The Manitoba Provincial Politics Discussion

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Interesting, when I travelled in former Soviet bloc countries close to a decade ago I did notice liquor sales were all private and most alcohol was sold in grocery stores like every other food and drink product!

The need for govt. to control liquor is archaic, taxes on liquor sales still go to govt. Brainwashed left wing thinking here holds Manitoba back!

Not sure if it was left-wing thinking that put us in this position today, but nonetheless, it would be pretty nice if we adopted a more European attitude (heck even American attitude) towards the sale of liquor. Step 1: don't tax the everliving shit out of alcohol (maybe, maybe some taxes on the hard stuff, but wine and beer, no f-ing way we should be paying the amount we pay) Step 2: allow private sale without limiting it to designated liquor stores, Step 3: Allow people to enjoy a beer at the park or in public places (I know how scary this sounds to some people, but it works fine in other countries) --> I don't understand what is to be gained by being so restrictive about this. It's not like other laws cease to apply just because you have a drink in your hand. Take care of the genuine trouble makers, let everyone else enjoy what little there is to enjoy about this godforsaken world lol

[P&M40BELOW]

Retail liquor. Of course the government makes money. However they could make more by allowing the private sector to operate it. The public would get better selection, better service and better pricing. If you believe that the government should control the means of distribution then why not have them distribute retail gas or milk. Think of how much more money they could make. Then think about what you will pay at the pump or not.
MPI - if you require an absolute monopoly to convince the public that you are a better solution then your argument is lost. Don’t eliminate MPI simply make them compete from dollar one with the rest of the market place. If MPI is truly better they will thrive against the rest.
The bottom line is, let the people decide how and where they wish to spend their money. Goverment needs to get out of the way and allow consumer choice where ever possible.

[P&M40BELOW]

Retail liquor. Of course the government makes money. However they could make more by allowing the private sector to operate it. The public would get better selection, better service and better pricing. If you believe that the government should control the means of distribution then why not have them distribute retail gas or milk. Think of how much more money they could make. Then think about what you will pay at the pump or not.
MPI - if you require an absolute monopoly to convince the public that you are a better solution then your argument is lost. Don’t eliminate MPI simply make them compete from dollar one with the rest of the market place. If MPI is truly better they will thrive against the rest.
The bottom line is, let the people decide how and where they wish to spend their money. Goverment needs to get out of the way and allow consumer choice where ever possible.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Interesting, when I travelled in former Soviet bloc countries close to a decade ago I did notice liquor sales were all private and most alcohol was sold in grocery stores like every other food and drink product!

The need for govt. to control liquor is archaic, taxes on liquor sales still go to govt. Brainwashed left wing thinking here holds Manitoba back!

Haha to compare government-run services in a capitalist society with an authoritarian communist regime is quite a glaring amount of ignorance. The way liquor is sold in North America is rooted in prohibition and the temperance movement more than any other kind of political ideology. This stuff really isn’t that difficult to look up.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Haha to compare government-run services in a capitalist society with an authoritarian communist regime is quite a glaring amount of ignorance. The way liquor is sold in North America is rooted in prohibition and the temperance movement more than any other kind of political ideology. This stuff really isn’t that difficult to look up.

Yeah I know all about the origin of provincial liquor commissions and boards, but it’s not the 1940’s or 1950’s anymore, time to evolve all liquor sales to the private model, you know like everywhere else in the free world!

The govt. liquor store proponents can please explain why dope shops are all private!

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by P&M40BELOW

Retail liquor. Of course the government makes money. However they could make more by allowing the private sector to operate it. The public would get better selection, better service and better pricing. If you believe that the government should control the means of distribution then why not have them distribute retail gas or milk. Think of how much more money they could make. Then think about what you will pay at the pump or not.
MPI - if you require an absolute monopoly to convince the public that you are a better solution then your argument is lost. Don’t eliminate MPI simply make them compete from dollar one with the rest of the market place. If MPI is truly better they will thrive against the rest.
The bottom line is, let the people decide how and where they wish to spend their money. Goverment needs to get out of the way and allow consumer choice where ever possible.

I’ve been dealing with a recent auto claim where I was hit with the other driver at fault, get a different story from different people at MPI which should be pretty straight forward, the level of incompetence at MPI is mind boggling, everyone I know has a story about how pathetic govt. MPI auto insurance is run!

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by pspeid

I am always astounded at how mental bunged-up so many conservative governments are when they want to dispose of money-making operations just because they don't like the idea of government ownership. Of course they also probably have some friend waiting in the wings to purchase these operations and make a huge profit.

Exactly.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by P&M40BELOW

Goverment needs to get out of the way and allow consumer choice where ever possible.

Sadly, "consumer choice", if it does exist for a while, rapidly disappears when private operators in any industry start merging into huge corporate entities. "Competition in the marketplace" seems to be largely a myth. The corporatism we see today in many industries exists to benefit their shareholders and, I guess, the salary and bonus structures of their top executives. Not their employees, not their customers, and certainly not the community-at-large. Government-run operations like liquor outlets and auto insurance may, at times, be horribly mismanaged, but at least their "raison d'être" is to serve the general population. They can be subject to political whims, but they are also subject to public scrutiny and oversight.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by pspeid

Sadly, "consumer choice", if it does exist for a while, rapidly disappears when private operators in any industry start merging into huge corporate entities. "Competition in the marketplace" seems to be largely a myth. The corporatism we see today in many industries exists to benefit their shareholders and, I guess, the salary and bonus structures of their top executives. Not their employees, not their customers, and certainly not the community-at-large. Government-run operations like liquor outlets and auto insurance may, at times, be horribly mismanaged, but at least their "raison d'être" is to serve the general population. They can be subject to political whims, but they are also subject to public scrutiny and oversight.

Bullshit. You must be joking. There are some bigger players privately, but is the answer to simply change who runs the monopoly? At least private corporations have a profit motive and are more or less held to that. Government monopoly is why we pay 3 times as much for dairy here as basically anywhere else.

And they’re supposedly transparent, but positions are filled, especially in executive roles, not by the most competent individuals but by political appointment in many cases. I’m not sure how this helps anyone. Open the damn markets to competition. The government can regulate business but in almost every case should not be in these businesses, never mind making it illegal to compete with them. Distorting the markets isn’t in our best interest, not by a long shot.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Bullshit. You must be joking. There are some bigger players privately, but is the answer to simply change who runs the monopoly? At least private corporations have a profit motive and are more or less held to that. Government monopoly is why we pay 3 times as much for dairy here as basically anywhere else.

But isn’t government monopoly also responsible for having the second cheapest electricity rates in North America and some of the cheapest car insurance in the country?

I do believe that privatization has its merits, but it seems like all sectors would benefit from a hybrid public-private model. Like if Hydro and MPI had competition I bet rates would be even lower as seen when MTS (yes I know it was privatized but still is a good example) before Bell purchase was keeping rates competitive when other markets had to deal with the oligopoly in telecom.

[djforsberg]

Saskatchewan's major crowns are ran pretty well, despite politics. SGI, our public insurer, is flush with cash, some of which is being returned to residents this year. SaskTel offers telecom services for lower than the much larger, national telecoms offer. SaskPower and SaskEnergy are alright, though the former is due for an infrastructure overhaul.

Meanwhile, I've worked at Telus and Canada Life, and the amount of red tape and middle management BS at these supposedly-superior corporations really opened my eyes to how it doesn't matter who owns a company. What matters is the leadership and culture. I am currently working at a federal Crown and it is the best place I have ever worked and its financial results are spectacular.

If quarterly profits are the only thing that matters and competition in your market is minimal or non-existent, your company is not at all incentivized to operate efficiently or innovatively. Governments who represent business interests above all are incentivized to run Crowns terribly, so they can say "see, government can't run businesses effectively" and people fall for it, as evidenced by some posters here. So far, the conservative Sask Party hasn't found a way to do this effectively but they will keep trying.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Bullshit. You must be joking. There are some bigger players privately, but is the answer to simply change who runs the monopoly?

Ooh, a nasty word. I am chastened.

No I'm not joking, but let me clarify. I actually do believe in the benefits of a competitive marketplace. Believe it or not I'm not against for-profit corporations per se, but see them for what they are. Most exist to benefit their shareholders, and that's pretty much it. Any bumpf they may produce about being a "good corporate citizen" or how much they care about their employees is, for the most part, window dressing. It's just what they are (a bear is a bear is a bear, after all), so trusting private corporations to set prices or policy that benefit the community at large is a fantasy.

For the record, I feel the same way about most Unions. For all their talk about campaigning for the safety of the community or their membership is window-dressing; Unions exist to grow the Union. That's it. (man I sound like a cynical old fart, but I digress)

My point is, deal with corporations (and Unions for that matter) as they are, not as their PR claims them to be.

You suggested that "government can regulate businesses". Interesting comment. You feel those "government appointees" are competent to regulate and oversee a business, but not run one?

Does it matter who "runs" the monopoly? Well, yes, when one of the players is us. People seem to forget that the government is supposed to be us. "Supposed" to be us.Representatives of the people. Working for the benefit of the people overall.

(INSERT HOWLS OF INCREDULITY HERE)

Okay, OKAY! I hear you through the internet. "That's not how it works buddy" Bullshit!", etc.etc. blah blah blah. YES. I know only too well that's not how it often works, but I think that's more a sign of the public's disengagement from the political process than anything else. My point is...corporations exist to benefit corporations, Unions exists to benefit Unions, what exists to benefit the rest of us average schmoes? Government may be a pretty crappy ally at times, but it's the only one I can see at the moment.

[djforsberg]

As shitty governments are, at least we get the opportunity to change them every 4ish years. Can’t really say the same about a corporation in a non-competitive market, like most are nowadays. We truly are at late-stage capitalism right now. The neoliberal order of the last 40 years is on life support. Exponential profit growth is just impossible and we have to be prepared for what comes next.

[bomberjet]

MPI recently gave out rebates in Manitoba as well. For my $2k per year premiums. I got just over $500 back.

I've dealt with MPI numerous times over the years. None of the incidents being my fault. It's gone decently well actually, for me.

They now don't really negotiate your vehicle right off value. The have a third party who comes up with the price. Most recent case, they used one vehicle from VCR, one from EDM and one from WPG for comparables. Which totally screwed my price. I ended up paying an arbitrator $300 to get me almost $6k more for my car. Other than they delay with the arbitration, it's gone well for me.

[Jammon]

Switch of topic, but I had a pull a current population figure for the province and I went to the statcan population clock. It's the first time in the long time that I noticed that we are actually losing more people than gaining. Usually immigration offsets interprovincial migration, but I was struck at how many people we lost just over a 5 day period- 1,292,258 --> 1,292,218. It's only 40 people in that 5 day period, but I'm really sensing this is a trend. People want out of Manitoba. Is this a leadership issue and lack of direction/vision for the province, or is the draw of the west that great?

[thebasketballgeek]

^We won’t see the growth that Manitoba should be experiencing as long as cons are in office. With the current house prices exponentially increasing throughout the rest of the country it’s not the worst thing to experience lower growth. Especially since the province has its own housing shortage to deal with. One of the benefits is that it’s really easy to find a job these days and as a result have the second lowest unemployment rate in the country.

Also, a lot of the young people leaving Winnipeg are going to Vancouver specifically to “find themselves” because they didn’t like themselves or direction their life was headed in Winnipeg. The older people and families moving out are just going to suburbs in Calgary or GTA in which I say good riddance because suburban living is quite subsidized and we need less of that mindset anyway. Especially since most new immigrants come from walkable places allowing Manitoba urban centres to slowly get more progressive.

We’re just going to have to wait for the NDP to get in office to facilitate growth because they have proven the ability to do just that.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

^We won’t see the growth that Manitoba should be experiencing as long as cons are in office. With the current house prices exponentially increasing throughout the rest of the country it’s not the worst thing to experience lower growth. Especially since the province has its own housing shortage to deal with. One of the benefits is that it’s really easy to find a job these days and as a result have the second lowest unemployment rate in the country.

Also, a lot of the young people leaving Winnipeg are going to Vancouver specifically to “find themselves” because they didn’t like themselves or direction their life was headed in Winnipeg. The older people and families moving out are just going to suburbs in Calgary or GTA in which I say good riddance because suburban living is quite subsidized and we need less of that mindset anyway. Especially since most new immigrants come from walkable places allowing Manitoba urban centres to slowly get more progressive.

We’re just going to have to wait for the NDP to get in office to facilitate growth because they have proven the ability to do just that.

We've been down this runway before though. The low employment deal is great until so many employers realize they can't run their business here because skilled and even manual labour is in such short supply then they start taking off. The worst part is the skilled labour and professionals we do have take off too. We call that "the 90s" and seems like "the 20s" are heading a similar direction.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

We've been down this runway before though. The low employment deal is great until so many employers realize they can't run their business here because skilled and even manual labour is in such short supply then they start taking off. The worst part is the skilled labour and professionals we do have take off too. We call that "the 90s" and seems like "the 20s" are heading a similar direction.

Except in the “20s” there is a clear direction for the cities trajectory and hasn’t stopped conditions for what’s essentially a construction boom going on. We also haven’t heard about many businesses relocating from their operations here in Manitoba and instead more companies like Ubisoft, Vale, and Roquette are investing significant capital in the province.

Another difference is that there’s a municipal election this year and a provincial election next year. We already know this group of “leaders” have all but checked out and it’s clear a change in government is needed at both levels. If the 2022 municipal election gets someone progressive elected and 2023 sees the NDP take over it wouldn’t be too hard to imagine seeing growth akin to the early 2010s.

I’m really curious to see the census results for demographic profile because from what I saw on census mapper there was significant population decline in the white-majority wealthy suburbs such as Charleswood and Tuxedo and the white population in Winnipeg declined from 2011-2016 so I imagine a similar trend will appear this census. At the very least Charleswood is finally building infill housing because people want to live in these areas but there’s just not enough housing stock to make up for families rapidly downsizing in those areas. The new project replacing the former barracks will also help Tuxedo tremendously with population growth.

Also, the West End seemed to be losing population but I imagine that will rebound once that Rapid Transit line on Portage gets built.

[bomberjet]

Isn't the entire country in a favourable market for employees? Same in US? Not just unique to Winnipeg. I hear from my network of people across the country, and everyone is looking for people.

Which could be leading to this slow drain on the population again. I don't really see Alberta as major competition like it was in the oil boom days. Calgary and Edmonton are nice. But really just another Canadian City. Vancouver has that extra draw.

[thurmas]

With the mayoral candidates likely being Gillingham, Klein and Chambers they are all rather bland milk toast candidates that I am not sure would bring any real change to city hall. I would likely support Gillingham at this point but I am open to changing my mind if someone offers a more compelling vision.