reply to geoff

Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:51 AM
To: Geoff Goodship
Subject: Re:

I never shared his delusion that he'd be fisheries minister. With one unremarkable exception (Cummings) that's always gone to the East Coast, and the opportunity to put a female in the post must have been irresistible! Besides, Duncan isn't that talented, not even in a Conservative government short of talent.
By "professionalized" he probably means he paid to have a lot of the work done. We were phoned several times before the election was called by what were obviously professional marketers; the sign campaign, for the second time, was clearly directed from elsewhere, because it was identical to all the other ones I saw; the newspaper ads, although I didn't find them appealing, were not the work of amateurs, etc.
As for Catherine's campaign, it actually was reasonably competent, although they duplicated a lot of initiatives they didn't need to. But the demographics are not in the NDP's favour in this riding: she lost
only Port McNeill in the north and won overwhelmingly on the islands, came very close to tying Duncan in Campbell River, and lost big time in Comox/Courtenay. If the constituency ended with Merville, Catherine
would have won quite comfortably.
Apparently Stan Hagen is taking credit on behalf of his activists for the win.
I think the explanation is that the Liberal vote that was coming the NDP's way came over in the last last election, giving Catherine the win, and the bit that was left went to the Conservatives this time.
--Justus

Geoff Goodship wrote:
> >
> > The morning news....
> >
> > Well, so much for John Duncan dream that he would be the minister of
> > fisheries. Ken Antonelli will be fuming today.
> >
> > Speaking of John Duncan,,, the morning after his election he gave a
> > statement on CBC saying that his victory was due to the fact that he
> > had "professionalized his campaign. "
> >
> > I wondered what that meant, apart from $$$ from Conservative campaign
> > headquarters ?
> >
> > What did , or did not,,, Catherine's campaign do to lose ?
> >
> > G
> >

letter to the editor

We got the glossy "Recreation Referendum" brochure in the mail. (Nice pictures, but "restaurant/lounge"? "private suites?" That makes one think!)
So the proponents want us to borrow $20 million. That's about $650 for every man, woman, and child in Campbell River, by my very rough calculation. And that's before the inevitable cost over-runs. (I refer you to the projections and the present estimated cost of the BC Convention Center!)
Don't these people read the local newspapers at all? Don't they understand the spin-off effects of massive layoffs?
Well, according to the brochure, "these are changing economic times" and we have "the highest number of building permits in recent history". So maybe an obvious economic downturn doesn't count this time.
Really? What kind of economic analysis is that? We know for sure that the people buying those houses aren't bringing their kids, because there are no squads of new kids showing up at school. This probably means they're either retired or buying something to retire to. And the thing about retired people is they, for the most part, live on investment income. Those are the very same investments that are being beaten up in the markets at rates unrivalled since the Great Depression. A major tax hike is the last thing those people need at present!
Anyways where, in the entire plan, are the improved recreational opportunities for retired people? I'm a fit and active 64, and I saw nothing that could apply to me at all.
Where's the completed Sea Walk, for example?
No, this is a plan for the geniuses who brought us the Cruise Ship Terminal that has no cruise ships, for the business consortium that wants to bring in a Junior A hockey team, for the business people who think they can maybe bring in trade shows and conventions. I don't mind paying taxes, and I do support an improved sports infrastructure, particularly for our kids. If the Robron complex were the only thing on offer, I'd probably vote for it.
But I'm not supporting a plan that "could see Campbell River become the next major centre, a hub for tourism, industry and services" on the back of my property taxes.
Furthermore, I won't vote for anyone who does.