This week there have been only a few major events, which I will discuss below. Harper made five more appointments to the senate giving the Tories a plurality. While not a big deal for me, I personally think the senate should be abolished. Besides being un-elected, it is just another layer of bureaucracy and doesn't seem necessary as all provinces have uniceremeal legislatures so I don't see why we cannot federally. However, since this would require a constitutional amendment, the best thing would be to appoint only independents and the senate would make recommendations, but if the House of Commons choose to ignore them, the senate would not try to block or override the legislation.
This week both major political parties discussed the issue of dealing with the increasing deficit. Personally, I feel both are not taking it seriously enough. Raising the GST by two points as well as major spending cuts is what is necessary to balance the budget and we should take action to try to balance it within 3 years rather than wait longer. My proposal would be to freeze spending in all departments and then to review everything and make spending cuts where possible. An overall spending reduction of 5-10% should be done, not restrained growth, but an actual cut. The GST should be raised back to 7% while all other taxes should be frozen at their current levels until the budget is balanced. The Liberals discuss job creation which is important, but this should primarily come from the private sector, not a larger public sector. Large public sectors do not create more jobs long-term, in fact they crowd out jobs in the private sector and lead to higher unemployment rates. Countries such as France who have large public sectors have generally had much higher unemployment rates, so we should avoid going down this path. Instead the focus should be on trying to create a more competitive and stronger economy which in turn will create more jobs.
This week was the deadline to submit our climate plan to the UN. I think the government is dead wrong on blindly following the United States. We are a sovereign country and although we are closely tied economically, we should make our environmental plans based on our own interests not the Americans. But by the same token, we should blindly follow the EU, UN, or give what various third world countries want. We need to develop our own plan for dealing with the environment based on our national interests. I believe global warming is occurring and humans play at least a partial role, but I think the threat and the extent of human involvement is greatly exaggerated. I for one think the IPCC prediction of warming between 1.4C to 5.8C over the next century is totally exaggerated and that 1.4C is probably the high end, not the low end. In the last century, we warmed by 0.7C so I don't get why they are positive we will warm by twice as much considering our technology is cleaner today, people are more environmentally conscious, never mind the fact most developed countries have birth rates below the replacement level so I think it is quite possible the earth's population will be less not more in 2100. In addition I believe the earth was warmer during the medieval warm period and noticeably cooler during the Little Ice Age, so some of the warming but not all is natural.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Weekly Bulletin #12
This week there were three issues that I would like to focus on. The first is the rallies against proroguing parliament, the Republican pick up of a Massachusetts senate seat, and finally the ongoing crisis in Haiti due to the aftermath of the earthquake.
Yesterday there were several rallies against the prime-minister proroguing parliament until March 2nd across the country. While there is debate on whether they were a success or a failure, I would say they were a modest success. They were large enough that it would be foolish for the prime-minister to completely write them off, but at the same time nowhere near as large as some protests such as the ones against the Iraq War. They were non-partisan in the sense they had people from every party including some non-political types and even a few disgruntled Conservatives, but partisan in the sense the crowd was not a mirror image of the Canadian electorate. Last election, 38% of Canadians voted Conservative, while at these rallies I suspect the number was closer to 10% if not lower. That being said, the anti-Coalition rallies were no more representative as around 80% of them were probably people who voted Conservative. Off course, nowadays almost every political rally will have a tilt towards one side of the spectrum or one particular party so I would not say it was a failure due to the fact the majority there were Liberal, NDP, and Green voters (and Bloc Quebecois in the Quebec rallies). I am simply pointing out having a truly non-partisan one that mirrors the Canadian electorate is pretty unlikely irrespective of the issue. Some say we need legislation to restrict the PM's power to prorogue. I would argue we do not since no PM will prorogue recklessly if they know voters will punish them. If Harper loses the next election or wins a reduced minority and this is the primary reason for that happening, than no future PM will try to prorogue in similiar circumstances. By contrast, if he wins a similiar size minority or a majority, then he will probably do this again as will future PMs. No doubt the reasons for proroguing were flimsy and the government's justification has only hardened public opinion against it, however as mentioned earlier, I don't agree with prorogation, but it is not something I get too upset about either. Ultimately whichever party has the best platform for dealing with the economic recovery and bringing down our deficit is the one I will vote for. Besides, while trying to restrict the PM's power would be a good idea, one must not go too far. In the United States, they have plenty of checks and balances, but also it is very difficult to get anything done or at the very least almost every bill is so different than its original intent that it is difficult to achieve anything one sets out to do. Perhaps having the PM's power reduced to what the British PM has would be better as proroguing is less common, MPs are more free to speak out and vote against their party, and their tends to be less hostility towards those from other parties. I should also add, although slightly unrelated, I do hope in the next budget the government realizes the deficit is a structural one and takes serious action to eliminate it and if they don't hopefully the Liberals have a realistic proposal. Neither party today has given a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit. My proposal would be to raise the GST back to 7%, hold off on any future tax cuts until the budget is balanced, major spending cuts for all discretionary spending, and freeze all other spending. Also eliminate as many civil service jobs as possible being instituting a hiring freeze whereby when one retires or leaves voluntarily, they are replaced internally or the position is not replaced at all. In addition, I would consider privatizing as many money losing enterprises as possible. All groups need to be told loud and clear, there will be no spending increases until the budget is balanced in any part of the government whatsoever. The only debate is whether to freeze spending or cut spending for each department.
Last Tuesday, Scott Brown of the Republicans defeated Martha Coakley of the Democrats in a bid to replaced the late Ted Kennedy. Besides being an upset, this is quite significant as Massachusetts is not a swing state, but rather one of the most liberal states so a Republican win here, however win spins it shows how far Obama has fallen from a year ago. No doubt Martha Coakley was a weak candidate and thus a stronger candidate may have pulled off a narrow Democrat victory, but in a state like Massachusetts, anything under 60% for the Democrats is a sign of trouble, so this definitely shows Obama is losing popularity. The good news for Obama is he has until 2012 before facing re-election so he has plenty of time to turn things around. By then the economy will likely have recovered, but also with large losses expected in the Midterms in November, Obama will be able to take a more centrist approach much like Clinton did after 1994. Much of the liberal wing of the Democrats has been pushing hard for Obama to take a more liberal approach than most Americans are comfortable with, however with fewer seats in congress he will be able to easily ignore this group. Many point to Canada and Europe as places that take a more liberal approach as they advocate and have in many ways been just as if not more successful. But this misses the point; most Americans don't know or care much about what other countries do. The fact they are the only industrialized country without universal health care is not something that is likely to sway a lot of Americans. In addition, Obama would have been better to start making spending cuts elsewhere before trying to introduce health care reforms as this would have made it harder to tag him as a big government socialist politician. Also one must remember the circumstances when Canada introduced universal health care are much different than the US today. The US faces a massive deficit even without universal health care and when one considers the start up costs, this would just increase it further. By contrast, Canada had no deficit when universal health care was introduced and has many times balanced the budget since and also maintained, contrary to popular opinion, overall taxation levels at or only slightly higher than the United States. In addition, the health insurance industry is a huge industry that employs thousands if not millions of Americans and provides a huge tax base for the US government. By contrast, in Canada in the 60s, the health insurance industry was small and mostly foreign owned so the losses from putting it out of business or reducing its business were more than offset by the gains to the millions of Canadians who had free health care. Finally, Canada has always been and always will be more socialistic than the US. We have never had a fear of big government the way Americans do. It is not just about right or wrong here, it is about values of the country and universal health care is a cornerstone of Canadian values while universal health care in many ways goes against American values of rugged individualism and limited government as opposed to responsible government, common good, and compassion. Never mind, Massachusetts more or less already has what Obama is proposing so having to pay for it once at the state level and again federally was undoubtedly unpopular. As much as Canadians love universal health care, I doubt they would like the idea of having to pay for it once provincially and then again federally. It makes sense to have it done by only one level of government, not through duplication.
Finally moving to international news, there is the ongoing aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. The death toll is far worse than many expected and has literally destroyed the country. Even one former Liberal MP, Serge Marcil, was tragically killed in the earthquake as well as many Canadians, especially in Montreal's large Haitian community have probably lost relatives or friends. I have donated and I would encourage all others to donate, even if it is a small amount. A few dollars from everyone will add up to a lot. I also support the government not just providing money, but also sending technical expertise to help with the re-building as well as help ensure the buildings are earthquake proof to help reduce the casualties should another one occur in the future. In addition I support Canada adopting children who were orphaned as a result of an earthquake. This won't be a burden to our system as they will live with a Canadian family and having grown up here, they will probably go on to be outstanding citizens who contribute greatly to this country. In terms of refugees, I support Canada taking its fair share, but no more. I would also support making it easier to sponsor relatives who were directly affected and have family living in Canada. Despite, my view that our family re-unification rules are too lax, I do think we can make an exception on humanitarian grounds in this case.
Yesterday there were several rallies against the prime-minister proroguing parliament until March 2nd across the country. While there is debate on whether they were a success or a failure, I would say they were a modest success. They were large enough that it would be foolish for the prime-minister to completely write them off, but at the same time nowhere near as large as some protests such as the ones against the Iraq War. They were non-partisan in the sense they had people from every party including some non-political types and even a few disgruntled Conservatives, but partisan in the sense the crowd was not a mirror image of the Canadian electorate. Last election, 38% of Canadians voted Conservative, while at these rallies I suspect the number was closer to 10% if not lower. That being said, the anti-Coalition rallies were no more representative as around 80% of them were probably people who voted Conservative. Off course, nowadays almost every political rally will have a tilt towards one side of the spectrum or one particular party so I would not say it was a failure due to the fact the majority there were Liberal, NDP, and Green voters (and Bloc Quebecois in the Quebec rallies). I am simply pointing out having a truly non-partisan one that mirrors the Canadian electorate is pretty unlikely irrespective of the issue. Some say we need legislation to restrict the PM's power to prorogue. I would argue we do not since no PM will prorogue recklessly if they know voters will punish them. If Harper loses the next election or wins a reduced minority and this is the primary reason for that happening, than no future PM will try to prorogue in similiar circumstances. By contrast, if he wins a similiar size minority or a majority, then he will probably do this again as will future PMs. No doubt the reasons for proroguing were flimsy and the government's justification has only hardened public opinion against it, however as mentioned earlier, I don't agree with prorogation, but it is not something I get too upset about either. Ultimately whichever party has the best platform for dealing with the economic recovery and bringing down our deficit is the one I will vote for. Besides, while trying to restrict the PM's power would be a good idea, one must not go too far. In the United States, they have plenty of checks and balances, but also it is very difficult to get anything done or at the very least almost every bill is so different than its original intent that it is difficult to achieve anything one sets out to do. Perhaps having the PM's power reduced to what the British PM has would be better as proroguing is less common, MPs are more free to speak out and vote against their party, and their tends to be less hostility towards those from other parties. I should also add, although slightly unrelated, I do hope in the next budget the government realizes the deficit is a structural one and takes serious action to eliminate it and if they don't hopefully the Liberals have a realistic proposal. Neither party today has given a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit. My proposal would be to raise the GST back to 7%, hold off on any future tax cuts until the budget is balanced, major spending cuts for all discretionary spending, and freeze all other spending. Also eliminate as many civil service jobs as possible being instituting a hiring freeze whereby when one retires or leaves voluntarily, they are replaced internally or the position is not replaced at all. In addition, I would consider privatizing as many money losing enterprises as possible. All groups need to be told loud and clear, there will be no spending increases until the budget is balanced in any part of the government whatsoever. The only debate is whether to freeze spending or cut spending for each department.
Last Tuesday, Scott Brown of the Republicans defeated Martha Coakley of the Democrats in a bid to replaced the late Ted Kennedy. Besides being an upset, this is quite significant as Massachusetts is not a swing state, but rather one of the most liberal states so a Republican win here, however win spins it shows how far Obama has fallen from a year ago. No doubt Martha Coakley was a weak candidate and thus a stronger candidate may have pulled off a narrow Democrat victory, but in a state like Massachusetts, anything under 60% for the Democrats is a sign of trouble, so this definitely shows Obama is losing popularity. The good news for Obama is he has until 2012 before facing re-election so he has plenty of time to turn things around. By then the economy will likely have recovered, but also with large losses expected in the Midterms in November, Obama will be able to take a more centrist approach much like Clinton did after 1994. Much of the liberal wing of the Democrats has been pushing hard for Obama to take a more liberal approach than most Americans are comfortable with, however with fewer seats in congress he will be able to easily ignore this group. Many point to Canada and Europe as places that take a more liberal approach as they advocate and have in many ways been just as if not more successful. But this misses the point; most Americans don't know or care much about what other countries do. The fact they are the only industrialized country without universal health care is not something that is likely to sway a lot of Americans. In addition, Obama would have been better to start making spending cuts elsewhere before trying to introduce health care reforms as this would have made it harder to tag him as a big government socialist politician. Also one must remember the circumstances when Canada introduced universal health care are much different than the US today. The US faces a massive deficit even without universal health care and when one considers the start up costs, this would just increase it further. By contrast, Canada had no deficit when universal health care was introduced and has many times balanced the budget since and also maintained, contrary to popular opinion, overall taxation levels at or only slightly higher than the United States. In addition, the health insurance industry is a huge industry that employs thousands if not millions of Americans and provides a huge tax base for the US government. By contrast, in Canada in the 60s, the health insurance industry was small and mostly foreign owned so the losses from putting it out of business or reducing its business were more than offset by the gains to the millions of Canadians who had free health care. Finally, Canada has always been and always will be more socialistic than the US. We have never had a fear of big government the way Americans do. It is not just about right or wrong here, it is about values of the country and universal health care is a cornerstone of Canadian values while universal health care in many ways goes against American values of rugged individualism and limited government as opposed to responsible government, common good, and compassion. Never mind, Massachusetts more or less already has what Obama is proposing so having to pay for it once at the state level and again federally was undoubtedly unpopular. As much as Canadians love universal health care, I doubt they would like the idea of having to pay for it once provincially and then again federally. It makes sense to have it done by only one level of government, not through duplication.
Finally moving to international news, there is the ongoing aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. The death toll is far worse than many expected and has literally destroyed the country. Even one former Liberal MP, Serge Marcil, was tragically killed in the earthquake as well as many Canadians, especially in Montreal's large Haitian community have probably lost relatives or friends. I have donated and I would encourage all others to donate, even if it is a small amount. A few dollars from everyone will add up to a lot. I also support the government not just providing money, but also sending technical expertise to help with the re-building as well as help ensure the buildings are earthquake proof to help reduce the casualties should another one occur in the future. In addition I support Canada adopting children who were orphaned as a result of an earthquake. This won't be a burden to our system as they will live with a Canadian family and having grown up here, they will probably go on to be outstanding citizens who contribute greatly to this country. In terms of refugees, I support Canada taking its fair share, but no more. I would also support making it easier to sponsor relatives who were directly affected and have family living in Canada. Despite, my view that our family re-unification rules are too lax, I do think we can make an exception on humanitarian grounds in this case.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Weekly Bulletin #11
The big news recently is Harper's decision to Prorogue parliament. I personally don't support this as the reasons for doing this seem kind of flimsy, but it is not something I get too worked up over. After all, parliament wasn't suppose to return until January 25th, so we are only talking about one month and the actual scheduled sitting days was around 15, so there will be plenty of opportunities for the opposition to hold the government to account and even bring them down if they feel they no longer have the confidence. In addition, this does not mean MPs won't be working. Constituency work is just as if not more important than the work done in Ottawa. MPs should already be back at work and hopefully will continue to work through February. The Liberals are right to be upset about parliament being prorogued, but going back to Ottawa when the house is closed seems counter-productive. Instead each Liberal MP should have their constituency office open and be at work there and also hold at least one town hall meeting a week. At the end of the day though, politicians will continue to do this as long as the public lets them get away with it and when the public doesn't then they will stop.
This past week, Haiti was struck by a strong earthquake. We don't know the total casualties, but it will likely be bad. Our government should help evacuate all Canadians stranded there as well as offer direct assistance to Haiti. I generally am reluctant to support foreign aid since too often it ends up in the hands of foreign dictators, but since this was a natural disaster and one they don't have the money to help themselves, I believe we should help out here. Also, in the re-building phase, hopefully we can work with the locals on making sure structures are better able to withstand both earthquakes and hurricanes so as when the next disaster strikes, the death toll is not as bad since this likely won't be the last natural disaster they ever experience.
On the international front, Portugal has legalized same sex marriage which is quite significant since it is a Catholic and socially conservative country. Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and Norway are all fairly socially liberal so same-sex marriage was not too controversial in any of those and likewise even Spain, despite being heavily Catholic, is very secular and also quite heavily urbanized too. By contrast, Portugal is probably the most socially conservative country to date to legalize same sex marriage and more socially conservative than many European countries such as Germany, Britain, and France which still haven't legalized it thus why this is so significant. In Western Europe, only Greece, Italy, and Ireland are as socially conservative as Portugal.
The first half of January has been unusually cold in some parts of the world. Be it severe frost and snow in Northern Florida, Snow cover for 2-4 weeks in Britain (where anything more than a couple of days is unusual) or extreme cold and heavy snow in Northern China, some will ask if global warming is really happening. I believe global warming is occurring but at a much slower pace than many of the alarmist predict. I don't buy the idea one bit that the earth will be 6 degrees celcius warmer in one century since we only warmed up 0.7 degrees in the past 100 years so I have no idea where they get the six degrees from. After all, our population probably won't grow as much as some think since most developed countries already have birth rates below replacement level and it only reasons that as developing countries standards of living rise, their birth rates will fall. In fact most demographers predict the Earth's population will max out at 2050 and then begin to decline. In addition, the world's climate has always been changing and always will be. During medieval times, Europe was about 3 degrees warmer than today while in the 1600s which was the middle of the Little Ice Age, Europe was about 2 degrees colder. The Thames River frequently froze over, the Canals in Netherlands were frozen for several weeks not just a few days, the Canals in Venice often froze over and snow as far south as Portugal was not unheard of. By contrast during the Middle Ages, wine grapes could grow in Britain, temperatures in Scandinavia were mild enough to grow many crops that no longer grow there. In fact, it is believed the milder weather is why the Vikings reached Newfoundland and the cooling that caused them to abandon their settlements. So while I believe we should take action on global warming, we should not get too hysterical. Likewise one abnormally cold winter doesn't disprove global warming nor does one unusually warm year prove it. I accept the science behind it, but believe many ignore other factors that influence climate as GHG's are not the only thing that influence climate, wind directions, ocean currents have just as big an impact if not more so.
This past week, Haiti was struck by a strong earthquake. We don't know the total casualties, but it will likely be bad. Our government should help evacuate all Canadians stranded there as well as offer direct assistance to Haiti. I generally am reluctant to support foreign aid since too often it ends up in the hands of foreign dictators, but since this was a natural disaster and one they don't have the money to help themselves, I believe we should help out here. Also, in the re-building phase, hopefully we can work with the locals on making sure structures are better able to withstand both earthquakes and hurricanes so as when the next disaster strikes, the death toll is not as bad since this likely won't be the last natural disaster they ever experience.
On the international front, Portugal has legalized same sex marriage which is quite significant since it is a Catholic and socially conservative country. Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and Norway are all fairly socially liberal so same-sex marriage was not too controversial in any of those and likewise even Spain, despite being heavily Catholic, is very secular and also quite heavily urbanized too. By contrast, Portugal is probably the most socially conservative country to date to legalize same sex marriage and more socially conservative than many European countries such as Germany, Britain, and France which still haven't legalized it thus why this is so significant. In Western Europe, only Greece, Italy, and Ireland are as socially conservative as Portugal.
The first half of January has been unusually cold in some parts of the world. Be it severe frost and snow in Northern Florida, Snow cover for 2-4 weeks in Britain (where anything more than a couple of days is unusual) or extreme cold and heavy snow in Northern China, some will ask if global warming is really happening. I believe global warming is occurring but at a much slower pace than many of the alarmist predict. I don't buy the idea one bit that the earth will be 6 degrees celcius warmer in one century since we only warmed up 0.7 degrees in the past 100 years so I have no idea where they get the six degrees from. After all, our population probably won't grow as much as some think since most developed countries already have birth rates below replacement level and it only reasons that as developing countries standards of living rise, their birth rates will fall. In fact most demographers predict the Earth's population will max out at 2050 and then begin to decline. In addition, the world's climate has always been changing and always will be. During medieval times, Europe was about 3 degrees warmer than today while in the 1600s which was the middle of the Little Ice Age, Europe was about 2 degrees colder. The Thames River frequently froze over, the Canals in Netherlands were frozen for several weeks not just a few days, the Canals in Venice often froze over and snow as far south as Portugal was not unheard of. By contrast during the Middle Ages, wine grapes could grow in Britain, temperatures in Scandinavia were mild enough to grow many crops that no longer grow there. In fact, it is believed the milder weather is why the Vikings reached Newfoundland and the cooling that caused them to abandon their settlements. So while I believe we should take action on global warming, we should not get too hysterical. Likewise one abnormally cold winter doesn't disprove global warming nor does one unusually warm year prove it. I accept the science behind it, but believe many ignore other factors that influence climate as GHG's are not the only thing that influence climate, wind directions, ocean currents have just as big an impact if not more so.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Weekly Bulletin #10
My first blog of 2010, so I thought I would start off with a recap of recent events and then some predictions of what I think will happen this year.
Harper's decision to prorogue parliament was one I disagree with although in reality we are talking about only 1 month of parliament missed as well as I suspect the PM will be at the Olympics held in the latter half of February. My problem here is that all bills that have not yet cleared the senate will have to be re-introduced and this seems like a waste of time. It would have been better to return on January 25th and then perhaps not schedule any sessions during the Olympics.
Also, it appears that the US and some other countries are tightening up airport security in reaction to the failed terrorist attempt on Christmas on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. Security is in my opinion already tight enough as no amount of tightening can prevent a terrorist attack entirely. Besides, in this case, I think the blame should not go at the airport security but rather at those who gave the suspected terrorist a visa to visit the United States. Considering this guy was on a terrorist watch list and had no return ticket, how the heck did he manage to get a visa to visit the United States. All Nigerian nationals are required to get a visa to visit the United States and before boarding any plane, by law, they must check that every passenger has the required documents necessary to board the plane, so if anything needs to be tightened up, it should be the issuing of visas. Otherwise they should more thoroughly screen people before issuing visas. I hope Canada doesn't follow in tightening our airport security. If anything we should start clamping down on bogus refugees and those illegally immigrating here. There are few problems with those who immigrate here legally, were born here, or come here as a legitimate tourist, so it makes sense to focus on where the problem lies.
Here are a few of my predictions for 2010 in the world of politics.
1. There is a greater than even chance of an election this year federally. The most likely outcome is another Conservative minority although both a Conservative majority and a Liberal minority (if held later in the year) are within the realm of possibility.
2. The US midterm elections in November will result in losses for the Democrats and gains for the Republicans. The Democrats will retain control of the senate and house of representatives as well as the majority of governorships, but with smaller numbers in all three cases.
3. In the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown will get badly defeated and David Cameron will win a majority government and become the next PM of Britain.
4. Australia will re-elect Kevin Rudd
5. The election in Sweden will be a tight race with the centre-left coalition having a slightly greater chance of victory than the centre-right coalition, but could go either way.
6. New Brunswick election will result in a PC government unless the Liberals back off their plan to have Quebec Hydro takeover NB Power in which case I think they will be re-elected as they had a solid lead in the polls until they did this deal.
7. Yukon Territory will have an election and I haven't got a clue which party has a better chance, other than it will be either the Yukon Party, NDP, or Liberals who win.
Harper's decision to prorogue parliament was one I disagree with although in reality we are talking about only 1 month of parliament missed as well as I suspect the PM will be at the Olympics held in the latter half of February. My problem here is that all bills that have not yet cleared the senate will have to be re-introduced and this seems like a waste of time. It would have been better to return on January 25th and then perhaps not schedule any sessions during the Olympics.
Also, it appears that the US and some other countries are tightening up airport security in reaction to the failed terrorist attempt on Christmas on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. Security is in my opinion already tight enough as no amount of tightening can prevent a terrorist attack entirely. Besides, in this case, I think the blame should not go at the airport security but rather at those who gave the suspected terrorist a visa to visit the United States. Considering this guy was on a terrorist watch list and had no return ticket, how the heck did he manage to get a visa to visit the United States. All Nigerian nationals are required to get a visa to visit the United States and before boarding any plane, by law, they must check that every passenger has the required documents necessary to board the plane, so if anything needs to be tightened up, it should be the issuing of visas. Otherwise they should more thoroughly screen people before issuing visas. I hope Canada doesn't follow in tightening our airport security. If anything we should start clamping down on bogus refugees and those illegally immigrating here. There are few problems with those who immigrate here legally, were born here, or come here as a legitimate tourist, so it makes sense to focus on where the problem lies.
Here are a few of my predictions for 2010 in the world of politics.
1. There is a greater than even chance of an election this year federally. The most likely outcome is another Conservative minority although both a Conservative majority and a Liberal minority (if held later in the year) are within the realm of possibility.
2. The US midterm elections in November will result in losses for the Democrats and gains for the Republicans. The Democrats will retain control of the senate and house of representatives as well as the majority of governorships, but with smaller numbers in all three cases.
3. In the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown will get badly defeated and David Cameron will win a majority government and become the next PM of Britain.
4. Australia will re-elect Kevin Rudd
5. The election in Sweden will be a tight race with the centre-left coalition having a slightly greater chance of victory than the centre-right coalition, but could go either way.
6. New Brunswick election will result in a PC government unless the Liberals back off their plan to have Quebec Hydro takeover NB Power in which case I think they will be re-elected as they had a solid lead in the polls until they did this deal.
7. Yukon Territory will have an election and I haven't got a clue which party has a better chance, other than it will be either the Yukon Party, NDP, or Liberals who win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
