Showing posts with label Canadian Association of Retired Persons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canadian Association of Retired Persons. Show all posts

Thursday, 21 April 2011

Sand in the Shorts: Seniors Behaving Badly

This column appeared in Saturday's (April 23rd, 2011) Intelligencer


On Wednesday night, the second “All-Candidates” meeting in the riding took place at Loyalist College. You may have noted I put quotation marks around All-Candidates. I put these in quite deliberately, as the machinations of the lobby group Canadian Association of Retired Persons led to it being a “Some-Candidates” meeting, and an ambush attempt at questioning the candidates by organizer Mary Robertson ended the night poorly.


All-candidates events are often hosted by interested groups of voters, sometimes with distinct opinions or agendas, and who seek answers to specific questions. So the idea that the questions asked at such an event might hit harder at one party or candidate is not surprising or unexpected. But what happened last night was altogether different.


While there were some ignoramus' hollering from the crowd at Daryl Kramp, the machinations of CARP stood out as marking an odd nadir in the recent history of local politics, because this group deliberately sought to exclude two candidates from an all-candidates meeting. When Tim Hickey, an independent candidate, called Tuesday to confirm his participation with Ken Prue of the Brighton-Belleville-Quinte West chapter of CARP, all seemed fine. But on the day of the event itself, he was told only the major parties (NDP, Conservative, Liberal, and, in a significant promotion, Green) would be involved. Only with some argument was Hickey able to participate.


Maybe it's an old-fashioned idea, but it seems to me that if one is going to call an event an “all-candidates meeting”, all the candidates for the riding should be invited and allowed to participate. But with the attempt to exclude Hickey, and the lack of an invitation to Progressive Canadian Party candidate Andrew Skinner, this was anything but an all-candidates forum, which was a disservice to those who came hoping to hear all of the candidates comment on how they see, and would attempt to deal with, the issues facing seniors and other Canadians today.


As if this wasn't enough in the category of strange machinations on the part of CARP, though, they then decided to spring an ambush on the candidates in the form of a “rapid fire” question and answer session to conclude the evening. This would involve local CARP board member Mary Robertson throwing questions at the candidates with responses limited to “yes” or “no”. Daryl Kramp and Peter Tinsley both objected to this, stating they couldn't give a simplistic answer for potentially complex issues. This should have been a “no brainer”, as the saying goes, because if politics were about simple answers, the issues faced at each election, and between elections, wouldn't need such thorough debate.


Ms. Robertson, when asked if she thought Kramp and Tinsley's objection to the format was reasonable, answered, “not really”, stating that the candidates also could have just said pass if they couldn't answer in the required manner. This, though, would have given the advantage to the candidates for parties with little chance of election. If the odds of victory are slim, one can promise the moon without fear of being called upon to fulfill that commitment.


She also mentioned the format was accepted the night before at a similar meeting in Quinte-Northumberland riding, and that it was well received by the crowd there. While I am sure the crowd at Loyalist would have liked the format, the matter of it's previous acceptance by candidates of another riding is irrelevant. If she wanted the format in so badly, it should have been in the proposal.





This and that: With just over a week left in the election, there are hints starting to appear in some polls that disaster may be nigh for the Liberals. With a new poll putting the NDP in the lead in Quebec, ahead of the Bloc, there is a question if some “blue-dog” (centre/centre-right) Grit voters may move their vote to the Conservatives. The blog “Sort of Political” suggests this may lead to a gain of 9 new seats for the Tories in La Belle Province. Regardless, a re-engagement of Quebec voters in the House by way of a rejection of the Bloc Quebecois can only be seen as good news for Canada.

Wednesday, 20 April 2011

The Second "All Candidate's" Meeting, Hosted by CRAP - er, CARP

I attended the second all-candidates meeting for Prince Edward – Hastings tonight. As I have a more important turkey to roast this evening (see my column for the Intelligencer on Saturday, also available on jamesphieffer.com early Saturday morning) I will be brief.




Tim Hickey - Independent
After a solid debut on Monday night, his performance slipped, but with mitigating circumstances (see Saturday's column for more on this, as well as Progressive Canadian Party candidate Andrew Skinner's non-appearance). He played to the crowd but was seriously missing specifics. He kicks off with the presentation of his platform in downtown Belleville's Market Square on Thursday April 21 at 11 AM.
Grade: D




Daryl Kramp – Conservative
In spite of a crowd with some real idiots in it (yes, I mean you, guy with gray hair and a pony tail who hurled crude invectives at random intervals), he did well, never losing his cool regardless of being misquoted, etc. Calm, friendly, measured, clear.
Grade: A




Patrick Larkin – Green
After a strong outing Monday night, he was reduced to political/Green cliches in a performance which left me wondering who the real Larkin is.
Grade: C-




Michael McMahon – NDP
Another candidate who posted a strong performance on Monday, but seemed to fall off tonight. He continues to pursue a virtual 'hands off' approach to the Liberal candidate, focusing his attacks on the Conservatives. The problem with this approach is even if he is able to convince a voter not to support the Conservatives, he has neglected to point out why the NDP is the superior choice vs. the Liberals. A strong presence, tactically strong but strategically weak.
Grade: C




Peter Tinsley – Liberal
After a lackluster performance on Monday, the Liberal candidate came back with a vengeance. Demonstrating a strong grasp of the issues, and staying away from political cliches and invective, he demonstrated himself as a strong candidate, with the calm, steady demeanor which was missing for much of Monday night, but which his biography had led me to expect. He has moved himself to the head of the group of challengers to Daryl Kramp.
Grade: A-




Andrew Skinner – Progressive Canadian Party
As much as I was unimpressed with him Monday night, his absence is part of a massive issue with this event for which the blame lies with the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, for whom the acronym CARP has never been so appropriate on so many levels (see Saturday's column). As such, he and those who might have considered him were done a grave dis-service, as was the cause of democracy itself.
Grade: Not present due to actions of CARP organizers.