Check Podcasts.

Hey everyone, and welcome to Political Capital, your source for all the latest in VC politics, and your host Rob Shaw.

Lot's going on in VC politics this SUITEK, We're gonna check in on the VC Green leadership racers, a couple of candidates there.

We have some issues popping up with electric vehicle mandates federally and provincially, and also some supportive housing reviews launched by the government this week.

To break it all down, we're gonna bring in the panel this week.

Jeff is off, but we have Jillian Oliver Ali Blades here.

Like always, they are gonna walk us through all of this, starting with the Greens.

Jillian, We're gonna come to you first on this because you are working on one of the new the two new Green leadership campaigns that have launched this week.

With the kind of context here that the Greens are in the middle of.

This leadership race has been very a low profile.

They had I think a Candida cut off of mid June.

We're starting to see the names come out now.

There's a membership deadline in early August and then a vote in September.

But tell us a bit you're on the Jonathan Kerr campaign.

Tell us a bit about him and what he's bringing to the race.

Yeah, so Jonathan is a counselor in Comas and also the vice air of their regional district up there, and he's also a family doctor.

I really was excited to work on his campaign when I met him, because he's very energetic, very positive, and I think he really has the leadership qualities needed to sort of grow the party and appeal you know, widely to lots of different groups of people.

And I think is at a place in his life where he's really excited to travel the province and really do that building work that I think is really important.

And I think that's going to be the job of the next leader.

They're going to be outside of the legislature, not in MLA, so they can really focus on that sort of external party work that has been hard for previous leaders who are also doing their MLA jobs in the House to focus on both.

So I think it's going to be an exciting race right now.

There's two candidates out and there's a couple more that are going to announce, and I think, you know, it's good that there's going to be a race with a few different options.

So that the party can really have a debate about its future and also just show that there's a lot of you know, different people that are excited about building the party and its potential to grow and be a bigger influence in DC politics.

Yeah, there's only two, but as you mentioned, there should be more coming to the other candidate who launched this week Emily Lohan, who is a twenty four year old climate justice organizer from the Climate Action Network Canada, formerly Vick's student union director director of Campaigns.

He had put a platform out that talks a bit about focusing on Indigenous led resistance to natural resource probit Jacson Allen g attax on the richest corporations, more strict environmental targets, and that type of thing seems like ali we have, at least at the beginning here.

I kind of what I would say Lowen is maybe more of a traditional or kind of you know, part of what we would think the Greens might do in a leadership race, very hard on environmental issues, versus the candidate that Gillian is talking about here, Jonathan Kerr, who's a doctor, seems like he's bringing some ideas to grow the party.

I'm just wondering about that early dynamic that you see there.

That's it's a very interesting one.

I mean, you forgot the fight the oligarchs, that's her slogan.

It's very interesting because with Lowen, you see this young woman who has potentially been part of the party for a long time, like she would be like the natural type of person that would be drawn to the Green Party and all that they stand for, and so there is a space for her.

And then with someone like the other candidate who also has elected experience, which for some people and for some members is an important thing.

They want to know that the members want to know that they understand what it takes, what the schedule demands, and electability, which one can prove that yes they have that experience, and the other is can you give me the chance to do it because I do have organizational experience.

I have done some really significant things in her young twenty five years or twenty four years, and so it's I think there's a space for both and it's going to be interesting as to you know, leadership races are how many people can get signed up and or persuaded to go vote for you, And in this case, I think where Lowen's strategy to win is that she would need to bring in those members, but potentially for the other three, it's the pool of the existing members in a persuasion campaign, which is run completely different.

Mm.

Yeah, and I think that brings us to the kind of the interesting dynamic of the campaign because Ali, you're spot on there, Like one of the ig posts from Lowen has already said she needs maybe five thousand members to win this race, which is kind of roughly what the Green membership is already, Jillian, So it feels like that's a as Ali put in a campaign about bringing people in, and we've talked in the past about the pros and cons that can occur in that situation in a leadership race.

The NDP faced it with Angelia Patteray and this kind of mass influx of new members that threaten to kind of overwhelm the existing membership base.

Do you see that being an issue for the Greens and the pros and cons of bringing in new members versus kind of idea of sort of almost taking over the party.

Yeah, I think it can.

It can be like membership braces can be really exciting as a chance to sort of reinvigorate the party bring new people in and and grow it and and hopefully also you know, invigorate and train new organizers that can then bring those skills to a provincial election.

But you know, I think it really comes down to the sort of issues differences that emerge between the two candidates.

You know, if it really does become become become a really strong distinction there, I think, you know, in our in this case, Jonathan Kerr also has environmental bona fides.

He's on the watershed board up in Comac's and has been along has worked on lots of green campaigns before as well.

So I think, you know, even if if another candidate brings in uh new members, all all candidates still get those lists and can still appeal to those members.

And I think ideally you sort of make an argument that there's room for everybody in the party in the next provincial election and it out that way.

Of course, it doesn't always turn out that way, Like we saw with the NDP campaign.

I would argue that there was more stark differences in the platforms between those two candidates between EB and a Pattery.

But it's still early days for this race, so we'll see how it all shapes up.

Yeah, the Ali the Greens popular vote kind of fell in half in the last election.

How does a leadership race like this, which could bring in new members and also maybe you know a leader who is not going to have a seat in the legislature, how does that help or address the issue?

Do you think of the sort of declining Green voter?

Is it a challenge for the party?

There's pros and cons And I don't wish this upon the Greens because it's a very difficult dynamic to manage of having a leader of the party on the outside of the legislature and then a leader within the dynamics of government.

Essentially that one may not have control of the other.

And so if the narrative, if the comms are different, then it really presents a problem for the party overall in the next election.

If they're successful in kind of coalescing the narrative of the party and the two representatives in the legislature, brilliant, Now we're cooking.

But what it means that the leader, because it looks like it's going to be someone from the outside, is that the focus could very well set them up for success in all they're doing for the next few years is finding more members, finding that money and then to the last time, the Greens didn't put candidates in every single riding.

And so what this means is that this person could very well be that person to go find all of the candidates, build those riding associations so that they're fully prepared with candidates, campaign plans and a little bit of a runway to start campaigning.

Now, while the other leaders, the premier and the leader the official Opposition and let's not forget the other party, they would be stuck within the confines of being in the legislature.

Meanwhile, the Green leader can now just be igzagging across the province, which would be a wonderful thing.

That does require money though, so if they are, maybe the test for the next leader is who can bring in the most money.

Who are we confident that can recruit those high caliber candidates as well as bringing the money for campaigns because we've talked about this million times how expensive that is.

M No, it's a great point that because of how slim the vote is in the legislature, everyone is stuck there for every single vote.

So you have these wide swaths of the year where no one can travel around the province the other party leaders and Jillian I thought was interesting that one of Kerr's first moves was to actually go to Prince George and the start up there where the Greens like eight percent of the vote in Prince George Mackenzie.

It's not one of the ridings that in an election we talk about being winnable for the Greens, but it looks like his strategies to canvas kind of the whole province and not just the little pockets in Metro Vancouver and on the island where you would typically kind of expect maybe the Greens to focus.

Yeah, I think that central to Jonathan's campaign is going to be his ability to appeal widely to lots of different people.

Being an elected councilor in Comox, he was the top vote getter locally in a writing you know, where the Greens are somewhat competitive, but that is very diverse in terms of where people are in the political spectrum.

So to really show that he can appeal to a wide range of people, to connect with people directly on issues and show that he also has experienced delivering on those issues as a local counselor.

And you know, there are lots of places in the province where although the Greens may not be really strong vote getters, they can be strong areas for volunteers who can work remotely on different campaigns for the provincial campaign.

They can be strong areas for fundraising, and they can be areas to kind of, you know, propagate for future growth as well.

So definitely looking at a provincial strategy for his campaign and really kind of showing that the Greens are ready to compete outside of their traditional areas.

And Ali, just to go back to you and the kind of last question here, it feels like to me, every time there is a leadership race in a political party, there is some sort of weird scandal that pops out of pin numbers and who got emails here and how, and then the question becomes at the end of the leadership race, can you bring everyone back together and coalesce as a team, especially when your different candidates are running on sort of different ends of a party's spectrum.

Is there any worry that you would have for the Greens in that we don't know how I'm not entirely sure how they're running their leadership vote day, and if there'll be any controversies, But it just seems like this day and age, there's always a controversy on that, and then the party's got to try to coalesce together again.

Yeah, the mechanics of how leadership race and the vote works, there's always going to be criticism about any option that you provide.

I mean, the goal here is to get as many members as you possibly can to conveniently go vote, to maximize democratic participation.

If you at least can argue that you tried your hardest and darnest to do that, you're smooth, You're fine, You're good.

Now the aftermath, this is where I think the Greens could actually work work very well, because it's not as if they would be quick to push someone out and trigger a by election so that they can be it within the legislature.

I think already the conversation is turning into well, how can I best support the party from the outside, And then it's a matter of identifying which riding that they would run in, and then this could mean that it's a win win for anybody in that you'll they will select the leader, but then they're also kind of selecting the next wave of candidates too, so the other three would reasonably be candidates, and so that they could be that team and those foundational candidates that take the party into the next election.

And so barring any sort of like major fight between these candidates, and even then all four of them could very well become MLA candidates.

Now the fight would be which areas where they could potentially actually win?

Would would be the kind of the positioning, right, like, if you really hate the person, you're going to put them in an area that they have no chance of winning and then they're not your problem after the next election.

Yeah.

Well, and it's an issue of compromise at the end as well, Right, do the candidates want to back away from some of the harder positions they've taken and compromised for the good of the party or how do how does that work?

So we will see.

It's the first of beginning of kind of stories about the BC.

Green's ohiophilia, how you doing?

I'm just going to move you off Here's he has many opinions about the political scene.

I want to move on to the next topic here, which is electric vehicle mandates.

We had automotive manufacturers meet with a new prime minister this week.

They emerged from the meeting saying they are optimistic.

Mark Carty may in fact rescind or change EV mandates federally, the requirement being all new vehicle sales and light duty vehicles.

Most people's vehicles would be a ero emission by twenty thirty five.

The hope, I think from the auto manufacturers as the government backs away from that.

In BC, there's already discussions about changing some of those numbers.

We have an ambitious target of twenty six percent next year.

The province right now is around I think twenty two nineteen to twenty two.

It's stalled out ninety percent by twenty thirty.

Seems to be a consensus that we're not going to hit that twenty thirty target, and so BC considering changing some of those numbers as well.

So let's start there.

EV's feel like they've been a central part of the government's messaging on climate and climate change and clean BC.

Jillian, Can the government change the mandates?

Can it fiddle with the numbers?

Can it relax them?

Can it can it do that without kind of undermining its environmental kind of plans or what do you think of the discussion around rolling back?

I don't think rescinding the EV mandates is on the table for the BC government, but certainly changing some of the numbers might be.

Yeah.

Well, I think I do recogniz the big supporter of EV mandates obviously, I was working with the Greens when we put that in the first combination in supply agreement.

But the changes that the Trump administration is making are pretty unforeseen and really do change the landscape of EV manufacturing in North Ammyer America, and as we've been hearing, our auto sectors are very linked.

So I do think that there is sort of like a realism aspect to us that it makes sense to sort of re examine it, you know, if it's actually achievable.

That being said, I think we are starting to see a trend with the government's environmental policy where it's at risk of sort of being like death by a thousand cuts, like they do they remove the consumer carbon tax, but they didn't ask, Okay, then what else are we going to be doing.

They're falling short of meeting their targets.

They're currently set to reduce sotions by just eighteen percent by twenty thirty, and the legislative target is more than double that forty percent.

So, and transportation makes up like forty two percent of our emissions right now.

It's a huge, huge portion.

So they need to be asking what else are they going to do if it's not an EV mandate.

Are is there a plan to really expand transit and make it more affordable or even make it free like the Greens A proposed.

It makes sense to pivot in the face of changing realities, and reality changes really fast these days.

But you can't just sort of cut things and then you know, ignore them and not reply.

Then you need to actually be thinking about, Okay, if we're going to pivot, it's not just abandoning something, what are we going to change it to.

Especially as the government leans into LNG, natural gas and mining projects that can contribute to the pollution numbers as well.

You're right, we haven't quite seen a reckoning of how all that comes together Ali the other factors at play here.

Ottawa and Victoria got rid of the EV rebates, which was up to like nine thousand dollars for people consumer rebates.

This year, we've seen sales kind of stall out.

Jillian mentioned the US Trump administrations kind of attacks on EV's Tesla, the biggest EV seller in some places now kind of reputationally damaged because of Elon Musk.

There's all these factors coalescing that have brought the ev kind of and then charging stations and range anxiety continues to be an issue for people.

So how does government wrap its head around all that?

And should it, in your mind, alter the mandates do you think?

Well, let me take a little bit of what Jillian was saying and follow this thread here.

What she's saying is spot on, like they looks like governments are pivoting away from what was originally the policy, just based on circumstance, but that pivot also comes with potentially admitting failure, especially with an electoral base that most parties need in order to win.

There is this like voting block and I find this fascinating across Canada that believes that in our own homes we should be doing something on the environment, that it is not just the responsibility of large corporations and mandating these larger GHG emission caps and things, that there is a responsibility of Canadians.

And so given that personal connection to this voting issue, there's this base that you can essentially upset and you can't betray and leave behind.

And so that's kind of my understanding of what what Gillian was very smartly saying.

But then there's this other growing sense amongst another voter base of this is all based on a dream that we can't doesn't really match our current RealiTISM.

By that, I mean that there was a drive for ev because of growing gas prices by design, of course, but now everything is triggered on affordability.

So if the government can't make evs affordable, then there's no hope of it being successful.

There's a consumer aspect to this that the government needs to be awake to while also giving them something else if they are going to take away that affordability piece with it with the rebates.

Jillian, do you think, I mean, the government's broke right.

It's like trying to scramble together and cut things all over the place to try and address the ballooning deficit and it got rid of the carbon tax, was lost that revenue.

Should it bring back consumer rebates and where does that fit do you think in its hierarchy of or its priority of spending when it doesn't have any money.

I mean, yeah, I do support rebates.

I also understand the government squeezed and you know, subsidizing people's cars when people do have options like transit.

Maybe I can kind of sympathize with the thinking there.

On the other hand, I think in the rest of the world, there are cheaper ev models available.

One really interesting push from clean energy.

Yeah, there's one hundred percent tariffs on Chinese evs and clean energy Canada has some pulling out that sixty percent of people don't want that because you know, I think our conversation about affordability has gotten you surfed in the news by all of the trade stuff.

But I think at the end of the day, affordability still is the number one concern of consumers and of voters, and I think, you know, that's that's a federal government issue, but I think that that's a really important thing to look at because you know, kind of have two conflicting policies here where they're removing those rebates because they can afford them, but they're also prohibiting consumer from accessing cheaper evs when they want them.

I think it would in the context of the governments allowing BC ferries to build in China because it's cheaper brings in the whole conversation about Chinese evs and consumer choice there as well, but I'm not sure many politicians are going to want to talk about that as we go forward.

All Right, I want to hit another topic here.

Housing Minister Ravi Klon announcing this week a new advisory group of supportive housing providers to figure out what to do about the reports of violence, drug use, weapons, tenants threatening staff and other tenants, organized criminal activity inside government subsidized but privately run support of housing buildings, mainly for people who are at risk of homelessness, often the most vulnerable folks.

The review is going to bring together a bunch of the providers and police more than a year after they told government what the solutions are, including a weapons ban and removing people from the Residential Tendency Act because then you can't a victim very easily.

And I guess I'm just wondering about the strategy of a review from the government into something that people have been talking about and proposing solutions to anyways.

And Ali, what why do governments do that, and what is the benefit to them or the drawbacks in announcing a review with people who've already proposed the solutions.

That's such a great question, because the answer is very simple.

Why do governments do this.

It's because this is now a shield to whatever will be the complicated answer, and they're making it complicated the government.

The answer here is that if weapons are getting involved in someone else's safety, that there should be a justice way of solving this.

But because that's kind of broken, here we are.

But what I've always said is that you know, as much as we revere our politicians as smart people, they are not the experts in the field or within that industry.

And so these groups come together with solutions that is based on their life's work, and they're begging governments to implement it because it needs that line of we need to make it law, so please come help us.

And then the governments decide, well, you know, I don't want to take the full blame for this just in case it goes bad, so let me develop a group of like five people, and then if it does go wrong, you can blame the five people and not me.

And that's essentially what all of these working groups are.

Not only are they a waste of time, there are resources, but it delays the answer to what are very emerging issues that need an answer right now, and so very honestly, this is just a way for them to delay an answer and then come government or come election time, rather for them to say, well, it.

Wasn't me and maybe dilute the answers too.

You have the biggest support of housing providers saying we need changes to the Residential Tendency Act.

When the government gave tenants in our buildings those protections more than a year ago, it's made it difficult for us to evict people who are selling drugs and threatening other people.

They have to go through the tenant process with notifications and warnings and appeals and serving them documents, and the government twice turned down that suggestion, and now has said, well, if we're going to do it, the group has to come together and including some other providers who don't appear to have that problem, kind of maybe dilute down some of the criticism a little bit.

Jillian, I guess it's also complicated because the counterpoint is that these folks there are no other options for some people other than the street at this point, and so if you do make it easier to evict some people, you are essentially evicting them into homelessness, which then boomerangs back into a criticism of government.

How do we get these people off the street, and then you create the kind of feedback loop there, So I guess that makes it complicated for the government as well.

Yeah, I think that's right.

I think that they're kind of betting that the sort of visible street homelessness and public safety issues are sort of a bigger issue that people would rather have that dealt with.

I think, you know, the reason for the review is that the real solutions to this are not small tweaks.

It's much bigger solutions that are going to take a long time to implement, you know, talking about people with really complex needs, and I think it comes down to an issue of there not being enough of a variety of places for folks to go depending on those needs.

The government has reports out like the report on stranger attacks and repeat defenders and those sorts of things that shows the sort of very wide variety of places that are needed for people that are going to be very difficult to build, very very very difficult to staff.

So I think that that's why, you know, they're kind of they do these reviews as sort of like to buy themselves time, because these are things that are very difficult to implement.

And then I think, you know, even once they are able to get down the road of implementing some more of those housing solutions for people, there's still all of the underlying causes of the mental health and addictions crisis that are also very expensive and difficult to build out preventative care.

And also I think just you know, I was reading an article today about all of the funding cuts to public schools.

Burnabee has like two what is it to four and a half four point two million dollar budget shortfalls, so it's having to reduce its counselors and extracurricular programs, And like, I think for a lot of people with these complex needs, a lot of their issues go back to their inability to access counselors when they're in school, their inability to have access to hope and to things that give themselves, to give them a sense of purpose and kind of get them on a track of being able to be self sufficient once they reach adulthood.

And until we sort of recognize the interconnectedness of all of these issues, I think, you know, they're still going to be persisting.

Mm hmm.

It's such a complex issue that when the bottlenecks emerge, the government kind of gets seized up a little bit and try to act on them.

And it feels like that's one of the cases here.

You know, people the public has sent a message they don't want to see folks in distress on the street.

They want government to step up and give them housing options.

You create housing options, you put them in, and then you don't address all the issues you just said, Jillian, of all the mental health and addictions problems, and then you give them tenant protections and you can't get them out of the buildings if they're threatening other people.

And it just becomes a bit of a problem for the government.

And I don't know what they're going to do with this review, but they're going to take the time in doing it.

And I want to stay with you, Gillian, because it touches on a bigger issue of reviews.

There are more than a dozen task forces, advisory groups, working groups.

There's all sorts of different names for them, everything from tariffs to food security, public safety, ease of doing business.

In some cases, the government has hired the creators of agencies decades ago to come back and look at them again.

Community Living BC, the Provincial Health Services Authority are two examples of that.

There's government cost savings internally that review.

There's forestry reviews on timber sales and advisory councils.

They didn't even finish in acting the old growth review that they did.

The wood fiber review disappeared.

And that's not even touching the rolling ones we're doing on repeat offenders, involuntary care and things like that.

All those reviews.

Does that strike you as unusual or is it just the normal way that governments work?

And what is the How do we begin to kind of understand why there are so many reviews eight years into a government that Is there anything we can take away from that?

Do you think, well, those encompass a lot of issues.

There's a clean BC one I think as well.

Some of them are part of the green Yeah.

That's right.

So I think that it is a symptom of the fact that we have had governments for so long that have been stuck in sort of like reactive mode.

You know, something happens, it reaches sort of like a tipping point in the public consciousness and then they kind of were like, oh, we have to like there's obviously a problem here.

We got to deal with this, and so they send it to review.

But I think that the like I was kind of saying with the safety and housing issue, the matter, the issue is that we haven't been thinking long term.

The governments.

You know, every get reelected every four years, they almost right away start planning for the next election, and their platforms and their promises really speak to a moment in time.

And like you really see that with eb where he totally pivoted from his election platform which was very status quo to you know, the Trump threat and then you know, real full focus on the economy, on boosting resource production, totally different from what he was talking about a year ago, two years ago.

And you get these governments kind of caught in like momentary, reactionary political cycles and they don't plan for the long term.

Like there's just being in on the show for so long.

There's so many examples of this.

I was thinking about the schools again, so many kids and portables.

That's one of the issues with the budget shortfalls because it costs like half a million dollars to build and sustain the portables, which eats up a huge chunk of student funding that they should be using for counselors and other things, and then in the meantime nothing gets built and the capital projects don't actually plan for future growth, and so you end up with these huge infrastructure shortfalls, and and that's for all infrastructure, and then that bleeds into how we can't build more housing.

So I think just the general inability of governments to plan for the long term leads them, leaves them with all of these sort of like intersecting crises and shortfalls, and so all they can do is send it to reviews because they're not set up to be making these sort of like long term plans.

They're just set up to do their sort of short term political reactionary.

Decision making and the big yeah.

And when the short term plans don't work either, like on school portables, the plan was to get rid of school portables, if you remember twenty seventeen, and then immediately started doing the review and determined that you can't do that.

It's like they were unable to do it.

And then so now the reviews focus in other areas.

But I think of that list to Ali that I gave, which was an incomplete list, I think only one was actually in the NDP election campaign and that was the Ease of Doing Business review that was promised to the business community fair enough and the rest To Gillian's point, where are like reactions to a changing worlds?

Right?

The tariffs, the food security, the outdoor events review because of the Lapu Lapu bombing and deaths there, the cutbacts in government.

They seem like it's a government trying to maybe figure out what to do in the face of all of this.

And I don't know, that's just my read on it.

What do you think, yes, and a way to show people that they're quick to action, but without having to implement anything right away.

To Jillian's point that these are complex problems essentially, what we're arguing our efficiencies that by these working groups or these committees, that we're not getting the answers that we need as quickly as we need them given the times.

But I keep going back to the mandate letters that all of the cabinet ministers were given and in it was a central theme of efficiencies to do more with less.

So, yeah, times suck great now we don't have a whole lot of money like that.

That was the moment to do our collective eye roll to the government that times would be tough, and so what I don't understand is why the government continues to say that things are much rosier than they are, when in reality, all of this means that we have to cut everything.

So yes, I sympathize that the Burnabye School District doesn't have counselors, which is going to have long term effects.

I don't doubt that these are going to be major challenges that we have to deal with.

But this shouldn't be a surprise that there is no money for anything, and I'm surprised it's not even worse than that, and so we should have been shocked when these mandate letters came out of There are going to be significant cuts, and so every week if we're just talking about things being cut like it shouldn't be a surprise because that's the reality of what our cabinet ministers are having to deal with, which is a really tough position to be in.

But I mean tough.

This is also what you signed up for as a politician, is to be the person at some time will deliver bad news.

And so back to my original point, if you are a cabinet minister right now, you're going to spend your career, at least in this government cycle delivering bad news.

By delaying these announcements with the working groups, you're basically saying that we're stupid and that we that were not catching on of what our realities are.

But it does, I think, to your original point, it does provide the artificial cover of action, like the government is taking action for you by doing this, and then it's a review that we all know from covering reviews may end up many months later appearing and the government saying we're reviewing the review now, and then nothing like you know, one and a half of the twenty seven recommendations that are ever enacted and the review goes goes nowhere, like Forestry is the perfect example of that.

Just rolling reviews that never get enacted, that bring in the authors of previous reviews to review their reviews, which is kind of wild.

So I guess the question will be what happens when these come back.

You can only buy yourself so much time and then you've got to do something with the reviews and what happens when they come back and does government make the tough decisions?

So I don't know, I don't know the answer to that, and I don't know.

I think we might get a better sense maybe in August with the first quarter financial results, where the government's talked about maybe giving us more information on its cutbacks and where they're coming from, and its plans and its efficiencies.

It might answer some of these reviews.

But yeah, it's an interesting point, Ellie, the idea that if you're in government right now, get ready for essentially like a mandate of bad news right which is not what any of them signed up to do the election.

They thought they were going to continue on the massive billion dollar or surplus world of kind of spending, and now it's a it's going to be a rough ride, I think for them.

So okay, great, thank you to both of you for being here this week and explaining everything to us.

It was great.

Make sure you subscribe to the podcast for next week's feed and all the other feeds this summer, and we will be back next week with all the latest NBC politics here on Political Capital