Thanks for that. I had to reflect on it a bunch to try and wrap my head around "blinders on and just advocate for more jobs". I definitely think Rob is the guy for that. It is not really the movement that would get me excited but I think I understand the position better now.
However, even with that idea, I think the pro-labour movement needs to be more informed / refined then just "more jobs". Obviously there is a line that says not all jobs are good jobs.
You don't want to try to force the creation of jobs at blockbuster after it has been made obsolete.
Also, there needs to be efficiency in the workforce. People fear the idea of a union that hires 3 or 4 people to do the job of 1 person. It turns into that meme of 3+ guys watching 1 guy work.
Or what about return on investment. What if Canada kicks off a _____ project that is going to start building in 2032 but in 2030 we actually hit peak ____ because China straight up stops buying _____. Would a pro-labour government build the _____ anyway (even if it never gets used) because "more jobs" or would you redirect the billions and billions of dollars to do something else that would have more benefit to the nation? I would hope it is the latter but a pro-labour person might not care.
Interesting to consider.
For me personally, I would hope that Labour be one of the primary pillars of the NDP but not the only one. They need to capture the progressive populist and socialists groups like Mamdani did in NYC. If you try to ignore the climate crisis and just focus on jobs, you may gain a bunch of small c conservatives but you'll probably lose more progressives than it is worth.
The government in my head would be setting up regulation to encourage investment in many of these areas rather than being the direct investor.
I think there is room for other progressive policy but it needs to not contradict the underlying labour goals. Unfortunately that leaves Climate out. But it certainly leaves open minimum wage reform, TFW reform, general government supports, progressive taxation and all sorts of other generally progressive policy.
The two areas that end up taking a back seat would be climate and social justice.
The government in my head would be setting up regulation to encourage investment in many of these areas rather than being the direct investor.
I think there is room for other progressive policy but it needs to not contradict the underlying labour goals. Unfortunately that leaves Climate out. But it certainly leaves open minimum wage reform, TFW reform, general government supports, progressive taxation and all sorts of other generally progressive policy.
The two areas that end up taking a back seat would be climate and social justice.
Gotcha.
I think one thing to consider is that the climate issue is a huge area for job growth that Alberta has torpedoed. Around the world, the majority of new energy projects are all renewables. If that trend stays true then two things need to be called out:
1) Canada (Alberta specifically) is throwing away immediate jobs by turning away $34B in investments (in renewables)
2) Future jobs are at risk as the world accelerates away from fossil fuels and Canada considers doubling down on it
Purely from a jobs perspective, aggressively ignoring this trend around the world, just because it is "climate", will result in less jobs now and in the future. From a jobs perspective, we would want to stay on top of market and technology advancements to ensure we are not chasing blockbuster ideas in the face of online streaming.
Here is an interview from Energi Media talking about how even though fossil fuel consumption is continuing to go up, electrification is capturing most energy demand growth. (If you do not want to watch the video, the punchline is that if all new growth is in electrification instead of fossil fuels then at some point soon electrification will catch up and surpass fossil.)
I think one thing to consider is that the climate issue is a huge area for job growth that Alberta has torpedoed. Around the world, the majority of new energy projects are all renewables. If that trend stays true then two things need to be called out:
1) Canada (Alberta specifically) is throwing away immediate jobs by turning away $34B in investments (in renewables)
2) Future jobs are at risk as the world accelerates away from fossil fuels and Canada considers doubling down on it
Purely from a jobs perspective, aggressively ignoring this trend around the world, just because it is "climate", will result in less jobs now and in the future. From a jobs perspective, we would want to stay on top of market and technology advancements to ensure we are not chasing blockbuster ideas in the face of online streaming.
Here is an interview from Energi Media talking about how even though fossil fuel consumption is continuing to go up, electrification is capturing most energy demand growth. (If you do not want to watch the video, the punchline is that if all new growth is in electrification instead of fossil fuels then at some point soon electrification will catch up and surpass fossil.)
What Alberta is doing is Anti-Solar policy. It is stupid.
What I am proposing is pro-industry policy all accross all energy sources. You seem to be caught up in there being a dichotomy between different types of energy investments. Instead we should be building taxation and investment frameworks to support all energy sources. We can walk and chew gum.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I don’t see how that would disagree with anything I said as it’s essentially saying the same thing.
It’s close, but I think there is a distinction when you start saying they should be pro this industry and pro that industry compared with being a little more vague and just saying they should be pro investments that lead to job creation. That way they are better positioned to more credibly challenge specific industries engaging in labour practices that they don’t agree with.
Otherwise it becomes a slippery slope and also inevitably creates a conflict of interest when certain industries that are more anti-union than others by actively investing or heavily engaging in Union busting. We’ve already seen this happen so why not try and avoid having history repeat itself.
I think you’ve clarified your intent though and we clearly agree on the principles of what the message should be. I just thought your initial delivery was a little off for the reasons explained above.
I love seeing things like government grocery stores and other way left ideas from the NDP. It reminds me of their position they had years ago to abolish the stock market, and these kinds of things just remind why they’ll always be out in the political wilderness.
Are Albertan's clamoring for the return of ALCB liquor stores?
Public grocery stores would be essentially taxpayer subsidized employment and contracts to private businesses. When you factor in all the sub-commercial things mentioned in that video ('Living wages' as defined by the NDP, mandatory union participation, Dictating where food is sourced from, Putting stores not where it makes economic sense but rather markets where private interests abandoned and combine it with the lack of accountability to the bottom line that plaques most government run enterprise and there would be no hypothetical profits left to distribute if the goal was also to undercut private grocery store pricing. Rather it would be the opposite, it would require massive taxpayer subsidies to keep afloat year after year.
When put that way there's probably more effective public tools at achieving the goals laid out than the boondoggle of creating a massive government run enterprise. Like just give poorer people money for food. It would be more effective and cheaper than blueprinting and creating from scratch a government food distribution network and stores.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
I think one thing to consider is that the climate issue is a huge area for job growth that Alberta has torpedoed. Around the world, the majority of new energy projects are all renewables. If that trend stays true then two things need to be called out:
1) Canada (Alberta specifically) is throwing away immediate jobs by turning away $34B in investments (in renewables)
2) Future jobs are at risk as the world accelerates away from fossil fuels and Canada considers doubling down on it
Purely from a jobs perspective, aggressively ignoring this trend around the world, just because it is "climate", will result in less jobs now and in the future. From a jobs perspective, we would want to stay on top of market and technology advancements to ensure we are not chasing blockbuster ideas in the face of online streaming.
Here is an interview from Energi Media talking about how even though fossil fuel consumption is continuing to go up, electrification is capturing most energy demand growth. (If you do not want to watch the video, the punchline is that if all new growth is in electrification instead of fossil fuels then at some point soon electrification will catch up and surpass fossil.)
I mean, the current Alberta policy of not allowing renewable to connect to the grid is assinine. Not even from an "NDP policy" perspective, from a "is this stupid" perspective.
But I do agree the NDP platform should be "pro jobs/labour" in every way. You can make that work in most areas. Eg, maybe your foreign policy with China becomes "you can import one electric car for every one you assemble here and export". That seems a lot more likely to me to result in a bunch or union autoworker jobs than the current government plan of writing huge cheques for long term losers to build electric vehicle plants.
Since the last election I have been curious about the next steps for the NDP. I feel like they have lost their way over the last couple of decades and that they need a hard reset to get back on track. Their history is largely a socialist / progressive / populist party that is heavily aligned with the working class and average citizens (and goes all the way back to the CCF founding in Calgary!).
Alright. I agree, let's see what they can do to combat the out of touch ideological mess they have created for themselves and get back to being a worker's party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven
My hot take at the start of the race.
I think Avi is my favourite. He gives Zorhan vibes right off of the bat and I really like that his first talking point is about nationalizing grocery stores. I will leave a couple of videos here for any of you interested in hearing his
Well it was a good 8 minutes.
Here's a few links to see why he is not the answer and is actually the biggest problem for the NDP.
In the past week, I've been called a "downtown Toronto political dilettante," and "a millstone around the neck" of Alberta NDP Premier Rachel Notley. The Leap Manifesto, which I helped write and launch with dozens of others from across the country, has been called "ungenerous, short-sighted and…a betrayal of the people who voted NDP" in Alberta.
And that was just from people I consider friends.
It's time to speak some truth about this controversial document. In fact, the Leap Manifesto came out of a meeting (yes, held in Toronto) that brought together dozens of social-movement activists from six provinces: Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, B.C. and Alberta. It is a consensus statement – literally written by committee – that reflects a common vision from across a spectrum of different causes.
Born Avram David Lewis Toronto, Ontario
He's downright obsessed with the Leap Manifesto and one of the founders, to the point where he preferred having the Alberta NDP collapse than mind his tongue about destructive policies against other provinces that are led by the NDP. Avi Lewis is one of the main reasons why I believe the Alberta NDP needs to cut ties from the federal NDP for being completely out of touch and harming their chances.
The guy is pretty much unelectable and had to go out in NDP friendly Vancouver land to try to get elected. He tried his hand at West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country and failed, and tried Vancouver Centre and failed. Both are hard hitting workers first areas of course.
So a Torontonian criticized by his own party for his Toronto centric views, residing and failing to get elected in Vancouver (and failing in such a gimme area twice, both as 3rd choice) is the saviour of the NDP to fight for...checks note...become the workers party again?
Frankly, if people like you are vouching for people like Avi Lewis as the salvation for the NDP, the NDP doesn't need enemies.
Yeah, no, that's just going to come across as the same latte-sipping, champagne-flute-raising nonsense that's got the NDP to where it is, outflanking the Libs to lose elections by garnering the votes of elites in Toronto and Vancouver. None of the blue collar people you should be trying to appeal to are going to buy that their jobs need to be transitioned out of and their taxes need to be raised to support an "aggressive energy transition strategy" even if you think you have excellent reasoned arguments about why it is so.
Ironically this is a jab done by "poor vs elite" Ava Lewis, someone who Wolven views Ava Lewis as the favourite to run the NDP to get back to its roots as a workers party.
Quote:
The Leap's least controversial idea is that we need to wean our economy off fossil fuels as quickly as possible – certainly by mid-century – which means an immediate energy transition. This view has been voiced in recent years now by latte-swilling hipster celebrity activists like former governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney, the U.K.'s Sir Nicholas Stern, and principal secretary to the Prime Minister Gerald Butts (before he got his government job).
Basically, Ava Lewis is a self-claimed latte-swilling hipster pointing to others as having similar stances (while sarcastically dismissing them as non-hispters) to validate his own. And he sees this as a 'gotcha'. That's how out of touch he is.
Are Albertan's clamoring for the return of ALCB liquor stores?
Public grocery stores would be essentially taxpayer subsidized employment and contracts to private businesses. When you factor in all the sub-commercial things mentioned in that video ('Living wages' as defined by the NDP, mandatory union participation, Dictating where food is sourced from, Putting stores not where it makes economic sense but rather markets where private interests abandoned and combine it with the lack of accountability to the bottom line that plaques most government run enterprise and there would be no hypothetical profits left to distribute if the goal was also to undercut private grocery store pricing. Rather it would be the opposite, it would require massive taxpayer subsidies to keep afloat year after year.
When put that way there's probably more effective public tools at achieving the goals laid out than the boondoggle of creating a massive government run enterprise. Like just give poorer people money for food. It would be more effective and cheaper than blueprinting and creating from scratch a government food distribution network and stores.
I have turned into a Scott Galloway junkie but this is actually his exact view of Mamdani's idea of "nationalized" groceries. Just give the people that need it the money to buy it in the stores that already exist. Scott is f'iing great. His ideas are very smart and cut to the chase. He is all over media now as his book just came out but his Pivot podcast with Kara Swisher is very good and smart.
Give poor people money doesn’t necessarily solve food deserts efficiently. There will still be access issues. Now would money plus uber vouchers be more efficient than the government running a store? I don’t know.
The food desert problem is likely a bigger issue than mark up when it comes to government grocers.
Give poor people money doesn’t necessarily solve food deserts efficiently. There will still be access issues. Now would money plus uber vouchers be more efficient than the government running a store? I don’t know.
The food desert problem is likely a bigger issue than mark up when it comes to government grocers.
If there was more buying power in poor areas you'd have more retailers.
If you really want the government more involved in people's choices you could give out vouchers/debit cards that can only be used on bureaucratically approved healthy foods. That would stimulate demand for them in poor areas and incrntivize new retailers.
The issue with that is people would then trade those cards or vouchers for money or other things you don't want.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The issue with that is people would then trade those cards or vouchers for money or other things you don't want.
If people so badly don't want healthy food that they'd trade away the free stuff, what makes anyone thing a government run healthy food store would solve that problem? Or is it just a make-work program?
If there was more buying power in poor areas you'd have more retailers.
If you really want the government more involved in people's choices you could give out vouchers/debit cards that can only be used on bureaucratically approved healthy foods. That would stimulate demand for them in poor areas and incrntivize new retailers.
These people are buying food in amounts to sustain themselves today. What makes you think they will buy enough high margin food to make it worth opening up a grocery store to sell staples?
If you look at Walmart and superstore distribution they go with large locations over more locations which makes it more difficult to access without vehicles. Just giving grocery money doesn’t change that behaviour of companies. There will still be no incentive to open more stores.
(Note I am against government grocers but giving money won’t solve food deserts)
This is a great discussion but immediately fell into the trap of "We are going to reinvent the party from the ground up by throwing away all of our old views...except this one... and that one... and we need this one as well of course...and if we get rid of this one then the .001% of the population will be mad at us so we have to keep that..." and so on.
I would also suggest we eliminate coded or loaded terms like progressive, labour, etc., and basically any term that already has baggage. Powderjunkie's post made a great start on this. I am not sure the family budget is the best template, but it is a good place to start. We can chew gum and walk at the same time.
I like the suggestion of losing left/right and finding a new paradigm. Not sure vertical is the way to go as it implies top and bottom (hee hee) and we don't want people to view themselves as the bottom if we can avoid it. We can workshop that.
1. Sell as much O/G as we can for as long as we can. The idea of transitioning away from O/G by reducing its use is the same as a CEO saying his company is more profitable by cutting costs. It meets the short-term goal of rising stock prices and quarterly numbers, but does nothing to actually increase the company's efficacy, and in many cases, it actually cannibalizes it. Sell that #### before the MARKET determines it is no longer the best use case. (I think of it as show me a solar-powered airplane, then we can talk. O/G is far too entrenched in everything we make and use to just stop getting it.
2. Encourage ANY promising industry to mature and develop as much as we can. Solar is a great idea. Incentivize businesses and residents to install solar on every available surface in the country. I almost got solar installed on a zero-interest loan. I will do it if another program like this comes along. This increases the demand for panels, installers, all the other parts involved, the energy guys to do assessments. Obvious benefit at minimal cost, as the gov't gets the money back, maybe even just guaranteed loans to throw the banks a bone to run the program. Incentivize kids to go into these industries with favourable student loans and, maybe, I don't know, educate them about these opportunities instead of the useless #### school counsellors do now.
3. Support the vast majority of the country instead of the 1%. What makes life hard? Help with that. Daycare, hospital waits, Dr. availability. Incent Drs. to come here and not leave. Pay the #### out of them. Make our immigration system work better. Want to move here? Work in home construction (or whatever required industry for 3 years. Look at immigration as HR to be used to solve problems, and create markets, and not as a drain. Staff the immigration process on a 'for-profit' basis, so to speak.
4. Have a fair income tax code. Don't put the entire burden on the middle class. Make rich people pay their share, or at least a share. Eliminate the workarounds. Pay the CRA lawyers like real lawyers. You win? You get a cut of the winnings. Watch enforcement skyrocket and challenges plummet.
5. Pay teachers what they are worth, in view of what they are contributing to the overall economy over the next generation. Structure schools like they should be, not just lowest-common-denominator catchalls.
6. Teach kids the skills they will actually need. Proper long-term investing. Banking, budgeting, how to run a household, how to maintain a household. How to eat properly and why. How to go grocery shopping and prepare simple, healthy meals.
7. Incent students to go into the most in demand areas. We need welders? Welding school tuition is free, paid part by gov't, part by industry.
8. Disincentivize the #### out of unhealthy food. You want that twinkie? It will be 25% more and the money goes DIRECTLY into the health care budget. Have you seen the display in the grocery store? Or most of the food in the aisles of the grocery store? Why do we make it so easy for people to eat terribly?
9. No more general revenue bull####. If it is promised to go to something, it has to and must be proven to or automatic recall (maybe not that harsh but accountability) No more robbing pensions to pay for opex.
10. Make lobbying more transparent (No, PP, that is not what that word means!) Severely limit the ability of money to influence results. Go farther away from the US system, not towards it.
11. Make farming and rural living desirable. Has a city kid ever gone to become a farmer? We need those roles too. Treat them like the business people they are. Although there are no slave labour-type employment policies. Like WTF?
12. You invoke the NW clause, you have to have a general election within 6 months, AND that issue must be on the ballot. Or even just a binding referendum, and if you lose, the government falls. (Haha. I like this one. Just thought of it. If it is really necessary, they should be able to defend it in an election.
Remind the politicians they are there to represent EVERYBODY in their riding and make them catch hell if they don't. We should understand that the proper incentives do encourage the sought-after behaviour. Put that to use.
__________________
E=NG
The Following User Says Thank You to Titan2 For This Useful Post:
The issue with that is people would then trade those cards or vouchers for money or other things you don't want.
Not if it was put directly on their Driver's Licence. We should have all of our gov't documents on one scannable ID card. Most people have a DL. Put your sin, number, health care number, etc. all on the one card. Have an ID card for pwople w/o DLs.
People can still buy the stuff and then trade it but it does add another barrier. At the end of the day, we can only do so much and still maintain free will.
Also, we need to not let perfection be the enemy of the good. If we can get good food to people we should do that, even if it is not the perfect plan and there is some slippage.
