I haven't listened yet. Anything in there about his party's determination to crown him unopposed? Was that at his instigation, or did the executive committee act on their own? Was the party really that scared that he couldn't handle a little competition? That's what I'm interested in hearing about.
That imbroglio was so strange to me. When the attorney general runs for party leadership against someone who has never held public office, they shouldn't need the party to put a thumb on their scales. It should be, "Congratulations, Anjali, on receiving three percent of the vote. I look forward to you running for a party nomination in some unwinnable riding and then I never hear of you again." If there was any risk of the candidate who wasn't the attorney general getting four or more percent of the vote, something's awry in the guy's political operation. I mean, he's a New Democrat, so I use the terms "political" and "operation" loosely.
I've forgotten the year, and the party, but it was definitely Quebec dairy farmers. Party suddenly doubles in size in the few days before a crucial internal vote on policy; the policy, one disadvantageous to Quebec dairy farmers, is decisively overturned. And the party shrinks again. With never any change in the number of volunteers, or show up to meetings with no vote.
Canadian rules allow people with strong views and even a little organization to take over political parties, at least until the enthused lose enthusiasm. It explains a lot of Poilievre's support, and Smith's support.
Ms. Anjali's platform was very similar to the Green Party platform in the previous election, the cancellation of some $50B
Roy, yeah, I understand those dynamics completely - my point is just that an Establishment guy, an attorney general who can clear the field of other cabinet ministers, should have enough political skill to out-dairy-farmer the dairy farmers. You're David Eby and some gadfly signs up a thousand members from a special interest group? You sign up fifty thousand members from fifty special interest groups. If you can't do that, you find a new line of work. I like Eby from what I know of him, but if someone's the Harlem Globetrotters and they don't think they can beat the Washington Generals, I have a concern about their political acuity.
I was pretty involved in the Liberals in the mid-'00s, and I don't remember a single-issue candidate from the Green Party posing a serious threat to Paul Martin's ascension. Now, I'd much rather have leaders who are good at what Eby's good at ("running a government") than leaders who are good at what Martin was good at ("promising to make you a parliamentary secretary"). But still, I shake my head at how that NDP leadership played out. (That said, of course "strategically disqualifying candidates who are ideologically offside" is a play the other parties make too, so maybe I'm being unfair.)
I suspect that the BC NDP have become kind of spoiled. The faults of the Liberals are all still showing up, the pandemic shone a kilowatt-spotlight on them. I really doubt that Eby is within the needed 3 degrees of separation from 50,000 people to get them to come out; his party just doesn't have to campaign hard.
Great discussion, however I’m left feeling more pessimistic than ever on housing, if Eby, being one of our more progressive national figures currently, believes in the same solutions as everyone else: give developers whatever they want.
If housing affordability, and everything connected to it that determines quality of life in this country is to be the issue of a generation, then we’ve already failed.
Ottawa and the provinces are hastily putting plans forward that will waste at least a decade before anyone realizes that you cannot bribe developers or change every building regulation to their liking and get the housing you need. No, they will take those things and thank everyone for the increase to their margins on the exact same luxury condos and 3-5000sqft behemoth houses they were already building. It is madness to think these builds do anything to address the housing and affordability shortage.
Of course we don’t have a decade to waste, and I think most people in power underestimate the damage to the fabric of the country that will ensue.
To me, housing is an issue that cuts across the usual left-right divide. In Vancouver, people are often pessimistic or defeatist about housing. To me it's reasonably straightforward: we have people who want to live and work here, and we have other people who want to build housing for them. The problem is, we make it really hard to get permission. This was also the conclusion of the recent MacPhail Report. morehousing.ca/macphail-report
A striking example: in Kitsilano there's an old two-storey, eight-unit rental building. It was built back in 1972, and it's getting close to the end of its useful life. But under the city's bylaws, it's illegal to replace it with a new building of exactly the same size. The only thing that's legal to build is single-detached houses (about $8M each) or duplexes.
Meanwhile, literally five minutes down the street, the Senakw project is building 59-storey rental high-rises. (The neighbourhood is across a bridge from downtown Vancouver.) The only reason they can do this is that it's on Squamish reserve land, so the city's extremely restrictive zoning does not apply. morehousing.ca/senakw
When we have a severe mismatch between housing and jobs, what happens is that prices and asking rents have to rise to unbearable levels to force people to give up and leave (and to keep people out), so that those who stay match the limited supply of housing. We've become more and more exclusive and expensive, like an exclusive country club.
If we had slightly more housing, we could accommodate people who would (just) be able to afford to live in Vancouver if asking rents were slightly lower. The usual estimate is that asking rents have to rise 2% in order to force 1% of people to leave; equivalently, if we had 1% more housing than we actually do, asking rents would be 2% lower. morehousing.ca/equilibrium
Thanks for this. As a BC'er I i appreciate the focus. Also the comments on energy! Who knew? And... I hope you'll discontinue the ketchup questions entirely. Today's was a more valuable format.
An impressive fella who is obviously on top of all the files! Common sense politics. Too bad it is so rare these days. Can we clone him for Ontario?
I haven't listened yet. Anything in there about his party's determination to crown him unopposed? Was that at his instigation, or did the executive committee act on their own? Was the party really that scared that he couldn't handle a little competition? That's what I'm interested in hearing about.
That imbroglio was so strange to me. When the attorney general runs for party leadership against someone who has never held public office, they shouldn't need the party to put a thumb on their scales. It should be, "Congratulations, Anjali, on receiving three percent of the vote. I look forward to you running for a party nomination in some unwinnable riding and then I never hear of you again." If there was any risk of the candidate who wasn't the attorney general getting four or more percent of the vote, something's awry in the guy's political operation. I mean, he's a New Democrat, so I use the terms "political" and "operation" loosely.
I've forgotten the year, and the party, but it was definitely Quebec dairy farmers. Party suddenly doubles in size in the few days before a crucial internal vote on policy; the policy, one disadvantageous to Quebec dairy farmers, is decisively overturned. And the party shrinks again. With never any change in the number of volunteers, or show up to meetings with no vote.
Canadian rules allow people with strong views and even a little organization to take over political parties, at least until the enthused lose enthusiasm. It explains a lot of Poilievre's support, and Smith's support.
Ms. Anjali's platform was very similar to the Green Party platform in the previous election, the cancellation of some $50B
Roy, yeah, I understand those dynamics completely - my point is just that an Establishment guy, an attorney general who can clear the field of other cabinet ministers, should have enough political skill to out-dairy-farmer the dairy farmers. You're David Eby and some gadfly signs up a thousand members from a special interest group? You sign up fifty thousand members from fifty special interest groups. If you can't do that, you find a new line of work. I like Eby from what I know of him, but if someone's the Harlem Globetrotters and they don't think they can beat the Washington Generals, I have a concern about their political acuity.
I was pretty involved in the Liberals in the mid-'00s, and I don't remember a single-issue candidate from the Green Party posing a serious threat to Paul Martin's ascension. Now, I'd much rather have leaders who are good at what Eby's good at ("running a government") than leaders who are good at what Martin was good at ("promising to make you a parliamentary secretary"). But still, I shake my head at how that NDP leadership played out. (That said, of course "strategically disqualifying candidates who are ideologically offside" is a play the other parties make too, so maybe I'm being unfair.)
I suspect that the BC NDP have become kind of spoiled. The faults of the Liberals are all still showing up, the pandemic shone a kilowatt-spotlight on them. I really doubt that Eby is within the needed 3 degrees of separation from 50,000 people to get them to come out; his party just doesn't have to campaign hard.
Yeah, that's true too! If I recall correctly, he's relatively new to the business and may just not have had to develop those muscles yet.
Great discussion, however I’m left feeling more pessimistic than ever on housing, if Eby, being one of our more progressive national figures currently, believes in the same solutions as everyone else: give developers whatever they want.
If housing affordability, and everything connected to it that determines quality of life in this country is to be the issue of a generation, then we’ve already failed.
Ottawa and the provinces are hastily putting plans forward that will waste at least a decade before anyone realizes that you cannot bribe developers or change every building regulation to their liking and get the housing you need. No, they will take those things and thank everyone for the increase to their margins on the exact same luxury condos and 3-5000sqft behemoth houses they were already building. It is madness to think these builds do anything to address the housing and affordability shortage.
Of course we don’t have a decade to waste, and I think most people in power underestimate the damage to the fabric of the country that will ensue.
I take it you're not a fan of the National Housing Accord proposal? morehousing.ca/national-housing-accord
To me, housing is an issue that cuts across the usual left-right divide. In Vancouver, people are often pessimistic or defeatist about housing. To me it's reasonably straightforward: we have people who want to live and work here, and we have other people who want to build housing for them. The problem is, we make it really hard to get permission. This was also the conclusion of the recent MacPhail Report. morehousing.ca/macphail-report
A striking example: in Kitsilano there's an old two-storey, eight-unit rental building. It was built back in 1972, and it's getting close to the end of its useful life. But under the city's bylaws, it's illegal to replace it with a new building of exactly the same size. The only thing that's legal to build is single-detached houses (about $8M each) or duplexes.
Meanwhile, literally five minutes down the street, the Senakw project is building 59-storey rental high-rises. (The neighbourhood is across a bridge from downtown Vancouver.) The only reason they can do this is that it's on Squamish reserve land, so the city's extremely restrictive zoning does not apply. morehousing.ca/senakw
When we have a severe mismatch between housing and jobs, what happens is that prices and asking rents have to rise to unbearable levels to force people to give up and leave (and to keep people out), so that those who stay match the limited supply of housing. We've become more and more exclusive and expensive, like an exclusive country club.
If we had slightly more housing, we could accommodate people who would (just) be able to afford to live in Vancouver if asking rents were slightly lower. The usual estimate is that asking rents have to rise 2% in order to force 1% of people to leave; equivalently, if we had 1% more housing than we actually do, asking rents would be 2% lower. morehousing.ca/equilibrium
Thanks for this. As a BC'er I i appreciate the focus. Also the comments on energy! Who knew? And... I hope you'll discontinue the ketchup questions entirely. Today's was a more valuable format.
Very much enjoying these interviews and your ability to manage them!
He looks like a guy from Pavement so the indie rock band was definitely worth a shot.
Thank you.......
I learn in these non partisan podcast !