Mayoralty candidates should have definable platforms
Would it be more affordable to replace CBRM police department with the RCMP?
Generally speaking, mayoralty elections offer little by the way of excitement and certainly scant policy discussion. Instead, they come down to which candidate can best package catchy slogans and, of course, encourage the public spirit of the wellheeled to selflessly donate money for the singular purpose of best securing the public good.
Occasionally there are exceptions.
In New York City’s 1966 mayoralty campaign, for example, media darling John Lindsay decided he should be the Big Apple’s chief executive. Known as “Prince John” to his detractors, he was one of those consummate political careerists, ever vying for one political crown after another.
William F. Buckley, then editor of the magazine National Review, noted author and conservative intellectual, decided he would challenge the Prince, if only to expose the excesses represented by political royalty. When asked what he would do if elected, Buckley whimsically responded, ‘demand a recount.”
When pressed, however, Buckley engaged in outlining a series of policies quite at odds with those of Lindsay. While Lindsay embraced every imaginable government spending program, Buckley had a far more limited and restrictive view of government’s role. A reporter, clearly a Lindsay backer, thinking he would embarrass Buckley, barked at him, “Mr. Buckley, your program then is against all of the public measures Mr. Lindsay proposes for the alleviation of poverty, better education and more housing?” Instead of denying this or even trying to squirm out of it, Buckley, looking squarely at his inquisitor, said in his accustomed calm manner, “Why I don’t think I could put it better myself.” So much for political correctness.
How refreshing it would be for even one of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality (CBRM) mayoralty candidates to have a definable platform beyond mere thinly veiled disguise of career advancement. Taking such a dream one step further, would it not be especially enlightening were that platform to offer policy choices in clear language, distinguishable from the all too familiar claims for better or more accountable government. Enough please of these pasteurized bits of blather, connected by worn strands of tiresome platitudes.
May I offer the following platform summary free for the taking to any interested candidate. Perhaps we can call it Buckley-lite, CBRM style.
First, in keeping with the review of the municipality’s police department, let’s put on the table the replacement of that department with the RCMP. I favor that option if it can be demonstrated that it will save the municipality money. It is beyond dispute that the RCMP can do the job. What it comes down to is affordability, a factor that should now be the dominant one for all areas of municipal administration.
Next, the privatization, through public tender, of all municipal services so that the public works, legal and perhaps other institutionalized departments can eventually be eliminated, with their respective necessary services being provided more cost-effectively.
The Planning Office, which, incidentally, might more appropriately be called the “anti-development office of byzantine restrictions’ would be abolished and replaced with a less powerful, smaller and, yes, more pro-development bureau. It would take a minimalist approach in addressing provincial planning legislation. Hanging above its door to its smaller office would be a sign reading, “Property owners govern their properties. Not bureaucrats.”
Both council and management/administrative staff will be significantly cut in size, salaries and expenses.
We can consider these few new directions a start. Among other attributes, they will relieve the taxpayer of much of the weight of human resource maintenance and administration. Yes, that means out of the long-term disability business, excessive benefits, bloated overtime and expense budgets.
The fact is we either have a government which lives within our means or we give the present growing structure more money in the form of higher taxes.
To those who are suggesting that what I am proposing amounts to dismantling, even emasculating the size, authority and role of how we practice municipal government, allow me to quote Mr. Buckley, “Why I don’t think I could put it better myself.”
Now, among those who are eyeing that nice corner office on the Esplanade, are there any of you who believe in a smaller and more affordable municipal government? If so, why not trust the people enough to give them a choice, offering them something other than more of the same?
Oh, Buckley did lose, of course, and under Lindsay New York City went effectively bankrupt.