Horgan for BC

I've now seen John Horgan and Adrian Dix in person, have watched a number of the all-candidate debates on the BCNDP website, and have followed the campaign in the press avidly. Here's what I know so far:
1    All 5 candidates are excellent public speakers. All have a firm grasp of the issues and the politics. All are convincing when speaking extemporaneously. None speaks in "talking points".
Purely from that point of view any of them would present a more convincing public face of the BCNDP than our last leader.
I would judge John Horgan the most comfortable, the funniest, and the most loquatious.
2    Only three have a realistic chance: John Horgan, Adrian Dix, and Mike Farnworth. Nicholas Simons, while strong on social concerns, doesn't look or sound like a prospective Premier Simons. Dana Larsen, an unexpectedly effective and engaging candidate, cannot get a reference in the press that doesn't also reference his marijuana activism: not Premier material.
3    There is no evidence of a split in the party. All the leading candidates stayed with Carol James until the end; all the leading candidates have attracted and welcomed endorsements from dissident MLAs.
4    The campaign has been so civil that John Horgan is frequently quoted in the press when he characterizes the debates as "another NDP love-in". Some columnists would like to see fireworks, but most acknowledge that only very small differences separate the candidates. The candidates appear to genuinely like and respect each other. This is not normal for BC politics.
5    Of the front-runners, as must be pretty clear by now, I like John Horgan the best. He's not as well-known as the other two, but I think that would dissipate very quickly were he to become the voice of the NDP. I suspect he's the most able of the three to point out Premier Clark's foibles and weaknesses in a humorous way, and I think that's the way to beat her and her machine.
    My second choice has to be Mike Farnworth. He clearly has the confidence of large segments of the party, and according to polls, is the most liked by the electorate at large. I suspect his justice issues stance, which has been widely covered in the press over many years, is largely responsible for his good name recognition. Unfortunately I don't agree with this stance; fortunately he's solid on the other issues near and dear to me, especially on the environment.
    I've admired Adrian Dix for years, ever since he was the BC head of Canadian Parents for French. He's also obviously the best-organized of the candidates and has an uncanny ability to summon at will statistics for every occasion: it's quite dazzling. Unfortunately, I've seen no evidence of a sense of humour, and I do think that's an important political tool: I'm tired of our perpetual righteous indignation. We really haven't been amused by BC politics since Dave Barrett, who took down an iconic WAC Bennett by pointing out how ridiculous his platform was, given the problems the province was facing at the time.
    But the biggest problem with Adrian Dix is that he has baggage. Vaughan Palmer's column of January 19, 2011, laid out the case: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinion+Liberals+have+lots+common/4130156/story.html
I also wonder about the judgment of some of his supporters: Mable Elmore's activities in recruiting new NDP members on his behalf represented the one blot on the entire leadership process. Everything may have been perfectly above-board, but the new memberships looked fishy, and the press sensed blood.
    You cannot just shuck that kind of record, irrelevant as it may be to present circumstances, as Christy Clark and the BCLiberals (Christy's role in the BC Rail fiasco: look it up!) are going to find out eventually.

    So that's it: one of the least consequential political endorsements of all time!
    But all mine.

Update: regarding white elephants

In December 2009 I wrote letters to both our local papers. There was a proposal to a upgrade the Campbell River Airport, purportedly so it would attract larger aircraft. Federal money was involved; local taxpayers would have to pony up 'only' several hundred thousand dollars.
I pointed out that the Comox Airport, second in BC only to Vancouver International, is only 45 minutes away. I compared the airport project to our infamous cruise-ship terminal, which hasn't seen a cruise (or any other kind of) ship for several years.
No letters on this subject were published, fewer than 100 ratepayers complained, and the upgrade was completed last year. (One can find the letters archived on this blog.)
Yesterday Dan MacLennan, the Courier-Islander's principal reporter, had a story about Council's budget deliberations.
Oh look! We're paying $26,000 a year to maintain a cruise ship terminal that cannot attract cruise ships. Otherwise our $2 Million (of $20 Million!) investment will deteriorate.
Councillors were "surprised", and claimed that "George is working on it".
MacLennan also revealed, for the first time apparently, that the Campbell River Airport has lost money every year of at least the last five. In other words, since well before Councillors decided to expand it:

Meanwhile the Campbell River Airport, downloaded by Ottawa onto the city in 1996, has been losing money for several years. At the time, city officials pledged the airport would not be a burden to the taxpayers. It would have to stand on it's own.

Budget documents, however, show taxpayers are on the hook. 

- Passenger movements have been dropping from a spike in 2000 close to 80,000, down to about 50,000 in 2009
- Aircraft movements peaked in 2008 then dropped sharply in 2009. Fuel sales dropped with them.
- Airport expenses have exceeded revenues for the last five years.
- Airport operations lost $183,374 in 2010. The 2011 operational deficit is projected at $168,169.

Please! This "build it and they will come" mythology needs to be laid to rest.
Now, before it bankrupts us.

(published in Courier-Islander of April 8, 2011)