1
Dear Conservative...
24 March 2011
Dear Conservative. That's how the recent email messages from candidate and former mayor Chris Carrier begin, as they launch into the fine art of self-promotion, a craft that skillfully blends - and bends - truth and fiction. To date I've been the recipient of four of these epistles, somewhat surprising because I must surely rank among the people least likely to vote for Chris Carrier even if he were the last candidate standing. Of course the ABC group is apparently a large club, so he might have overlooked my membership in it.
Being Local Matters is the topic of one of these early missives. In it, Carrier writes, "Everyone who has ever looked a voter in the eye, shaken their hand, and asked for their trust knows that being local is important."*
Is it? I'm not so sure: I think it's a canard trying to make an issue out of something few people aside from him care deeply about. After all, a lot of people here aren't local - if by local you mean someone born here. There are a lot of transplants who chose to move here. We consider it as much our home as those born here.
But wait, neither is Carrier a local, by that definition. He was born in eastern Canada (New Brunswick, I seem to recall, but I may be wrong on the province) and moved here when he was 13, in 1970. If by local he means someone who lives nearby - one definition of local - then all candidates fit that description. It's dissembling to suggest you're the only "local" candidate under these circumstances.
Are you local after one year? Five? Ten? Twenty five? Forty one? Or only if you're born here? But the real question is far simpler: does it matter? I'd say the answer is equally simple: no. The length of stay in your geographic location plays no part in your ability to do the job required of an MP. It's like arguing you can't be a good carpenter or plumber because you weren't born here.
Does an MP only represent only his or her riding, or represent all Canadians? I prefer to take the latter view and riding-only issues take a back seat to the greater good. A riding is a big geographical space and local refers to a very small and very relative part.
Local is relative. I doubt that a candidate from, say, Collingwood, will be viewed as "local" by people in New Tecumseth, Alliston or Barrie.
Carrier says, "...my roots are deep and my knowledge of the communities, the people, the geography and the economy is first-hand." I would suggest that even our neighbours in Wasaga Beach don't view a Collingwood resident as a "local".
"Having been raised on a farm in Simcoe-Grey, raised a family and built a business here..." Ignoring the awkward passive voice structure of that sentence, the statement is equally misleading, since Carrier was not on said farm for the first 13 years of his life. He was raised elsewhere, at least for his formative pre-teen life. It's true he raised a family here, but also divorced his first wife here too.
"I'm not coming in from away to take advantage of an opportunity like my opponents." Interesting choice of words. Not his fellow candidates, but rather his "opponents". Coming from New Brunswick or any other province isn't, apparently, "coming in from away." But it's really the me-versus-them attitude that resounds here.
In the next message, titled, "Experience Matters," Carrier wrote, "I have been privileged to serve our community in elected office for 14 years. I have worked to deliver funding for improvements to our regional airport, investments in wastewater treatment systems and upgrades to provincial, regional and local road networks. Council under my leadership was able to take full advantage of Prime Minister Harper's Stimulus Plan and had the Federal and Provincial government pick up the tab for over 66% of costs on eligible projects."
Interesting to compare these boasts with his inauguration speech in which he said he was just "one of nine" on council. He went from one to The One in a short time. Never mind the obvious facts of municipal governance that no mayor can work without council's support, without staff's efforts, or that no mayor actually does the paperwork or the liaison work to "deliver" funding, but instead just signs the work others completed. No matter that it takes a majority at the table to approve a project, to move it ahead. Or whose initiative the project was.**
Carrier goes on to say that, "I know how to build a team and win. I know how to work with people from a different ideology without disparaging them; to address the media and the public with confidence that comes from a demonstrable record of integrity in public office."
Team building? Must have been away from the council table because I can't recall a single attempt by him to create a "team" at council. But perhaps I missed that meeting. My recollection is that Carrier walled himself off from council, and acted unilaterally rather than as a team member most of the term, and spoke critically of anyone who challenged him. And judging by his comments in his email appeals, as well as those he made during his four years as mayor, any team effort mattered a lot less to him than his own self-aggrandizement.
L'etat c'est moi, the Sun King style, is more what I remember in Carrier's administration, not team-building, consensus or cooperation. I refer readers to this post as an example of how he handled the "will of council" in one example.
As for working with people of "different ideology without disparaging them", I suggest the reader refer to this previous blog post, this post, this post, this post, this post, this post, this post and any of a number I've written over the years in his regime.
This statement I found most bemusing of all. It runs counter to my experience of the four years he was mayor. I personally found him critical and disparaging to the point of pettiness and his willingness to encompass alternate viewpoints limited. Not the attitude I would want in a candidate who might represent us in Ottawa.
I wonder if the local media - whom Carrier often disparaged both openly and in camera - feel about that statement. Or how the local media rep feels, whom Carrier deridingly called an "e-media wannabe" because he used the Internet the former mayor used to revile, but of which he has so recently become enamoured.
"I have learned how to avoid the pitfalls and gaffes that come with inexperience," he writes, then taking a moment to point at the tempest-in-a-teapot "lettergate" brouhaha that erupted mid-campaign. I wonder if he means by that he will not be autographing any tampons in the future, or spying on the email traffic of his colleagues, both of which he did early in his term as mayor. I hope he learned from them, although they form his legacy as much as the Admiral Collingwood debacle - stuff that he would carry with him should he be chosen to run for the Conservatives in this riding. Years from now, his tampon signing will probably still be part of local lore, and there will be memories of "Carrier's Pond" - the water-filled hole that disgraced our main street for four years instead of the swanky new commercial-condo complex he helped kill.
As for Carrier's recent attack on candidate Kellie Leitch - "Kellie Leitch on the other hand, as a specialized orthopaedic surgeon, has to keep practising or turn her back on the decades of education and training - an uncomfortable fact for sure." - it reads to me more an envious comment on Dr. Leitch's professional qualifications and education, neither of which Carrier can boast anything even close to having. I consider personal attacks of this nature the refuge of the weak.
After this post, I may not be getting any more of these messages. Tonight the candidates - opponents in Carrier's language - make their speeches, tomorrow the party members vote. If you are still undecided, you might want to speak to anyone in Collingwood who can talk about those four years when Carrier was mayor to determine just how much of a "team" he built, and what his legacy is to the people of this community.
~~~~~
* Not to overlook the incorrect use of the plural pronoun "their" when refering to a singular "voter".
** For example, in the case of the airport, it was the municipal service board on which I and Councillor Edward sat, that initiated the request for funding and oversaw the tenders, timeline and design - the mayor's contribution was to vote in favour of the application, when it was raised at council. He did not lead the board in any way during this process. See this post for more.
Being Local Matters is the topic of one of these early missives. In it, Carrier writes, "Everyone who has ever looked a voter in the eye, shaken their hand, and asked for their trust knows that being local is important."*
Is it? I'm not so sure: I think it's a canard trying to make an issue out of something few people aside from him care deeply about. After all, a lot of people here aren't local - if by local you mean someone born here. There are a lot of transplants who chose to move here. We consider it as much our home as those born here.
But wait, neither is Carrier a local, by that definition. He was born in eastern Canada (New Brunswick, I seem to recall, but I may be wrong on the province) and moved here when he was 13, in 1970. If by local he means someone who lives nearby - one definition of local - then all candidates fit that description. It's dissembling to suggest you're the only "local" candidate under these circumstances.
Are you local after one year? Five? Ten? Twenty five? Forty one? Or only if you're born here? But the real question is far simpler: does it matter? I'd say the answer is equally simple: no. The length of stay in your geographic location plays no part in your ability to do the job required of an MP. It's like arguing you can't be a good carpenter or plumber because you weren't born here.
Does an MP only represent only his or her riding, or represent all Canadians? I prefer to take the latter view and riding-only issues take a back seat to the greater good. A riding is a big geographical space and local refers to a very small and very relative part.
Local is relative. I doubt that a candidate from, say, Collingwood, will be viewed as "local" by people in New Tecumseth, Alliston or Barrie.
Carrier says, "...my roots are deep and my knowledge of the communities, the people, the geography and the economy is first-hand." I would suggest that even our neighbours in Wasaga Beach don't view a Collingwood resident as a "local".
"Having been raised on a farm in Simcoe-Grey, raised a family and built a business here..." Ignoring the awkward passive voice structure of that sentence, the statement is equally misleading, since Carrier was not on said farm for the first 13 years of his life. He was raised elsewhere, at least for his formative pre-teen life. It's true he raised a family here, but also divorced his first wife here too.
"I'm not coming in from away to take advantage of an opportunity like my opponents." Interesting choice of words. Not his fellow candidates, but rather his "opponents". Coming from New Brunswick or any other province isn't, apparently, "coming in from away." But it's really the me-versus-them attitude that resounds here.
In the next message, titled, "Experience Matters," Carrier wrote, "I have been privileged to serve our community in elected office for 14 years. I have worked to deliver funding for improvements to our regional airport, investments in wastewater treatment systems and upgrades to provincial, regional and local road networks. Council under my leadership was able to take full advantage of Prime Minister Harper's Stimulus Plan and had the Federal and Provincial government pick up the tab for over 66% of costs on eligible projects."
Interesting to compare these boasts with his inauguration speech in which he said he was just "one of nine" on council. He went from one to The One in a short time. Never mind the obvious facts of municipal governance that no mayor can work without council's support, without staff's efforts, or that no mayor actually does the paperwork or the liaison work to "deliver" funding, but instead just signs the work others completed. No matter that it takes a majority at the table to approve a project, to move it ahead. Or whose initiative the project was.**
Carrier goes on to say that, "I know how to build a team and win. I know how to work with people from a different ideology without disparaging them; to address the media and the public with confidence that comes from a demonstrable record of integrity in public office."
Team building? Must have been away from the council table because I can't recall a single attempt by him to create a "team" at council. But perhaps I missed that meeting. My recollection is that Carrier walled himself off from council, and acted unilaterally rather than as a team member most of the term, and spoke critically of anyone who challenged him. And judging by his comments in his email appeals, as well as those he made during his four years as mayor, any team effort mattered a lot less to him than his own self-aggrandizement.
L'etat c'est moi, the Sun King style, is more what I remember in Carrier's administration, not team-building, consensus or cooperation. I refer readers to this post as an example of how he handled the "will of council" in one example.
As for working with people of "different ideology without disparaging them", I suggest the reader refer to this previous blog post, this post, this post, this post, this post, this post, this post and any of a number I've written over the years in his regime.
This statement I found most bemusing of all. It runs counter to my experience of the four years he was mayor. I personally found him critical and disparaging to the point of pettiness and his willingness to encompass alternate viewpoints limited. Not the attitude I would want in a candidate who might represent us in Ottawa.
I wonder if the local media - whom Carrier often disparaged both openly and in camera - feel about that statement. Or how the local media rep feels, whom Carrier deridingly called an "e-media wannabe" because he used the Internet the former mayor used to revile, but of which he has so recently become enamoured.
"I have learned how to avoid the pitfalls and gaffes that come with inexperience," he writes, then taking a moment to point at the tempest-in-a-teapot "lettergate" brouhaha that erupted mid-campaign. I wonder if he means by that he will not be autographing any tampons in the future, or spying on the email traffic of his colleagues, both of which he did early in his term as mayor. I hope he learned from them, although they form his legacy as much as the Admiral Collingwood debacle - stuff that he would carry with him should he be chosen to run for the Conservatives in this riding. Years from now, his tampon signing will probably still be part of local lore, and there will be memories of "Carrier's Pond" - the water-filled hole that disgraced our main street for four years instead of the swanky new commercial-condo complex he helped kill.
As for Carrier's recent attack on candidate Kellie Leitch - "Kellie Leitch on the other hand, as a specialized orthopaedic surgeon, has to keep practising or turn her back on the decades of education and training - an uncomfortable fact for sure." - it reads to me more an envious comment on Dr. Leitch's professional qualifications and education, neither of which Carrier can boast anything even close to having. I consider personal attacks of this nature the refuge of the weak.
After this post, I may not be getting any more of these messages. Tonight the candidates - opponents in Carrier's language - make their speeches, tomorrow the party members vote. If you are still undecided, you might want to speak to anyone in Collingwood who can talk about those four years when Carrier was mayor to determine just how much of a "team" he built, and what his legacy is to the people of this community.
~~~~~
* Not to overlook the incorrect use of the plural pronoun "their" when refering to a singular "voter".
** For example, in the case of the airport, it was the municipal service board on which I and Councillor Edward sat, that initiated the request for funding and oversaw the tenders, timeline and design - the mayor's contribution was to vote in favour of the application, when it was raised at council. He did not lead the board in any way during this process. See this post for more.
The former mayor has attacked "the blogs" on radio and in his recent speech - by which he means Scoop's and mine, since we're the last ones left in the blogsphere. I suppose we'll be blamed for his failure to get the nomination, tomorrow, after the votes are counted. The former mayor was always quick to target the other media when it was critical of him, too.
Attack isn't always a great or even a productive strategy. A more subtle approach is humour, to turn the challenges on their side and make people laugh at them - and feel for you. Getting a little empathy - even sympathy - might help people support you. That takes a wise and canny campaigner. Attack can be counter-productive. It's like the 'no comment' strategy - you can too easily give credence to the very things you're attacking or avoiding. And why do you want to create an audience for your opponents?
Wooing the media - even the bloggers - is sometimes tough, but the end result is far more positive for your image and reputation. You can disagree with their assessment without rancour or anger. You can mitigate criticism by working with them in their sphere better than by bitching and whining and even insulting every time they are critical. Openness is key, humour and a thick skin also help. And so does trust.
Politicians are going to screw up. We're human. Roll with it when you do and don't take the criticism personally.
Former mayor Terry Geddes called the media his "loyal opposition" and took in stride whatever they dished out without having to snap back with some snide comment or angry defence. The result is Terry is still liked by the local media, and turned to for comment and insight, more than four years after he left office. They still sit down for a drink with him regularly, and joke with him, even at his expense. Terry understood well the value of socializing with the media and bringing them into his extended team. Then they were less likely to be critical of someone they looked on as an ally and confidant.
I can't imagine that same situation with former mayor Carrier and the local media. Yet had he taken that approach - to sit down and talk openly over a drink or two - even after he left office, he might have built some alliances among them, or at least mended a few fences that had broken down over his term.
What was also interesting about last night, my friends said, was seeing who was at which candidate's table. The political allegiances evident last night were well marked by observers, and it seems some who were ostensibly supporting one campaigner were most visible with another last night. The fallout from that should be watched.