After weeks of campaigning Gulaptis has few friends

Nats Candidate Chris Gulaptis has been on the Clarence campaign trail from the getgo and on Facebook since about the 28^th of October – yet he had less than 125 friends on this social networking site by election eve. And quite a few of these seem to be the party’s political operators.

Not a good look for a man who unswervingly believes in his own popularity.

No fraccing, no dredging, no floating coal seam gas hub

Country Labor candidate, Peter Ellem has demanded the O’Farrell-Stoner Government rule out allowing the Clarence or Evans Rivers to be dredged to support offshore Coal Seam Gas processing facilities on the North Coast.

“I’m calling on the O’Farrell-Stoner Government to rule out any dredging of the Clarence or Evans Rivers to support Coal Seam Gas operations in northern NSW,” Mr Ellem said.

“Metgasco has already flagged a proposal to build a floating Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility off the North Coast to process Coal Seam Gas from Casino and export overseas.

“If Metgasco is allowed to proceed with these plans, we could see the Clarence or Evans Rivers being dredged so a pipeline could be built from Casino out to sea.

“Dredging the Clarence or Evans Rivers would see us facing a pulp mill style scenario like the region faced in the 1980’s, which would have a disastrous impact on the fishing, tourism and farming industries.

“We have already faced the complete destruction of our river with the pulp mill proposal back in the 1980’s - we cannot risk the health and future of our river again by allowing it to be dredged, especially for the Coal Seam Gas industry.“We have already seen dredging in Gladstone Harbour to support offshore Coal Seam Gas operations and places like Yamba and Evans Head must not be forced to face the same fate.

“Metgasco’s proposal is extremely concerning for local residents, farmers, fishers and the businesses that rely on tourists coming to the Clarence for our stunning rivers and beaches.

“Country Labor believes that until the science is in, we should suspend all current Coal Seam Gas exploration licenses, cease issuing extraction licenses and refuse any applications to expand existing operations.

“Moratoriums are simply not good enough because they suggest that whatever science is available from a certain date will judge the future of the industry.

[Excerpt from statement by Peter Ellem]

Clarence By-election: survey respondent left in the dark

The phone rang last night during dinner so Clarrie Junior kindly offered to answer it.

"Hey Dad, there's a bloke here wanting to ask questions about the election on Saturday. Do you want to speak with him?"

"Yep, sure do," I responded.

Although I missed the caller's preamble I had a fair idea what to expect, given it was about the fifth survey that had come my way since the former, and disgraced, local MP Steve Cansdell sh*t in the proverbial nest and then jumped ship after serving just 6 months of the four-year parliamentary term. Please, remind me again how much this by-election is costing you and me and how much the former local MP is contributing to it from his handsome parliamentary pension. Hey, he caused it so he should be forking out for it.

Question 1: "Which party will you give your first preference to on Saturday?" 

I thought, "That's an easy one to answer but I wished they asked me why would I not vote for candidate so-and-so".

Question 2 went a bit like this: "We want to know what you think about some identities who are  associated with politics in your area. Press 1 for favourable, 2 for neutral, 3 for unfavourable or 4 for if you don't know them."

First name, Steve Cansdell. There's no prize for guessing how this voter, along with most of the electorate, feel about being p*ssed on from a great height by someone who told big fibs in a sworn statement and then tried to downplay the seriousness of his actions.

Second name, Chris Gulaptis. Again, there's no prize for readers on this one.

But then, the real shocker! The phone went dead! No more names! No more questions! I was left standing there with the phone like a shag on a rock. What an anti-climax! Not a thank-you, kiss my b*m or anything else. C'mon, that's not fair and square. Imagine the uproar if the final siren was sounded ten minutes early in the AFL grand final or the winner of the Melbourne Cup was the nag that was in front at the furlong pole.

Boy oh boy, that was such a disappointment. I had been looking forward to giving Fred Nile's disciple a very special rating. After all, she went out on a limb to reveal how out of touch with reality she is when she made a cameo appearance in the scandalous Stuart Ramsey - Grafton abattoir affair.

Admittedly, I would have had to give most of the other candidates, with the exception of The Greens and Country Labor candidates, ratings of "4". Well, they are apart from Wade Walker pretty much blow-ins and/or serial election offenders (one in particular has almost had as many starts as Phar Lap). 

As for Wade Walker, one of my mates at our local watering hole pretty much summed him up when he said, "Walker had a bit of a go and kept the goat track (aka Pacific Highway) up there as an issue but other than that his effort was rather pedestrian." (That mate's a punny fella.)

2011 Clarence By-election Scorecard. Part Five - the wrap up

NSW Nationals candidate Chris Gulaptis ended his personal election campaign in much the same manner as he started it – showing up for photo opportunities with recognisable faces from the Liberal or Nationals camp, doing the minimum number of interviews and sometimes spectacularly going off piste with wild claims. I expect this candidate to lose more votes than he would have if he had not decided to keep the electorate guessing on so many local concerns and broader state issues. While his cynical attempt to ride on the coat tails of an admitted law breaker displayed personal characteristics which may make some voters nervous.

NSW Country Labor candidate Peter Ellem remained consistent in his campaigning – bringing local issues and targeted policy to the fore. Staying on message from the time writs were issued. In fact he was one of only two candidates who seriously attempted to communicate with the electorate.  His ability to talk well in print was probably one of the reasons that the O’Farrell Government delivered a small amount of genuinely new funding for the Clarence electorate in the dying day of the by-election campaign.

NSW Greens candidate Janet Cavanaugh displayed a passion and commitment throughout her campaign and an engagement with community which should gain some additional traction with voters. I suspect that The Greens decision to place mining on the agenda from Day One will strike a chord within many local communities. Janet was the only candidate besides Ellem who seriously attempted to communicate with the electorate and not just throw slogans and sound bites around. Like Ellem she identified important issues and stayed on message - though she was possibly slightly more responsive to community feedback.

As for Independents Wade Walker and Stewart Scott-Irving, along with Christian Democratic Party candidate Bethany Camac, Outdoor Recreation Party candidate Clinton Mead and Australian Democrat candidate David Robinson – they ignored almost every opportunity to fully explain themselves to the electorate. Somewhat mistakenly they all appeared to rely too heavily on Meet the Candidates nights in an electorate where travel distances are an issue for many. Their responses to The Daily Examiner Q&A were too little and too late for any effective dissemination. None of these candidates door knocked in my street or mailed out literature which reached my letterbox. Therefore (with Walker being the exception because he was already known with regard to one local issue) they remain virtual ballot paper ghosts to date.

Assessment:

1. Chris Gulaptis – despite the contentious televised campaign ads this lacklustre campaign sees him losing scorecard ground since last week.

2. Peter Ellem – proved that a strong candidate can make an incumbent state government react, thus improving the funding bottom line for the Clarence electorate. His score improves considerably.

3. Janet Cavanaugh – punched above her weight throughout and treated the electorate with the respect it deserves. Her score increases.

4. Wade Walker – probably needs to work out a realistic election campaign strategy if he intends to stand for office again. Although his past online presence will always be there to haunt him. His score remains static.

5. Bethany Camac – perhaps it’s time her party rethought who might represent it at future elections. No movement in her score.

6. Clinton Mead – despite a late Facebook page creation and a bizarre Q&A response he remained Clinton Who? until the end. No score change.

7. David Robinson – another whose party needs to rethink its pre-selection process. No score change.

8. Stewart Scott-Irving – one of the disadvantages of the democratic process it that it throws up serial candidates who turn almost non-existent campaigning into an art form. No score change.

Rolling Scorecard*

Gulaptis -4

Ellem 5

Cavanaugh 5
Wade Walker 0.5
Bethany Camac -3

Clinton Mead -2

David Robinson -0.5

Stewart Scott-Irving -0.5

* This scorecard is predicated on a -5 to 5 range of possible scores

Gulaptis on the campaign trail - but wait, there's more!

The Nationals candidate in the Clarence by-election, Chris Gulaptis, has escaped the reservation again with a message that The Cops are Coming and they will be on the beat by the end of the year.

Now the entire Clarence Valley is aware that ten more police are on their way there and Casino is hoping for three additional probationary constables, but Gulaptis is promising more, more, more!

Do we want 20, 30, 35+ extra officers? Just name the figure and Chris is apparently privately promising to deliver these coppers to our door.

It is almost certain that NSW Premier O’Farrell, Deputy Premier Stoner and Police Minister Gallacher are blissfully unaware of the actual size of the blue army they are expected to march north by Christmas.

A walk down memory lane as the Clarence electorate prepares to vote on 19 November 2011

ABC Unleashed in 2007:

For instance, Chris Gulaptis, the candidate for their only marginal seat, Page, stated in public and on the record that people living in the northern rivers region should just put up with lower wages because of the scenery - and how about the serenity? I don't know, I just don't think this is the canniest vote-winning tactic in one of the poorest areas in Australia.

Leavening the blog loaf

Because it gets so serious around here during North Coast elections, I thought I might post this………………

Alright, Fine, I’ll Add a Disclaimer to My Emails.

By James Sinclair

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This email does not create an attorney-client relationship. Probably. If it does, it will have said it does. Although it could have created an attorney-client relationship without explicitly saying so, because the law is tricky like that, and the authoritative statements in this disclaimer are not as authoritative as they look. Suffice it to say, if you aren’t absolutely certain about whether or not an attorney-client relationship exists between yourself and the sender of this email, you should probably hit “reply” and ask for some clarity.
This email may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If it does, and you are not the intended recipient, then the sender hereby requests that you notify him of his mistake and destroy all copies in your possession. The sender also concedes that he is very, very stupid, and obviously should not be operating an electronic-mail machine without supervision.
The purpose of this disclaimer, in theory, is to protect the sender from whatever liability may result from the sender’s own failure to communicate clearly or properly send an email, even though the sender, having obtained a formal legal education, is well aware that a generic email disclaimer, even one written with that ominous language of which lawyers are so fond, is unlikely to be enforced against a party lacking a sophisticated understanding of the legal principles surrounding said disclaimer, and that in the case of a party who does understand the legal principles surrounding said disclaimer, the disclaimer merely restates what said party already knows. This disclaimer is a catch-22.
This disclaimer is not unlike the ceaseless blaring of a distant car alarm—a once-sincere warning that has evolved into an unpleasant nuisance, rendered meaningless by its own ubiquity. This disclaimer exists in a country where the demand for legal services is substantial enough to provide gainful employment for more than one million lawyers, virtually all of whom make liberal use of disclaimers purporting to protect themselves from the very litigiousness that pays their bills. You do the math.
This disclaimer is not especially concerned with intelligibility. Unlike the sender of this email, this disclaimer has no qualms about indulging in the more obnoxious trademarks of legalese, including but not limited to (i) the phrase “including but not limited to”, (ii) the use of “said” as an adjective, (iii) re-naming conventions that have little to no basis in vernacular English and, regardless, never actually recur (hereinafter referred to as “the 1980 Atlanta Falcons”), (iv) redundant, tedious, and superfluous repetition of synonymous terms, (v) ENTIRE SECTIONS OF FULLY-CAPITALIZED TEXT, PRESUMABLY INTENDED TO SAY TO THE READER, “HEY! THIS IS IMPORTANT! YOU SHOULD READ THIS PART! AND REMEMBER IT!”, AS IF NO ONE HAS EVER NOTICED THAT PHYSICALLY ENLARGING TEXT WITHOUT INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF SPACE AVAILABLE FOR SAID TEXT TO OCCUPY CREATES THE VISUAL EFFECT OF A SOLID RECTANGULAR BLOCK OF LETTERS, ROUGHLY AS CAPABLE OF IMPARTING A COHERENT THOUGHT AS A TIGHTLY-PACKED SCRABBLE® BOARD, and (vi) lowercase Roman numerals.
This disclaimer exists for precisely one reason—to make this email appear more professional. This disclaimer shall not be construed as a guarantee of actual professionalism on the part of the sender. Any actual professionalism contained herein is purely coincidental and is in no way attributable to the presence of this disclaimer. While the sender of this email likes to think the professionalism with which he approaches his work speaks for itself, this disclaimer constitutes (i) begrudging acquiescence to the industry standard, or at least a superficial imitation thereof, and (ii) begrudging acceptance of the paradoxical reality that people who exchange emails with lawyers both expect to see, and pay no attention to, legal disclaimers. If you aren’t reading this, then this disclaimer has done its job. Its sad, pointless job. THIS DISCLAIMER IS NOT INTENDED TO BE IRONIC.