Four winners and four losers from tonight's PJP debate
After the big PJP leadership debate, here are our takeaways on who won and lost tonight:
Winners
Josephine ClarkThe leader before the debate, the likely leader after the debate, and the person who was named by more respondents than anyone else as having "won" the debate, Clark hasn't sewn this leadership contest up yet. But what she has done is solidified her position at the top. She projected an air of confidence and competence, highlighting her service as a Deputy in Parliament and as Foreign Affairs Minister and speaking clearly and forcefully about how she'd get the party back on track. She even showed what seems to be a rare at times human side, talking about her mother, her activism in college, and her work for NGOs and the Anglican Service Corps before she got into politics. Although she wasn't incredibly distinctive on domestic policy, she held her own and shined when foreign policy was the subject. Overall, a solid performance from a leading candidate that appears to have found her groove.
Tim McKenzieWe still saw two Tim McKenzies up on the stage tonight, as he continued to try to straddle the gap between youth and experience, between fresh new ideas and service. But what he did do excellently was come prepared on policy. On everything from trade and human rights to tax policy, environmental challenges, jobs and the economy, to racial inequities in society, he had a good answer. He also appears to have thrown in his lot with the left of the party, criticizing party orthodoxy on free trade, attacking "a neoliberalism that says nibbling 'round the margins is the best we can do" as insufficient to solve the country's problems, and endorsing massive investment in green technology. Quite a performance from the man quite a few might have labeled a neoliberal, or at least a fellow traveler, when he first came to Parliament. But his best moment came when he made an argument for baby bonds and diversity initiatives, fusing an economic populism that described the upper class in scathing terms as "hoarding all the opportunity for themselves and their children" with a frankness on racial issues, saying "they try to distract us by pointing at immigrants or racial or religious minorities as the source of our problems, when we know damn well there's opportunity enough for all; we just have to stand united and be bold enough to demand what belongs to all of us." He may not win, but he'll make it closer than it has been and if you squint just hard enough, you can see him becoming Prime Minister several years down the line.
Sheila GordonWhy haven't we seen more of Sheila Gordon before? The PJP backbencher who is their primary spokesperson in First Nations Country came prepared to throw down tonight. She forcefully but tactfully made the case that Nova Anglicana has shirked its responsibilities when it comes to First Nations people, highlighting deep inequities in society that hit First Nations kids hard. But she didn't stop there; she talked about how her experiences as a First Nations person equipped her with tools and desires to right wrongs that everyone faces in society. She even got the room buzzing by talking about a new social contract, perhaps even a constitutional rewrite that cements power in the people and acknowledges that the state needs to provide an uncompromising commitment to a strong social safety net. It was a bold step from someone who's mostly toed the party line during her career, but it looks like it paid off for her. No, we're not predicting her to win the leadership contest, but she vaulted into at least the lower end of the top tier with this performance and is someone to watch going forward.
MultilateralismA multilateral, peace and diplomacy-oriented foreign policy is the PJP's bread and butter, and typically it's not much of a debate. But Clark's foregrounding of her foreign policy experience made that section of the debate quite interesting, actually. She not only talked about her experience, but wove the connections in and out of seemingly every answer she gave. She talked about how the government's tax cuts would not only affect social services domestically, but endangered the nation's security abroad, both in terms of less diplomatic presence in important regions and how a dropoff in foreign aid would lead to those gaps being filled by unsavory or hostile actors. She also highlighted that Nova Anglicana's commitment to fighting climate change meant electrifying our society, which itself meant collaboration with governments and firms across the multiverse to develop better technology and secure vital supply chains. She hit on Esportivan co-operation multiple times, saying that it's an area she's worked on and would like to develop further. This spurred other candidates to offer their own takes on why multilateralism is effective and some of their foreign policy ideas. Overall, a much greater percentage of the debate was spent on foreign policy than we'd expected.
Losers
Samantha SpeerThe unfair stereotype of Speer is that she's a screeching harpy going on about issues outside of the PJP mainstream, then lambasting the party for not agreeing with her. It's an awful stereotype, rooted in sexism, but Speer's rebellious career hasn't done her any favors. Coming into the debate, she really needed to play up the party unity angle and make the case for why voters should take a chance on this outsider. Unfortunately, she couldn't make it stick. She feinted at party unity and made occasional comments about her service to the party, but she soon slipped off into sharp-edged words about the undervaluing of women and women's issues that veered a little too close to seeming like a conversation about how she personally feels undervalued. She did hit some excellent notes on paid leave and women's rights internationally, seeming like a true leader, but overall, she failed to shake her rebel image and that will cost her.
Alec ThornhillA decent chunk of the debate tonight focused on environmental issues, an area where you'd think the "green" Thornhill would have no trouble hitting a home run. But he flubbed it, getting lost in a discussion about carbon taxes versus energy portfolios and some of the minutiae of addressing climate change. You can tell he's really excited about the subject, but he ended up coming off more as an environmental systems professor than a Premier who'd helped his province make major strides in reducing carbon output and diversifying their economy. To a lesser extent, he suffered from the other candidates having also learned how to speak "green" lingo, a prerequisite for many politicians today, so he stood out less. Still, he'd make a fine bureaucrat or even an Environment Minister.
Martin OullettePoor Martin Oullette. He already had a tough hill to climb being identified as the Francophone candidate, not really having much of a platform to break out for a broader audience. But tonight was bad. First, he began by answering all questions first in French, then in English. The moderators let him do it for the first question, then began to cut him off in the middle of his English responses because he was going over his allotted speaking time. So he switched to English only; while Mssr. Oullette is a perfectly capable English speaker, it was obvious he had done all of his practice in his French first, English second routine, so he ended up having to improvise a bit and ended up getting stuck in a cul-de-sac of word salad more often than not. A risk for any politician, but especially for one speaking in his second language on a live debate stage.
He did rebound a bit during the small section at the end reserved specifically for questions in French, but it wasn't enough to overcome his poor performance earlier. It's a question of whether dropping out and endorsing someone is more embarrassing for him or the candidate he endorses.
Hot-button lefty issuesAlthough candidates like Samantha Speer and Graham Hatten very much wanted to put issues like access to abortion and UBI at the forefront of their debate performance, and have during their campaigns, they just didn't get much play tonight. Hatten was able to discuss UBI during a question on welfare benefits, but he didn't have much time outside of that one question to bring it up. And Speer made her typical impassioned plea about abortion during a discussion on cultural issues and inequity in society, but the stage was stolen by Gordon's litany, McKenzie's seamless weaving of racial and economic issues together, and to a certain extent by Bruce Russell's podium-thumping speech in defense of both farmers and "ordinary people who just like to have a little more peace and quiet on their Sundays." Both candidates hit these issues in their opening and closing statements, but bookending the debate with a limited discussion of them just wasn't enough to make them pop for viewers.
Flash Poll - Who won the PJP debate?
Josephine Clark - 27%
Tim McKenzie - 19%
No candidate - 16%
Sheila Gordon - 14%
Samantha Speer - 11%
Graham Hatten - 7%
Alec Thornhill - 4%
Bruce Russell - 1%
Martin Oullette - <1%