'Getting squeezed on both sides': Liberals a distant third among younger voters
Sir_Osis_of_Liver @ Sir_Osis_of_Liver @kbin.social Posts 0Comments 159Joined 2 yr. ago
Sir_Osis_of_Liver @ Sir_Osis_of_Liver @kbin.social
Posts
0
Comments
159
Joined
2 yr. ago
Just like assuming a perfectly spherical cow, or a frictionless surface, you can completely ignore the economics, the massive cost and schedule overages to make nuclear work.
Flamanville-3 in France started construction in 2007, was supposed to be operational in 2012 with a project budget of €3.3B. Construction is still ongoing, the in-service date is now sometime in 2024, and the budget has ballooned to €20B.
Olkiluoto-3 is a similar EPR. Construction started in 2005, was supposed to be in-service in 2010, but finally came online late last year. Costs bloated from €3 to €11B.
Hinkley Point C project is two EPRs. Construction started in 2017, it's already running behind schedule, and the project costs have increased from £16B to somewhere approaching £30B. Start up has been pushed back to 2028 the last I've heard.
It's no different in the US, where the V.C. Summer (2 x AP1000) reactor project was cancelled while under construction after projections put the completed project at somewhere around $23B, up from an estimate of $9B.
A similar set of AP1000s was built at Vogtle in Georgia. Unit 3 only recently came online, with unit 4 expected at the end of the year. Costs went from an initial estimate of $12B to somewhere over $30B.
Note that design, site selection, regulatory approvals, and tendering aren't included in the above. Those add between 5-10 years to the above schedules.
To be clear, this is American thermal coal from Wyoming that's being routed through the Westshore coal terminal for export to Asia. US coal terminals are at capacity and projects for new terminals have not been getting regulatory approval.
It doesn't mean we should be accepting coal imports, even for transit though.
We have absolutely no idea if the system will be STV, MMP, the bastardised STV-Urban/MMP-Rural system, open or closed party lists or something else entirely, because everyone and their dog has their preferred system. With the pols making the final decisions, it's safe to assume that the parties will do what they must to benefit the respective parties. Also Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy, NZ, etc use closed lists, so it's hardly unheard of.
Fortunately, it's not something we'll have to deal with for a very long time. The Liberals are feeling hard done by for the backlash they got, the CPC were absolutely not on board from the beginning and were going to fight it tooth and nail, the beleaguered NDP are as close to power as they'll likely ever be, but nowhere close enough to force the issue. The Bloc will continue to be agents of chaos and do what they can to be disruptive.
Random polling of the electorate over the years has satisfaction with the current system bouncing between 50 and 70%, mostly dependent on the state of the economy. When asked whether is should be changed from FPTP, you can get up to 60% support, but as soon as you put forward specific systems, support fragments, and FPTP becomes the default. That's been born out by the numerous aborted attempts for change at the provincial level.
As far as what other countries are doing, uh, so what? Are they better run? Most of Eastern Europe is dominated by fascist or fascist adjacent governments. Much of Western Europe is leaning in that direction. Much of Germany is still beholden to the friggen coal industry of all things. And Italy, basically in constant political turmoil, has outdone themselves by putting the actual fascists back in power.
I'd oppose any system that doesn't tie members to single seat ridings. "Councillors at large" are the bane of any system they're in: they float in the background beholden to none of the voters, almost impossible to remove, and loyal only to the party. More than one member per district and you end up with two or more people playing hot potato and pointing at each other claiming the other was supposed to handle it, whatever the "it" happens to be.
The Gallagher Index is not the be-all, end-all of fairness. The last Canadian election had an index of 12, the last US election had an index of 5. I don't think very many would say the US system is better.
The CPC were going to oppose any change, and got their way on having a referendum which was absolutely going to fail, especially with the CPC framing it as a Liberal power grab, regardless of the eventual method chosen.
Internal polling, not the dog and pony online poll, showed that while 50ish% of voters might support a change, support fractured once the different options entered the mix. A high number of voters were absolutely tied to their preferred method and would oppose the others.
The Liberals read the writing on the wall, cut their losses and abandoned the project. If nothing else, it's killed any chance of electoral reform for the foreseeable future.
It's a summertime poll in a non-election year. It's about as useless as tits on a fish.
That is a decent history. As noted by the author, the provinces have always been ready and willing to come up with creative reasons why they need more money. Sometimes they actually need it, sometimes they're gilding the lily.
It has happened more than once, where an increase in the transfer was negotiated, and a number of provinces turn around and cut taxes, and put their hand out for more.
It's the problem with the system we have. Some ministries, like health, are very expensive, especially so for smaller provinces. Once the feds get involved though, accountability gets muddied, and you get both the feds and provinces pointing fingers at each other as to who is responsible for the mess we're in.
I should point out that debt originated with the Trudeau government dealing with the economic chaos that was the 1970s. Mulroney certainly exacerbated the problem with irresponsible tax cuts, much as Regan and Thatcher at the time. His government did partially contribute to the solution with the introduction of the GST as a more broadly based replacement for the old Manufacturer's Sales tax, but too late to get any credit for sorting the debt problem.
Nope, haven't seen it. I will now though.
I have a soft spot for trains in general. Dad (marketing director) and my grandfather (sales agent) worked for railways. Some of my ideas come from them.
They talked me out of following suit. It's a pretty tough business these days.
There are a lot of two vehicle, or pedestrian, traffic fatalities that don't result in manslaughter charges.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8973010/man-lying-in-road-hit-car-killed-comox-valley-rcmp/
To date, no charges have been laid.
Intent is huge.
The article isn't wrong, but it's missing context. It does provide a smokescreen for the failings of the provincial governments though.
The constitution was repatriated in 1982, limiting what the federal government could do in provincial jurisdiction. Agreements with the provinces for subsidized housing programs were allowed to lapse over time. The feds were fine with that because, as stated, they were dealing with a bit of a debt crisis.
In the GTA, housing prices flatlined at the end of the 1980s, and stayed essentially flat through the 1990s. The developers and the construction industry have a lot of sway at the provincial level, so they weren't interested in new, low cost housing. That meant the provincial government wasn't interested, especially during the Harris years.
The issue is provincial. Just because the provinces are failing to address it, doesn't mean the feds can force the issue. Under the constitution, the federal government isn't the senior government, it's equal to the provinces, the only difference is the distribution of areas of jurisdiction. The feds have more than enough things in their own jurisdiction that they're failing at.
Business regulations are, with few exceptions, provincial; zoning is provincial; property taxes are provincial. Although there are a national building and electrical codes, the provinces are free to modify and add their own rules, ignore others etc.
Canadian traffic fatalities dropped from 2415 in 2001 to 1591 in 2020. It's a continuation of a trend starting in the 1960s when the first auto safety standards were adopted.
Of those 1591 fatalities, fully 1/3 weren't wearing seatbelts, so 530 people essentially chose death. That's not an industry problem.
Okay. The feds decide to build the old '70s style three story walk-ups they used to fund back in the 60s and '70s. The city has no appropriate zoning. That's the end of the project. The feds can't overrule the zoning regs. The province could, but so far they haven't.
So the feds give money to the province to build housing. Province thanks them, and builds a new highway in the premier's riding , or cut provincial taxes or whatever other pet project they decide on. And there's sweet f-all the feds can do about it.
The big difference between the 1970s and now is the ratification of the constitution in '82. It makes it much more difficult for the feds to intrude into provincial jurisdiction. They and the provinces let most of the old housing construction agreements lapse in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The feds by and large haven't been involved since, aside from some energy efficiency programs and CMHC.
"Speed costs, how fast can you afford to go?" Doesn't matter if it's cars, motorcycles, trains or sailboats. It's not a linear increase either.
Having said that, what I'd love to see is all fixed rail infrastructure turned over to a non-profit corporation. Private or public rail companies with the rolling stock would pay fees to run trains on given schedules controlled by the infrastructure company, with priority given to passenger trains. The fees would be enough to cover the costs of rail maintenance and expansion.
With railways open to anyone with rolling stock, competition is increased. Exclusive routes would be eliminated, which would help reduce freight rates.
Over time, separate passenger rail lines would be developed, at least partially subsidized by fees on the freight companies, as passenger rail typically has very thin margins.
Politically, it's better if they just leave it ambiguous.
SaskPower took a pasting for the $1.5B fiasco that was the CCS project at Boundary Dam. It was late, over-budget and so far underperforming, to put it charitably. The Parliamentary Budget Office estimated that it has essentially doubled the cost of electricity generated by Unit 3, the only unit currently running with the CCS system.
It also added about 25MW of parasitic load to what is a small unit (140MW). At the time of construction (2009-2013), the napkin math suggested that they could have installed somewhere around 300MW (nameplate) of wind for that amount of money, while hugely reducing overhead costs. Costs for wind and solar have both dropped enormously since then.
Senior management, even those friendly with the SaskParty, are pretty reluctant to be on the bleeding edge again. On the plus side, some fairly large wind projects have come online already, bringing them up close to 700MW of wind capacity.
Real answer? SaskPower is going to do whatever they can to avoid nuclear power. They're not working in a vacuum. They've seen the project delays and massive cost over-runs in other jurisdiction and don't want any part of it.
They might not eventually have a choice, but by that time some of these small reactor projects may have a track record.
Yup. Just like any new market/product. A pile of people rush in, a pile fail, and the rest consolidate into a few well established players and dominate the market.
In a previous career, I was involved in salmon aquaculture in the Bay of Fundy. When I first got in, along with dozens of other companies, we were getting $8.50/lb at the farm. Five years later, we were struggling to get $2.50/lb, which wasn't enough to cover production costs. Thirty years later, there's basically one company dominating in the area. Profitability is still dodgy.
StatsCan has been doing a fair amount of surveying on cannabis in general. They found that 69% (nice) of users buy from legal storefronts or legal websites. Another 25% was home-grown, or from friends/family. The remaining 6% was from dealers or illegal shops/websites.
To clarify:
Brazil has decided to resume entry visa requirements for citizens of the U.S., Japan, Australia and Canada, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on Wednesday.
The country's Foreign Ministry, known as Itamaraty, is set to announce the decision on Thursday to the governments of the four countries. Brazil's government will later publicly announce the measure.
The decision suspends a unilateral decision that former President Jair Bolsonaro's government made in June 2019 to facilitate tourism.
I was a member of the federal PC party back in the 1980s. Supported both of Mulroney's campaigns and even voted for Kim Campbell. Later I supported Peter McKay until he sold the party out.
The federal party always had a 'bozo factor' of radical, right-wing populists. After the merger, the moderates were basically driven off. The only ones left are the right-wing nutters and soulless opportunists. I'm not sure which best describes Ferret-face.
To be a pedantic, they're a fifth of the population (approx. 21%), down from 27% in 1971 and about 35% at the time of confederation.
Your point still stands though. The convention for GGs has been to alternate between English and French, though typically bilingual in both to a greater or lesser extent.
Almost everything you've listed is provincial jurisdiction. We don't have a national securities regulator because the last attempt at one was struck down by the SCC. Most business regulation is provincial, zoning is provincial, property taxes are provincial etc.
The BoC controls interest rates, but they act independently, the PM has no control over what they do beyond who they appoint to run it.
The only way they can get involved is with federal-provincial agreements. The provinces have deep connections with developers, so they're not going to do anything about the real issues of restrictive zoning and so on. Just look at Doug Ford and the Green Belt fiasco.
If you want to fix housing, go after the province. Agree or not with what they did, interprovincial pipelines are a federal responsibility.