Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Annette Alstadsæter, Niels Johannesen and Gabriel Zucman examine (PDF) the size and distribution of tax evasion and (not surprisingly) find it clustered at the top - with the wealthiest .01% dodging 30% of its obligation to society at large. And Marco Chown Oved reports that the Canada Revenue Agency is finally pursuing criminal investigations into offshore tax evasion.

- Meanwhile, Paul Buchheit rightly questions why any government would want to hand tax cuts to businesses who are already refusing to pay their fair share.

- Angela Rayner writes about UK Labour's plan for a truly universal child care system. And Max Shanly and Ronan Burtenshaw highlight the drastic change for the better on offer from Labour's policy platform - along with the strong public support for improved redistribution of wealth:
But it wasn’t just the manifesto that was popular, it was also the kind of politics that has been used to communicate its ideas. For months, Corbynism has tried to build a radical politics from the halls of Westminster, playing a game of high politics at which its enemies are more adept. In this campaign, Corbyn’s team have thrown off the shackles of that environment — holding large rallies around the country, sharing the stage with campaigners from a wide range of social causes, taking socialist politics to the people who are its concern. This dynamic, grassroots campaign has helped to transform public opinion of Corbyn and engage thousands in his project of social transformation.
None of this could have happened if the battle had remained confined to the stage-managed theater of Westminster, with scripts written by the mainstream press and an ill-fitting costume of respectability draped around Corbyn’s shoulders. It is with mass politics that the Left can win — and the same will be true for this manifesto.

No significant program of redistributing wealth and power can be achieved through parliament alone. Even if Labour was to win on June 8, its manifesto would face significant opposition — from the right-wing of the Labour Party, the press empires, elite civil servants, and the business class. The only way to see it implemented would be to organize for it outside of parliament, through social movements that demand its proposals, trade unions that fight for them in the workplace, and a revitalized Labour Party that becomes a vehicle for popular power at a local as well as national level.

In the more likely circumstance that Labour is defeated in the election, the party’s right will immediately argue that it was because its leadership was too left wing. But we now know this is not true. The vast majority of the country supports left-wing policies — it is the Labour right and their allies in the political, business, and media elite who are in the minority. The next battle will be to defend the manifesto from their attacks.
- CBC reports on the progress made as a result of Ontario's workplace review (and the public pressure which caused it to happen), with a $15 minimum wage and improved protections for part-time and precarious workers among the gains.

- Finally, the Star's editorial board asks what it will take for the federal government to live up to its obligation not to discriminate against Indigenous children - though the obvious answer is a party in power which actually cares about substantive change enough to dedicate resources to it, rather than seeing photo ops and empty announcements as accomplishments.


  1. Anonymous11:33 a.m.

    Be patient with the LPoC. They've merely begun and 'ave accomplished more than, well, so many others I could, but shan'- name. Their democratically elected mandates, (as well as their natural governing style for the majority of Canada's population, which- people really must stop slagging and insulting, because when it's done- intentionally or otherwise, it insults every one of us who cast our ballot for....) takes time. Wait until the evidence is in, some 8 to 16 years on. I lean toward 16....
    I'm certain- beyond a doubt, that things will be better. And well before something better comes along. Our PM is talking with the Pope re: an apology, and that is just the first, very important step, in the matter of reparations.

    Secondly, "those photo-ops"- that you so blatantly despise?
    Have you ever read- The Prince, Greg? Gotta fight fire with fire, friend.
    Why should the slime, scum, and the other slithering pond reptiles,
    have all the fun? After all, P.R. is important, no, essential, to all of us- even to the men who commit such acts as require a
    'bought and paid for' public apology. Non?

    Have a great one, sir.

    Love your links!

    1. You might recall that in many of the policy areas where Trudeau is now planning to do nothing until what he presumes will be his third term, he slammed the NDP for going too slowly in a platform which planned to reach full speed by year 4.

      Suffice it to say that things could be a lot better than they'll ever be under the Libs. And the necessary first step is for people to refuse to defer when the Libs tell them not to worry their pretty little heads about how they're governed.

    2. Anonymous10:38 p.m.

      You might recall, Greg, that our PM Trudeau doesn't get a 3rd term. I'm thinking Minister Freeland or one of many fine ladies that the LPoC have, on their very deep bench....

      How do you know what Team Trudeau is planning? We tend to play, uh, close to the vest, if you get my 'driftglass', Greg.

      Suffice it to say- "ever" is a mighty long time, friend.

      I defer to NO ONE, young man.

      I nevah worry, these days. And my head? Ok, pretty on the outside-
      All Poe and Machiavelli(oh, and Bette!) on the inside.
      Davis- sonny.

      Now, don't you all worry, kk?
      And....I don't see where you addressed a one of my legitimate points....Hmmm.

      Be Seein' You!


    3. "Just trust us. Of course we won't keep the plebes in the loop. But we-don't-know-who might someday get around to the things you care about."

      This is not a model for positive governance. It is, however, the LPC's common thread no matter who's in charge - and why nobody who cares about progressive change should waste a minute on them.

  2. Anonymous9:15 a.m.

    Good morning, Greg;

    To whom, do you attribute your quote?

    Also, any decent team, will not show their 'plat-book' to the opposing team. We voted for the Liberal platform. Period.
    Democratically- and, as the majority of this land.

    Try having patience. If you want to attract new members and supporters- it's advisable to proceed without the insults.

    Have a great one, sir!


    My readers~ love your cats, as well as your many, informative and timely links. You are usually in the top three....well done!
    We all thank you, Greg.

    1. Anonymous9:16 a.m.

      'PLAY-BOOK', I mean. :~)

    2. The quote is merely summarizing your previous post.

      And while the Libs may see the public as the "opposing team" such as to need to hide its plans, I'll hold out for a government which actually sees citizens as constituents worth working for, rather than adversaries to be kept in the dark.

  3. Anonymous6:25 p.m.

    1) Why do you talk to me- a fellow citizen, with such disdain,
    or is it contempt?

    2) The opposition is you and your party. And the Cons, Greens, and PQ.

    3) I likely agree with 90% of your policy positions. May we please disagree on the means, and keep this civil?

    4) If the 'dips put National Drug & Dental Care on the ballot-
    they'd have my vote. I'm no longer a partisan hack. I do have liberal principles- for the common good.

    4) Try putting some ideas on the table and persuading people.
    It's the only way.

    1. So your standard for political debate is that the LPC gets to "play it close to the vest", do nothing for decades at a time and be presumed to be perfect in its intentions and execution even when evidence suggests the contrary, while it's not "civil" for NDP supporters to point out the gap?

      I can assure you my goal is an idea-based policy debate. But that doesn't work when you try to claim special privileges for one party to be immune from having its actions measured against what policies are desirable. (And since your spin matches the Lib leadership's mindset, I see every reason to call it out when it's expressed here).