Whatever party you already intend to vote for cannot change one thing about the Alberta Leaders' debate. That is minds may or not have been changed, but Rachel Notley came across as a negative — even irritating — presence on the stage; Smith on the other hand smiled a lot, radiating goodwill, grace and in her closing remarks a little humility, promising to serve to the best of her ('ummm, sometimes less than perfect') ability..For Smith, this was the desired outcome, a win even..Why? Much as we all like to think we vote on policy, facts and a careful analysis of spreadsheets, we actually don't. We vote for people who we like and who make us feel comfortable. We shouldn't choose brain surgeons or airline pilots that way, but it is how we choose premiers. So, one can disagree with Smith. One can wish she didn't mis-speak. But it is very hard to actively dislike somebody who calmly answers difficult, duplicitous and sometimes offensive questions with a smile and a soft answer..It was therefore essential that Smith not allow Notley to get under her skin. In that Smith succeeded. Meanwhile Notley failed to make her scowl..This being something of a binary thing — you either succeed completely or you fail badly — it left Notley looking like a scold. There are only so many times you can accuse Smith of getting ready to sell hospitals and charge old people to visit doctors, which most people realize is never going to happen, before you look a bit futile. Yes, Notley could stand there and say — several times — that health care was a problem, but after a while it just becomes depressing. (And at what point does misrepresentation become misinformation, anyway?) Smith meanwhile was in the fortunate position of cataloguing some accomplishments at least and plausibly promising further improvements..Even the NDP attack line that Smith 'broke the law' on COVID-related cases didn't work that well. For one thing, Smith just admitted she'd made a mistake. (As she needed to.) Once somebody owns their stuff, it's hard to keep the pressure on. It might also have occurred to some watchers that it was a bit rich for Notley to complain about ethical lapses in Danielle Smith, when Notley herself is a member of a party that's dedicated to keeping in power a prime minister who has been up on ethics charges half a dozen times. Either you’re against ethical lapses, or you’re just saying you’re against ethical lapses..Notley did however lead with a question that could have been a stumble for Smith. Smith had for decades argued 'passionately' for certain values and policies, such as increased privatization in health care, but was now pretending to run on something else. How could voters trust her to stay with her platform?.It was a fair question that needed to be asked. But so was the answer that needed to be said: Notley had not campaigned on raising taxes or levying a carbon tax, but did both anyway. So, how could Albertans trust that? And later the clincher: "These days I work for the people of Alberta. They're my boss." In other words, whatever I said ten years ago, I know where my limits are..Right answer..Where does that leave the voters? Both of these women are smart, passionate and attractive: How does one choose between them?.For the policy wonks already-committed, there was nothing in the debate that would have made a difference. After an hour of traded accusations, obscure statistics and inside-baseball rebuttals on health, the cost of living, energy security and law and order, the winner would still have been mostly the leader you supported at the start. The audience drawn from the other 99.5% of Albertans who haven't been following the talking points for six months, would have found it brain-numbing, and endured only in the hope of the proverbial knock-out blow that in the end, never came. .It was a fitting end for the debate in an election in which there has all along been a strange air of detachment. Somehow we've been talking past what really matters. That is, the issues deserved to be not what class sizes were going to be in the province's schools, but what children would actually learn... how the Just Transition will destroy jobs and prosperity, not just what year we're going to reach net zero emissions... how to actually make Alberta Health Services work better, not just how much more money to spend on it..But that's what we have and on the 29th we vote. In the end, it's going to come down to gut feel..Which is exactly where it started.
Whatever party you already intend to vote for cannot change one thing about the Alberta Leaders' debate. That is minds may or not have been changed, but Rachel Notley came across as a negative — even irritating — presence on the stage; Smith on the other hand smiled a lot, radiating goodwill, grace and in her closing remarks a little humility, promising to serve to the best of her ('ummm, sometimes less than perfect') ability..For Smith, this was the desired outcome, a win even..Why? Much as we all like to think we vote on policy, facts and a careful analysis of spreadsheets, we actually don't. We vote for people who we like and who make us feel comfortable. We shouldn't choose brain surgeons or airline pilots that way, but it is how we choose premiers. So, one can disagree with Smith. One can wish she didn't mis-speak. But it is very hard to actively dislike somebody who calmly answers difficult, duplicitous and sometimes offensive questions with a smile and a soft answer..It was therefore essential that Smith not allow Notley to get under her skin. In that Smith succeeded. Meanwhile Notley failed to make her scowl..This being something of a binary thing — you either succeed completely or you fail badly — it left Notley looking like a scold. There are only so many times you can accuse Smith of getting ready to sell hospitals and charge old people to visit doctors, which most people realize is never going to happen, before you look a bit futile. Yes, Notley could stand there and say — several times — that health care was a problem, but after a while it just becomes depressing. (And at what point does misrepresentation become misinformation, anyway?) Smith meanwhile was in the fortunate position of cataloguing some accomplishments at least and plausibly promising further improvements..Even the NDP attack line that Smith 'broke the law' on COVID-related cases didn't work that well. For one thing, Smith just admitted she'd made a mistake. (As she needed to.) Once somebody owns their stuff, it's hard to keep the pressure on. It might also have occurred to some watchers that it was a bit rich for Notley to complain about ethical lapses in Danielle Smith, when Notley herself is a member of a party that's dedicated to keeping in power a prime minister who has been up on ethics charges half a dozen times. Either you’re against ethical lapses, or you’re just saying you’re against ethical lapses..Notley did however lead with a question that could have been a stumble for Smith. Smith had for decades argued 'passionately' for certain values and policies, such as increased privatization in health care, but was now pretending to run on something else. How could voters trust her to stay with her platform?.It was a fair question that needed to be asked. But so was the answer that needed to be said: Notley had not campaigned on raising taxes or levying a carbon tax, but did both anyway. So, how could Albertans trust that? And later the clincher: "These days I work for the people of Alberta. They're my boss." In other words, whatever I said ten years ago, I know where my limits are..Right answer..Where does that leave the voters? Both of these women are smart, passionate and attractive: How does one choose between them?.For the policy wonks already-committed, there was nothing in the debate that would have made a difference. After an hour of traded accusations, obscure statistics and inside-baseball rebuttals on health, the cost of living, energy security and law and order, the winner would still have been mostly the leader you supported at the start. The audience drawn from the other 99.5% of Albertans who haven't been following the talking points for six months, would have found it brain-numbing, and endured only in the hope of the proverbial knock-out blow that in the end, never came. .It was a fitting end for the debate in an election in which there has all along been a strange air of detachment. Somehow we've been talking past what really matters. That is, the issues deserved to be not what class sizes were going to be in the province's schools, but what children would actually learn... how the Just Transition will destroy jobs and prosperity, not just what year we're going to reach net zero emissions... how to actually make Alberta Health Services work better, not just how much more money to spend on it..But that's what we have and on the 29th we vote. In the end, it's going to come down to gut feel..Which is exactly where it started.
