McCallum the Opportunist

Politicians are opportunists. “That’s just what they do,” said a local editor in no escalated verve when we briefly spoke on the subject. He was right, but whether the politician is, is entirely separate.

Sure, taking the opportunities given is important. It isn’t a crime to be opportunistic and perhaps it’s an absolute necessity to advance in the current job market. But when it comes to leadership and the tangible qualities thereof, context is quite important, no?

Picking the right moment to retreat, to strike, to hold your tongue or speak out are all calculated decisions. And decisions shouldn’t matter simply in the immediate.

Doug McCallum left the political arena in 2005, unceremoniously and suddenly. And he left with conviction. Just a year later, he didn’t express a desire to return to politics. Doug Ward then reporting for the Sun quoted McCallum as stating:

“It’s long ago. I’m into a different life now . . . I’m enjoying my retirement. I’ve got more time for gardening and for my family. I don’t have the stresses any more and I’m doing things that I like to do.”
Read Full Article

So, what’s changed?

A renewed vigour? Some inspired vision to help the city’s plaguing issues of crime, affordable housing, public transportation?

Of course every mayoral candidate will try to anchor themselves to these critical issues, latch on to what they think is the best path forward.

McCallum is no different except his bid appears more opportunistic given his recent history. Is it a coincidence he returns amid a perceived political vacuum, or careful calculation?

The platform (so far…)

Along with a vow to improve safety and reduce crime, McCallum has stated he will improve Surrey’s transit capacity and control city-spending.

He also provided a four-point plan for dealing with illegal secondary suites, tweeting out on July 14 those very points:

1) Increased parking restrictions -2 hr. parking, residents only stickers, alternate times -consult with neighbourhoods #surreybc #sryvotes

— Doug McCallum (@mccallum4mayor) July 14, 2014

2) Bylaw task force w/ emerg services – give teeth by council upping fines & frequency of visits #surreybc #sryvotes

— Doug McCallum (@mccallum4mayor) July 14, 2014

3) More bylaw officers, but also increase in building enforcement officers -funds reallocated in city hall spending #surreybc #sryvotes

— Doug McCallum (@mccallum4mayor) July 14, 2014

4) Could not locate fourth point on @mccallum4mayor Twitter feed.

More recently, McCallum pledged—a self-proclaimed raison d’être for entering the mayoral foray—to push for electoral reform.

His touted desire for the city’s future electoral structure is an eight-councillor, four ward system (two councillors, per ward) accompanied by a mayor elected at-large.

Doug to the Rescue?

McCallum’s platform isn’t complex; the ideas aren’t novel nor do some appear even practical. A pledge to improve the city’s transit capacity, for instance, won’t happen on a whim. It will happen when the money happens. It’s a matter of funding not just desire. I would think TransLink has more to gain by expansion.

I can’t confidently comment on McCallum’s rule in the 90s, but I can comment on his exit in 2005 as I’m sure many #SurreyBC thread followers can.

McCallum left defeated, whether bitter or not matters little. He gave that great quote, kept a cool distance operating Harness Racing B.C. with little political input save perhaps for lobbying in the interest of standardbred breeding and his company’s key initiative(s).

There’s nothing wrong with that.

But the opportunistic edge to his re-emergence borders on insulting and shouldn’t be ignored.

Quick warning: sports analogy will follow, but McCallum’s return, in my opinion, runs parallel to Michael Jordan’s “comeback.” When MJ returned to the  NBA as a Washington Wizard, everyone immediately recognized he wasn’t the same player. Jordan wasn’t capable of lifting his team to greater heights, only heightened attention. His motivation to return was self-interest more so than proven ability.

Now politics isn’t basketball, granted, but running a city, especially one as evolving as Surrey, requires considerable knowledge of every facet of the municipality. Otherwise, the city’s destined to regress and to develop even greater issues.

Surrey is a lot different than the years in which McCallum was mayor. In fact, the city has progressed, not without its problems, surely, but there’s been progress nonetheless.

McCallum labelled the new City Hall, “a waste of taxpayer money.”

The upgrades and improvements made to the heart of Whalley was necessary to shift the municipality’s overall image as are the hosting of festivals, events and general beautification projects (Holland Park speaks for itself). How else do you spur business and future development without making the city a landmark of some kind? That’s the key and the conundrum to growth.

It’s time for change, no doubt, but McCallum doesn’t appear that progressive change forward. For McCallum to call the development in the rebranded city centre wasteful demonstrates a pessimistic attitude that isn’t conducive to urban advancement and improvement.

City centre was a vision that turned to reality. I too was a skeptic of its need until friends from Vancouver came and witnessed the reformation of Whalley. All remarked positively on Surrey’s character and change. Surely it changed perception of our sprawling city.

McCallum states he wants to control city spending. This position sounds flimsy however when considering McCallum’s platform rests on throwing more resources at crime and by-law enforcement (more officials and a task force). These are increases to the public sector that will not help constrict city spending.

This isn’t to say additional resources aren’t required. Just don’t stand up and preach tighter spending in the same breath as championing the fattening of municipal services.

Does anyone know for certain that adding more cops in Newton will solve the overall issue of crime and safety? Crime is elusive; criminals are reactive. Adding police in one place may in fact just shift the problem elsewhere resulting in the need of more police, more resources, on Surrey’s streets.

By-law enforcement will require more personnel and sharper teeth, certainly, but with periodic revision of legislation and enforcement tactics as people have shown the capacity to circumvent by-laws.

The fear is that McCallum is not the person most prepared to tackle the city’s growing urban issues—a politician armed with superficial talking points and little else by way of a blueprint for the next few years.

It takes a visionary, a student of many disciplines and the genuine desire to place the welfare of everyone else ahead of singular interests. Voters should truly ask themselves  if McCallum fits within that criteria.

His pursuit appears as nothing more than a personal reclamation of lost political glory, though I could be wrong.

What is more certain is that McCallum’s a familiar face and the provincial election proved what a smile and talking points can do for a politician, even one behind in pre-election polls—and that’s what’s most frightening.

The Real Problem in Politics: No Immediate Consequences…

I previously discussed the complexity of the issues that surround Surrey and the need of all levels of government to chip in to solve them, nevertheless, this current post wasn’t inspired off of that, but from Laila Yuile’s blog post, “You are what you do. . .” which discusses a similar sentiment.

Yuile states, “non-partisan cooperation between all levels of government” is required to fix Surrey’s issues. She’s right, but while bias may be of issue here and there, I think it’s a lack of immediate accountability that presents the greater issue.

Background

I agree on the whole that to fight our city’s problems a coordinated effort is necessary. It takes funding and support from taxpayer dollars to provide and/or maintain the programs that are required to deal with child poverty, drug addiction, drug trafficking, prostitution and homelessness, and these are just to name a handful of root sources of crime.

It doesn’t even consider the dollars required to build and improve current institutions and infrastructure, especially when much is left to municipalities to deal with while they are only able to get their hands on about $0.08 of every tax dollar. Meanwhile, municipalities are relied on heavily to manage its own parks, libraries, community water systems, local police, roadways and parking (of which, related fees also play a roll in supporting city coffers).

Read: State of Canada’s Cities and Communities 2012

Canada’s Constitution and the division of powers outlined naturally creates a decentralized system whereby responsibilities are sometimes shared. But the greater the feds decentralize, the more pressure and responsibility that becomes downloaded to lower levels of government, a brewing example being health care costs.

Health care is a provincial sphere of responsibility, but, it’s also costly especially with Canada’s aging population and the need to update and maintain expensive equipment.

Provinces and more so, municipalities, are thus left to foot the responsibility and allocate available funds appropriately. It’s this last point requires scrutiny and consequence.

Funding is available

I would see an issue with federal decentralization if a lack of funding appeared the definitive problem. But that isn’t the case.

The  province received $5.7 billion in major transfers for 2013-14, which is an additional $1.17 billion compared to 2005 – 06 numbers.

Much of it stems from the government’s Canada Health Transfer and Canada Social Transfer. Also, Canada’s department of finance reported that the $5.7 billion figure was just 13% of B.C.’s revenues for that year (the province tallied a little over $44 billion in revenues last year).

The 2012 report on the state of Canada’s cities and communities also claims:

During the past few years, federal and municipal governments have co-operated more closely than at any time since the Great Depression. Together, we fought the recent recession and began rebuilding Canada’s streets, bridges, and water systems.

Support from the federal government does arrive, and arrives as annual transfers.

Furthermore, the less wealthy provinces receive additional funds in the form of equalization payments, a system that is in itself quite flawed, but does exist for those provinces that do receive them. National Post article by Mark Milke and Fred McMahon is a fantastic overview of the system and its flaws.

For instance, B.C. has not qualified for equalization payments since 2006 – 07 because of the relative strength of our economy yet, we boast the highest child-poverty rate.

Nevertheless, funding is received from the top and has little to do with the supposed ideological alignment of a provincial government. The decision to decentralize perhaps does, but the amount of federal support comes from economic formulae with a purpose of providing:

…significant financial support to provincial and territorial governments on an ongoing basis to assist them in the provision of programs and services. There are four main transfer programs: the Canada Health Transfer (CHT), the Canada Social Transfer (CST), Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing (TFF).

The CHT and CST are federal transfers which support specific policy areas such as health care, post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, early childhood development and child care.

The Equalization and TFF programs provide unconditional transfers to the provinces and territories. Equalization enables less prosperous provincial governments to provide their residents with public services that are reasonably comparable to those in other provinces, at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. TFF provides territorial governments with funding to support public services, in recognition of the higher cost of providing programs and services in the north.

The overall point is, the province of B.C. is provided with a substantial amount of federal money to use towards health care, education and social programs within our cities. It’s easy to blame partisanship, but with billions in revenues, plus billions more in support, one would think it is enough to get some work done in our local communities that have shouldered their burden.

The crucial question: Where is the money going and how effective were the dollars that were spent? This is dissertation work, certainly but, here is a good start, provided by Jordan Bateman: http://www.pinterest.com/jordanbateman/wasted-tax-dollars/.

The waste is, to say the least, irritating.

Answers and accountability

The immediate question to ask is whether $44 billion dollars in revenue, plus billions in federal support, is enough to help quell the problems of Surrey. I think it is.

But, it’s up to our provincial and municipal politicians to come forward with innovative thinking and adequate decision-making to help re-allocate the funds we do have, properly and without bias.

In the gaps, where there is funding shortages, the province and perhaps feds must be lobbied like never before in order to help bring additional support to quell community issues.

For instance, Watts’ letter to the feds for $1.8 billion to fund our LRT dreams.

We’ve heard the gripes, and we’ve seen the finger-pointing, but where are the resolutions? If Surrey does not receive the assistance or funding it needs, then inquiries must be made, from the people, the voters, right up the chain to those who control strings to the biggest purse (i.e. the federal government).

The political system should work and there is clearly money to go around.

But it seems bad decisions (i.e. millions on an unused South Surrey parking lot), neglect or flat-out ineffective representation by those we elect are reasons communities that have struggled, continue to struggle, and remain without adequate resources or available help until a tragedy like the Paskall murder occurs and draws scrutiny from media and the public.

The problem is that there is no immediacy to accountability unless an election is right around the corner. The gem of holding a public office, especially in a majority government, is that the election is four years away.

That’s when the people get to hold a politician’s feet to the fire or just the opposite, depending on the record at hand. Barring unforeseen criminal actions, i.e. Senate spending scandal and an unprecedented expulsion motion, no immediate accountability is had.

Further, it becomes difficult to hold anyone accountable on mistakes that occurred a few years ago, it’s even harder when that’s combined with a huge chasm of disinterest politics. In an age when we relish immediacy, politics just seems to move too slow.

Greater accountability, now

What needs to occur is greater accountability, sooner consequences.

If things aren’t going according to what the majority believes is correct over the course of the year or two years, the people should have the right extricate those who failed to make progress. Taxpayers pay their salary, we should demand results just the same as bosses in the private industry demand of their employees.

Politicians certainly don’t want to hear this because it would mean faster results, which would require vision, planning and ideas. Not just promises based on little foresight, no planning and followed back a lack of or a poor result. No more suspension of parliament and avoidance of debate.

This of course doesn’t apply broadly to all politicians. Just the same as teachers, police and most other unionized workforce, not all who enter those trades are as effective or successful. Not all men and women are born with equal abilities; not all individuals who make it to office are worthy of the role.

Voters need greater input, with greater control. And we are slowly moving this way in certain aspects. But, we need a system to help weed out the ineffective and the wasteful in a more efficient manner then every four-years, give or take.

Quicker accountability, consequence for ill performance in government, misuse of taxpayer dollars or just plain ineffectiveness, should all warrant a fast exit out of the political arena—call it the Rob Ford Rule.

The question is: Are we mature enough as a society to judge political effectiveness, objectively?

Government is government

Much has been written over the last few days on Christy Clark’s classification of this year’s election as the “most important in modern history.”

Photo courtesy: CBC.ca

Well, given winner has control of the province over the next four-years, it would seem every election is the most important, until the next one, and then the next, and the next.

It’s the consequences of change that voters are often embattled with. Do we trust the BC Liberals and everything they have to offer? How will a new NDP government change the current provincial landscape?

Stark opposites

It’s humorous to listen to politicians characterize an election, embellishing importance at every step of the way in an attempt to drive voters to the polls, and to care.

Clark says her Liberal party is the stark opposite of Adrian Dix and the NDP. The latter intends to stay the course (platform of Harper 2011), hike corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy, while maintaining the Liberal deficit ($800 million).

The Liberals intend to balance the budget by 2015, in large part due to hopeful LNG profits, and continue to progress with its BC Jobs Plan. Though, Clark’s deficit runs counter to the current election platform put before the citizens of British Columbia.

Politically speaking, are the Liberals and NDP truly stark contrasts to one another? Not really. But they are naturally characterized as such because of the province’s strong two-party system (Poli Sci 101).

While John Cummins (BC Conservatives) and Jane Sterk (BC Green Party) will try to wrestle a few seats away from the two giants on May 14, the truth is the political landscape reduces the election to an us-versus-them mentality.

Clark’s assertion is correct, but not for the reason she wishes to imply.

So what are voters here left with? An important election, surely, but stark contrasts in governance? What party touts:

A sustainable, diversified economy that creates new opportunities good jobs, and a strong middle-class is the foundation of the BC -?- platform.

Good governance comes down to logic. Or at least it ought to. If it is considered in this sense then there are only so many directions a government can go it seems.

As a twenty-something voter, don’t shout distinction when it’s merely different handlers.