antirealist wrote:This article of Cohn's is even more shocking: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/12/26/big_brewers_provide_beer_salons_for_mpps_fundraisers_cohn.html.
Another former government official says The Beer Store exploited the new bottle return system as a way of virtuously “greenwashing” it operations. But the big bonus was getting the entire customer base of its LCBO rivals coming to its doorstep.
“Recycling isn’t goodwill, it’s geared to driving traffic from the LCBO to The Beer Store...”
Kel Varnsen wrote:If a party or a political group really wanted to make an actual election issue over this, it would seem to me that the better tactic would be to forget about beer, but to make a campaign promise to outlaw corporate/union political donations (which are legal in Ontario, but not federally). Because honestly most people wouldn't make beer sales a deciding issue when thinking about who to vote for. But campaign finance rules (especially if you can relate it to corruption and buying influence) has a much bigger draw. And if someone could get some traction on that issue, it would in turn get rid of a ton of the power the owners of the beer store have.
Kel Varnsen wrote:If a party or a political group really wanted to make an actual election issue over this, it would seem to me that the better tactic would be to forget about beer, but to make a campaign promise to outlaw corporate/union political donations (which are legal in Ontario, but not federally). Because honestly most people wouldn't make beer sales a deciding issue when thinking about who to vote for. But campaign finance rules (especially if you can relate it to corruption and buying influence) has a much bigger draw. And if someone could get some traction on that issue, it would in turn get rid of a ton of the power the owners of the beer store have.
cfrancis wrote:Kel Varnsen wrote:If a party or a political group really wanted to make an actual election issue over this, it would seem to me that the better tactic would be to forget about beer, but to make a campaign promise to outlaw corporate/union political donations (which are legal in Ontario, but not federally). Because honestly most people wouldn't make beer sales a deciding issue when thinking about who to vote for. But campaign finance rules (especially if you can relate it to corruption and buying influence) has a much bigger draw. And if someone could get some traction on that issue, it would in turn get rid of a ton of the power the owners of the beer store have.
This sounds great and as much as I support it, it will not happen easily. This is how all of the political parties currently get their money. The Liberals are not the fund raising juggernaut that the federal Conservatives are so they can't afford to turn the tap off from unions/corporations or they risk ending their own pipeline.
It's a death spiral, you need politicians to do the right thing but at their own detriment. Horrible situation.
cfrancis wrote:Kel Varnsen wrote:If a party or a political group really wanted to make an actual election issue over this, it would seem to me that the better tactic would be to forget about beer, but to make a campaign promise to outlaw corporate/union political donations (which are legal in Ontario, but not federally). Because honestly most people wouldn't make beer sales a deciding issue when thinking about who to vote for. But campaign finance rules (especially if you can relate it to corruption and buying influence) has a much bigger draw. And if someone could get some traction on that issue, it would in turn get rid of a ton of the power the owners of the beer store have.
This sounds great and as much as I support it, it will not happen easily. This is how all of the political parties currently get their money. The Liberals are not the fund raising juggernaut that the federal Conservatives are so they can't afford to turn the tap off from unions/corporations or they risk ending their own pipeline.
It's a death spiral, you need politicians to do the right thing but at their own detriment. Horrible situation.
Kel Varnsen wrote:I mean if someone is looking at party platforms, and they align with one party on things like health care, education and taxes but that party doesn't want to change the beer sales system, they are probably still going to get that person's vote.
Cass wrote:
This shouldn't be a beer issue but an economic one, which would give it more weight alongside health, education, etc.
Cass wrote:Kel Varnsen wrote:I mean if someone is looking at party platforms, and they align with one party on things like health care, education and taxes but that party doesn't want to change the beer sales system, they are probably still going to get that person's vote.
Totally agree, but it's always perplexed me why beer retail & sales aren't framed up as the "economy" so can be considered a 'Tier 1' issue.
Opening up the beer system can lead to more jobs in retail (entrepreneurs opening stores, retailers hiring store staff) as well as in the brewing industry itself (more opportunity for sales = more opportunity for growth). This leads to healthier economies in both large cities AND small communities which obviously benefits many people. And I've long maintained that private stores can co-exist alongside Beer Stores & LCBOs so its not like they'll all close.
This shouldn't be a beer issue but an economic one, which would give it more weight alongside health, education, etc.
Return to “LCBO, Beer Store and Grocery Stores”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests