Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Stephanie Soucheray examines how COVID-19 can cause lasting damage to the brain even without causing severe initial symptoms, while the British Heart Foundation points out the soaring rates of cardiovascular disease during the course of the ongoing pandemic. And Lisa Lundberg-Morris et al. find that vaccination helps to prevent long COVID. 

- But while there has been (and remains) ample room for public policy to reduce the spread of COVID, Alanna Smith reports on the complete lack of return on the UCP's $80 million investment in giving Ottawa the middle finger. 

- Jason Markusoff highlights how Preston Manning's publicly-funded COVID inquiry report is a work of fiction. And Bob Hepburn rightly asks why the Canadian media is largely giving Pierre Poilievre a pass on his refusal to engage with the real world of policy development. 

- Markham Hislop talks to Janet Annesley about the culture of secrecy in Alberta's oil sector which precludes any honest discussion of the dangers of fossil fuel extraction and dependency. And Marco Chown Oved points out the folly of building new carbon pollution infrastructure (including fossil gas electricity generation) and pretending it's somehow a climate solution. 

- Finally, Cory Doctorow discusses how the dominant tech giants have succumbed to long-foreseen enshittification - and points out how institutions can be set up and managed to avoid that outcome. 

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Andrew Nikiforuk writes that what information we continue to receive about COVID shows that we can't afford to stop working on preventing its spread. And Katherine Wu offers a warning as to what this winter's flu season might bring based on the experience of southern-hemisphere countries over the summer. 

- Umain Haque points out that we should have a fairly easy decision to make in determining whether to fund a transition to clean energy - as the price of doing the work would pay for itself in six years, while the long-term cost of failure is an existential threat to civilization. Max Wakefield discusses how the UK is paying an alarming price - while fossil fuel operators rake in gigantic windfall profits - due to its subsidization of oil and gas over efficiency and renewable energy. And Damien Gayle reports on research showing how oil giants' much-publicized funding for clean alternatives is a tiny fraction of the riches they've hoarded by perpetuating dirty energy. 

- Meanwhile, Damian Carrington reports on a new study showing that we're passing or approaching some of the most crucial tipping points in determining whether we fall into catastrophic climate breakdown. And David Wallace-Wells discusses how massive floods are exposing Pakistan's vulnerability to extreme weather events. 

- Eric Gardner points out that discount stores are the latest example of corporate behemoths filling their coffers at the expense of affordable necessities for workers. Charles Rusnell and Jennie Russell expose the Calgary Police Service's ties to a seedy California degree mill which is supposedly providing training on crisis intervention. And Kaley Kennedy writes about the need to take profits out of child care. 

- Finally, Madeleine Carlisle discusses how U.S. libraries are in the cross-hairs due to Republican efforts to disappear books which could result in the inconvenient development of empathy and recognition of diversity. Jeff Labine warns that the extreme right is looking to take over school boards in Canada as it's already managed to do south of the border. And Bob Hepburn calls out Pierre Poilievre for fomenting the deplorable culture of bigotry and exclusion. 

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Nicola Davis writes about the large number of people getting reinfected with COVID in the UK, while Andrew Gregory reports on new research showing that vaccines offer protection to people who have had COVID before. Zak Vescera reports on the rising rate of hospitalizations since Scott Moe decided we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about public health protections and community case levels. And Ibolya Rutkai et al. study the stark neurological effects of even cases which do not result in respiratory symptoms in non-human primates.  

- Meanwhile, Bob Hepburn warns that Doug Ford's Ontario PCs are among the right-wing governments looking to use the pandemic as an opportunity to privatize health care. And John Clarke discusses the need for social resistance to austerity which seems all to likely to be imposed to suppress wages which still haven't kept up to inflation. 

- Charles Pierce writes about a new Wall Street Journal report on the highly suspicious pattern of stock price changes which results in shareholders getting less for large sales based on information about trades getting revealed in advance. 

- Finally, Michelle Gamage examines how Canadian banks continue to pour money into destructive fossil fuel projects, while Carl Meyer discusses how the finance sector is secretly lobbying against any climate disclosure. Environmental Defence takes a look at the massive subsidies already enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector in Canada (even as it demands tens of billions of dollars more). Emily Atkin and Caitlin Looby examine the drastic consequences of a half-degree of global warming which is likely within our control to avoid. And Stan Cox writes that we can't drill our way out of the violence and upheaval caused by wars rooted in reliance on dictator-controlled oil and gas. 

Monday Morning Links

 Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- David MacDonald examines how millions of Canadians could suffer from being pushed off of the CERB onto EI - both in lost or reduced supports, or more onerous requirements to receive any relief. Kathleen Harris reports on the continuing lack of sufficient programs for people with disabilities. And Zak Vescera and Alex MacPherson follow up on the Moe government's choice to turn federal emergency benefits into a provincial cash cow, including by requiring existing benefit recipients to apply separately both for the CERB for renewed provincial programs.

- The Globe and Mail's editorial board offers some suggestions to ensure the second wave of the coronavirus isn't as catastrophic as the first, while also warning against a complacent, wait-and-see approach to readily-foreseeable spikes in case numbers.

- Jasmine Ramze Rezaee, Carolyn Ferns, Abigail Doris and Janet Davis discuss the need for universal child care in Canada.

- The Star's editorial board makes the case for improving and expanding our public health care system, rather than limiting ourselves to defensive efforts to preserve what we have now. And Bob Hepburn calls out the greed behind the cynical effort to turn Charter rights into a cash cow for would-be corporate health providers.

- Finally, Andrew Leach traces the tens of billions of dollars Alberta has poured into the Sturgeon refinery - including through a familiar pattern of claiming to be transferring risk to the private sector while actually putting public money up at every turn to build a project which will produce corporate profit. Carl Meyer reports on the growing sense that the Trans-Mountain pipeline will likewise prove to be a money pit - making it all the more obvious that we'd be better off investing in clean energy now, rather than putting sustainable development on hold pending some future expectation of profit. And Mark Frauenfelder reports on BP's conclusion that half the identified oil reserves in the world will never be extracted.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jonathan Malesic writes that while millennials may be facing the worst of an economy set up to push workers into precarity, the workforce as a whole is dealing with high levels of burnout. And Jacques Marcoux and Katie Nicholson report on research showing that work-related deaths in Canada are severely underestimated in official statistics.

- Bloomberg News reports on the growing number of Canadians who can't meet their financial obligations. And Andrew Jackson points out that the problem is one of private exploitation, not taxes which are actually entirely manageable:

In 2016, the “average Canadian” paid an effective combined federal-provincial income tax rate of just 9.0 per cent – just nine cents for every dollar of income from employment, investments and government transfers. While that figure does not include sales taxes and social insurance contributions, it will surely strike most as quite a modest amount considering all of the benefits of public spending in the form of income support programs, social programs and public services.
...

The data also rebut the common view that the income tax “burden” has been increasing. In fact, the average effective rate has fallen from a peak of 11.3 per cent in 1997, two decades ago, to 9.0 per cent in 2016, and the effective rate on the top 1 per cent has fallen from 34.5 per cent at the peak in 2007 to 30.6 per cent in 2016. The effective tax rate on the 75th percentile has fallen from 19.1 per cent to 15.8 per cent over the same period.

So why all of the populist tax rage? One can only speculate, but perceptions are clearly not being shaped by the facts. Stagnant or falling real incomes for many Canadians are the result of low rates of growth of earnings and other forms of income, not rising income taxes.

- John McDonnell makes the case to make a definitive turn away from Thatcherism and austerity in 2019. 

- And finally, Bob Hepburn discusses the Ford government's moves behind the scenes to push privatized health care.

New column day

Here, comparing the Conservative Party's leadership race based on fear and division to the NDP's which looks set to bring a progressive coalition together.

For further reading...
- Bob Hepburn also notes that fear and hatred are the main themes emerging from the Cons' candidates so far. And while it's fair enough for Andrew Coyne to point out that there's room for the race to go in other directions, there's little evidence to suggest that will happen.
- Meanwhile, Ryan Maloney outlines the NDP's developing leadership contest in the wake of Peter Julian's announcement that he's stepping down as House leader to explore a campaign, while CBC's Pollcast discusses what's to come. Mohamed Omar points out Charlie Angus' work critiquing the Libs' failure to live up to their promises to First Nations. The NDP highlights Niki Ashton's national campaign to give precarious workers a voice here. Guy Caron's Huffington Post series on tax evasion can be found here. And Martin Regg Cohn discusses the prospective campaign of Jagmeet Singh.

On transitions

Bob Hepburn makes clear that while the Libs may still be in denial about the importance of cooperating to remove the Harper Cons from power, their best friends in the media are under no such illusions. But the most noteworthy contribution to Canada's discussion about post-election options comes from Aaron Wherry - particularly in highlighting what factors have, and have not, been taken into account in determining who gets a chance to form government:

(A) Progressive Conservative government in Ontario in 1985 was defeated in the legislature and replaced by a Liberal government that had signed a governing accord with the NDP caucus. Interestingly, it is recounted in this piece for Canadian Parliamentary Review that when the defeated premier, Frank Miller, tendered his resignation with Ontario’s lieutenant-governor, he advised that an alternative was prepared to govern: “It would appear that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is able to gain the confidence of the House at this time.”

The lieutenant-governor of the day, John Black Aird, then issued a statement to explain the change:

In my capacity as Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario and as the representative of Her Majesty the Queen in Ontario, I have this day asked Mr. David Peterson to form a government, he having assured me that he can form a government which will have the confidence of the Legislative Assembly for a reasonable length of time.

On the advice of counsel with whose opinions I agree, I have advised Mr. Peterson that the agreement between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, a copy of which had been delivered to me, has no legal force or effect and that it should be considered solely as a joint political statement of intent and that the agreement cannot affect or impair the powers or privileges of the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario nor of the members of the Legislative Assembly.

Wherry goes on to note that there are also two precedents in which alternative governments might have had the opportunity to form government without the consent of the incumbent: the federal Parliament in 1980 when other parties did not seek the opportunity to replace Joe Clark's PCs (who had already won a confidence vote), and again in 2004 when no confidence vote was brought against Paul Martin's Libs. And there's one example of a party actually finishing second in seats and forming government over the objections of the incumbent which had lost a confidence vote (that being Saskatchewan's legislature in 1929).

But the review of the historical record suggests a few points to keep in mind. The Governor General actually holds a great deal of discretion in determining what factors matter in assessing an incumbent's request for dissolution and/or the right to continue governing - with a previous confidence vote and a signed agreement encompassing a majority of representatives being less than determinative (if significant at all) on their own. And the transition process (like so many other aspects of our system of governance) relies in substantial part on the good faith of the leaders involved in assessing their prospects of winning Parliament's support, which we can't take for granted from Harper.

All of which means that we shouldn't consider a seeming defeat for the Cons - whether the loss of a majority or a drop in the party standings - to completely close the door on Harper clinging to power. And we should thus stay motivated to make sure the electorate's verdict leaves Harper and the Governor General no choice but to allow for a transfer of power.

On separation anxieties

Following up on this post, let's take a look at the first of Bob Hepburn's theorized lines of attack against the NDP - which gets its own separate post since it needs to be analyzed in radically different ways depending on the party who launches it:

Worse, the Conservatives are expected to unleash a furious barrage of attacks on Mulcair’s perceived weak spots, or vulnerabilities. 

These weak spots include:

1) Quebec separation: Many Canadians could never vote for Mulcair because of the NDP’s policy that Quebec could split from Canada with a referendum vote of just 50-per-cent-plus-one. Mulcair insists he is “proud” of this policy and says he would rip up the federal Clarity Act that declares Quebec can start the process to separate only if a “clear majority” of voters in the province voted for secession. NDP supporters dismiss voter concerns over Mulcair’s position as “overblown.”

The most significant bit of wishcasting by Hepburn is the concept that the Cons might be the ones to make this a main campaign issue. But to see why they wouldn't, let's first ask what would happen if they did.


Precedent: None. The Cons' consistent message - exemplified in their choice to preempt Michael Ignatieff's "nation" resolution, and repeated as recently as the most recent leadership debate - is that they'd rather not talk about sovereignty, rather than wanting to promote it as a key issue.

Relationship to Salient Issues: None. The Cons have branded themselves around the economy and security; a sudden turn to campaign on national unity would undermine that message entirely and require starting from scratch.

Credibility: Moderate. Again Harper has gone out of his way not to amass much of a track record one way or the other - but at the very least, this would be a rare issue where the Cons' history in office wouldn't work against them.

Likely Responses: Moderate. We know the NDP's answer from the exchange between Mulcair and Trudeau in the first debate. And while Harper might be able to introduce a few more twists by owning the issue himself, the most likely outcome of a two-way contest would be for Mulcair to fight the issue to a draw nationally by pointing to his own referendum involvement and the NDP's success in wiping out the Bloc.

But of course, there's more than one other party in the race. Which brings us to...

Spillover Effects: Potentially immense - and here's the reason why the Cons wouldn't figure to touch the NDP's Quebec policy as a core issue.

Aside from having all other parties and leaders drop out of the race, it's hard to imagine a single event that would favour the Libs more than for the Cons to use their superior war chest to turn the campaign into a contest with a Trudeau-led Liberal Party over who gets to play Captain Canada. And there's little reason to think the Cons' plan involves handing the Libs a path back to power they wouldn't enjoy otherwise.

In sum, the upside for the Cons in raising sovereignty as an issue would be minimal, while the downside would be massive. But let's look at the alternative scenario where the party which actually stood to benefit from changing the channel had to put its resources into doing so.

How would the test change in evaluating the Libs' option to put sovereignty front and centre?

Precedent: Moderate to strong. This is one of the few areas of the Libs' historic brand which hasn't been thoroughly eroded other than by the passage of time - though that's probably more of a factor than the Libs would want to admit.

Relationship to Salient Issues: None to minimal. Aside from the Bloc, no other party would have any incentive to talk about sovereignty any more than it absolutely has to - which means that if the Libs direct their resources toward the issue, they risk completely missing the factors which actually lead voters to make their decisions.

Credibility: Moderate to strong. To the extent the Libs and Trudeau feign outrage over connections to the sovereigntist movement their hands aren't clean either, but again this remains a relatively strong part of their brand.

Likely Responses: Moderate. The NDP would figure to both challenge Trudeau's own vagueness and defend its own position to the extent necessary, but wouldn't have much reason to match the Libs statement for statement if the rest of the campaign is being fought elsewhere.

Spillover Effects: Strong. Again, the crucial calculation for the Libs will be the opportunity cost of using their limited resources on this rather than other issues.

Even without another party raising the issue, a campaign focused on sovereignty could represent the Libs' best chance to turn the election toward more favourable terrain - particularly if they prefer a high-risk push for immediate power to a multiple-election strategy. But if the NDP can build its campaign around a largely uncontested appeal to promiscuous progressives who mostly want to see Harper gone while the Libs speak past voters on an issue seen as outdated and irrelevant, this could also be the Libs' speediest path to oblivion.

In sum, if we see sovereignty treated as a major issue in the balance of the campaign, it figures to be at the Libs' urging, and presents as much opportunity as it does risk for the NDP. Which isn't to say I'd be surprised to see it happen - only that we shouldn't presume it would reflect a weakness in the NDP's planning.

On messaging tests

Following up on yesterday's post, I'll make clear that nobody should hold any illusions that the NDP's opponents will abandon their own efforts to pursue seats simply because the NDP holds a strong position for the moment. And on that front, Bob Hepburn floats a few trial balloons as to messages which the NDP's opponents may try to use against it.

It's certainly worth discussing and being prepared for the attacks we're most likely to see. But while Hepburn merely labels a laundry list of possible messages as "weak spots" without any critical evaluation of their effectiveness, the likelihood that somebody will try to use a particular theme is a radically different question from whether they'll succeed.

For now, let's discuss some of the factors which we should take into account in making that assessment - to be followed in a later post by an evaluation of Hepburn's mooted messages.

Precedent: There's a reason why the Cons' attacks on Lib leaders have regularly started years before the next federal election campaign. People (and particularly those not making a concerted effort to follow a subject) tend to remember negative messages while eventually forgetting the identity of the messenger - meaning that a message will likely have a far greater effect if it can draw on some pre-existing theme. In addition, precedents can also tell us something else about the actual resonance of a particular message: if a message has managed or failed to achieve its intended purpose before, that offers an important indication as to whether it's likely to succeed if tried again.

Relationship to Salient Issues: Any new attack on the NDP will have to be made in the context of the political scene as it stands now. We have plenty of polling as to what voters are concerned with at the moment - and while a party can certainly try to shift the public's attention, it will face a more difficult task if it has to first change the subject before making its pitch.

Credibility: As I note above, over a longer time frame people tend to forget the source of negative messages. But that doesn't hold true in the short term - and in distributing a message widely for the first time during a campaign, a party would take a grave risk in ignoring the likelihood that its own credibility on an issue will be challenged. (To be clear, this category can include both accuracy and plausibility - it obviously includes the question of whether a statement is factually wrong, but also whether the message is likely to be believed in light of its source.)

Likely Responses: Just as we can't assume anybody will give the NDP a free pass, nor can anybody launching a new attack pretend that the NDP's experienced campaign team won't have some replies at the ready. And one can't assess the strength of one without taking the other into account.

Spillover Effects: Finally, a line of criticism may have radically different effects on different voter pools, and may also influence views of different parties beyond the intended target. While a message is likely to raise questions within a particular group, it surely can't be labeled a success if it does anywhere near as much to crystallize the NDP's support elsewhere or to help its ultimate strategic interests.

Obviously there are plenty of other factors which can be taken into account. But I'll apply this test to Hepburn's list of supposed weaknesses to start with - and it's worth keeping it in mind as new themes are introduced throughout the campaign.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Citizens for Public Justice provides a useful set of fact sheets on the importance of tax revenues in funding a civilized society. And Daphne Bramham follows up with a look at what we've lost from tax cuts - and the public demand for more tax fairness:

Tax cuts during the past decade have meant that $45 billion has been trimmed from government spending and programs each year since 2006 and almost 30,000 jobs have been lost.

One reason Canadians willingly pay taxes is they believe it’s a fair system. But as the fact sheets point out, the system has been skewed for the past 15 years. It’s not so much by the tax rates themselves; it’s because of two other changes. The first are what the group calls “boutique tax credits” and deductions that favour middle- and upper-income earners.

The second is a shift to regressive taxes such as sales tax, property tax and fees that disadvantage low-income earners.

It’s at the point where some middle- and high-income earners now pay a lower percentage of tax than some of the poorest families, according to research by the OECD.
...
The idea behind those tax cuts was that the money would be invested in improvements and upgrades or hiring more people. But that didn’t happen. Most of the money has gone into bank accounts.

When corporate taxes fell to record lows between 2000 and 2014, total cash reserves of private, non-financial corporations increased nearly 370 per cent to $673.5 billion, according to Statistics Canada.

So it’s hardly surprising that recent polls indicate that nearly three-quarters of Canadians support raising corporate tax rates.

- Digby highlights some of the Republicans' more recent efforts to demonize and attack the poor. And concerted attempts to dehumanize the poor only figure to exacerbate the "inverse care law" - which, as Julian Tudor Hart points out, results in a pattern of market-based health care services being least available where they're most needed.

- Ella Bedard writes that insecure and precarious work is the new normal. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on the barely-existent help Ontario workers receive when they report employer abuses.

- Scott Sinclair and Stuart Trew nicely boil down the Trans-Pacific Partnership's dangers for Canada. And C. Robert Gibson and Taylor Channing expose the business sector's efforts to buy U.S. Senate votes to wave the TPP through.

- Finally, Brent Patterson reminds us that public participation is key to the election results we want - particularly given the Cons' focus on suppressing turnout. And Bob Hepburn writes about Mel Hurtig's efforts to push for a change from continued Harper government.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- In advance of this weekend's Progress Summit, Robin Sears comments on the significance of the Broadbent Institute and other think tanks in shaping policy options:

The Center for American Progress was the wakeup call for progressives around the world. Independent-minded, massively funded, deeply professional, it was created to develop winning agendas for a new Democratic president. Key Obamites trained there. Core strategies and goals were polished there. Their success helped to spawn a third generation of think tanks who understood that to have real impact, good ideas had to be married to credible execution.

In Canada today, the two ‘conviction-based’ parties of left and right as political scientists are wont to label conservatives and social democrats—have thriving think tanks that have played important roles in both the idea baking and the training of a new generation of political activists. The Manning Centre—unlike the Fraser institute—has become less fringe and more effectively political. The Broadbent Institute has quickly found its groove as a forum where greenies, left liberals, New Democrats, and independent activists can hammer out new progressive visions and the tools to deliver them.
...
The Broadbent Institute’s executive director Rick Smith and his small but impressive team seem so far to have found their footing, pushing the envelope a little, rallying partisans as required, and avoiding the curse of think tanks everywhere: becoming pedantic, boring, and irrelevant. Their annual gatherings of the progressive clans have exceeded most cynical old-timers’ expectations; convening a new generation from outside partisan politics, from the NGO and environmental movements, left liberals and social democrats, and helping them build bonds both personal and political.

Ten years from now—or maybe much sooner—one may expect a proud young minister celebrating the success of a dramatic new initiative, just endorsed by Parliament, telling reporters, “Well, it all started late one boozy night, at the Broadbent summit!”

- Meanwhile, Desmond Cole interviews David Hulchanski on rising inequality in Toronto and elsewhere. And Kate McInturff notes that increased inequality is just one of the harmful results of an obsession with fighting deficits rather than improving the lives of citizens.

- Roy Romanow highlights the imminent dangers facing Canada's health care system if we don't fill in missing pieces including a pharmacare program.

- Raveena Aulakh reports on the Council of Canadians' damning study on the protection of water in Canada. And on the subject of regulatory negligence, Allison Martel finds that CN Rail has seen a massive jump in derailments even as it's carrying more hazardous products including crude oil.

- Finally, Bob Hepburn discusses how Stephen Harper decided to use the politics of fear as his main means of clinging to power. And thwap observes that a reasonable amount of Parliamentary pushback has gone a long way in countering the spin when it comes to C-51.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- James Baxter discusses why there's no reason to buy into the Harper Cons' fearmongering in the first place:

Let’s accept a basic truth: There’s only so much money we’re willing to ‘invest’ in having the government to protect us from bad things and, when you get out of bed in the morning, terrorism is very, very far from the top of the list of dangers you’re likely to face.

The budget for the Department of Public Security and Emergency Preparedness is more than $6 billion and growing by leaps and bounds. Add to that the Department of National Defence, which handles our ‘Five Eyes’ clandestine eavesdropping, and the Department of Justice’s secret courts and prosecuting services and you realize the bill for countering terrorism is at least in the realm of $8 to $10 billion per year. And that doesn’t take into account the less obvious costs that come from missed opportunities and the reduced creativity that inevitably comes with constant surveillance.
...
(B)efore we allow ourselves to be intimidated by our own politicians into believing we have to be terrified — that we have to give up more of our rights and money to protect us from this new “threat” — why don’t we ask the government to do something more about those old, less politically-sexy scary things … like pollution, medical malpractice, drunk drivers, legal semi-automatics in the hands of idiots, and, yes, bed sores (imagine the lives that would be saved by just a few more nurses and orderlies) … you know the stupid preventable stuff that really kills people all too frequently.

FDR famously said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Let’s not lose ourselves, and our country, to politically-motivated hysteria.

- But for those who think there's still some room to give the Cons the benefit of any doubt as to whether there's a meaningful threat to be addressed, Anna Mehler Paperny points out that entirely common actions can be classified as "terrorist" activity under the Cons' alarmist definitions, while Steven Chase and Daniel Leblanc point out that Stephen Harper himself is criticizing opposition parties for caring in the slightest about civil liberties. Jeremy Nuttall describes how the Cons went out of their way to punish the media for trying to ask important questions about their new bill. Stephen Maher discusses the complete lack of oversight for bodies who would be granted the authority to lock citizens up without so much as charging them. And Heather Mallick places the blather about terrorism in the context of Harper's violent insecurity.

- CBC reports on the mass surveillance which is already happening even in the absence of expanded powers for secretive spy agencies.

- Meanwhile, in case there's any question just how careful the Cons are when throwing accusations around, Victor Malarek reports on a $10 million payout to a businessman wrongfully smeared as having exported controlled goods to China. Though to be fair, that means the "lock-'em-up" approach under C-51 might save money in the short term by making sure the innocent are bound and gagged indefinitely rather than being able to plead their case.

 - Finally, Bob Hepburn discusses how the Harper Cons have undermined democracy at nearly every turn since forming government.

Friday Evening Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Oliver Milman reports on research showing how humanity is destroying its own environmental life support systems. And our appetite for exploitation is proving a failure even from the standpoint of the pursuit of shortsighted greed, as David Dayen considers how the recent drop in oil prices - and consequent market forces limiting further production - may affect a financial sector relying on constant expansion.

- Michael Harris offers another look at the real Stephen Harper to counter the barrage of selective imaging we'll see throughout the year. And Bob Hepburn discusses the need to make sure that neither Harper nor a successor runs roughshod over Canada's democracy.

- Rebecca Rolfers interviews Angus Deaton about the connection between corporatism, inequality and poor health:

Q. In your latest book, you take the unusual approach of combining health and income inequality into well-being. Most economists deal with them separately; how do health and income inequality combined relate to economic and social progress?

I think it’s important to recognize that progress is an engine of inequality, and a key fact about progress is that it opens up gaps between people who lead the progress — and therefore benefit from it — and the rest. The principle [sic] criterion for concern about inequality is whether there is a natural spread of the benefits of progress, so that eventually, everyone is better off, or whether the benefits are and remain concentrated among a privileged few. In the realm of health, innovation and social health practices (e.g., avoiding germs, quitting smoking) generally spread in ways that improve life expectancy. I view the greater risk to economic, social and even political welfare to be income inequality.

Q. Can you explain some of the similarities and distinctions between health and income inequality?

Some health inequalities are due to improvements in health technology and knowledge. If those things first go to the better-off and the better-educated and later spread to others, then that is a temporary inequality and not a problem. It’s like the green shoot in the garden: it means spring will come and everything will be green. But if that shoot is just one plant and nothing else ever grows, that is a problem. The same is true of health inequality. If the benefits of health innovation and access never spread, we wouldn’t be very happy about it. Progress tends to come at the price of inequality, at least initially; but eventually we expect that progress to be broadly shared.

- David Climenhaga points out that Alberta's oil development has resulted in nothing of the sort, to the point where the province is now effectively giving its resources away to keep corporate profits up. And CBC reports on research showing the high levels of poverty in Alberta long before resource prices started to fall.

- Finally, Michael Geist weighs in on how the Cons' copyright law has been turned into a distribution mechanism for fraudulent corporate trolling. And even the National Post's editorial board sees that preference for rent-seeking over consumer rights as a bridge too far.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Joan Walsh discusses Elizabeth Warren's work on improving wages and enhancing the strength of workers in the U.S., while Jeremy Nuttall interviews Hassan Yussuff about the labour movement's work to elect a better government in Canada.

- Bob Hepburn argues that getting rid of the Harper Cons is a first step toward regaining some faith in our political system. And Scott Reid worries that Stephen Harper's cynical view of government in anybody's hands may have spread to Canada's electorate - though while there's plenty of work to be done in the longer term, the short-term Con message of "you shouldn't trust government!" would seem to be readily supplemented with "especially this one!".

- Speaking of which, Joanna Smith catches Chris Alexander interfering in a response to questions about the Cons' immigration mess. And the argument that it's too much work to actually track outcomes hardly speaks well to the Cons' supposed management skills.

- Toby Helm reports on Ed Miliband's plan to set up a Living Standards Index to measure well-being beyond GDP alone as part of a push to show that right-wing orthodoxy misses the impact of the economy on the vast majority of people. And Ron Lieber observes that gross inequality can be toxic for the people who grow up with extreme privilege.

- Finally, Guy Dauncey responds to Sarah Petrescu's series on poverty in Victoria by pointing out that we'll need some big ideas to eradicate it altogether - though I'd note that he may miss the most important one.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Bob Hepburn writes that more Canadians approve of the idea of a guaranteed annual income than oppose it - even as the concept is all too frequently dismissed as politically unpalatable. And Stuart Trew points out that a majority of Canadians disagree with the corporate super-rights contained in the CETA and other trade agreements.

- But of course, blind support for corporate interests and opposition to a reasonable standard of living for all are neatly clustered in the Cons' caucus among other places. And Carol Goar writes that Con MPs used a Parliamentary study of inequality as yet another platform to parrot Stephen Harper's anti-social talking points.

- Nick Fillmore's Tyee series on Canadian banks is well worth a read - particularly the latest installment discussing how the U.S. financial model (which is of course seeping across the border) gives priority to derivatives over the banking functions which actually serve some useful purpose for the real economy.

- pogge politely suggests that if CSEC's current Con-appointed watchdog sees his job as countering public reporting of surveillance activities (rather than investigating the accuracy of those reports), then maybe it's time for a real watchdog.

- Finally, Vanda Schmokel writes about the developing pattern of mid-winter apartment evictions in Regina. And the Evict Scrooge campaign is calling attention to both the plight of the residents losing their homes when they can least afford it, and the general lack of accessible rental housing.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Glen Hodgson and Brenda Lafleur explain how Canada's lower and middle classes alike have been left out of any economic growth as a result of increased inequality:

We believe the more accurate interpretation is that after worsening in the 1980s and 1990s, income inequality and poverty in Canada remained stuck at a relatively high level during the 2000s. This interpretation should prompt the question, “Can anything be done about it?”

The 1990s were a difficult decade for Canadians. By the late 1990s, real median after-tax income fell to its lowest level in more than three decades, and income inequality reached its peak. Yet even though higher commodity demand and prices helped Canada’s economy grow faster from 2000 to 2010 than most of its peers, including the United States, income inequality did not decline.
...
Furthermore, the gap between the top and bottom income quintiles increased the most in the 1980s and 1990s. The top 20 per cent got relatively richer, and the bottom 20 per cent got relatively poorer. The gap between richest and poorest quintiles grew more slowly in the 2000s, but it clearly did not shrink. The top income quintile increased its share of total after-tax income from 43.4 per cent in 1998 to 44.3 per cent in 2010. The share going to the bottom income quintile remained the same (4.8 per cent), while the share going to the three quintile groups in between (which could be broadly defined as the middle class) fell.

In short, it is statistically accurate to say that the middle class – at least as defined by having a mid-range income – is being squeezed in Canada.

And what about low-income Canadians, including those in poverty? Using Statistics Canada’s Low Income Measure (LIM), the share of Canada’s population in low income is somewhat smaller than during the mid-1990s, but it remains higher than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Even if the income share of lower-income Canadians was stable in the 2000s and their incomes are rising modestly, Canada’s performance is far from stellar. When put in the context of a relatively healthy Canadian economy from 2000 to the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, lower-income Canadians did not get that much further ahead.

- Meanwhile, Rick Smith duly mocks the promise of a "consumer first" Throne Speech from a government which has gutted the federal regulatory system and trashed any meaningful consumer protections introduced by other parties throughout its stay in power.

- And on the subject of public accountability, Thomas Walkom recognizes that the real story behind the planning of Toronto's Pan Am Games is the danger involved in handing matters of public interest over to unaccountable private actors.

- Vaughn Palmer discusses British Columbia's reasonable concerns about the threat of bitumen spills on land and water alike. And CBC reports on Justice Marceau's finding that Alberta's exclusion of environmental groups from the review of tar sands projects resulted in an unfair and invalid process - which may be particularly important given that the Cons have imposed exactly the same standard at the federal level in order to remove critical voices from pipeline assessments.

- I'll have more to say about the flurry of discussion set off by Michael Ignatieff's book launch over the weekend. But for now, the essential recent reading on Ignatieff's tenure and departure includes: Paul Wells on Ignatieff's lack of substance; Bob Hepburn on his apparent state of denial; Frances Russell on his complete misapprehension of a parliamentary system; and Chris Selley's brilliant assessment of Ignatieff's combined sense of entitlement and appetite for self-aggrandizement.

- Finally, Paul Krugman offers his theory as to how the Republicans ended up where they are - and it's a lesson that we should watch for within our own party structures as well:

Coming back to the class warfare issue: my working theory is that wealthy individuals bought themselves a radical right party, believing — correctly — that it would cut their taxes and remove regulations, but failed to realize that eventually the craziness would take on a life of its own, and that the monster they created would turn on its creators as well as the little people.

And nobody knows how it ends.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Arthur Haberman argues that our universal public health care system helps contribute to a more democratic society:

There is something that political philosophers — those like Tocqueville and Mill in the 19th century — have come to call living democratically. By this it is meant that voting is but a small part of what being in a democracy is about. It also includes volunteering in small ways to make our communities better, participating in decisions about what happens to your town or your neighbourhood, judging your fellow citizens by the quality of their character and not by the size of their homes or wealth, and treating all as equals.

Our society has decided that we needed to expand what living democratically means to the realms of education and health. We hope to make education universally available to all, a good education, providing more equal opportunity. We don’t succeed here as well as we would like, but the goal is a meaningful one.

We also hope to make health care available to all so that no one will face the misfortune of not being able to afford decent care and so that all have access to something that will enhance the quality of their lives. Here, it seemed to me in those eight weeks in the waiting area, we are succeeding very well in living democratically.

So universal health care is not only about the bodies of our citizens. It is also a statement about the values we want to forward in the body politic. May it flourish.

- Meanwhile, Bob Hepburn comments on the importance of a functional Parliament as part of the same end goal of a viable democracy. And Sean Holman's new project documents how B.C.'s parties in particular have come to expect discipline rather than participation by MLAs.

- David Wiegel writes that the Cons aren't the only political party fighting a war against social science, as their Republican cousins are actively defunding research in the area. But fortunately, Michael Adams for one doesn't intend to give in to the anti-research movement.

- Scott Clark and Peter De Vries highlight the need to track down the $3.1 billion disappeared by the Harper Cons. And Michael Harris contrasts the Cons' demands for accountability from everybody else against their expectation that nobody will question even their least plausible talking points:

Here is another big thing that has been Harperized: the need for everyone to be accountable with public funds — Indian Bands, unions, the provinces, et. al. A lot of people have wondered why Tony Clement, the Sultan of Slush, was ever put in charge at Treasury Board — except maybe to slowly suffocate the CBC. This is the guy and the government that couldn’t be bothered to properly appropriate the funds for the G-8, G-20 and simply lifted the money from the budget of the Canada Border Service Agency. The auditor-general’s report bristles with irony.

Now that Michael Ferguson has confirmed that $3.1 billion has gone missing-in-action from the Public Security and Anti-Terrorism Initiative, when can we expect the Attawapiskat Doctrine to kick in? That’s when you set the sharp-pencil boys on a tiny First Nations Band to make sure there’s been no hanky-panky with taxpayers money — and then publish their incompetence.

But Deloitte won’t be doing Tony, either before or after he becomes finance minister. It’s all about making sure that enemies come transparent and with a leash, and the regime remains behind the curtain — as no one knows better than the Wizard.

- Finally, Carol Goar discusses the current committee study of income inequality. But it's difficult to separate inequality in both opportunity and outcomes from a system set up to benefit those with the most - such as the tendency to allow the likes of Goldman Sachs to avoid the full consequences of tax evasion.

New column day

Here, building off of my previous analysis on the current positioning of Canada's federal parties.

For further reading, see:
- Bob Hepburn and Carol Goar on the purpose and effect of attack ads in general; and
- Andrew Coyne on the Cons' particular brand of personal attack, featuring some suggestions to reduce the amount of negative advertising.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Steven Hoffman highlights the Cons' utter refusal to recognize that foreign aid - as defined by global treaties - doesn't mean the same thing as corporate giveaways:

Reports and commentary on Canada’s new foreign aid policy reveal the extent to which international development means different things to different people. Some see it as public charity, others as the way a country projects its values to the world. Still others, including International Co-operation Minister Julian Fantino, argue that it’s “a part of Canadian foreign policy” and the fulfilment of “a duty and a responsibility to ensure that Canadian interests are promoted.”

These are all valid perspectives – international development can be any one or all of these things combined. But, unfortunately, official development assistance, to which we have made international commitments, can’t. This system, in effect since 1969, defines aid as official financial flows that are concessional in character and intended to promote the development and well-being of developing countries. Excluded are grants intended to advance donor countries’ interests, including admirable objectives such as economic growth or security from terrorism. Grants to private for-profit companies are also excluded because, by law, they primarily serve commercial objectives.

Donor countries such as Canada can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, despite skill or best intentions. Our government’s new foreign aid focus on private-sector partnerships and self-interest – which, in Mr. Fantino’s words, is for “Canadian values, Canadian business, the Canadian economy, benefits for Canada” – deserves reconsideration. It unwittingly represents a dramatic departure from the established global development system and brings Canada out of sync with the rest of the world.

- Which means Tim Harper may only be understating matters in arguing that the Cons are gutting Canadian foreign policy alone, rather than trying to attack basic international principles.

- pogge highlights a few more sad examples of the Cons' government by ill-fated improvisation, while Michael den Tandt reports on the most glaring example as the F-35 debacle is apparently wound down. And the Cons are still trying to cover up everything they do - with the latest example being their stonewalling against Kevin Page's request to see shipbuilding contracts in order to be able to assess them.

- But while Bob Hepburn may be right in his assessment of MPs when it comes to most of the Cons as being enemies of democracy, we should be careful not to tar all of our elected representatives with the same brush. After all, an unduly sweeping, "they all do it" message (in contrast to recognition where MPs represent their constituents properly) will only make it easier for the worst offenders to avoid answering for their wrongs.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Rick Salutin offers an important take on the U.S. election by pointing out that the Occupy movement and its focus on inequality laid the groundwork for Barack Obama's re-election:

The aftermath to the bailouts was the real revelation: the bailed-out were graceless and unrepentant. They resisted any similar help for the majority. Obama played along. His stimulus program was mild, like his aid to stressed homeowners. Books such as The Spirit Level (2010) pointed to the swelling damage but it was just a book. Then came Occupy Wall Street in the fall of 2011, with its slogan about the 1 per cent versus the 99 per cent. It resonated because it jibed with what people saw and experienced. It entered mass awareness. Occupy didn’t discover the gap, but they put it out where it could get political traction.

Obama’s “strategists” noticed. They were worried with an election coming and no serious recovery for anyone but the rich. Rising inequality began appearing in his speeches. Even Republicans noticed. They went from calling Occupy a mob, to saying they too fretted over “income disparity.” Obama’s own renditions of the theme were, I’d say, unenthusiastic, culminating in his listless performance at the first debate. Then, ironically, his competitiveness kicked in, he picked up his game, and went on to Tuesday’s victory.

But none of it would have worked, had Republicans not nominated the embodiment of Mr. One Per Cent, Mitt Romney. He likes firing people. He thinks 47 per cent of Americans are irresponsible takers. He parks his money abroad and won’t release his tax returns. All he lacks is a top hat and he surely has one in one of his homes. But the attacks, in turn, wouldn’t have taken, had Occupy not already poured the mould for Romney with its “1 per cent” trope.

- Paul Krugman makes the case as to why Obama shouldn't get bullied into letting the Republicans dictate the terms of a budget deal after winning a second mandate. [Update: See also Scott Lemieux' concise take.]

- Bob Hepburn points out that Mitt Romney's campaign strategy featured plenty of anti-democratic tricks which the Harper Cons might seek to emulate. But given that all the employer intimidation, false robocalls and vote suppression couldn't actually tilt the election Romney's way, I'd think there's reason for even the most craven Con to be skeptical that the Republicans' model is really worth following.

- Meanwhile, the Cons already have to answer for plenty of campaign deception. And Saskboy draws some important links between the latest word from Robocon fall-guy Michael Sona and the evidence that's already public as to the connection between the Cons' CIMS database and the calls placed into multiple ridings.

- Finally, pogge wonders why former Con cabinet minister Chuck Strahl is being handed another patronage appointment when the public record shows him having done nothing in what should be an important role with the Security Intelligence Review Committee.