July 22nd, 2010
Mayoral Debate: Where’s the substance?
By Mike Radoslav // 4 Comments
On Tuesday night, the third televised mayoral debate was held at CP24 studios. This was another opportunity for the candidates to present themselves to Torontonians. An opportunity that was quickly lost to bickering and arguing.
The clear loser, following the debate, appears to be a vision for Toronto’s future. What exactly can be taken away from Tuesday’s loud, heated mayoral showdown?
In a race that has been deemed less than enthralling, the latest debate delivered some fireworks in exchanges between the candidates. This is true, but the fireworks also came at the expense of the discussion's substance. Platforms that have not been clearly defined were seemingly abandoned in favour of negative attacks on rival candidates.
Few questions were answered uninterrupted while accusations and underhanded comments were frequently slung back and forth. With so much time and energy spent on the offensive, rather than presenting more information about plans and initiatives moving forward, voters must question the direction this election is headed.
Voters must also decide what this says about their next mayor, whomever that may ultimately be.
The most memorable moments from the televised event had little to do with plans for the City of Toronto; but were rather sound bytes from fiery personal exchanges. Bickering and criticism provided limited information for voters to digest, and the city itself ultimately loses when only blatant accusations litter recaps of the evening.
The majority of the discussion was heated, in a state of constant interruption. And sadly that intensity was a good thing since the rest of the discussion lacked substantial platforms or plans. The sentiment on Twitter and other online sources painted a picture of confusion if not downright disinterest. Overall, many still remain undecided heading into the final 100 days.
The moment that provided the most clarity actually came from City Councillor Adam Vaughan as he spoke on the G20’s negative impact. He spoke about Stephen Harper’s accountability in an interview just outside the former temporary detention centre on Eastern Avenue. It was a refreshing change listening to Vaughan speak; not only did he touch upon a topic of interest and concern for many Torontonians, but he also did so uninterrupted. A welcomed break from the loud, negative nature of the evening.
Voters are poised to find out more about the faults of each candidate rather than any concrete plans to move forward with the city through these debates. There are some real issues to sort through (See: Transit City, congestion, city hall spending) and important plans to be decided upon. A mayor without a true vision or the ability to coexist with councillors is simply not an option.
With any luck, as the electoral campaign continues, candidates will shift their focus back to running city hall and not running over each other. Should Tuesday be a sign of things to come, however, might shed light on a long, ugly crawl to the voting booth.
The candidate that can best put their ego to rest, call off the verbal assault and expand upon actual ideas for their mayoral term may very well pull ahead and win the election outright. Whether or not that can or will happen though is anybody’s guess.
Loading ...
Facebook
Twitter!
stumbleupon
Reddit
TechnoratiComments
Neither the author nor Spacing necessarily agree with the comments posted below. Spacing reserves the right to edit or delete comments entirely. See our Comment Policy.
CP24 debates are the worst of the worst. Airhead hosts, more time spent on interviewing restaurant guests who would rather be left alone. And the debate never gets more substantial than sound bites.
Am I the only one who thinks Adam Vaughan should run for mayor? IMO he would do the best job uniting the moderate-center left with the far left.
they all need to take their ball(s) and go home!
You've hit the nail right on the head Mike. I'm waiting for someone to stand up and talk about their platform without cutting down any of the other candidates. All the personal attacks and bickering makes me not want to listen, and to just walk away (or in this case, turn the channel). You have to think that the political culture around the election starts to seep into the culture of doing business at city hall. If everyone spends the most of their time at odds with eachother, where is the desire for partnerships with the region, province or the feds? Why in the world would the other levels of government want to partner with any of these jokers if this campaign is going to solely be about personal attacks? Are these guys looking for a way to have their messages break through? How about trying to be positive and productive for a change???
Comment by DW
July 23, 2010 | 2:08 pm