The Anti-Targ

You know administration = employing people to do stuff to help people in need. So that 6-7% administration = stable decent paying jobs. It's also pretty nuts from an accounting perspective to "save" 6-7% on administration costs by doubling (or more) the amount of money paid out for a universal benefit. A universal benefit, like healthcare is not the same thing, since healthcare is an intermittent at need cost for a relatively small proportion of the population at any given time, much of the cost of which could be prevented through better nutrition and housing. So not a daily basic needs thing. A job guarantee also doesn't disincentivise improving one's lot, and it pays people a liveable income, and doesn't give money to people who don't need it. If you are in a job that is meeting your basic needs (which no proposed UBI ever seems to do), then if you can find a better paying job that suits your career aspirations you will take it.

Some chatter among traders in certain sectors that US importers are trying to change supply contracts to force the exporter to pay the tariff, either by price discounting or actually making the tariff payment. For low margin products this could mean exporting to the US below cost, and if that happens the US can start accusing countries of dumping, and impose additional anti-dumping tariffs. That all leads to exporters looking to exit the US market. Some exporters will suck up the losses for a while in the hopes that trade conditions improve, but exporting at a loss can only last for so long.

The question is what problem is UBI trying to solve? If it's trying to solve poverty, which I assume is the thing genuine UBI proponents are trying to achieve, it's a very strange way to achieve it. Giving free money (i.e. no strings attached) to people who are not in poverty as a way to solve poverty does not make a lot of sense. A universal allowance which goes to everyone whether they need it or not is a monumental waste of money. That's not even a controversial statement. The level of UBI necessary for people who have no other source of income is quite high, which means either it will be set too low to actually properly alleviate poverty unless additional social welfare payments go exclusively to the poor, or it is set at a livable income which makes the level of payments to those who don't need it even more wasteful. What is needed from government to support incomes and alleviate poverty is automatic income stabilisers for when private sector employment waxes and wanes. UBI doesn't do that, it's a fixed amount to everyone all the time. The economy will adjust over time and the UBI will become worthless. Just paying the unemployment benefit as it is now, at a better rate and with fewer obligations and threats of penalty, to unemployed people is better than UBI, because the unemployment benefit is an automatic stabiliser that goes up and down in inverse proportion to private sector employment demand. A job guarantee is an even better economic stabiliser because it's paying for people to do something useful rather than paying for people to sit and do nothing until they can find a job, and the longer they sit on an unemployment benefit the less employable they become, and it normally pays people not enough to live an adequate life. Trials of UBI are essentially flawed, because they are only trials. I used to be in favour of UBI, but now it's pretty clear to me it's not the right solution to any social or economic problem.

Why? It's bad policy. If the UBI I'm thinking of is the one you mean.

Hence, batteries are good even if you aren't heavily reliant on wind and solar?

I'm sure many, many people actually do think that, after all close to 40% of polled people still think he's doing a good job. It's just such people have no economic or political credibility.

Without Alberta how likely would it be for the Cons to ever form a federal government again? You take Alberta out and the Con's total goes to 110/306 seats (36% of seats, vs 42% on election night) and the Libs get an absolute majority of 167/306. Seems like the last thing the national CPC wants is for Alberta to become independent / become the 51st state. Of course CPC's loss would be the US Republican's gain, in theory.

Seems to me that so long as the Liberals are dependent on the Nationals to form governments they will continue to be dragged right. So for any moderate Liberal the question isn't so much how to defeat the Teals, but how to divorce the Nationals. The way I see it, polarisation is going to be in the ascendant as a political force for some time to come as external extreme events (mostly, but not only climate change related) keep battering politics.

Interesting commentary in that article on the original motivation for the Act

It's not really part of the Westminster system, because it's not part of our system. For our system:

A million people running for Pollievre's seat and Fanjoy still gets over 50%? That's a loss. It seems like Lib+NDP should be a majority. Minor parties normally do badly out of a coalition. Either the government is seen to do well, which tends to swing all votes toward the majority party, or the government is seen to do not well and all government parties suffer losses. There is a way for a minor party to thread the needle, which is if they force some concessions from the major party to guarantee confidence and supply, the government lasts a full term and is stable, those concessions are the most popular achievements of the government during the term AND the minor party gets the credit, then they can come out better off in the next election come what may. It's not easy for all those chips to fall in the right place though.

Update: 7 164/7 is OK if the Greens will cooperate. Will the Greens cooperate?

Seems like the Libs need to be crossing all digits to at least hit 164 seats and for NDP not to go below 8.

So I guess the question is assuming no formal coalition able to command a majority, will BQ bring down a minority govt within a year or two and force another election? If the CPC calls a no confidence vote (which I imagine it will immediately on the resumption of parliament if there isn't a majority coalition) it will fail unless BQ gets on board. What will the Libs do to at least ensure BQ doesn't collapse parliament? Are there are some relatively low cost concessions the Libs can make?

So it's looking like a minority govt for the Libs. Do they go into a formal coalition with BQ or NDP (assuming they only need one partner to form a majority), or do they operate as a minority govt stitching up votes for legislation case by case? They will need some guarantees on confidence and supply otherwise I imagine another election inside a year.

Almost 30% of total registered voters counted so far according to the Elections Canada website, which of course will be a much higher % of people who actually voted. What is the usual voter turnout for Canada?

Surprising a party needs a certain number of seats to keep official party status. I would have thought vote share would be the determining factor.

The only stable currency in the world of course, the Yuan.

Wow, what an incredible change up. If Trump had imposed tariffs on everyone except Canada, and had kept his mouth shut about statehood for Canada (and Greenland too, I'm sure that put the willies in a few people). It seems likely the Libs would have been done for. Has there ever been an election anywhere that has turned on its head in just a few months because of the idiocy of the leader of a friendly country? If Harris had won in November, I think you'd be looking at PP being PM elect some time in 2025, and almost certainly no snap election. Would you make that trade?

It's not about the nature of the science he was discovering, it's that he revealed a truth that was ahead of its time. Same applies here. And history will show accepting trans women (& men) as the gender they identify with is right and proper in all respects, as was Copernicus completely vindicated. though it is also backed up with well established science. There is no trans debate as to it being a recognised variant of gender identity. It's a real and we'll described phenomenon. How that translates into health policy esp in children is a different matter. The opposite in fact sex and gender are not the same thing. [Women]=[cis women]+[trans women]. Hence the statement trans women are women is not the same as saying cis and trans women are the same.

I'm surprised the biggest Canadian caused international incident this month hasn't got a mention yet: Vegemite-Gate. Just when Aus-Can relations needed to be closest for world stability a stoush breaks out over a brown sticky paste.

Copernicus declaring the Sun to be the centre of the solar system did more harm to the astronomy movement than anything else too, at the time.

Enforcement agencies need to be willing to follow the courts rather than the president. And not just the heads of the enforcement agencies, it has to be the people who will put the cuffs on. Where does the blue wall stand? If it is divided how will the internal conflict get settled? What happens when the commander in chief Xcretes/Troths directly to the rank and file of the military to go out and defend him?

It's cute they think that. It can be decades between the rise of the lawless tyrant and the return to rule of law, with much suffering and injustice inbetween. Someone needs to chart the path back to the rule of law for people and institutions to follow. At the moment it seems you have civil unrest with differing degrees of tolerance (or resignation) for violence as the leading proposal.

Trans women are not men, they are women. If you can't get behind that concept then there is nothing trans-positive about your perspective.