually surprised and caught off-guard at a debate on Heritage by questions about, well, heritage? Last night might represent the weakest we’ve seen Ms. Thomson.

For the second time we watched Rocco Achampong take a spot alongside the front running candidates and are now convinced that it should be his last. While chalking up his underwhelming performance at June’s Better Ballots debate to a case of nerves, once again last night he displayed a knack for not delivering a succinct point in his allotted time. Ever. There’s no focus to his campaign and as a candidate, he seems torn between two instincts: a fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. They seem at war with one another and render him conflicted and ineffective. It’s time to turn over the one measly chair to another outsider candidate.

Debate moderator, former Chief City Planner of Toronto and professor of City Planning at U of T and Ryerson, Paul Bedford, closed out the debate saying that cities need to grow on purpose not by accident and implored all those in the Great Hall to go out and “make passionate love to the city”. Well, we didn’t see a lot of that on display from the candidates but it was interesting and more than a little heartening to watch George Smitherman’s iciness toward it begin to thaw, just a little. With it not even Labour Day yet, we may be seeing signs of the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

dutifully submitted by Cityslikr

8 Responses to Architecture Of A Debate

  1. RobFordAngry says:

    “Insert vague, RAGE FILLED comment disagreeing with loonie lefties here”

  2. Peter MacQuarie says:

    “Paul Bedford, closed out the debate saying that cities need to grow on purpose not by accident and implored all those in the Great Hall to go out and “make passionate love to the city”.

    Paul, the bed you made for us is being used by hookers on Council selling TO streets, air rights and open space. The Official Plan we spent so much time and money assembling to guide us over a 30 year period didn’t survive your departure. It’s already shot full of holes by development pimps, lawyers and consultants.

    And no, there’s not much hope for the future since few, if any, councillors are prepared to remove their snouts from the trough.

    Unless we get a Mayor strong enough to uphold City Policies.

    • cityslikr says:

      Dear Mr. McQuarie,

      Don’t know if you know this yet, as less than two months from the election and Rob Ford still hasn’t presented a full fledged public transit platform, one of his ideas to fund the building of subways is to sell the air rights over the stations to the private sector for development. Does that make him a pimp or a hooker?

      We here at All Fired Up in the Big Smoke actually don’t recognize the city you’re talking about. Are you sure you’re not confusing it with a city in one of your comic books? Gotham under the evil clutches of the Penguin. Only one person can put an end to it… Batman/Rob Ford. Both he and Batman’s alter ego, Bruce Wayne, come from inherited wealth. We see where you might be getting all confused.

  3. Peter MacQuarie says:

    I believe you already stated that it was you lot at AFUINBS who are confused?

    Grasshopper, if the City develops subway assets there will be revenue streams. That would make RF a financial controller.

    You don’t see because you are not looking. Until you go out into the world you will remain uninformed and childlike. Do something useful with your life, don’t just park it and trot out the same stuff you did when you were a student. Open your mind and explore.

    RF isn’t the only one person who can end what ails TO. He’s the only one not scared to talk about what is wrong with TO. That’s why he’s beating all the high-and-mighties in the polls and probably adding to your confusion.

    • cityslikr says:

      Dear Mr. MacQuarie,

      Yes, you have confused us here at All Fired Up in the Big Smoke again.

      So it is OK to sell air rights as long as… what? It’s Rob Ford? If you do it in a financially viable way that means you’re not a pimp or hooker?

      And your ability at analyzing us here is truly breathtaking in its gumption or is it simply a matter of attempting to vilify and diminish us in order to make your shopworn ideas seem new and fresh?

  4. Peter MacQuarie says:

    You poor fellow, you don’t know the difference between public and private ownership!

    No wonder you come across as naive and childlike.

    Try to be smart and leave the cute to the real journalists. It will be better for you as you grow up.

    • cityslikr says:

      Dear Mr. MacQuarie,

      This is the first time you’ve brought up the topic of public and private ownership. Originally (in case you’ve forgotten) you were just railing about the selling of air rights. We here at All Fired Up in the Big Smoke were simply inquiring as to that.

      You can’t just arbitrarily change the focus of our discussion and then pat us on the head for not following. That’s something senile old people do.

  5. Peter MacQuarie says:

    I’ve railed about more than selling air rights, but you’re too childish and obsessed to notice that.

    If the City develops TTC property (public assets) the benefits will accrue to residents. When TO Council allows private developers to profit from poorly justified intensification (tall buildings) only shareholders benefit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: