Debate - Mayoral Candidates for the Plateau.
So, in case you missed it, Oct. 8th was the debate between mayoral candidates for the Plateau. This means: Luc Ferrandez (Projet Montréal), Michel Labrecque (Union Montréal), and Guillaume Villancourt (Vision Montréal).
I won’t go into too much detail since you can listen to it here, and judge for your self. Nonetheless, I will leave a few general impressions for those too busy to listen to the whole debate.
I’ll try to do this succinctly, and distinctly.
1.
This should be a close race! All of the candidates came off as being extremely competent and capable of taking on the responsibilities of such a position.
Luc Ferrandez (Projet Montréal) focused on economics and management in a clear bid to show that Projet Montréal isn’t just a bunch of hippies. It was clear he knew the topics, and was well briefed on the history as well as possible futures of most of the major issues.
Michel Labrecque (Union Montréal) obviously has an impressive CV, and he did a good job of communicating that during his introduction. He speaks well, is almost always composed, and makes a point of answering each question raised.
Guillaume Vailloncourt (Vision Montréal) came across as serious-minded, up-to-speed and ready to tackle all of the major issues facing the borough. He gave the impression of being a decided “leftist”, clearly concerned about social (and affordable) housing, and a person open to consultation and a municipal government in partnership with the citizenry.
Those are the positives. In terms of the weak points, I would say:
Labrecque had on a very composed exterior throughout the night, which sometimes worked well next to the (sometimes overly) energetic Luc Ferrandez. Other times, however, he kind of came off as too low key. As if everything were under control, when it is clear everything is not under control, and hasn’t been for a while. Some of the issues in the Plateau are urgent (such as the sky-rocketing prices for work and living spaces in Mile-End, which is causing our artists to leave). He needs to show that he gets that, and is fired up to do something about it.
Luc Ferrandez, on the other hand, was sometimes a little too energetic. He tends to talk too fast, and he can come across as a bit too slick. Like a politician looking for the right line of attack, or the answer that would score points. His passion for the issues is nice to see, but I get the sense that in order to succeed he’ll have to show that he can listen, and just act like a someone who wants to do right by his constituency.
I can’t think of much to say about Guillaume Vaillancourt. He did seem very ‘serious’, but it is hard to paint this as a weakness in someone vying for a job that calls for a lot of responsibility. Over all, it seemed to me he did a good job in his responses, but a bit of humour here and there might have helped win me over.
2.
Luc Ferrandez seemed to have the upper hand in the debate until about the half-way point when he totally botched a question about the proposed ‘Maison de la culture’ proposed for l’avenue de Mont-Royal. I don’t know what he was thinking, or what came over him, but he seemed to shrug off culture with an answer kind of out of left-field. A pretty big blunder, it seemed to me.
3.
Guillaume Vaillancourt did a good job of reminding those in the audience that there have been some serious negatives associated with the 2-term governance of Union Montréal —Michel Labrecque’s party. Both in terms of Gerald Tremblay’s leadership, and the corruption that has occurred under his watch, and in terms of the borough leadership of Helen Fotopolous (and Michel Labrecque was a part of that team).
Whether or not you agree with Vaillancourt’s assessment of how Union Montréal has done over the last 8 years, you have to give the guy credit for reminding the electorate why he thinks they should vote for him.
4.
At the end of the day, even though I have some pretty strong feelings about the parties, I found the job of choosing between these 3 leaders to be difficult. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. If one were to choose without considering their respective parties, I think the race would be tough to call.
5.
Given the inability of any of these prospective leaders to win my heart last night, I continue to search for the person, or the party, that will make it abundantly clear to me that they are ready to lead with the people.
I continue to have greater faith in the cumulative knowledge of the citizenry at large than I do in the small groups of politicians, public servants, and business people who currently call the shots in this town.
So, my question remains: which party, or which mayoral candidate, understands the benefits of a crowdsourced, open, transparent and collaborative form of governance? You tell me that, and I’ll tell you who I’ll vote for.
(Probably).
