Labor Party Spring 2014 Convention - New Orleans, LA

[Barnes]

May I say that I am very glad to be back, Comrades.

[Adam Griffin]

May I say that I am very glad to be back, Comrades.

Welcome back! Glorious news, indeed. I only wish you had returned in time to vote in the presidential.

[Barnes]

May I say that I am very glad to be back, Comrades.

Welcome back! Glorious news, indeed. I only wish you had returned in time to vote in the presidential.

Ah well, at least this way we can't be accused of vote rigging!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Yes. I hear every vote counts this time around. Neither presidential candidate is offering money or jobs for vote this time!

[Barnes]

Yes. I hear every vote counts this time around. Neither presidential candidate is offering money or jobs for vote this time!

Damn... I was already planning my luxury world cruise for the nice kick-back I was getting.  Looks like we really are living in austere times!

[Cranberry]

[CON] Since there were only 3 cities that were mentioned more than once during the location nomination period, those will be the 3 cities according to the by-laws that we vote upon. This vote will last for 24 hours.

Fall 2014 Labor Party Convention Location

[  ] Honolulu, HI
[ X ] San Francisco, CA
[  ] Seattle, WA

The convention will of course be in The Castro, right?

Where else?

You are right, this was a dumb question from my side.

[TNF]

I think we should have a discussion on the public ownership planks.

I understand the case for public ownership of the electrical grid, but I'm less aware of why nationalizing energy production would be a good idea, particularly as distributed generation (e.g. solar panels on the roof of a residence) becomes more prevalent.

I think that ownership of production capacity is good for a whole host of reasons. For one, we ensure a fairly stable supply of energy and likewise adjust supply and control a lot more easily without market mechanisms; beyond that, it also allows us to offer cheaper energy directly to the public, operating at a not for profit. With distributed generation, I think that we could, theoretically, produce the solar panels on rooftops and just give them away for free, which is again, something that the market can't and won't do.

Another thing I was thinking of, especially when it comes to Fossil Fuels, is that under a nationalized regime, we can entirely phase out usage over a period of time. I'm all for anything that will deprive the dirty energy capitalists of their ability to make a pretty penny driving the human race to extinction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It depends on how you want it implemented. I would prefer that we nationalizing shipping, airlines, the automotive industry, etc. But I understand that at this juncture that's not very likely, and so I think it's reasonable to think that nationalization would mean acquiring bus lines, rail lines, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For one, it would help us secure control over a vital industry that is rapidly shifting to production overseas. Making steel in Atlasia not only saves a lot of jobs, but it's also a good policy (imo) not to be entirely dependent upon production from elsewhere. We have too many steel mills and iron works that are shuttered; obviously with technological improvements we wouldn't want to bring all of those back online for the sake of bringing them all back online, but in my vision of this, acquiring the property of the steel and iron sectors would allow us to implement a plan that increases steel and iron production (and divorces us from reliance on foreign steel and iron) and also allows us to use whatever excess capacity remains to build other useful products, by converting those old mills and works into new facilities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Part of the reason I threw that on was because I feel a need to provide something for those in rural areas who have little access to alternative means of transportation. If we can come up with an alternative to it, by all means, let's do it. I am just concerned that those who live in rural areas still don't have any options when it comes to transportation that are safe, reliable, and cost-effective.

[TNF]

Another thing that might be worth adding to the platform: a position on group marriages. The Northeast became the first Region to legalize polyamorous marriages and I for one hope they will not be the last. Should the federal Labor Party take a position on such an issue?

[Dr. Cynic]

I will be posting the revised platform at some point today, but I want to know if it is possible for us to revise the bylaws to prevent Labor from being used as a vehicle for election by certain persons, and then being dropped the minute Labor is no longer convenient to that person. Flo has joined and left Labor twice now, and is now conducting a campaign against Tyrion, who has already been endorsed by the party. I think that, given his total blatant disregard for our party, it's rules, and it's structure, Flo should not in any future race be allowed to use our ballot line, but that's just me.

If it's clear that Senator Tyrion loses his seat to Superique because of the spoiler third party, Labor candidate, then I would back that idea. If Tyrion loses, the Labor majority in the Senate is history. TBF though, this would only be Flo's second strike and he only technically left the party once to face another Laborite (he's technically running a write-in campaign, but the Census still labels Flo of the Labor Party).

I'm actually running a real campaign, not a write-in campaign

Have we ever expelled a party member before?

[homelycooking]

I must admit that I'm not well-versed in Labor's by-laws. Does the Labor Party permit Flo to run as a candidate of the Labor Party in the Pacific Senate election? If not, he will be listed as an "unaffiliated candidate".

[bore]

Another thing that might be worth adding to the platform: a position on group marriages. The Northeast became the first Region to legalize polyamorous marriages and I for one hope they will not be the last. Should the federal Labor Party take a position on such an issue?

I think group marriages are an issue, like conscience issues more generally, at least in britain, where members of the party should be free to disagree with each other.

[Talleyrand]

Honolulu

[Mechaman]

Everyone,

thank you for your unanimous endorsement.  I will carry the Labor agenda to the four corners of the Earth.  And all offices.

Thank you.

[Adam Griffin]

[CON] San Francisco shall be the location of the Fall 2014 Labor Party Convention!

[Barnes]

Comrades,

Seeing as it is impossible for me to actually vote in this election, you must know that I am supporting the entire Labor ticket resolutely in spirit!

[CON] San Francisco shall be the location of the Fall 2014 Labor Party Convention!

California here I come!

[Adam Griffin]

Comrades,

Seeing as it is impossible for me to actually vote in this election, you must know that I am supporting the entire Labor ticket resolutely in spirit!

[CON] San Francisco shall be the location of the Fall 2014 Labor Party Convention!

California here I come!

[Simfan34]

I'm coming far from the right here; I could accept the public ownership of the distribution system, but I don't see the need for state-owned generation. What you'd have is private power plants selling electricity to the grid, which sells to consumers. In effect, it'd be a government monopsony. But I worry about the risk of the government abusing its price-setting power to subsidise electricity costs at the expense of power producers, which would eventually drive them out and leave us under capacity. Perhaps the solution would be to have the grid jointly owned by the government (or a consumer's authority) and the producers. But I wonder about the actual need for this (not that I think it really matters in terms of this party). I mean, it's not like our electricity costs are overly high compared to other countries, indeed, they're pretty low:



In terms of fossil fuels the solution is quite straightforward, but you're going to shut up a lot of the people who are calling for sustainable energy in the first place, build more large dams and nuclear power plants. That's the clean technology we have right now and it's not happening. I mean, there's a new report released just last month that says we could add 65 GW of hydropower on untapped rivers, not including protected areas. A few years ago, it was found that we could add 70 GW of hydropower capacity just by modernising generation facilities and adding new hydroelectric facilities at existing dams. For perspective, we are currently producing 98 GW of hydropower. We don't need to nationalise everything in order to do this. But you're going to get environmentalist complaining about dams.

As for transport I really prefer the same model, a fee for use. Which is what happens at airports, and in railways in Europe. Competition is what drives prices down and quality up. How does this incentive exist in a monopoly, especially one controlled by labor unions. They have a vested interest in extracting as high a cost as possible and providing as little service as is feasible. While I'm pro-train to the point that I'd be willing to drive buses out of existence, I think AMTRAK needs to focus on providing services where it can be truly competitive and revenue generating.

Long distance trains are used by three sorts of people, only two of which are travelling along the entire route: those with a fear of flying, tourists, and people travelling between intermediate points. The existing service ends up not serving anyone well, and I think the market could present a better alternative. The first group is too small to really merit consideration. The second group could and would be willing to pay for a higher-quality tourist train along these groups. The third group would be well-served by regional rail services; these aren't often possible so they could be operated by the regions. But, again nationalisation offers no answers.

A quality high speed regional service would allow airlines to eliminate revenue-losing regional routes and focus on profitable inter-city services. We can increase competition by raising the foreign ownership barriers for airlines and expanding our open skies agreements.

I know I am talking to a brick wall in this regard, but you only need look at Europe to see what the effects of high levels of competition have done to airfares. Protection in American skies has given us, to a large extent, the overly-priced, poor quality airlines that we are burdened with. And how are they to compete, one might ask, if it seems they all seem to being going bankrupt every few years? I don't think you're going to like the answer:







We see that labor costs are higher in the US than they are in Europe, and that legacy carriers with long contracts have higher costs than newer carriers, furthermore, legacy carriers have trailed the low-cost ones in productivity increases. The answer to lower costs would be to give the airlines greater flexibility in regards to labor, but we are going in the opposite direction.

Furthermore our airlines are dealing with aging fleets with poor fuel efficiency with limited capital with which they could modernise them. If were to give them the flexibility to lower costs and the ability to seek increased foreign ownership, that might give them access to cash with which to do so- therefore lowering costs further.

[Simfan34]

As for steel, it is more bad news for you. The Jones Act decimated one of the industry's largest consumers- the shipping industry. Of course, we'd be in a stronger position today had we been less protectionist in the post-war era. But a good place to start would be to repeal the Jones Act. Also, we're producing 87 million tons of steel. This is hardly nothing. Our net imports amount to 13.6 million tons, which isn't terribly much. I mean the only problem with "foreign dependence" is what happens in a time of crisis or what happens with the money. Namely, I am thinking if we came into conflict with China.

Right now the global steel market faces a glut, and our market is challenged by steel dumping by state-subsidised producers. Global overcapacity is at 517 million tons. What this calls for is for Atlasia to go and challenge these countries at the WTO. We- myself included- romanticise steel mills as the pinnacle of industrialisation. But no one is helped by these distortions, and there is no reason for us to start playing this game ourselves. We cannot and should not retreat back to protectionism, the costs of this are too well known. We have the capacity to produce enough steel to meet domestic demands if need be. We need to be prepared for when the bubble bursts and global steel prices rise, but there's no reason for us not not enjoy prices while they're low. China is planning to eliminate excess steel mills that are inefficient and polluting. Demand there is falling. This shall pass.

As for insurance, while I'm all for New Urbanism and walkable communities we need to realise the benefits offered by the mobility of the automobile.

There are other things Averroes didn't respond to, and I don't think my commentary is going to change anything, but there's that.

[Barnes]

Comrades!

Tonight's results have truly been an outstanding victory for the Labor Party, for democracy, and for the nation.  All across this land, the people have endorsed the policies of this party and have given it the mandate to achieve great progress in the next four months.

In the afterglow of this victory, however, we must not allow ourselves, as party members, to rescind into a lull of inactivity and inaction - together, as party members, we all must unite to advance the great programs of Labor through the strongest and most democratic possible means.

This shall begin by not leaving the convention now that the election has concluded.  As set by the by-laws, a Politburo shall be elected later this week which shall guide the direction of this party for the next four months.   All members should take an active part in these elections and ensure that the elected Politburo is composed of the strongest possible members.

As I am not an elected official, it is not my place to postulate on future policy actions; so I shall, for the moment, seek to ensure that the internal political climate of the Labor Party remains one that is active, dynamic, and bold.

Finally, let us all give our warmest congratulations to our victorious candidates as well as the other winners in the elections.

[Adam Griffin]

[PLA] Let's get back to platform discussion, so we can wrap this convention up.

[Flake]

I would support the nationalization of transportation, iron/steel, single payer auto insurance, and energy to be taken out of the platform.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I would support the nationalization of transportation, iron/steel, single payer auto insurance, and energy to be taken out of the platform.

Reactionary.

Also, X Snowstalker

[Flake]

I would support the nationalization of transportation, iron/steel, single payer auto insurance, and energy to be taken out of the platform.

Reactionary.

Also, X Snowstalker

So I guess the Left Front didn't work out for you?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

SHOTS FIRED

[Adam Griffin]

[PLA] Whenever by-laws time comes around, I can never remember any of the stuff that needs to be looked at, but the platform process is one of those. It outlines an all-or-nothing sort of approach for approval. Although by-laws are great in that you keep them loose so that you say what can and cannot be done (without ruling out other options for action explicitly), I'm beginning to think we may need to adopt a line-item vote in our by-laws. Thoughts?