Thanks to Doug Ford, Toronto has barely a month to figure out its priorities for the next four years and decide who’s the best person to lead the city.

What should have been weeks of debate about the issues and candidates was blotted out by the bitter wrangle over Ford’s brazen big-footing of city council.

But now that we’re just four weeks from the vote on Oct. 22, will we have to settle for a contest that’s more about style than substance?

There’s a real risk of that. So far, the battle between the two leading candidates for mayor has focused more on who has the right combination of energy and vision, that elusive quality of leadership, to get the city moving, and less on fundamental differences in policy direction.

Naturally, Mayor John Tory and his main rival for the top job, Jennifer Keesmaat, insist there are enormous differences in their policies.

Tory would build 40,000 affordable homes, while Keesmaat promises more than twice that number. Her transit plan has different coloured lines and includes a three-stop Scarborough subway (Tory is sticking with the one-stop plan). Both support a Downtown Relief Line, but she says she’d build it quicker. Etcetera.

On matters of substance, in other words, they’re actually a lot closer than either would admit. The real heat in the campaign, such as it is so far, is about who is more capable of getting the job done.

On this, Keesmaat has set the tone. Right out of the gate she criticized Tory for “dithering and weak leadership.” She’s mocked him as a “timid follower” with “low energy.” He’s simply not very good at his job, she says.

In the fight against Ford, Keesmaat attacked Tory for supposedly failing to stand up strongly enough for the city. What more could have been done against a newly elected premier with a majority mandate and the willingness to use any and all legal weapons was left unclear.

Tory shot back by accusing Keesmaat of naively supporting secession for the city, based on a fleeting tweet. This was all typical campaign shadow-boxing on both sides.

In this contest, voters must measure the candidates by different yardsticks.

Tory has had four years to show what he can do, as well as a long record of public service before that. As mayor he’s made progress in some areas and fallen short in others, and we’ll analyze that in more detail in coming days.

But Tory will never be the inspiring visionary that some people crave. He’s a known quantity, for better and for worse. There are no surprises.

Keesmaat has a very different challenge, and voters will have to judge her accordingly.

She has never before held or even sought public office. As the city’s chief planner, she was a senior bureaucrat, charged with developing policy but ultimately serving her political masters — ironically, very much including Tory himself.

So she’s in the ironic position of criticizing a policy like SmartTrack, Tory’s signature transit framework, that she helped to flesh out and defend. You can say that was just her job (and it was), but it certainly muddies the waters for voters trying to decide who to believe — the Keesmaat who promoted SmartTrack or the Keesmaat who now says it was a mirage.

At the same time, assessing her policies is made harder by the fact she has never before been tested in the political arena.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

It’s fine for Keesmaat to bring forward an elaborate housing policy with an ambitious target for building affordable housing. Or to draw up an impressive-looking transit map with tempting new subway and LRT lines.

But if just coming up with ideas was the measure of a potential mayor, voters might elect professors of urban policy — or even editorial writers. Much more important is where the rivals truly diverge in where they would take the city. And who has the political chops to translate words into action, to do the hard work of coalition-building and backroom dealing. That’s tougher to judge for a political rookie like Keesmaat.

Tory and Keesmaat have four weeks to persuade voters they’re the best choice. So far we’re still waiting for convincing evidence from both sides.

Read more about: