You’re hilarious. You make these comments without any idea of what I know and just assume that you know more than anyone else. I’m well aware that this was authored by Lewis and his wife Naomi Klein. Regardless of how I phrased this, it doesn’t change the fact that this is largely unpalatable across Canada.
And the decision to run in this ridings is all well and good, but it’s symptomatic of the major issue that progressives and liberals suffer from. They would rather be right and holier than thou, as opposed to winning elections.
You're disingenuous. You intentionally phrased your comments to make Lewis sound like a drug dealer by calling him a pusher and that is only made worse when you confess that you know better. And then you think that this somehow reflects on me?
There is no "fact" or proof to your statement about the palatability of "this". Whatever this is. The fact is affordability is the #1 issue in Canada. After that the issues are America (specifically Trump), the economy, housing affordability, and healthcare.
The Liberals and Conservatives have no real answer for affordability. The Liberals will give it a half-hearted effort in order to win elections and the Conservatives will lie to us and tell us they care in 3 word slogans when their policies show that they do not.
My point is that we need a political 3rd option that will swing big to address our top issues. People keep saying that the NDP needs to be more centrist to try and do that and I think that is wrongheaded thinking. IMO, the NDP needs to get bold with progressive populist ideas instead of just offering an incremental difference from the other parties.
Avi Lewis is more populist and he points to the battle being the People vs. the Elite. I feel that is a more comprehensive approach as it includes a lot more of the population in his scope and it forces him to look at the bigger picture than just worker's rights.
The fact Lewis doesn’t recognize that in the eyes of most Canadians he himself is a member of the elite just shows how bad his political instincts are.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
For me, and maybe it’s just me and doesn’t reflect what the others are referring to, “pure labour” is a party that is first, utmost, and always focused on the working class, and I would define “extra fluff” as anything that cannot be directly connected to supporting, protecting, or advancing the working class.
I believe immigration, climate change, housing, trade, etc can all be approached through this lens.
The Liberals and Cons pander to the working class but I don’t think either put them first outside of needing their votes. A truly labour-focused social party is what is missing.
Okay, so I guess I would want to get specific. What is a "labour" position on Environmental policy?
In my opinion, the labour position on environment would be to side with environmental scientists to say that we are in a climate crisis. The best thing for the labour movement would be an aggressive energy transition strategy as it would create the most jobs and those jobs would have more longevity than the fossil fuel jobs that are in heavy decline.
It is basically the same plan that a "green" might have but it is labour focused. Is that acceptable because it is "pro-labour" or unacceptable because it is "pro-environment"?
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.
Pepsi is definitely right that you can approach climate policy, along with everything else, through a pro-labour lens, but you do have to figure out who your core constituency is, what they want, and meet them halfway there (or more than halfway, given how much ground there is to make up).
__________________ "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 Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Okay, so I guess I would want to get specific. What is a "labour" position on Environmental policy?
In my opinion, the labour position on environment would be to side with environmental scientists to say that we are in a climate crisis. The best thing for the labour movement would be an aggressive energy transition strategy as it would create the most jobs and those jobs would have more longevity than the fossil fuel jobs that are in heavy decline.
It is basically the same plan that a "green" might have but it is labour focused. Is that acceptable because it is "pro-labour" or unacceptable because it is "pro-environment"?
The pro labour position on the environment would be to maximize employment today by maximizing carbon intensive industries while they are still acceptable while ensuring the country is transitioning to greener industries over time.
Essentially you wouldn’t care about the emissions internally accept as to pay lip service to international trade while at the same time targeting industries for future growth.
You wouldn’t acknowledge climate science but from an emissions rules point of view you wouldn’t acknowledge climate acknowledge that what Canada does doesn’t matter. (I don’t like this position but it is the pro labour one)
So pro-pipeline, pro-solar, pro-nuke, pro-gas, pro-wind.
"A "pusher" can mean a person or thing that pushes, or more specifically, an illegal drug dealer."
It is your phrasing, so go ahead and explain.
If you actually can’t discern between the idea of pushing a policy and being a drug dealer, there’s no intelligent conversation to be had here. Good luck with your preferred choice of leader.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
Okay, so I guess I would want to get specific. What is a "labour" position on Environmental policy?
In my opinion, the labour position on environment would be to side with environmental scientists to say that we are in a climate crisis. The best thing for the labour movement would be an aggressive energy transition strategy as it would create the most jobs and those jobs would have more longevity than the fossil fuel jobs that are in heavy decline.
It is basically the same plan that a "green" might have but it is labour focused. Is that acceptable because it is "pro-labour" or unacceptable because it is "pro-environment"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
The pro labour position on the environment would be to maximize employment today by maximizing carbon intensive industries while they are still acceptable while ensuring the country is transitioning to greener industries over time.
Essentially you wouldn’t care about the emissions internally accept as to pay lip service to international trade while at the same time targeting industries for future growth.
You wouldn’t acknowledge climate science but from an emissions rules point of view you wouldn’t acknowledge climate acknowledge that what Canada does doesn’t matter. (I don’t like this position but it is the pro labour one)
So pro-pipeline, pro-solar, pro-nuke, pro-gas, pro-wind.
Oh boy.
Labour’s position is and should be to protect workers. The problem the federal NDP has had over the last 10-15 years is similar to what the CPC are currently faced with. They are trying to win elections by reaching out to too many groups that feel they have no party instead of focusing on a smaller number of issues that the majority can already get on board with.
I can’t imagine a scenario where the CPC only focused on spending tax dollars wisely(not to say they actually do that but the point remains) or that the NDP focused solely on labour rights(even with the amount of federally regulated workers being heavily outnumbered by the provincially regulated ones) that would not result in a boost in popularity to both parties.
Regardless of their views on any other issues, the NDP(and labour in general) would be in a better position to influence the government for better policy on those issues if they had the broader support of the general public that would come from not trying to pander to special interest voter blocks for support that right or wrong the majority aren’t always on board with.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
If you actually can’t discern between the idea of pushing a policy and being a drug dealer, there’s no intelligent conversation to be had here. Good luck with your preferred choice of leader.
Slava WTF is going in here? I thought that you were only in the business of pushing investment opportunities, now you’re selling drugs?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
If you actually can’t discern between the idea of pushing a policy and being a drug dealer, there’s no intelligent conversation to be had here. Good luck with your preferred choice of leader.
Might be the most insane twisting of someone’s words I’ve ever seen on this crazy website. What a ####ing leap, that made absolutely zero sense.
The Following User Says Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
I figured his point in mentioning being pro-pipeline, pro-solar, etc. was that -- as a labour-focused party -- the NDP should be supportive yet agnostic toward all of them so long as workers are the winners. You wanna do oil pipelines? Great, do Canadians get good paying jobs with good benefits and worker protections? Nuclear, solar, gas -- same questions. And so on.
Don't favour one over the other except where issues of labour come into play.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Typical dumb take.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
TorqueDog I’m gonna be honest, I agree with what you’re saying in principle but I only thanked the post because I though it was funny that a post by TorqueDog was thanked by a poster named Underdog
- Populist with a clear emphasis on combatting conservative propaganda. If they can't get the populist vote, they fail, regardless of the fact that true socialist policies require nuance, the average person does not understand nuance. We've seen that PP's tactics work, and we need a party that will target the PP types with their own level of dumbing down. Because the people the support PP's Verb the Noun are not conservatives, they're just not serious and the NDP is the actual party that fights for them
- Focused on winning rural ridings. And they need to remind people that they were a party of Saskatchewan and Alberta before they were a party of the entire country. A party that represents the farmers, the ranchers, and the people on the Oil Patch too (stuff like 7 on 3 off needs to reward the workers more than it actually does)
- led by someone charismatic and accomplished.
- clear in pushing for Canadian ownership of businesses. Whether that's crown corporations, cooperatives, or increasing regulations on foreign ownership (especially of the media).
- continuing to push good policies like the ones Jagmeet Singh got across the board with Trudeau
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
Last edited by GranteedEV; 11-10-2025 at 12:09 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GranteedEV For This Useful Post:
The pro labour position on the environment would be to maximize employment today by maximizing carbon intensive industries while they are still acceptable while ensuring the country is transitioning to greener industries over time.
Essentially you wouldn’t care about the emissions internally accept as to pay lip service to international trade while at the same time targeting industries for future growth.
You wouldn’t acknowledge climate science but from an emissions rules point of view you wouldn’t acknowledge climate acknowledge that what Canada does doesn’t matter. (I don’t like this position but it is the pro labour one)
So pro-pipeline, pro-solar, pro-nuke, pro-gas, pro-wind.
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 NDP need a total reset to their internal guideposts. Right now they present themselves as the party of fluffy bull####, which is easily twisted to sound worse than it is and distracts from everything else. And it simply does not drive votes (even from people like me who agree in principle with most of that fluffy bull####).
Their platform should be expressed through a household budget, and every policy needs to relate directly back to individual pocketbooks. This will keep them grounded to reality and drop that fluffy bull#### down to a footnote of a sub-bullet point.
INCOME - probably a dozen+ bullet points on job creation/protection, labour standards, worker rights, training/education, etc. (DEI/equality might get touched on tangentially somewhere in here, but it's gotta be in blue collar terms instead of academic language)
EXPENSES
Taxes - low/medium/high income scenarios Housing - lots of meat on this bone, but stay grounded and relate it back to rents/mortgage payments Personal Transportation - car scenario/transit&alternate mode scenarios (climate gets touched on tangentially) Groceries - Clothes & Household Goods - this can be where you talk about tariffs/etc Personal Services - supporting small/local businesses Leisure/Recreation/Tourism -
And work on down to things like banking fees.
Not only is it a clever way to present your platform, but more importantly it should force the party to stay way more grounded than they have been lately. If you can't relate it to a personal budget item and express it with a dollar figure, then maybe it doesn't belong in your platform at all. If you get asked about Israel, you answer that you're focused on Canadian jobs and Canadian COL.
__________________
The UCP are trampling on our rights and freedoms. Donate $200 to Alberta NDP and get $150 back on your taxes
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
