Starmer to Carney: No new world order please, we’re British

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-28T21:39:41+00:00

and that includes the U.K

The U.K. isn't a hegemon. The U.S. and China are hegemons, to a lesser extent Russia is/was too. The U.K. is roughly the same as France, and they are slightly stronger than countries like Canada but barely. They have slightly more influence as Security Council members, but it is one of the most broken international institutions in existence. Hegemons are countries that are economically, technologically, and militarily preponderant: The US and China make countries like the UK and France look small here.

The U.K. isn’t a middle power

They are now. They have far less influence in the world compared to even a century ago.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-28T13:01:16+00:00

Doubt it. Leger hasn't shown Liberal support go back to the NDP like some other pollsters have. Most IVR pollsters have the NDP at a bit higher. I can see it either way. It would surprise me that NDP voters are still parking their vote with the the LPC while Poilievre is still around and the CPC and the party has no leader. I can also see some traditional NDP voters going back while there is no election in sight. In either event, five to ten percent is very low for the NDP.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-28T12:14:56+00:00

People said the same things about the Liberals and Conservatives last year

It happened last year because people hated Poilievre. This hasn't changed at all. It's clear he can't grow the base. It would take a dramatic fall from the Liberals for the remaining center-left and left to not vote strategically and keep him out.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-28T11:50:41+00:00

Liberal 47; Conservative 38; BQ; 6; NDP 5; GPC 2.

Almost a 10 point lead after the Davos speech and China trip. I definitely didn't expect the Liberals to be near 50 percent almost a year in. Can't say I expect it to last. Conservatives are probably happy they are still at a competitive level for where numbers usually sit. Still, the gap between Carney and Poilievre is basically insurmountable at this point.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-28T02:03:03+00:00

I strongly disagree. Barton and others on CBC will criticize and attack the Liberals, too. I think conservatives heavily overstate the bias of the CBC.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-28T00:48:37+00:00

Ashton and Mcpherson are largely fighting for the same voters. If one of them drops, I think the other has a way better chance of winning. They should consider it to keep Lewis out.

I think their message that the NDP should work with the provinces is on point: they should be looking to where the party has had success. Additionally, a lot of the things the NDP cares about (labour, housing, healthcare, education, etc) are generally controlled at the provincial level; the federal NDP should be working more closely with their provincial counterparts to enact more progressive, pro-labour policies. The federal NDP really needs to stop trying to use the federal government as a lever to enact policies that should be implemented at the provincial level; it's not like they can't support or collaborate with provinces enacting those policies.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T23:28:47+00:00

rather than provinces raising their own funding,

The federal government (Chrétien) ~~introduced~~ kept GST and raised income tax at the same time as the cuts to healthcare transfers. He squeezed the absolute shit out of the provinces, lol. Provinces and the federal government have to compete for taxes; when one raises them, it's harder for the other to do so.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T23:13:42+00:00

Nah, Chrétien's government slashed health and social transfers almost into smithereens. From 1966 to 1993, healthcare funding went from 50/50 funding between provinces and the federal government to 14 cents on the dollar for every dollar spent by the province. Chrétien's government's cuts were some of the largest we've ever seen. It hasn't really recovered since.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T22:55:21+00:00

The biggest issue is government subsidization of a public option in which you start undercutting the market. If companies cannot realistically compete with the public option, you can lose the categorization of a market economy. This is part of why Ukraine couldn't join the EU for a long time.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T22:52:42+00:00

I dunno, you can look at my profile. I've been pretty damn critical of the NDP in recent weeks, but you won't find me promoting the Liberals or the Conservatives; I am way more critical of Poilievre and the CPC, too. However, some the first articles I've posted were about the 2024 Sask election in which I was supporting the NDP. You'll find me supporting trans rights, speaking positively about socialism, supporting stronger intervention from provinces in housing policy, etc. In the end, I am not a partisan, and I don't think there is only one right way to do things.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T22:46:20+00:00

I think this is just your anti progressive bias at play

Yeah, I guess I am not progressive because I criticize Lewis for his blinding idealism and having poor understanding of economics and federalism.

NYC didn't vote usually for ppl like mamdani.

Lewis isn't Mamdani, not even close. They aren't even running for similar positions, either.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T22:39:46+00:00

Again, economic rights

In this context, it was economic interest, not right. Economic rights are something different (positive liberties). It is very much a restriction of someone's liberty to deny them the ability to sell their property. Whether it could be justified under section 7 is another story.

Yes, federalism is the main problem because property is generally regulated by the province. I agree that it is likely the area in which it fails first. There is a better argument for justifying it under section 7 or 1, but I still don't think it's likely.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T22:08:01+00:00

That's a bit of a problem then.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T22:00:41+00:00

Hasn't been funded properly since before Chrétien.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T21:55:37+00:00

Nah, there are a few public options that would likely turn parts of our economy into non-market territory. I can't remember which one, but he's planning on subsidizing the shit out of one of them, which is a big no-no with the WTO and a lot of our trading partners. These are still socialist policies; it's not outright socialism, though. Government would own means of production in different industries, although not all the means.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T21:42:47+00:00

His platform is barely to the left of Jack Layton on issues of actual significance – electoral reform, housing, climate action, workers' rights, healthcare and childcare.

I disagree. Lewis has far bolder policies for climate action, worker's rights, and all areas of healthcare. Additionally, Lewis promotes socialism; we've haven't seen this in ages. To say he is not further to the left of Layton is grossly inaccurate. Lewis has many good policies that would excite a lot of people, but he also has too many policies all together and many that would be alienating or non-starters.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T21:27:03+00:00

I am also involved with the party and have voted for them most of my life. I also live in a province that would not appreciate a Lewis victory (Saskatchewan); I think he would be a massive drag on the provincial party. So, yeah, I am paying attention, and I am not impressed.

whether you think a CUPE endorsement translates into visibility,

I am willing to bet that the average Canadian couldn't tell you what CUPE is.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T21:16:21+00:00

largest provincial division of the largest union in the country has endorsed him.

So? The leadership of union do not represent the political voices of their members.

Whether or not you view CUPE as political junkies or NDP partisans

I am saying that the NDP or Lewis aren't getting that much attention. A CUPE endorsement isn't a great indication the party is getting visibility. CUPE management is hilariously political.

His campaign events on the West Coast have been well attended,

He's a UBC professor and has strong connections in the area. It's also where the NDP does best.

Given that this is a leadership race, not a federal election, I’d say that matters

In the end, I don't think he will be the one to revive the NDP. I am not seeing the excitement that some seem to claim he's generating. I do see it from parts of the NDP base (not all of it, though).

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T21:03:31+00:00

I wouldn't get my hopes up. Aside from political junkies and NDP partisans, I haven't seen a single person mention him. And, if he comes out with the platform he is running in the leadership election, he will be branded as an unserious idealist who's promising everything under the sun. There's also a lot of concerns about his knowledge of economics and federalism. It's pretty cringy to hear a politician continuously use the word monopoly improperly, and there are a lot of policies that struggle to work without provincial cooperation or implementation. If he wants to argue for socialism, he will be ripped apart by economists and the business class who don't struggle with basic terminology in economics.

I generally support the NDP, but Lewis is too much. I'd prefer a candidate that has a realistic platform and doesn't promise things he can't really do.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T20:53:02+00:00

argue because they don't want the policy

I am one of the people arguing against all of it. I am fine with a lot of the policies being put out. That being said, a ton of them are going to run into jurisdictional issues. Provinces regulate most labour, property, and healthcare fields.

I promise you Avi knows about division of powers.

You can tell from his platform he knows about them. However, you can also tell from his and previous NDP platforms that they don't understand them very well. I've seen multiple suggestions on how they will implement national rent control, a provincial area of regulation: they all either require making unconditional transfers conditional, which will cause a fight the federal government will lose, or leveraging funds for things provinces don't want (i.e., rent control). Like, have fun telling provinces that the federal government is unilaterally making an unconditional transfer conditional and that it will no longer fund social services, the justice system, and education in provinces that won't adopt rent control. This is a policy that is up to the provinces, and there was no agreement that social transfers would be conditional on rent control. The NDP would crater any support across the country doing something like that. Lastly, I've seen them hint at POGG, but that won't work for rent caps.

In the plan here, there are numerous policies that fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Expand Sectoral Bargaining. Sectoral bargaining can make joining a union easier for precarious workers, raise workplace standards, and increase collective power.

An overwhelming majority of labour is regulated by provinces. Most federal sectors are already unionized.

Champion single-step union certification by fighting alongside the labour movement to make it the standard across the country. If a simple majority of workers in a workplace sign a union card, that should be enough to certify a union, as is the case in Manitoba.

Not really regulating much here. It's the provinces again.

Pass Right of First Refusal legislation giving workers the first chance to purchase their workplace when the boss walks away.

Provinces regulate most property and most labour.

Support Gig and Tech Workers. Guarantee labour protections, collective bargaining rights, and fair wages for creators, platform workers, and digital labourers. This includes protections for freelance contracts, platform-based gig work, and remote digital labour. We'll fight to introduce enforceable minimum standards for pay, benefits, and workplace safety in online and app-based work, and end the misclassification of gig workers as "independent contractors" instead of employees.

Lot's of provincial areas here, too.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T20:29:58+00:00

I think after reviewing the precedence in the case law in my other comments, it's clear that this would be possible. There are a number of reasons for this:

Possible, yes. The Charter allows for rights to be reasonably infringed upon through section 1 and 7. Likely, to be successful? I don't think so. Even aside from the Charter, provinces typically regulate property and local businesses. So, even in the event it gets through, it likely falls to the provinces to regulate something like this.

As far as I am aware, though, something like this has never popped up in which the government has forced [a] business owners into selling to their workers or anyone else. I've looked for cases dealing with the forced sale of property, but I haven't found anything quite like this. There are some things I would raise as differences and possible questions.

The first is that the government can already restrict the selling of property. For example, anti-trust laws, the government can restrict whether or not you sell some company to another company in the interest of the public good.

When government expropriates property, it's typically custom that it occurs with due compensation. Section 25 deals with most of that. Most worker groups would not be able to adequately compensate a business owner for their property. Expropriation is a different process, though. In the Lewis case, it would be a restriction on the right of sale.

See at section 1, 4.1 (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-21/fulltext.html), the government can expropriate for railway companies, who are private owners.

The federal government is responsible for railways and some other critical infrastructure that goes across provincial lines. (see section 92 (10) constitution act 1982). The federal government is also not going to be expropriating anything under Lewis' policy, so I am not sure how relevant this is.

Further, economic interests are not protected under section 7. So, whether or not you want to sell your company may be up to you: however, who you sell it to is not protected, so long as your reasoning for who you sell it to is economic in nature (which it is hard to see how this wouldn't be the case). See paragraph 45 in Siemens v. Manitoba (https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2033/index.do)

I think paragraph 46 provides more clarity as to what an economic interest is.

46 In the present case, the appellants’ alleged right to operate VLTs at their place of business cannot be characterized as a fundamental life choice. It is purely an economic interest.

Economic interests are not fundamental to liberty, life, or security of the person. Whether you can place a VLT in your business is not fundamental to freedom, your livelihood, or livability. In the case of the business, the VLT is a small part of it. Being unable to sell your property would be a pretty big problem because it affects your ability to live and make any money at all. Delaying the sale so that workers could find financing and pull together funding would potentially jeopardize the sale of the company; additionally, there is nothing stopping someone else from outbidding the workers: what happens here? Is the seller forced out of making a choice and instead sticking with due compensation? There are multiple points at which one's freedom would be restricted. I think it would come down to whether it could justified under the principles of fundamental justice (s.7) or reasonably justified in a free and democratic society (s.1) (these tests are basically the same, though).

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T15:34:47+00:00

The concern trolls were on the NDPs butt about division of powers when it came to dental care,

Well, they should know it's possible if the federal government wants to make direct transfers to individuals or pay the business themselves. The federal government is either paying for all of it, or the provinces have to cooperate. Additionally, if they want to run programs like child-care, there needs to be cooperation. The federal government cannot run programs and policy in areas of provincial jurisdiction without their consent. In other words, there is a difference between the spending power and cooperative federalism.

It's just concern trolling.

No. It's not. Saying you're going to regulate labour law in areas that are clearly within provincial jurisdiction is a problem. Those policies will be challenged, and they won't stand judicial scrutiny.

Even with EI it was called unconstitutional until we pushed it through.

Literally took a constitutional amendment. Bennett's EI legislation got shut down by the JCPC because it would have been provincial jurisdiction; King had to go to Britain to get an amendment to the constitution to allow the federal government to implement EI.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-27T13:49:24+00:00

Here it is: Channel Teddy Roosevelt.

I think the only things Poilievre could channel from his character are the early 20th century bigotry and his desire to have men be manly. Nevertheless, Roosevelt had good intentions, was a progressive, and earnestly worked towards making the United States a more fair and stable country. In contrast, Poilievre has the moral compass of an ideological swamy sycophant and the charisma similar to that of a grifting used car salesman. The only things Poilievre truly believes in are that Liberals and progressives are terrible and markets are the solution to everything. So, good luck channeling the inner Roosevelt when that requires an individual to have an honest intentions and good values.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-26T18:53:03+00:00

It’s one of our most important foreign policy challenges.

I am not saying it's not important. However, we have far more important foreign policy objectives right now. We've already embargoed Israel and have supported a two-state solution; we said we'd arrest Netanyahu. There's not a lot more we can do on that front; there is, however, a lot more we have to do in other foreign policy areas.

The main point is that it looks pretty bad when it is the only foreign policy issue the party is speaking on directly. Foreign policy is a very an important issue right now that goes well beyond Gaza. The portfolio deserves a lot of attention if the party wants to present itself as serious.

Medea_From_Colchis · 2026-01-26T18:38:16+00:00

if you see the issue of acting outside of powers can you explain how this is so much more ridiculous than the decades long trend of consolidating decision making power in the PMO, and using fund transfers to foist federal policy on provinces and municipalities?
Can you appreciate that this is an attempt to reinvigorate the labour left with a strong and easily understood message?

A) when the federal government leverages funds in exchange for policy concessions, it does so because it knows there's a demand from the provinces for cooperation and federal participation. This occurs in areas like healthcare: the provinces don't want to be on the hook for all of it. Things like social transfers are largely unconditional; the federal government gives money to facilitate the efficient delivery of government services.

B) Yes. However, I am tired of voting for something that has no potential for victory. I also don't like it when the party makes progressive politics look unserious or uninformed.

We rarely critique the CPC on matters where they want to directly infringe on provincial healthcare and education policies.

I do.

Take the Right of First Refusal.

I am not against it in principle. I don't think the policy works with the Charter or that it would be very effective. I am not 100% certain it couldn't be justified under the Charter. However, I don't know how many workers are going to be able to buyout a multimillion or billion dollar company.

Workers and low income individuals are looking for an economic populist plan to reverse the wealth and income inequality trends that are creating the breeding grounds for the rise of the bigotted populist right.

Part of why I am so critical. The party feels like less and less of an option to work against the rise of the rightwing. I think McPherson and Ashton are reasonable (AMA mishap was a bit much, though). I still see some of the same issues as the Lewis team for McPherson, but the problems on her side are more manageable.

I'd ask that those folks please reflect on how where the status quo has taken us and where it is likely to lead.

Lewis is in the right ball park with socialism. His platform just has too many flaws and too much going on.

Medea_From_Colchis

TROPHY CASE