Federal NDP Leadership Race - What do you want out of Canada's progressive party?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It could be at the retail customer-facing level after the taxpayer has heavily subsidized it. In which case it's just an elaborate and inefficient wealth transfer mechanism. In practicality that's what's really being proposed. Pretending otherwise is extremely wishful / naive thinking ala Slava's 'Abolish the stock market' post in prior pages. If you understand / have worked in the grocery business or food supply chain, it would be painfully obvious that the gross margins are very thin relative to other industries and it's not very likely that there's a role to play by government that reduces costs, while also accomplishing a bunch of sub-commercial goals such as ensuring local supply, increasing quality, paying higher wages to employees, opening stores in sub-optimal locations from a demand perspective, subsidizing remote region food prices, etc.

There is already a wealth transfer happening. Right now all of your money is going into the pockets of private corporation CEOs and their shareholders as they are making record profits.

Industry-wide, food retail profits have more than doubled from levels typical before COVID. Food retailers earned net income of almost $6 billion in 2022, compared to $2.4 billion in 2019, and an average of $1.8 billion per year in the five years before COVID. In the first nine months of 2023, food retailers earned $4.6 billion; year-total profits for 2023 at that rate will exceed $6 billion.

This is happening with your food, your insurance, your electricity (and more). If you are happy bending over and being pillaged by corporations then good for you. I think it is bull#### and needs to stop.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

You're talking past the issue, though. No one is "happy bending over and being pillaged by corporations". The concern is that what are offering as a solution has a low probability of actually helping the situation while a not insignificant change of ending up being an utter clusterf***, and then you're no better off on your food budget but stuck with higher taxes to fund a boondoggle.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

There is a time where new Technologies and methods don't return enough to the private sector that there is value in having the Government take on those initiatives to get the fly wheel spinning so to speak. But I think the answer to food prices would be in more competition as opposed to bureaucrats taking it over. The only place the Government should have in the food sector would be in trying out new technologies to help produce or harvest food.

We have 5 major food corporations right now and they just had their hands slapped for fixing prices. You think a 6th player in the market would stop that?

That is what the Liberals are advocating.

I think that solution will fail in the exact same way that the current market is failing because that 6th private corporation is motivated the exact same ways as the other 5. They want profits and there is no reason for them to behave differently than the existing corporations.

If you want something to change you cannot add more of the same.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Wolven

They are putting lead in your food to make it heavier so they can make more profit.

Who are these companies that are putting lead in food with an end result of increasing profits?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You're talking past the issue, though. No one is "happy bending over and being pillaged by corporations". The concern is that what are offering as a solution has a low probability of actually helping the situation while a not insignificant change of ending up being an utter clusterf***, and then you're no better off on your food budget but stuck with higher taxes to fund a boondoggle.

I'm not. We just are not agreeing on the outcome.

You've already decided that the solution will fail because.... it must fail?

I've decided it can succeed and that there are much larger opportunities for benefits than just opening a public grocery store.

The biggest risk is that whatever government implements the solution would need to stay in power for a couple of terms to allow it enough runway to mature. Otherwise some corporatist party would come in with a sledgehammer and break it immediately so that their corporate friends can get back to pillaging us for profits.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Who are these companies that are putting lead in food with an end result of increasing profits?

You can use a search engine as well as anyone else. Here is 30 seconds of effort...

Baby food: Some Kids’ Fruit Purée Pouches Have Concerning Lead Levels, CR's Tests Find

Protein Powder: Protein Powders and Shakes Contain High Levels of Lead

[Locke]

Naw man...you're doing this all wrong! First you have to seize the means of production and then control distribution!

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Locke

Naw man...you're doing this all wrong! First you have to seize the means of production and then control distribution!

Sure, I'm down. But if we are going all french revolution about it, I think we only really need to lob the heads off of the CEOs and upper executives and then seize the corporate owned farm lands to return them to the people.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I'm not. We just are not agreeing on the outcome.

You've already decided that the solution will fail because.... it must fail?

I haven't decided anything. You're proposing something that involves a massive undertaking to accomplish, nationwide, if it were to work, and I am unconvinced that it makes sense because you haven't given me any reason to think it would. I would therefore not vote for it, and neither would 90% of the country.

I don't agree with Cowboy89 on much, ultimately, but this strikes me as pretty much correct:

If you understand / have worked in the grocery business or food supply chain, it would be painfully obvious that the gross margins are very thin relative to other industries and it's not very likely that there's a role to play by government that reduces costs, while also accomplishing a bunch of sub-commercial goals such as ensuring local supply, increasing quality, paying higher wages to employees, opening stores in sub-optimal locations from a demand perspective, subsidizing remote region food prices, etc.

In essence, this is like a quintessential example of why the NDP has relegated itself to irrelevance. Propose something pie-in-the-sky that sounds enormously impractical, and when someone points out that it's impractical and there's a whole bunch of problems that would need to be sorted out beforehand for which no obvious solutions are forthcoming, accuse them of being corporate shills "bending over" for capitalist overlords while casting yourself as enlightened economic revolutionaries. And no votes are gained and nothing of value is accomplished.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I'm not. We just are not agreeing on the outcome.

You've already decided that the solution will fail because.... it must fail?

I've decided it can succeed and that there are much larger opportunities for benefits than just opening a public grocery store.

The biggest risk is that whatever government implements the solution would need to stay in power for a couple of terms to allow it enough runway to mature. Otherwise some corporatist party would come in with a sledgehammer and break it immediately so that their corporate friends can get back to pillaging us for profits.

I guess my question to you is where do you see the benefits coming from?

Empire Co (owner of Safeway and Sobeys) had sales of $31.4 billion and profits of $700 MM in the trailing twelve month period. So if your baseline is the government coule be as efficient as the private sector and could operate with zero profits you could drop food prices 2.2%.

Of course, they've invested ~$12 billion in property, plant and equipment to get that result, so to duplicate the real estate base you have to spend all that money first (and probably much more - not that likely their real estate has gone down in value...)

If you just want to subsidize people with tax dollars you can do that, but then why spend tens of billions setting up infrastructure - just use direct deposit.

And of course, the government isn't going to do all those bad things to boost profits, so the savings will be smaller. Then you have the cost of bureaucratic oversight and less aggressively negotiated labour contracts. Hard to see there being any savings at all.

[Doctorfever]

One of the main reasons why grocery prices have risen so much under the Liberal government is inflation. Let’s look to curb inflation, rather than spend our way to cheaper food. The government spending billions to get into the grocery store game will likely cause food prices to rise more due to inflation, far outpacing any “cheap” groceries that we think these stores will provide. Unless these stores will all operate at huge losses.

But, go for it if you like! I don’t think it brings the votes to the NDP that you would hope.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Wolven

So while you are putting a lot of work into tearing down my current favourite (even if your facts are not that great), perhaps you could instead talk about what you would rather see to build the party up? Who is the leader that you would support? Would you vote for Heather McPherson because she is from Alberta and has Notley's endorsement? Here is her kickoff video to round out the 3 front runners.

Since you are asking directly, Rob Ashton is the clear and obvious leader if you want to go to a predominantly pro labour party again. Being a union leader pretty much his whole life with ILWU, he is the epitome pro labour leader.

Unfortunately, this is precisely why he won't be elected. He's coming out of nowhere and hasn't been engaged in the NDP party nearly as much as other front runners. He was a very harsh critic of Singh's allegiance to Trudeau in the supply and confidence deal.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp...ling-1.7465485

"The NDP, federally, is in really bad shape," said Rob Ashton, a British Columbia labour leader who is part of the broader union movement that traditionally backs New Democrats nationwide.

"It's pretty bad when workers of this country start running towards the Conservative Party."

Heck, the NDP complete implosion is one of the reasons he seems to be running, to get it back to what it should be doing, protecting workers locally and nationally instead of taking sides on global issues or on identity politics and segregating its own party. Unlike other want to be politicians, he has only recently gotten a Blue Sky account, preferring to use X until he started running and was likely told about Blue Sky. He's a worker's man who has spent his time on the field devoting his whole life to socialism and workers, unlike champagne socialists that plague the party.


Ashton is who they need, but that's precisely why it won't be him as the NDP leadership doesn't want what it needs, it wants someone to tell others how to think while also requiring a purity test to be considered part of the collective (which Ashton does not fit).

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...mp/ar-AA1NHkJA

McPherson said at her Edmonton campaign launch on Sunday that the NDP needed to get back to its founding ideal of helping all Canadians to move forward.

“We need to stop shrinking into some sort of purity test, we need to stop pushing people away and we need to invite people in,” said McPherson.

But Winnipeg NDP MP Leah Gazan said that McPherson’s use of the term “purity test” was a not too subtle cue for party activists from equity seeking groups to quiet down.

“When I hear a leadership candidate suggest that you have to pass a ‘purity test’ to fit into the NDP, I am appalled and deeply disappointed. That framing is frequently used to dismiss calls for justice from marginalized communities — especially Black, Indigenous, racialized, 2SLGBTQ+, disabled, and immigrant workers — who now make up a major part of the labour movement and the working class,” wrote Gazan, in a lengthy social media post on Monday evening.

Gazan, who is of mixed Lakota, Chinese and Jewish ancestry, called McPherson’s rhetoric a tacit “ justification for white supremacy” that “centres the comfort” of “white, male, and able-bodied workers” over social justice.

“Rejecting so-called ‘purity tests’ isn’t about broadening the movement — it’s about narrowing it back to those who have always held power within it,” wrote Gazan.

5% in the polls is apparently too high for them and they will virtue signal their way to 1% if it means they can be right, workers issues be dammed.

Hot take, I don't think they survive the next election, their self-fulfilling egos are too high (similar to how the Green party pretty much imploded over identity politics and Gaza)

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I haven't decided anything. You're proposing something that involves a massive undertaking to accomplish, nationwide, if it were to work, and I am unconvinced that it makes sense because you haven't given me any reason to think it would. I would therefore not vote for it, and neither would 90% of the country.

I don't agree with Cowboy89 on much, ultimately, but this strikes me as pretty much correct:


In essence, this is like a quintessential example of why the NDP has relegated itself to irrelevance. Propose something pie-in-the-sky that sounds enormously impractical, and when someone points out that it's impractical and there's a whole bunch of problems that would need to be sorted out beforehand for which no obvious solutions are forthcoming, accuse them of being corporate shills "bending over" for capitalist overlords while casting yourself as enlightened economic revolutionaries. And no votes are gained and nothing of value is accomplished.

I mean, I linked an article that refutes the claim that food retail is not gauging us. Food Retail Profits have more than doubled since COVID.

Between 2017-2019 their net income was between $2B-3B per year. In 2023 their net income went over $6B. Considering how small our national population is, transferring $6B per year out of the population of Canada is a big number for something as universally essential as food.

Considering how quickly that accelerated, I do not think it is unreasonable to believe that we could get back to 2019+20%, which would be a big step up from 2019 numbers but 20% revenue increase over 6 years is still a big increase. Even if we could just reign that market in at $4B, it would be an unreasonable jump from the 2019 numbers but a 30% savings on where they got to in 2023.

Think about the teacher situation for a second, people were freaking out about teachers wanting a 12% raise over 4 years. The Food Retail market took a 100% raise over 4 years.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That is just... not at all a response to the points that were being raised. I think the problem here is we are speaking entirely different languages. Maybe Bizaro86's post is a better framing?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I've decided it can succeed and that there are much larger opportunities for benefits than just opening a public grocery store.

The biggest risk is that whatever government implements the solution would need to stay in power for a couple of terms to allow it enough runway to mature. Otherwise some corporatist party would come in with a sledgehammer and break it immediately so that their corporate friends can get back to pillaging us for profits.

I think an arms length crown corporation public grocer is a great idea.

A: We don't have enough competition in this country amoungst grocers
B: It would provide public confidence that grocers aren't... say... colluding to fix the price of bread.
C: Galen Weston isn't exactly hurting for dough (literally and figuratively)... they all make billions in profit yearly so it's not like there isn't a business case for it if you're willing to eat the start-up costs and I'm perfectly content with taxpayers getting a slice of those profits.
D: Even if they do privatize it down the road so long as they sell it to a Kroger or an Aldi it's still a net positive because that's more competition.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I think an arms length crown corporation public grocer is a great idea.

A: We don't have enough competition in this country amoungst grocers
B: It would provide public confidence that grocers aren't... say... colluding to fix the price of bread.
C: Galen Weston isn't exactly hurting for dough (literally and figuratively)... they all make billions in profit yearly so it's not like there isn't a business case for it if you're willing to eat the start-up costs and I'm perfectly content with taxpayers getting a slice of those profits.
D: Even if they do privatize it down the road so long as they sell it to a Kroger or an Aldi it's still a net positive because that's more competition.

I had a thought about the start-up costs too. The Federal Government already has grant and loan programs to help with home building, specifically high-density apartment buildings where there needs to be a commitment to keep the units as rental property for 10 years as affordable housing.

While they are building these apartment buildings, they could build the public grocery store on the ground level. Westbrook patch of dirt could become a 6 tower development with a public grocery store to anchor the retail.

Having the synergy between the two projects would help with the housing crisis and the affordability crisis at the same time.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I guess my question to you is where do you see the benefits coming from?

Empire Co (owner of Safeway and Sobeys) had sales of $31.4 billion and profits of $700 MM in the trailing twelve month period. So if your baseline is the government coule be as efficient as the private sector and could operate with zero profits you could drop food prices 2.2%.

Of course, they've invested ~$12 billion in property, plant and equipment to get that result, so to duplicate the real estate base you have to spend all that money first (and probably much more - not that likely their real estate has gone down in value...)

If you just want to subsidize people with tax dollars you can do that, but then why spend tens of billions setting up infrastructure - just use direct deposit.

And of course, the government isn't going to do all those bad things to boost profits, so the savings will be smaller. Then you have the cost of bureaucratic oversight and less aggressively negotiated labour contracts. Hard to see there being any savings at all.

In my opinion, we need to expand the scope beyond just the grocery stores.

1) You would also be looking at food distribution. Sysco, Gordon Food, etc. Loblaw and Empire have their own distribution networks
2) You need to look at food sources. Address issues at the farm where corporations are putting patents on GM seeds to ensure that farmers need to buy from them or get sued.
3) Integration with other services. We have food services in schools and hospitals, instead of having private companies add more layers of cost you could have food move straight from the public food distributor to the public schools and hospitals.

You could even integrate into post-secondary education. SAIT already has their chef program where they cook food in class and then sell that food to people. There could be great opportunities to expand that and provide post-secondary training and internships for food distribution, cooking prepared meals to sell at endpoints (stores, schools, hospitals). You could even integrate agriculture education into the farms that the public system signs contracts with.

I think there is a lot of opportunity beyond just a public grocery store, which makes sense considering the Food Retail Net Income went up to over $6B when it was $~2.4B in 2019. $3B increase in annual net income over 5 years sounds like a huge opportunity to reduce costs.

The real estate investment is no joke but with the Safeway - Sobeys merger there are grocery stores available to buy and as I mentioned in my other post, you could incentivize apartment/condo builders to create public grocery stores within their builds if they are using the public loan/grant program to fund their project.

The investment may be significant but its not like food is going to stop being important to people.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by RandyHolt

If we want better services, you can increase the percentage the top pay, but you have to increase the percentage the middle class pays as well. Since this isn't a popular political position given the increased cost of living, we're likely stuck with the services that we currently have.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=1110005501

If you could run a robust public welfare state just by taxing the wealthy, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland wouldn’t have 20-25 per cent sales tax rates and higher income taxes than Canada at every income level.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That is just... not at all a response to the points that were being raised. I think the problem here is we are speaking entirely different languages. Maybe Bizaro86's post is a better framing?

Maybe you just need to push your point a little more.

Making an argument based on numbers only because they sound big is pointless without context. Woven got close here:

In 2023 their net income went over $6B. Considering how small our national population is

Yes, 6 billion is a big number but when you look at it as the entire profit for an entire industry of a nation, it feels less so. And when you neglect to do the difficult math like $6B for a population of 40mm, the $150 in annual profits per person really doesn't seem like that much...

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Since you are asking directly, Rob Ashton is the clear and obvious leader if you want to go to a predominantly pro labour party again. Being a union leader pretty much his whole life with ILWU, he is the epitome pro labour leader.

Would you join the party to vote for him?
If he were the leader, would you vote for the NDP in a general election?

My hot take is that this race is likely to come down to Rob v. Avi and I think either way you are upgrading on Singh (who was already an upgrade on Muclair). I am super curious how Rob's platform will look as he starts to release it.

I am more of a populist than a pro-labour person. They are similar concepts but I think populism is a broader umbrella because you are looking at both inside and outside of working. Or if you like venn diagrams, I think the Pro-Labour circle would be inside the populist circle:
- Pro-labour = Workers vs. Owners = focus on workers rights and supporting workers against the owners in the workplace
- Populist = People vs. Elites = focus on people's rights and supporting the people against the elites in all facets of society

Some of my key issues that I would want tackled:

1. Electoral Reform - We need to get out of the FPTP system and while the Liberals and Conservatives have been making promises for the last 70 years, neither have delivered in their various times in power because they want to maintain their multi-party system that acts like a 2 party system.
2. AI legislation - We need to put taxes on AI as automation and AI continues to replace workers and with those taxes stand up a Universal Basic Income (and a more aggressive re-skilling program). This is linked to jobs and the economy but it is very specific as AI is just starting to disrupt markets. Autonomous Driving will be a massive example of jobs disappearing.
3. Affordability Crisis - We need to get essential costs under control (Housing & home building, Food, Utilities & Telecom, Insurance) and if the market is failing Canadians then we should look at standing up public options for each
4. Independence from the US - We need to nationalize key industries and protect our country (no foreign land ownership, no foreign news outlet ownership, no foreign AI, etc)
5. Energy transition and innovation - Canada should be a leader in the energy innovation and transition, not a resistor

I think Rob could land on the right side of most of these issues but we'll have to get to know him more first . Listening to a couple of Avi's interviews, he has already called out a few of my big issues and has proposed solutions that I think are good.

Most of the criticism I am hearing from the guys who hate Avi in this thread is fluffy. A lot of focus on what he drinks which drowns out the few points about his policy proposals. To me, if Avi were to deliver electoral reform, I could forgive him for enjoying Lattes over black cups of coffee. However, I admit I have a lot more I need to learn about him as I wasn't aware of his opinion of the A-NDP.

Then, when I see the american-owned national post attacking Avi, it actually makes me think higher of him. The speed in which they are trying to link Avi to Singh is almost as fast as they moved to make Carney into the same person as Trudeau. It makes me wonder why they would bother to take the time to attack him and none of the other NDP leadership candidates.