Quotulatiousness

April 5, 2011

Monbiot: the anti-nuclear lobby has mislead us all

Filed under: Media, Politics, Science — Tags: — Nicholas @ 09:50

George Monbiot has had an uncomfortable year of revelations. Full credit to him for being willing to admit in public that he was wrong:

Over the last fortnight I’ve made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.

I began to see the extent of the problem after a debate last week with Helen Caldicott. Dr Caldicott is the world’s foremost anti-nuclear campaigner. She has received 21 honorary degrees and scores of awards, and was nominated for a Nobel peace prize. Like other greens, I was in awe of her. In the debate she made some striking statements about the dangers of radiation. So I did what anyone faced with questionable scientific claims should do: I asked for the sources. Caldicott’s response has profoundly shaken me.

First she sent me nine documents: newspaper articles, press releases and an advertisement. None were scientific publications; none contained sources for the claims she had made. But one of the press releases referred to a report by the US National Academy of Sciences, which she urged me to read. I have now done so — all 423 pages. It supports none of the statements I questioned; in fact it strongly contradicts her claims about the health effects of radiation.

I pressed her further and she gave me a series of answers that made my heart sink — in most cases they referred to publications which had little or no scientific standing, which did not support her claims or which contradicted them. (I have posted our correspondence, and my sources, on my website.) I have just read her book Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer. The scarcity of references to scientific papers and the abundance of unsourced claims it contains amaze me.

H/T to Chris Greaves for the link.

Update: Here’s wormme with a remarkably timely example of the sort of thing that George Monbiot encountered:

And Rana included this report, subtitled “Experts warn that any detectable level of radiation is “too much”.”

The only “experts” who would say that are political activists who are either ignorant of science or traitors to it.

“The U.S. Department of Energy has testified that there is no level of radiation that is so low that it is without health risks,” Jacqueline Cabasso, the Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation,

There’s only three possibilities here: 1) whoever testified for the DOE did a truly awful job (doubtful), 2) Ms. Cabasso misunderstood the testimony and paraphrased it according to her liking (quite likely), or 3) Ms. Cabasso is a dirty little liar (don’t rule it out).

For chronic (long-term) concerns, the DOE (and NRC) use the linear no-threshold model.

“But what does that mean,” our non-geeks cry. It means it’s assumed that any increase in dose is an increase in long-term risk. No threshold, see?

So is this model true? No. Anyone expert in radiation knows it isn’t true, because we have the whole wide world to look at. And natural doses vary greatly. People pick up between 200 and 2000 mrem/year (2-20 mSv). With absolutely no harm observed at higher doses, so how is there heightened risk? And thousands of Taiwanese picked up 5000-6000 mrem/year (50-60 mSv) for years and years and had a much lower incidence of cancer than usual.

Then why do the DOE and NRC assume risk? Because they couldn’t prove there isn’t. Still can’t, despite the real world examples above.

But that is also true about everything. Marshmallows have killed in the past, and they will in the future. Dihydrogen oxide is the greatest mass murderer of all time.

Ionizing radiation is held to standards that would basically outlaw every other activity and material on earth. Fukushima is proof of that. No one has been killed by radiation, but we’re staring at maybe 25,000 dead. And how much have we heard about non-nuke carcinogens, no doubt swirling around by the ton?

The Wikileaks view of Indian politics

Filed under: Government, India, Media, Politics — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 09:03

Pankaj Mishra talks about the ongoing release of information on India and the political and mercantilist string-pullers who infest every government function:

Food prices become intolerable for the poor. Protests against corruption paralyse the national parliament for weeks on end. Then a series of American diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks exposes a brazenly mendacious and venal ruling class; the head of government adored by foreign business people and journalists loses his moral authority, turning into a lame duck.

This sounds like Tunisia or Egypt before their uprisings, countries long deprived of representative politics and pillaged by the local agents of neoliberal capitalism. But it is India, where in recent days WikiLeaks has highlighted how national democratic institutions are no defence against the rapacity and selfishness of globalised elites.

Most of the cables — being published by the Hindu, the country’s most respected newspaper in English — offer nothing new to those who haven’t drunk the “Rising India” Kool-Aid vended by business people, politicians and their journalist groupies. The evidence of economic liberalisation providing cover for a wholesale plunder of the country’s resources has been steadily mounting over recent months. The loss in particular of a staggering $39bn in the government’s sale of the telecom spectrum has alerted many Indians to the corrupt nexuses between corporate and political power.

April 4, 2011

Politics: Tories have terrible week, yet are up to 14 point lead

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 09:34

The most useful polling right now is coming from Nanos Research, who are conducting daily summaries of the previous three-day trend. After getting slapped around by the press much of last week, the Conservatives are . . . the only party making gains over the last three days:

  • Conservative: 42%, up 1.6%
  • Liberal: 28%, down 1%
  • NDP: 16%, down 0.5%
  • Bloc Quebecois: 8%, unchanged
  • Green: 4%, down 0.2%

The Twitter reactions are . . . surprised. Paul Wells “If the Conservatives lost week one and gained four points, the Liberals can’t afford to win many more weeks.” Andrew Coyne “Another such victory and I come back to Epirus alone.”

Updating the non-scientific, unbalanced sample of published polls:

“Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war”

Filed under: Government, Liberty, Politics, Religion, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:17

I love the smell of censorship in the morning. It smells like politics:

[Senator Lindsey Graham said] “I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II, we had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy. So, burning a Koran is a terrible thing but it doesn’t justify killing someone. Burning a Bible would be a terrible thing but it doesn’t justify murder. Having said that, anytime we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk we should do it, and I look forward to working with Senators Kerry, and Reid, and others to condemn this, condemn violence all over the world based on the name of religion. But General Petreaus understand better than anybody else in America what happens when something like this is done in our country and he was right to condemn it and I think Congress would be right to reinforce what General Petreasus said.”

[. . .]

Here’s your answer Senator. No, you don’t need to hold hearings and you don’t need to be looking into ways to limit the free speech rights of American citizens because of the insane reaction of people thousands of miles away who were obviously ginned up by demagogues. War or not, Terry Jones had every right to do what he did.

Jim Geraghty perhaps put it most appropriately:

This pastor, Terry Jones, has a jones for media attention that makes the Kardashians look like J.D. Salinger. He knows that there’s a good chance that tossing the Koran on a pile of charcoal briquettes will make the easily-enraged in far-off lands lash out in that time-tested tradition, killing aid workers, and he doesn’t give a damn. He knows there’s a chance that the Muslim tantrums might put our men and women in uniform at greater risk. He still doesn’t give a damn. He has never given a damn. What, he’s gonna go weak-kneed at the thought of a unanimous Senate resolution?

April 3, 2011

QotD: The reason not to anticipate a simpler tax system

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Politics, Quotations — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:54

But boutique credits are smart politics. First, they appeal to people’s sense that they deserve a break, validate their choices, and reaffirm their sense of self-worth. The Children’s Art Tax Credit goes to good parents, ones who enroll their children in Suzuki violin lessons, not bad parents who spend their money on beer and popcorn. Second, they give people a sense of control. Tax liabilities stop being something outside of an individual’s control. Instead, the plethora of credits available mean that taxes can be reduced through planning and wise choices.

Policies are smart politics for a reason: they appeal to voters. If economists want to have a positive influence on the policy debate, they have to understand voter psychology: why do voters like special tax credits so much? “Smart politics” isn’t a criticism. Sometimes it’s a way of saying “I don’t understand why people like this policy.” At other times, it’s a way of saying, “I understand why this policy appeals to people, but if they were well-informed, they would think otherwise.”

There’s no point in telling politicians that a particular policy is “smart politics, bad economics.” They’ll take it as a compliment, and keep on making the same kind of policy choices.

Frances Woolley, “Economy Lab: Why politicians love boutique tax credits”, Globe and Mail, 2011-04-03

Latest polling numbers

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: — Nicholas @ 12:36

The Tory lead continues to hold fairly steady, in spite of the drumbeat of disapproval from the newspapers:

April 2, 2011

QotD: The nature of Harper’s “slap in the face” to Quebec

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Politics, Quotations — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:19

I labour over this history to place in context the astounding, even outré, comments offered by Canada’s First Separatist, Gilles Duceppe, on hearing of the proposed arrangement — which, I hasten to mention, is merely a $4.2-billion loan guarantee from Ottawa, not some massive outright subsidy. Mr. Duceppe, with a logic that can only belong to a man who gets paid to be a separatist by the government he’s trying to extinguish, called the deal “a direct attack on Quebec.”

What really bothers Mr. Duceppe and other separatists is that they want to retain Quebec’s monopoly on southbound power sales to the United States — something the Lower Churchill project, including its 1,100 km of underwater transmission cables, would threaten. “By financing the Newfoundland project, Stephen Harper has given Quebec a slap right in the face,” the BQ leader declared.

It’s one of the continuing risibilities of the Canadian federation that we cosset and pamper and pay for the separatist faction in the House of Commons, and go along with the pretense that they’re parliamentarians like any other. They are not. They displace the natural balance of the federation. They have a vested interested in seeing the parliament they attend not working. And they leap to any perceived or manufactured imperfection in our system as evidence of dark perfidy or contempt for Quebec. They warp the system. Nowhere do these observations meet with greater validation than these ludicrous comments by Duceppe on the proposed assistance to the Lower Churchill.

Rex Murphy, “Newfoundland’s three-gigawatt insult to Gilles Duceppe”, National Post, 2011-04-02

March 31, 2011

Corcoran: Harper’s family tax plan full of “shabby contradictions”

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:28

I think it’d be fair to say that Terence Corcoran is not a fan of Stephen Harper’s proposed “family tax plan”:

By calling this a “family tax cut,” and playing it as a matter of tax fairness, the Conservatives have managed to gloss over the shabby contradictions it introduces into Canadian tax policy. The Tory announcement said that the United States, France and other countries allow some form of income splitting. They do, but that’s not saying much about taxation or fairness.

France has a full-blown family tax regime, in which the incomes of both spouses are blended at a tax rate that is based on a formula that includes the number of children. But so what? France has one of the highest marginal tax rates in the world, and a notoriously dysfunctional tax burden that distorts behaviour and incentives. The U.S. income-splitting regime isn’t exactly revered for its soundness, in part because it clearly discriminates against single earners or anyone not part of a married couple. Nor are children a requirement to be part of the U.S. splitting regime.

[. . .]

The Harper family tax cut, based on the debatable tax policy ideal of taxing families instead of individuals, is a misguided income-splitting scheme that demonstrates once again that the Conservatives will never, ever get around to cutting personal income tax rates. The cost of the family tax cut will come at the expense of across-the-board income tax cuts for other Canadians. To pay for the family cut, other Canadians will have to continue to pay marginal tax rates that are too high.

The family tax cut, in some ways, is just another tax expenditure, a special tax treatment aimed at fulfilling some social-policy objective. The major beneficiaries are likely to be higher-income single-earner couples with children. Everybody else is out of luck.

To pull out the old saying, “that’s a feature, not a bug” to the Conservative party faithful.

March 30, 2011

Nanos poll for CTV/Globe still shows large Tory lead

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:25

The latest election poll is from Nanos, conducted for CTV and the Globe and Mail. The numbers show a smaller lead for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, but it’s still ten percent over Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal party:

Nationally, the Conservatives are in front with 38.4 per cent. The Liberals are 10 points behind at 28.7 per cent, followed by the NDP at 19.6 per cent, the Bloc Quebecois at 9.1 per cent and the Greens at 4.1 per cent.

In comparison, a March 15 Nanos survey found the Tories at 38.6 per cent, the Liberals at 27.6 per cent, the NDP at 19.9 per cent, the Bloc at 10.1 per cent and the Greens at 3.8 per cent.

[. . .]

Pollster Nik Nanos said there’s reason for disappointment in the numbers for both the Conservatives and the Liberals.

For the Tories, it shows that so far Stephen Harper’s campaign for a majority mandate is not attracting enough support to actually win a majority of seats when Canadians vote again on May 2.

For the Liberals, Mr. Nanos noted that Michael Ignagtieff’s team might have expected its numbers to improve with the added attention that comes from a campaign, and the fact that they are now running TV ads in heavy rotation.

The Nanos numbers put the Conservatives back down in minority territory, unlike the two previous polls which indicated a majority government.

March 28, 2011

Tory lead still holding in latest poll result

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 15:39

So far, the opposition hasn’t been able to make much headway against that strong Conservative lead:

2011 Election poll results for 28 March

Here’s a summary from Kathryn Blaze Carlson:

The first poll since Saturday’s election call shows Tory support largely unchanged, bringing into question the opposition’s early emphasis on ethics.

Despite a weekend of being hammered for their alleged contempt of Parliament, the Conservatives boast the support of 41% of decided voters — 17 points ahead of the Liberals, who are at 24%. The NDP is at 19%, and the Bloc 10%.

The Forum Research poll also breaks it down by seat count, suggesting that if the election were held today, the Tories would surge from 143 seats to 162 seats, the Liberals would drop 17 seats to 61, the Bloc would rise from 44 to 51 and the NDP would be whittled from 36 seats to 34. The poll, conducted over the weekend via telephone with a random sample of 2,095 voters, is within the range of approximately plus or minus 10 seats for each party.

The seat projections reflect the regional strength of the BQ, who only run candidates in Quebec, and the natural disproportion of first-past-the-post voting.

Update: Publius points out the real root of Canada’s election issues:

Unfortunately neither you, nor any of the party leaders, have the temerity to admit what is actually wrong with Ottawa. Let me give you a hint. It’s not Stephen Harper’s pragmatism. It isn’t Lord Iggy’s incompetence. Not even Jack Layton’s spend till you’re broke ideology. The problem with Ottawa is Quebec. Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc Quebecois are merely the symptoms. Our national democracy is broken because part of the electorate refuses to participate.

In the 2006 and 2008 federal elections there were 308 seats up for grabs. That’s 75 in Quebec and 233 in the Rest of Canada (ROC). The 2006 election saw the Conservatives win 114 seats in ROC and 10 in Quebec. The Conservatives did better in the ROC in 2008 winning 133 seats and holding on to their seats in Quebec. If we were to remove Quebec’s 75 seats from Parliament a majority government could be formed with 117 seats. On that basis, including only their ROC seats, the Harper Tories would have won a strong minority government in 2006 and a clear majority in 2008. To say, as the opposition parties and the MSM have, that Harper has failed to seal the deal with Canadians is only partially correct.

For all his faults, chronicled in some detail on this blog over the years, Stephen Harper has in fact convinced a critical mass of the interested Canadian electorate of his fitness to lead us. Those who vote for the Bloc Quebecois have declared their disinterest in Canada as a working proposition.

The Bloc Quebecois are not political party in any meaningful sense but merely a pressure group that has won election to parliament. It is because of this we find ourselves in a series of weak hung parliaments. The BQ offers no vision for Canada, only its potential destruction. It’s bargaining position with the other parties in recent parliaments has been of routine blackmail. Vote what is in the best interests of Quebec, or else.

March 26, 2011

What Canada needs is an actually “conservative” party

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 11:44

Because right now, we’ve got so-called Conservatives wearing Liberal clothing (and Liberals pawing through the NDP’s cast-off pile). There’s no major federal party in Canada that actually pursues fiscally responsible government policies, no matter how much they may talk about the virtues of smaller government.

Shortly after his government’s defeat, Prime Minister Stephen Harper attempted to deflect focus back to Tuesday’s budget. The economy, he said, is the number one priority of Canadians and the budget was the key to the country’s economic future. Then he said: “There was nothing in the budget that the opposition could not or should not have supported.” True enough — but what does that say to Canada’s conservatives? Based on the budget, they are now called on to support a Conservative party that has presided over an extravagant full-scale national revival of big government by fiscal expansion.

Only a few days ago, it seems, Canadian politics was abuzz with the possibility of a new ideological era that favoured smaller government and lower taxes, with less waste, more discipline and a determination to cut taxes. There were signs of revolt in British Columbia, a shake-up in Calgary and reform in Toronto, where Mayor Rob Ford captured a staggering 47% of the vote in a town where The Globe and Mail is considered a right-wing propaganda sheet. Ford Nation, they called it.

There is no Harper Nation. After five-plus years in office, the Harper Conservatives have singularly failed to change the Canadian ideological landscape. Instead, Canadian politics changed the Conservatives. In power, they transformed themselves into another basely partisan party that willingly and even eagerly pandered to whatever the political three-ring circus put on display. This week’s budget, in which $2-billion in loose cash was promptly distributed to a score of special interests and political agendas, left in place a $40-billion deficit for 2010 and solidified a $100-billion increase in the national debt over five years.

There’s no threat on the right to force the Conservatives to actually live up to their talk, so they’re free to drift as far into Liberal territory as they like — and they seem to like it a lot — because small-C conservative voters have nowhere else to go.

March 25, 2011

Polling numbers

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 09:54

The poll numbers will change over the course of the election as muck is raked, accusations are hurled, and reputations are assailed (assuming that the Conservative government is defeated in Parliament later today). The last poll was conducted by IPSOS for Global News:

I’ll try to update this chart as the polls are published. I doubt that the 19% lead the Tories had yesterday will hold up for the first few days of the election campaign, but anything is possible.

Update: As expected, the government has fallen, so the election is on. Tasha Kheiriddin congratulates the media on their success:

And they’re off. In newsrooms across the country, journalists are tossing their Team 2012 shirts on the trash heap, while the Team 2011 folks are collecting their $5 bets. Sure, they could have cashed in on Tuesday, but it’s always prudent to wait for the chickens to actually hatch. Or, in this case, come home to roost. After stoking election fever for months, the media now get to feast on the fruits of their labors: bad plane food, no sleep, and crazy deadlines.

March 23, 2011

Harper government teeters on the edge

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:33

Tasha Kheiriddin thinks this has been a deliberate trap laid by the Tories and that the opposition have tumbled right into it:

The Foyer of the House of Commons turned into a beehive on speed. Within the next hour came reports that the NDP and Liberals were moving staff into their war room. Mr. Layton, gaunt but with a glint of steel in his eyes, strode stiffly by the CBC booth, leaning on his cane, turned to a group of journalists and smiled: “Looks like an election”. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff tweeted the first slogan of the coming campaign “An out-of-touch budget from an out-of control government.”

But Mr. Ignatieff is dead wrong — on both counts. This is very much an in-control government, which played its cards brilliantly in the face of not one, but two confidence motions this week. By falling on the budget instead of the contempt of Parliament motion, the Tories escape the stigma of being the only government to ever have been found in contempt by the House. This gives the Opposition less mud to throw their way, which is helpful in light of the brewing Carson scandal, and puts the focus back on the economy, the Tories’ campaign issue of choice.

It is also a very in-touch budget — in all the ways that benefit the Conservatives. The Tories have reached out and touched most of their key voter groups: homeowners, families, seniors, the military, and rural Canadians. They ignored less promising sectors of the electorates, including Quebec, though it is likely they are saving a Quebec HST announcement for the campaign. Had they included it in the budget itself, the Bloc would have been force to support it, which would have meant no election — yet another sign that the Tories were more interested in going to the polls than getting a deal.

Lots of pundits have (correctly) called the budget a “boutique”: small but attractive lures for many of the key constituencies, so that the Tories will have lots of opportunities on the campaign trail to characterize the Liberals as “taking away” promised benefits. It may never have been intended to be implemented: it works far too well as a campaign paper.

To the despair of small-c conservatives, the budget does not address the things that matter to that market. As Kelly McParland points out, it’s really a Liberal budget in a blue wrapper:

[The Toronto Star] is a big [Liberal party] supporter. It would like nothing more than to help orchestrate a return of Liberal hegemony to Ottawa. Yet it’s having trouble finding bad things to say about the budget over which the Liberal leader is determined to force an election.

Here are Wednesday’s headlines from The Star:
Page 1: “2011 Federal Budget Highlights: A Sprinkling of Cash for Almost Everyone”
Page 6: “Budget Promises $300 Tax Credit for Family Caregiver”
Page 8: “Tories Blueprint Looks a Shade of Liberal Red”
Page 9: “Low-income Elderly to Get Supplement Boost”
Page 9: “Tories Revive Retrofit Funding”
Page 9: “Job Creation Still Key Priority in Federal Budget”

Yes, the Star managed to editorialize against the budget, arguing it “fails [the] nation’s needs,” but Finance Minister Jim Flaherty could happily stand at the Toronto GO station handing this newspaper to commuters and seeking their support.

March 22, 2011

Starting election watch now

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 17:55

With the opposition parties unified in their denunciations of the federal budget tabled today by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, we’re now looking at the strong possibility of a May general election:

The minority Conservative government tabled a 2011 budget Tuesday that was quickly rejected by its political opponents for falling short in helping the middle class, setting the stage for an election campaign that could begin any day.

The leaders of the Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and NDP said they could not support the budget as presently written — even though Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tried to appease the left-wing party through a series of modest, symbolic initiatives.

“We’re forced to reject the budget and we are also forced to reject a government that shows so little respect for parliamentary democracy and our democratic institutions,” said Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Leader.

Gilles Duceppe, Bloc Quebecois Leader, said his party “can’t support what has been offered here.”

And Jack Layton, head of the NDP and viewed as the person most likely to lend the government support, said the budget fell short of NDP expectations.

I have to admit that I’m surprised that the NDP and the Liberals appear to be ready to force an election at this moment: neither party has had much of a “bounce” in recent polls from government scandals (both real and imaginary). Perhaps they’ve got something held in reserve to release during the campaign that they think will cause voters to turn away from the Tories.

Why nobody takes conservative promises too seriously

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:37

Today is budget day, when federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will be introducing the Conservative budget for 2011. Unless something has suddenly changed in the government’s philosophy, don’t expect anything daring:

First and foremost, the budget should contain a plan for reducing federal spending in real terms over the next four or five years. Mr. Flaherty’s 2010 budget outlined how the federal government intended to restore balance to the federal books by 2015 by holding the line on spending increases to just over 1% a year while praying for a return to robust annual revenue increases. In fact, merely planning to hold the line on spending is never going to be enough. For one thing, the Conservatives have never proven themselves capable of pulling it off. Despite coming to power in 2006 on a message of fiscal restraint, the Tories raised federal program spending by an average of 6% in each of their first three budgets before the worldwide finance crisis of 2008. Since then, they have added $100-billion to the national debt, in large part thanks to stimulus spending of dubious worth.

According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, as of last Friday, Canada’s debt stood at nearly $563-billion. This means the debt repayments made over the 11 years before the recession began have been wiped out, and that the federal treasury is back to where it was before the Liberals’ then-finance minister Paul Martin brought down his austerity budget in 1995.

Since the Tories took power five years ago, program spending has expanded by nearly 40% and the federal civil service has grown by nearly 20%. We’re sorry, but we just don’t trust a government with a track record like the Tories’ to be able to regain budget balance simply by holding the line on new spending.

They can promise all sorts of things, but what they seem best at doing is pretending not to be “conservative” at all.

The government may fall, as the opposition are calling for even higher spending on “universities, home care, daycare, unemployment, seniors and Quebec”. This may work to the Conservatives’ advantage as they’re (temporarily) riding high in the opinion polls, so they might be able to win a majority if an election is forced on them over this budget. Of course, the opposition can read the polls too, so they may not be as eager to throw Stephen Harper an opportunity to win an easy victory.

Update: Well, the budget was tabled in the House, the opposition parties all rejected it “as it stands”, and the prime minister has stated they will not accept any amendments. For Thursday’s performance in the Ottawa Little Theatre, the budget will get first reading, which means the first opportunity for the government to be defeated . . . which means a May general election.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress