I will buy it at least. That's the least I can do. Writing a book is still no small accomplishment (I know, I tried once) so congratulations anyway. I hope someone does trip over it and it does become a sensation.
Having followed Nora's commentary regularly, I'd imagine the snide comments about the ineffectiveness of the NDP are probably a not insignificant (and welcome) feature of the book.
The NDP also doesn't feature too prominently in the book beyond Tommy Douglas -- i'd be curious if people think I was unfair or fair in not highlighting the party too much ...
Just reached Ch. 6 and perhaps the most-valuable service of the book so far is explaining that I was clearly better-informed about American drama than our own. I knew Clinton ended "Welfare as we know it" as "The Worst Thing Clinton Has Done" in an Atlantic essay; and that R. Reich had to break with him.
But the book notes how well-hidden the Canadian equivalents were - cuts made by technocratic tricks like increasing as "GDP-2%", adding up. And most significantly, how on-board enthused Liberals and even NDP became about neoliberal views of debt and spending. Bob Rae comes off making cuts very arm-twisted, but Roy Romanow more as having drunk the Thatcher Kool-Aid, and cutting with purpose and enthusiasm.
Takeaway at page 150 is that even our "champions" let us down.
I finished the book last night – I think the NDP is given the appropriate amount of attention for this book, which is about explaining how we got where we are. A future book in the series could further explore the uselessness of the NDP, but that's for later.
...they are now *bragging* that food banks save taxpayer dollars, a thing the book decries as awful. We've reached the point where the goalposts have been moved right into the other end-zone, when bad things are bragged about as good things.
A point the book misses - just needed one more sentence - is that Canadaland's pod on food banks told me for the first time in my life that "food banks" are uncommon in other countries; they're a Canadian invention. Talk about necessity being the mother.
Also in my morning news: CFIB decries the new foreign-worker rules as trying to square politics with "economic reality". The book spends some time on that "reality" concept, Thatcher's "TINA". Meanwhile, actual reality is that fast-food jobs in California have increased since they raise their wages from $15 to $20.
Finished. Glad I read it, though it is, of course, not a happy story. The reader is hit with a drumbeat of facts and figures - Malcolm Gladwell's "human-interest anecdote" style is not employed for leavening. My mood descended as I went.
Maybe there's an intent for the reader to be downright angry by the end, since it ends with the choices of gentler reform, or radical change- and advocating that.
I'm on the slow-and-steady side; we got "radical" during the pandemic, and I was kind of thrilled at the time that CERB was working in days flat and created a huge sense of relief. The book calls it out as a great corporate giveaway. Radical times like war are when the public purse is best robbed, so I fear radical times.
Really, the book implicitly emphasizes the value of continued progress over time: the Reagan/Thatcher "Revolution" was actually a decade just getting rolling properly. That it was the second decade, the 90s, when the *liberals* in major economies joined in and pushed neoliberalism further, rather than pushing back after a decade of it. It took a decade to move the goalposts, which is where they are now fixed.
The book doesn't get into changes in the electorate itself. I had one grandfather die in the coal mines in 1934; on the other side, a grandmother educated at Havergal, sent on a 1910 "finishing" tour of Europe. Today's kids have Beaver Cleaver grandparents and Reagan-era-born parents. They aren't hearing directly about the Depression and the Hated Bankers. It's proven wrong to assume that Young==Progressive, lately. The Boomer "Generation Gap" is long gone.
And immigrants receive mention for holding down wages, but not for changing the electorate. I just added up that Canada's population has grown by about 12 million since 1990 (27M->39M); and that we have taken in 10 million immigrants in that time. Few come from countries that have a really great social safety net, or ever did. As much as the Net may be appreciated, or even one reason they came, I'm not sure they vote for it to be larger 20 years later when they are personally comfortable.
May be wrong on those two points, but we need some polling specific to the social safety net - not polling specifics so much, as general attitudes towards - that breaks down support by age, income, and, yes, immigration status. Indeed, it would fascinating to break down the safety-net opinions by country of origin, as we now break down polls by province, internally.
They actually had two copies. Both in "Canadian History", which happens to be the far back of the store. I bought one and put the other on the "New" shelf up front. Jerks.
Enjoying it, though the mixing of issues that only affect First Nations, with those that affect people in cities, often makes the argument complex.
Wondering how it will tackle so many things getting better for 40 years because of the general rise of technology and industry - many in the upper income quintile have not felt impoverished: house sizes doubled in those 40 years, from 1100 to 2200 sf. Vehicles sizes, too: in 1980 we still loved subcompacts after the oil crisis, but now trucks and SUVs are the most-popular buy. It's the *relative* conditions that have changed.
Okay, Nora. I just ordered your book. I hope I have time to read it. It sounds like you have a pretty good handle on the problems. However, reform vs revolution would be a false dichotomy. A revolution just to rip everything apart does not work well. Behind a revolution needs to be a planned out reconstruction, a reform. Correspondingly, a reform usually falls flat with out a revolution behind it. To put all this in another way, to change the problems in this country, you need some push behind you.
Complete bullshit that you have no mainstream outlet for your ideas. Pissed on your behalf.
Just picked up a copy after reading this post from my local bookstore. Had some prominent placement on the shelf!
Looking forward to reading it.
Congratulations, Nora! I'll buy a copy!
I can't wait to read it. I really enjoyed your other books.
Looking forward to it!
We bought a copy this weekend! (Guess our local indy put them out a couple of days early...) Can't wait to dig into it!
I am happy to help! Let's do an interview and I wrill write up a review!
I will buy it at least. That's the least I can do. Writing a book is still no small accomplishment (I know, I tried once) so congratulations anyway. I hope someone does trip over it and it does become a sensation.
Aside from the snide comments about the NDP, it's worth a look.
Having followed Nora's commentary regularly, I'd imagine the snide comments about the ineffectiveness of the NDP are probably a not insignificant (and welcome) feature of the book.
The NDP also doesn't feature too prominently in the book beyond Tommy Douglas -- i'd be curious if people think I was unfair or fair in not highlighting the party too much ...
Just reached Ch. 6 and perhaps the most-valuable service of the book so far is explaining that I was clearly better-informed about American drama than our own. I knew Clinton ended "Welfare as we know it" as "The Worst Thing Clinton Has Done" in an Atlantic essay; and that R. Reich had to break with him.
But the book notes how well-hidden the Canadian equivalents were - cuts made by technocratic tricks like increasing as "GDP-2%", adding up. And most significantly, how on-board enthused Liberals and even NDP became about neoliberal views of debt and spending. Bob Rae comes off making cuts very arm-twisted, but Roy Romanow more as having drunk the Thatcher Kool-Aid, and cutting with purpose and enthusiasm.
Takeaway at page 150 is that even our "champions" let us down.
I'll let you know once I read it, but I'm already on board the what's-the-point-of-the-NDP train, so *I'll* probably be fine with it.
I finished the book last night – I think the NDP is given the appropriate amount of attention for this book, which is about explaining how we got where we are. A future book in the series could further explore the uselessness of the NDP, but that's for later.
Sorry, must throw in extra comment because I just across this remarkable story that dovetails into the book's discussion of food banks:
https://livewirecalgary.com/2024/08/27/research-savings-alberta-taxpayers-clients-calgary-food-bank/
...they are now *bragging* that food banks save taxpayer dollars, a thing the book decries as awful. We've reached the point where the goalposts have been moved right into the other end-zone, when bad things are bragged about as good things.
A point the book misses - just needed one more sentence - is that Canadaland's pod on food banks told me for the first time in my life that "food banks" are uncommon in other countries; they're a Canadian invention. Talk about necessity being the mother.
Also in my morning news: CFIB decries the new foreign-worker rules as trying to square politics with "economic reality". The book spends some time on that "reality" concept, Thatcher's "TINA". Meanwhile, actual reality is that fast-food jobs in California have increased since they raise their wages from $15 to $20.
Finished. Glad I read it, though it is, of course, not a happy story. The reader is hit with a drumbeat of facts and figures - Malcolm Gladwell's "human-interest anecdote" style is not employed for leavening. My mood descended as I went.
Maybe there's an intent for the reader to be downright angry by the end, since it ends with the choices of gentler reform, or radical change- and advocating that.
I'm on the slow-and-steady side; we got "radical" during the pandemic, and I was kind of thrilled at the time that CERB was working in days flat and created a huge sense of relief. The book calls it out as a great corporate giveaway. Radical times like war are when the public purse is best robbed, so I fear radical times.
Really, the book implicitly emphasizes the value of continued progress over time: the Reagan/Thatcher "Revolution" was actually a decade just getting rolling properly. That it was the second decade, the 90s, when the *liberals* in major economies joined in and pushed neoliberalism further, rather than pushing back after a decade of it. It took a decade to move the goalposts, which is where they are now fixed.
The book doesn't get into changes in the electorate itself. I had one grandfather die in the coal mines in 1934; on the other side, a grandmother educated at Havergal, sent on a 1910 "finishing" tour of Europe. Today's kids have Beaver Cleaver grandparents and Reagan-era-born parents. They aren't hearing directly about the Depression and the Hated Bankers. It's proven wrong to assume that Young==Progressive, lately. The Boomer "Generation Gap" is long gone.
And immigrants receive mention for holding down wages, but not for changing the electorate. I just added up that Canada's population has grown by about 12 million since 1990 (27M->39M); and that we have taken in 10 million immigrants in that time. Few come from countries that have a really great social safety net, or ever did. As much as the Net may be appreciated, or even one reason they came, I'm not sure they vote for it to be larger 20 years later when they are personally comfortable.
May be wrong on those two points, but we need some polling specific to the social safety net - not polling specifics so much, as general attitudes towards - that breaks down support by age, income, and, yes, immigration status. Indeed, it would fascinating to break down the safety-net opinions by country of origin, as we now break down polls by province, internally.
I’m looking forward to reading it!
Chapters on Granville has one copy left and I'm heading for it.
Movement? I gave up after Occupy disappointed.
They actually had two copies. Both in "Canadian History", which happens to be the far back of the store. I bought one and put the other on the "New" shelf up front. Jerks.
Enjoying it, though the mixing of issues that only affect First Nations, with those that affect people in cities, often makes the argument complex.
Wondering how it will tackle so many things getting better for 40 years because of the general rise of technology and industry - many in the upper income quintile have not felt impoverished: house sizes doubled in those 40 years, from 1100 to 2200 sf. Vehicles sizes, too: in 1980 we still loved subcompacts after the oil crisis, but now trucks and SUVs are the most-popular buy. It's the *relative* conditions that have changed.
https://www.theenergymix.com/average-canadian-vehicle-size-rises-25-as-automakers-double-down-on-trucks-suvs/
Oh that's awesome and thanks for the promo help!!
Looking forward to reading it!
Okay, Nora. I just ordered your book. I hope I have time to read it. It sounds like you have a pretty good handle on the problems. However, reform vs revolution would be a false dichotomy. A revolution just to rip everything apart does not work well. Behind a revolution needs to be a planned out reconstruction, a reform. Correspondingly, a reform usually falls flat with out a revolution behind it. To put all this in another way, to change the problems in this country, you need some push behind you.
You'll have to see how I've framed the two paths because I don't think you'll disagree based on how it's laid out.