Latest news with #Collins
Irish Independent
8 hours ago
- Business
- Irish Independent
Construction to begin in Limerick on new building at TUS campus
Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Limerick County TD Niall Collins welcomed the confirmation from Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, James Lawless TD. 'I am delighted that construction can now begin on a new Applied Science and IT building at TUS Limerick,' said Minister Collins. 'The building will consist of undergraduate and postgraduate science laboratories, general teaching space, learning resource space, administration space and ancillary space.' Minister Collins also confirmed that the new facility will allow for the addition of around 700 student places at TUS Limerick. The TUS Limerick project is one of five new buildings included in the second phase of the Higher Education Public Private Partnership (PPP) Programme. Other sites include Atlantic Technological University (ATU) campuses in Galway and Letterkenny, and South East Technological University (SETU) campuses in Waterford and Carlow. Minister James Lawless described the programme as a crucial step in strengthening Ireland's regional higher education system. 'This significant capital programme demonstrates both my own and the Government's commitment to excellence across all our higher education institutions,' he said. 'With construction now commencing on five new buildings across five campuses, this €380 million programme will significantly expand student capacity, modernise teaching spaces, and bring state-of-the-art labs, studios, and workshops to regions across the country,' he added. The PPP contract has been awarded to the Invesis Consortium, which includes BAM Building Ltd as the construction contractor and BAM FM Ireland Ltd for facilities management. Under the terms of the agreement, the consortium will finance, build, and maintain the buildings for 25 years, with the Department of Further and Higher Education making monthly payments once construction is completed. The entire programme is being delivered under Project Ireland 2040.
![2025 Wimbledon: Osorio Serrano [55th] vs. Collins [52nd] Prediction, Odds and Match Preview](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2Fauthoring%2Fimages%2FDataSkriveSportsbookWire%2F2025%2F04%2F16%2FSSBK%2F83117489007-15810182.jpeg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26crop%3D1199%2C675%2Cx0%2Cy62%26format%3Dpjpg%26width%3D1200&w=3840&q=100)
![2025 Wimbledon: Osorio Serrano [55th] vs. Collins [52nd] Prediction, Odds and Match Preview](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fusatoday.com.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
USA Today
9 hours ago
- Sport
- USA Today
2025 Wimbledon: Osorio Serrano [55th] vs. Collins [52nd] Prediction, Odds and Match Preview
Maria Camila Osorio Serrano (No. 55 ranking) will meet Danielle Collins (No. 52) in the Round of 128 of Wimbledon on Monday, June 30. Collins has -325 odds to win this match against Osorio Serrano (+240). Tune in via ESPN to watch this match, and the rest of Wimbledon from June 23 - July 12. Tennis odds courtesy of BetMGM Sportsbook. Odds updated Friday at 10:36 PM ET. For a full list of sports betting odds, access USA TODAY Sports Betting Scores Odds Hub. Maria Camila Osorio Serrano vs. Danielle Collins matchup info Watch the Tennis Channel and more sports on Fubo! Osorio Serrano vs. Collins Prediction Based on the implied probility from the moneyline, Osorio Serrano has a 76.5% to win. Osorio Serrano vs. Collins Betting Odds Osorio Serrano vs. Collins matchup performance & stats
The Advertiser
17 hours ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
Arbitrarily increasing defence spending would be a tremendous waste of money. Here's why
The United States is again putting a full-court press on Western nations to boost defence spending. There were reports this week that NATO members are expected to raise defence spending until they spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence. This would include almost doubling spending on defence platforms and assets (from 2 per cent of GDP to 3.5 per cent of GDP) and committing a further 1.5 per cent of GDP on defence-related investments including cyber security. The Treasurer pushed back, saying Australia had already taken significant steps by boosting spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP. He is right to rebuff this target, but not because Labor's defence spending commitment is sufficient for the job. The better reason to reject arbitrary spending levels for defence against GDP is that they tell you almost nothing about the defence capabilities Australia has - or the appropriateness of our defence spending arrangements. In truth, if Australia was to expand its defence spending but continue to spend it in the same way, there is little guarantee of a genuine improvement in our position. Unfortunately, the reality is that both sides of politics have allowed industry concerns and state government parochialism to dominate defence needs when it comes to procurement. There is no better example than our submarine program. Defence ministers continue to insist it is imperative for Australia to have the capability to design and manufacture submarines. This has led to us adopting risky, bespoke submarine designs, creating expensive orphan submarine classes (ones that are used by only one country). Risky procurements like orphan submarines inevitably run over time and over budget. There is also the potential for significant redesign and development costs - especially when those designing and constructing the submarines are effectively learning on the job. The terrible troubles that plagued the Collins Class for the first decade after it was commissioned were a case in point. The fact that we have made so little actual progress on the Collins replacement more than 15 years after the replacement project was first announced is further testament to that fact. Australia is now looking at a path of manufacturing nuclear submarines, an even more complex industry development task than the one we embarked on in the 1980s with the Collins. If Australia wanted to a see an actual return from investing money in industry development, we'd be better off committing to improving the US supply chain for Virginia Class submarines. At least, we'd know from the beginning that those companies can build and deliver a submarine. This is not at all guaranteed should we commit to building an entirely new sub here. Given the risks of cost and time blowouts are well known, why do governments like Australia persist with such a risky procurement strategy? The answer is simple: politics. When it comes to defence spending, there is enormous political pressure from states like South Australia and Victoria to use defence dollars to conduct industry policy. In the case of the submarines, Australia's defence needs have been running a distant second to the need to commit to spending the money in Adelaide. Instead of focusing on how to get the best value capabilities for the money being invested, or ensuring that Australia can fulfil its required defence goals, the states compete to outbid each other for federal defence dollars to be spent in their state. The point is not that Australian defence industry is incapable of producing quality defence equipment; it's that spending the money in Australia for its own sake does nothing for defence. In fact, a disturbing percentage of our defence spending amounts to little more than money laundering handouts to the state governments. In that sense, we are right to push back against NATO and the US. Our approach shouldn't be to raise defence spending, it should be to improve defence capability to meet the tasks required of us. In practice, this means two things. First, Australians need far more clarity on what our defence force is actually for. Without greater clarity on what we are hoping to achieve in the defence space, it is all but impossible for people to understand whether we are headed down the right path. In a world where there is enormous competition for every dollar of government spending, the defence establishment must be as vocal as any other interest group as to why it needs more money. Second, we must genuinely commit to acquiring the capabilities that will best enable us to achieve the goals we have set for our defence force. This may mean some politically unpopular decisions need to be made. So be it. Our politicians are not elected to compete with each other over who can give the most money to the states. In an environment of genuine threats to Australia's safety, we must be ruthless in culling projects that are not meeting our needs. This change in approach should enable us to be far more agile in our defence planning. At the moment, because we are beholden to state government interests, we are committing to defence expenditure decades in advance that may or may not be wasted by the time it is spent. It is clear there has been a significant change in global attitudes to defence and, in particular, defence spending. This is an opportunity for Australia to start taking the issue of defence more seriously. However, throwing tens of billions more dollars at the existing system would be a terrible way to do that. The United States is again putting a full-court press on Western nations to boost defence spending. There were reports this week that NATO members are expected to raise defence spending until they spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence. This would include almost doubling spending on defence platforms and assets (from 2 per cent of GDP to 3.5 per cent of GDP) and committing a further 1.5 per cent of GDP on defence-related investments including cyber security. The Treasurer pushed back, saying Australia had already taken significant steps by boosting spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP. He is right to rebuff this target, but not because Labor's defence spending commitment is sufficient for the job. The better reason to reject arbitrary spending levels for defence against GDP is that they tell you almost nothing about the defence capabilities Australia has - or the appropriateness of our defence spending arrangements. In truth, if Australia was to expand its defence spending but continue to spend it in the same way, there is little guarantee of a genuine improvement in our position. Unfortunately, the reality is that both sides of politics have allowed industry concerns and state government parochialism to dominate defence needs when it comes to procurement. There is no better example than our submarine program. Defence ministers continue to insist it is imperative for Australia to have the capability to design and manufacture submarines. This has led to us adopting risky, bespoke submarine designs, creating expensive orphan submarine classes (ones that are used by only one country). Risky procurements like orphan submarines inevitably run over time and over budget. There is also the potential for significant redesign and development costs - especially when those designing and constructing the submarines are effectively learning on the job. The terrible troubles that plagued the Collins Class for the first decade after it was commissioned were a case in point. The fact that we have made so little actual progress on the Collins replacement more than 15 years after the replacement project was first announced is further testament to that fact. Australia is now looking at a path of manufacturing nuclear submarines, an even more complex industry development task than the one we embarked on in the 1980s with the Collins. If Australia wanted to a see an actual return from investing money in industry development, we'd be better off committing to improving the US supply chain for Virginia Class submarines. At least, we'd know from the beginning that those companies can build and deliver a submarine. This is not at all guaranteed should we commit to building an entirely new sub here. Given the risks of cost and time blowouts are well known, why do governments like Australia persist with such a risky procurement strategy? The answer is simple: politics. When it comes to defence spending, there is enormous political pressure from states like South Australia and Victoria to use defence dollars to conduct industry policy. In the case of the submarines, Australia's defence needs have been running a distant second to the need to commit to spending the money in Adelaide. Instead of focusing on how to get the best value capabilities for the money being invested, or ensuring that Australia can fulfil its required defence goals, the states compete to outbid each other for federal defence dollars to be spent in their state. The point is not that Australian defence industry is incapable of producing quality defence equipment; it's that spending the money in Australia for its own sake does nothing for defence. In fact, a disturbing percentage of our defence spending amounts to little more than money laundering handouts to the state governments. In that sense, we are right to push back against NATO and the US. Our approach shouldn't be to raise defence spending, it should be to improve defence capability to meet the tasks required of us. In practice, this means two things. First, Australians need far more clarity on what our defence force is actually for. Without greater clarity on what we are hoping to achieve in the defence space, it is all but impossible for people to understand whether we are headed down the right path. In a world where there is enormous competition for every dollar of government spending, the defence establishment must be as vocal as any other interest group as to why it needs more money. Second, we must genuinely commit to acquiring the capabilities that will best enable us to achieve the goals we have set for our defence force. This may mean some politically unpopular decisions need to be made. So be it. Our politicians are not elected to compete with each other over who can give the most money to the states. In an environment of genuine threats to Australia's safety, we must be ruthless in culling projects that are not meeting our needs. This change in approach should enable us to be far more agile in our defence planning. At the moment, because we are beholden to state government interests, we are committing to defence expenditure decades in advance that may or may not be wasted by the time it is spent. It is clear there has been a significant change in global attitudes to defence and, in particular, defence spending. This is an opportunity for Australia to start taking the issue of defence more seriously. However, throwing tens of billions more dollars at the existing system would be a terrible way to do that. The United States is again putting a full-court press on Western nations to boost defence spending. There were reports this week that NATO members are expected to raise defence spending until they spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence. This would include almost doubling spending on defence platforms and assets (from 2 per cent of GDP to 3.5 per cent of GDP) and committing a further 1.5 per cent of GDP on defence-related investments including cyber security. The Treasurer pushed back, saying Australia had already taken significant steps by boosting spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP. He is right to rebuff this target, but not because Labor's defence spending commitment is sufficient for the job. The better reason to reject arbitrary spending levels for defence against GDP is that they tell you almost nothing about the defence capabilities Australia has - or the appropriateness of our defence spending arrangements. In truth, if Australia was to expand its defence spending but continue to spend it in the same way, there is little guarantee of a genuine improvement in our position. Unfortunately, the reality is that both sides of politics have allowed industry concerns and state government parochialism to dominate defence needs when it comes to procurement. There is no better example than our submarine program. Defence ministers continue to insist it is imperative for Australia to have the capability to design and manufacture submarines. This has led to us adopting risky, bespoke submarine designs, creating expensive orphan submarine classes (ones that are used by only one country). Risky procurements like orphan submarines inevitably run over time and over budget. There is also the potential for significant redesign and development costs - especially when those designing and constructing the submarines are effectively learning on the job. The terrible troubles that plagued the Collins Class for the first decade after it was commissioned were a case in point. The fact that we have made so little actual progress on the Collins replacement more than 15 years after the replacement project was first announced is further testament to that fact. Australia is now looking at a path of manufacturing nuclear submarines, an even more complex industry development task than the one we embarked on in the 1980s with the Collins. If Australia wanted to a see an actual return from investing money in industry development, we'd be better off committing to improving the US supply chain for Virginia Class submarines. At least, we'd know from the beginning that those companies can build and deliver a submarine. This is not at all guaranteed should we commit to building an entirely new sub here. Given the risks of cost and time blowouts are well known, why do governments like Australia persist with such a risky procurement strategy? The answer is simple: politics. When it comes to defence spending, there is enormous political pressure from states like South Australia and Victoria to use defence dollars to conduct industry policy. In the case of the submarines, Australia's defence needs have been running a distant second to the need to commit to spending the money in Adelaide. Instead of focusing on how to get the best value capabilities for the money being invested, or ensuring that Australia can fulfil its required defence goals, the states compete to outbid each other for federal defence dollars to be spent in their state. The point is not that Australian defence industry is incapable of producing quality defence equipment; it's that spending the money in Australia for its own sake does nothing for defence. In fact, a disturbing percentage of our defence spending amounts to little more than money laundering handouts to the state governments. In that sense, we are right to push back against NATO and the US. Our approach shouldn't be to raise defence spending, it should be to improve defence capability to meet the tasks required of us. In practice, this means two things. First, Australians need far more clarity on what our defence force is actually for. Without greater clarity on what we are hoping to achieve in the defence space, it is all but impossible for people to understand whether we are headed down the right path. In a world where there is enormous competition for every dollar of government spending, the defence establishment must be as vocal as any other interest group as to why it needs more money. Second, we must genuinely commit to acquiring the capabilities that will best enable us to achieve the goals we have set for our defence force. This may mean some politically unpopular decisions need to be made. So be it. Our politicians are not elected to compete with each other over who can give the most money to the states. In an environment of genuine threats to Australia's safety, we must be ruthless in culling projects that are not meeting our needs. This change in approach should enable us to be far more agile in our defence planning. At the moment, because we are beholden to state government interests, we are committing to defence expenditure decades in advance that may or may not be wasted by the time it is spent. It is clear there has been a significant change in global attitudes to defence and, in particular, defence spending. This is an opportunity for Australia to start taking the issue of defence more seriously. However, throwing tens of billions more dollars at the existing system would be a terrible way to do that. The United States is again putting a full-court press on Western nations to boost defence spending. There were reports this week that NATO members are expected to raise defence spending until they spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence. This would include almost doubling spending on defence platforms and assets (from 2 per cent of GDP to 3.5 per cent of GDP) and committing a further 1.5 per cent of GDP on defence-related investments including cyber security. The Treasurer pushed back, saying Australia had already taken significant steps by boosting spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP. He is right to rebuff this target, but not because Labor's defence spending commitment is sufficient for the job. The better reason to reject arbitrary spending levels for defence against GDP is that they tell you almost nothing about the defence capabilities Australia has - or the appropriateness of our defence spending arrangements. In truth, if Australia was to expand its defence spending but continue to spend it in the same way, there is little guarantee of a genuine improvement in our position. Unfortunately, the reality is that both sides of politics have allowed industry concerns and state government parochialism to dominate defence needs when it comes to procurement. There is no better example than our submarine program. Defence ministers continue to insist it is imperative for Australia to have the capability to design and manufacture submarines. This has led to us adopting risky, bespoke submarine designs, creating expensive orphan submarine classes (ones that are used by only one country). Risky procurements like orphan submarines inevitably run over time and over budget. There is also the potential for significant redesign and development costs - especially when those designing and constructing the submarines are effectively learning on the job. The terrible troubles that plagued the Collins Class for the first decade after it was commissioned were a case in point. The fact that we have made so little actual progress on the Collins replacement more than 15 years after the replacement project was first announced is further testament to that fact. Australia is now looking at a path of manufacturing nuclear submarines, an even more complex industry development task than the one we embarked on in the 1980s with the Collins. If Australia wanted to a see an actual return from investing money in industry development, we'd be better off committing to improving the US supply chain for Virginia Class submarines. At least, we'd know from the beginning that those companies can build and deliver a submarine. This is not at all guaranteed should we commit to building an entirely new sub here. Given the risks of cost and time blowouts are well known, why do governments like Australia persist with such a risky procurement strategy? The answer is simple: politics. When it comes to defence spending, there is enormous political pressure from states like South Australia and Victoria to use defence dollars to conduct industry policy. In the case of the submarines, Australia's defence needs have been running a distant second to the need to commit to spending the money in Adelaide. Instead of focusing on how to get the best value capabilities for the money being invested, or ensuring that Australia can fulfil its required defence goals, the states compete to outbid each other for federal defence dollars to be spent in their state. The point is not that Australian defence industry is incapable of producing quality defence equipment; it's that spending the money in Australia for its own sake does nothing for defence. In fact, a disturbing percentage of our defence spending amounts to little more than money laundering handouts to the state governments. In that sense, we are right to push back against NATO and the US. Our approach shouldn't be to raise defence spending, it should be to improve defence capability to meet the tasks required of us. In practice, this means two things. First, Australians need far more clarity on what our defence force is actually for. Without greater clarity on what we are hoping to achieve in the defence space, it is all but impossible for people to understand whether we are headed down the right path. In a world where there is enormous competition for every dollar of government spending, the defence establishment must be as vocal as any other interest group as to why it needs more money. Second, we must genuinely commit to acquiring the capabilities that will best enable us to achieve the goals we have set for our defence force. This may mean some politically unpopular decisions need to be made. So be it. Our politicians are not elected to compete with each other over who can give the most money to the states. In an environment of genuine threats to Australia's safety, we must be ruthless in culling projects that are not meeting our needs. This change in approach should enable us to be far more agile in our defence planning. At the moment, because we are beholden to state government interests, we are committing to defence expenditure decades in advance that may or may not be wasted by the time it is spent. It is clear there has been a significant change in global attitudes to defence and, in particular, defence spending. This is an opportunity for Australia to start taking the issue of defence more seriously. However, throwing tens of billions more dollars at the existing system would be a terrible way to do that.
Canberra Times
18 hours ago
- General
- Canberra Times
Arbitrarily increasing defence spending would be a tremendous waste of money. Here's why
The terrible troubles that plagued the Collins Class for the first decade after it was commissioned were a case in point. The fact that we have made so little actual progress on the Collins replacement more than 15 years after the replacement project was first announced is further testament to that fact.
Newsweek
a day ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Susan Collins' Chances of Winning Re-election in Maine, According to Polls
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republican Senator Susan Collins is facing an uphill battle as she prepares to seek a sixth term in 2026, with new polling suggesting she remains deeply unpopular among Maine voters. The poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire between June 19-23 among 846 voters, also shows that Democratic Governor Janet Mills is considerably more popular than Collins, with speculation mounting that she may challenge Collins in 2026. Newsweek reached out to Collins for comment. Why It Matters While Mills has not announced any plans to run for Senate, speculation about a possible challenge is growing, particularly as Collins' approval continues to lag. If the governor were to enter the race, she could present one of the strongest threats yet to Collins' decades-long hold on her Senate seat. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, leaves the Senate Republicans' lunch in the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, June 24, 2025. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, leaves the Senate Republicans' lunch in the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, June 24, 2025. Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/AP What To Know Despite her long tenure and national profile, only 14 percent of Mainers have a favorable opinion of Collins, compared to 57 percent who view her unfavorably, according to the poll. Another 26 percent are neutral, while 2 percent say they don't know enough about her to say. That gives her a net favorability rating of –42, which is virtually unchanged from June 2022, when her rating stood at –40. Notably, Collins' support appears weak even within her own party. Just 29 percent of Republicans have a favorable opinion of her, along with only 8 percent of independents and a mere 3 percent of Democrats. In contrast, Democratic Governor Janet Mills remains significantly more popular and is increasingly seen as a potential challenger in 2026. Mills holds a net favorability rating of +10, with 51 percent of Mainers viewing her favorably and 41 percent unfavorably. Seven percent are neutral on Mills, and 1 percent say they don't know enough about her. Mills' support is strongest among Democrats, 90 percent of whom view her favorably. However, her popularity is sharply divided along party lines: 91 percent of Republicans and 48 percent of Independents have an unfavorable opinion of her. The poll had a margin of error of +/-3.4 percent. Historically, the party in the White House loses seats in the midterms. Collins is viewed as one of the Democrats' top targets, as former Vice President Kamala Harris carried the state by about seven points last November. Collins has been one of Donald Trump's most frequent critics in the Republican Party. She opposed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's nomination, writing that he does not have the "experience and perspective necessary to succeed in the job." In April, Collins joined a resolution to repeal Trump's tariffs on Canadian goods, arguing that the levies would hit Maine families and industries with higher costs for food, gasoline, and heating oil. More recently, during a June 25 Senate Appropriations hearing, Collins pushed back against Trump's plan to rescind $9.4 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting funds, arguing that the cuts would harm emergency communication and local media. She also raised concerns about the administration's "Big Beautiful Bill" to overhaul healthcare and taxes. Collins said she objects to deep Medicaid cuts and advocated for protections for rural hospitals and more modest tax increases on the ultra-wealthy. Collins has not said if she will vote for the bill. However, Governor Mills urged Maine's congressional delegation to reject the budget reconciliation bill, citing "profoundly harmful consequences" for Mainers. "States like Maine do not have the financial resources to absorb cuts of this magnitude," Mills wrote to Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King, and Reps. Chellie Pingree and Jared Golden. "Slashing essential services in this manner will only do the opposite of lowering taxes and fostering economic growth." The New Hampshire poll shows that "Big Beautiful Bill" is unpopular among Mainers, only 30 percent of whom support its passage. Fifty-eight percent, on the other hand, say they do not want to see it become law. Trump is also increasingly unpopular in the Pine Tree State, according to the poll. Sixty percent of respondents disapproved of him, while 40 percent approved of his job performance. In April, he was viewed positively by 42 percent of Mainers, according to UNH. What Happens Next Collins had not made a formal announcement about her reelection but told CNN in May it is her "inclination to run" and that she is "preparing to do so." On the Democratic side, two candidates have declared their intent to run. David Costello, who ran in 2024 and held several different positions in Maryland, including acting secretary of the state's Department of the Environment, is running again. Jordan Wood, who served as chief of staff to former Representative Katie Porter, a California Democrat, is also running. Governor Janet Mills has also not ruled out running, and some Democrats view her as a stronger candidate than those already in the race with deep ties to the state and having already won statewide.
