Have you been taking any calls on the identity of the mystery star candidate in Fairview?

It's probably Stockwell Day!

Since he is a Liberal now, maybe it is the return to provincial politics of Ujjal Dosanjh

maybe it is mikey campbell

Would that be the "Grimm Brothers" reunited?

Michael Campbell does a fine job as minister of propaganda in his current part time jobs at CKNW, BCTV, The Sun and whatever manufacturing company he heads (which I'm sure has never been given a government grant).

Has there ever been a more boring man in the history of BC?

Forgetmenot: Yes. Mikey Campbell is too annoying to be forgettable. Plus, he's a lot of fun. Well, if you do a good impression of Elmo, he's a lot of fun... :)

mike campbell reminds me ov bob[shebob] skelly.
i,m nic.

Michael Campbell is a journalist and has been right most of the time in his column. You may not like his opinion, but his facts are correct and he lays out the nagging issues that the left wishes would go away.

Lower taxes increase wealth and that is why many New Deomcrats and social democrats support this now. Campbell was no board with facts on this very early on.

He has pointed out the short comings of the lack of fairness or transperency in government.

Campbell is a classic Liberal - a laissez faire free marketer. Turns out that it is the best economic system to adopt if we want to reduce poverty and have enough income for the state to provide the social safety net. The less the government owns in business, the less they tax, the less pointless regulation, the more wealth that is created and the more services government can provide.

Ultimately, I have yet to hear one be able to attack Michael Campbell on his facts or his analysis or his predictions. He is very good at what he does and anyone that ignores him does so at their peril

If Campbell`s way is the best way to reduce poverty, then why has child poverty increased so dramatically under the BC Liberals? If anything the legacy of the BC Liberals will be increased poverty, among other lies.

Get real!

Are there more children in poverty in 2004 than in 2001? No. Has the number of children in child poverty by that definition gone up? Yes.

So why is this? It has nothing at all to do with the government that low income cut off line has risen - that is an artificial measure of poverty that has no real connection to reality.

The only useful definition of poverty is are there children that have no home, food or clothing? Beyond that everything is a differing degree of luxury.

Most childern that are defined to be from poor families have accesss to more toys and better food and better clothes than their parents had.

What was considered the norm for a middle class family in the 1960s for wealth in material goods would now be defined as poor.

Given the huge tassk for turning around the BC economy from years of problems, yes it takes time to improve everything. But the changes the Liberals have done, especially the reduction in taxes (which did not go far enough) is having the impact now in the rapid increase in employment and incomes.

The surest way to reduce poverty is to increase wealth and reduce unemployment. The surest way to create wealth and increase employment is reduce government interferene in business and make the taxation grab as small as is possible.

The debate on this topic is done - the data is in. This is why left wing parties the world over that truly want to improve the lot of the workers have realised the Chicago School is correct.