Daryl Bennett clearly became a target of voters’ desire for change
A look at what led to Diane Therrien’s landslide victory
As a general rule, informed voters are motivated either by support for a particular candidate or party or by opposition to a particular candidate or party. While there are always complex combinations of voter support and opposition at play in every election, as well as exceptions to the rule having to do with tactics such as strategic voting, insight into voter motivation is nonetheless a useful basis for post election analysis.
My sense is that this week’s election of Peterborough mayoralty candidate Diane Therrien was primarily the result of voters motivated by a desire for change, which was expressed as opposition to incumbent mayor Daryl Bennett. This is not to undervalue the Therrien campaign – which was error-free and demonstrated an ascending momentum over the campaign period – but to attempt to understand what appears to have been demonstrable opposition to his candidacy.
Consider that Bennett won 41 per cent of the vote in 2014. Without the splitting of that vote with other conservative leaning candidates, he would have received approximately 60 per cent of the vote. Simply holding that 2014 vote in 2018 would have secured his re-election. His slide in Monday’s vote is one telling indication of voter motivation to oppose his candidacy.
The Bennett campaign was weighted down by selective pockets of voter opposition to projects such as the Parkway and the sale of PDI. Bennett’s long and combative fight with the police and his frequent tendency to hold a hard line rather than seek compromise emerged as a key assessment in the public mind.
In addition, he noticeably altered his role last term, dropping earlier activities such as self-generated speaking engagements, annual performance reports and Twitter town halls. He increasingly became a manager of administrative files rather than a seller of community values. In turn, the culture of city council emerged as reactionary and staff-dependent, with most councillors shying away from proposing their own initiatives. All of these factors appeared to play a part in voter motivation to shift away from the incumbent mayor.
The campaign itself likely played a role in motivating some opposition to Bennett’s candidacy. In early September, Bennett’s taxi company was part of a submission to the Police Services Board, on which he sits, arguing for and receiving a 23 per cent increase in taxi fares. Bennett did nothing wrong, but the timing and the perception were lousy. Later, there were three reported instances of his having used city resources for election purposes in apparent violation of city policy. He neither acknowledged nor apologized for the alleged wrongdoing. In recent weeks, he announced three major policies: getting tough with drug dealers, making approvals easier for developers and promoting infrastructure improvements. These found favour with conservative supporters but did not expand his reach and effectively conceded territory to moderate voters who ultimately decided the race.
Surprisingly, the campaign did not challenge the record of candidate Therrien. This concession may have been some sort of act of nobility, but it was more likely an underestimation resulting in an inability to depress her support. Equally surprising was a campaign slogan – “momentum” – that had little chance of generating emotional support among voters and was weakened further by a decision to use a different slogan on Bennett campaign signs.
On a personal note, I am grateful to Daryl Bennett for the faith and trust he placed in me as an advisor and assistant through two elections and his first term in office. He has every reason to be proud of his service to the community and optimistic about the contributions that lie before him.