Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Bill Moyers offers up a superb summary and reading list on inequality:

Inequality in America: How bad is it? In 2011, Mother Jones published a series of charts capturing the depth of inequality in the US, which remains one of the best big-picture looks at the problem out there. We have greater inequality of accumulated wealth than income, and University of California sociologist William Domhoff’s “Who Rules America” provided the details. In The Atlantic, Max Fisher offered a map of global inequality that named the US among the most unequal wealthy countries, and Mark Gongloff reported in the Huffington Post about a study that found that we have the fastest growth in inequality in the developed world. Thomas Shapiro, Tatjana Meschede and Sam Osoro wrote a brief on the black/ white wealth gap at the Institute on Assets and Social Policy, and Brookings’ Benjamin Harris and Melissa Kearny offered 12 facts about America’s struggling lower middle class.

I’m not poor. Why should I care? Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett argued in The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better that greater inequality correlates with, and may cause, all sorts of social harms – from crime to obesity to alcoholism. John Crace interviewed the authors for The Guardian, and Wilkinson penned an article for CNN. A study conducted by Sir Michael Marmot, a professor of epidemiology at University College London, found that high levels of inequality cause stress and harm the health of both rich and poor. Justin Wolfers noted that higher inequality correlates with less upward mobility. A report by the UN found that higher levels of inequality were accompanied by slower overall growth. World Bank economist Branko Milanovic found that it’s more “fun” to live in more equal societies.

- Justine Hunter writes about the litigation expected to follow from the Cons' rubber-stamp for the Northern Gateway pipeline.

- Sheila Pratt reports that 75 officers from Alberta's already non-functional environmental regulator have been lured into an industry-funded group doesn't offer much reason for confidence that public interests are going to be represented any better in the near future. And Douglas Fischer takes a look at the massive amounts of private money being used to fund climate denialism with less and less donor transparency.

- Michael Byers critiques the Cons' obsession with the North Pole. And Matthew Fisher writes that the Cons' posturing has taken away from efforts to present a sound scientific position - which may result on Canada losing out on claims it might otherwise have been able to win.

- Finally, Joel Harden reviews Brad Lavigne's Building the Orange Wave - and it's well worth noting his take on what's often left out of Lavigne's otherwise strong account:

This, as some have said, wasn’t the NDP our grandparents built. Gone were any pretensions to socialism in the party’s constitution. Absent were genuine efforts to row against the tide of established thinking.

Present instead was "social-ism," an approach Tony Blair championed (using the ideas of Anthony Giddens) to move the British Labour Party "beyond left and right." Layton’s adoption of this mantra involved repeated claims to make "Parliament work for people."

Lavigne claims the party did this at several crucial moments: during budget wrangles with Liberals in 2004 and 2005, and the parliamentary dispute of 2008-2009. I’ll leave it to others to debate the merits of those claims.

My issue is with Lavigne's view that the NDP’s rise came from a shift "beyond politics," and embrace of populist messaging, neither of which rings true for me. Lavigne’s focus on high-level strategy undermines his assessment of Layton’s strengths, and why many activists and movements held him in such high regard.

For me, the Orange Wave started with Layton’s courting of Quebec voters and reputation as an activist politician.

Unlike most NDP leaders, he didn’t antagonize Quebec on constitutional questions, was proudly green and opposed to war in Afghanistan. This made the NDP, as Lavigne explains, a magnet for public animosity in Quebec against Harper, and a rallying point for those seeking to oust him.
...
There’s a real difference between strategy to seek a political vision, and strategy as a political vision -- we need more of the former and less of the latter.

As Lavigne notes, the Conservatives have built a solid infrastructure to communicate their ideas and mobilize grassroots supporters. A recent study insists that the left needs a similar infrastructure to challenge corporate power and its dissemination of fend-for-yourself, neoliberal ideas. Strategists like Lavigne have an important role to play in that process, but not without the energy, and commitment, of social movements.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Saturday reading.

- Kate Heartfield worries that the NRA knows exactly what it's doing with its jaw-dropping response to the Newtown shootings - and that it should be all too familiar based on the tactics of the Harper Cons:

It’s ridiculous, but ridiculous works, time and time again. “Elite” no longer means rich and powerful. It means smart. It means anyone who takes the time to look at the evidence and construct a logical argument. Not to be trusted, that. So all academics and journalists are suspect. The only way a journalist can avoid being seen as an elite is to go on the attack against other journalists, to promise, for example, to provide the straight talk that the so-called Media Party doesn’t want you to know.

This works. The Conservative government doesn’t have to construct a fact-based defence of its environmental or crime policies, because it doesn’t matter that they don’t make sense. No conservative (in the ideological, not the partisan sense) really thinks that costly, top-down regulation is the best climate-change strategy, for example. But it doesn’t matter, when it comes to the party’s electoral chances, which is all the party cares about. The policies don’t have to make sense. They just have to come attached to some boilerplate about how ivory-tower academics don’t understand the real world, or how statistics lie.

- Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne buries the lede in an otherwise unremarkable summary of the Cons' policy direction:

(A)t year’s end, it’s still not entirely clear whether the government has learned anything. We may stick with the F-35. We may not. We may go to competitive bids. We may not.
Meanwhile, the robocalls scandal has slowly dragged on, a steady drip of voter complaints, revelations arising from Elections Canada’s continuing investigation, and court testimony. Nothing as yet indicates any senior Tories knew about or colluded in attempts to mislead or harass voters in the last days of the campaign, but neither does it seem plausible that it was all the work of a few overzealous kids. The calls are too many, in too many ridings, with too much sophistication required.

Last, there are the omnibus budget bills, I and II: the point at which the government’s emerging policy ambitions and continuing contempt for Parliamentary democracy converge. I’ve said my fill about these earlier, so I’ll be brief here. When much of the government’s legislative agenda can be pushed through in a single bill, or two; when “debate” on these hydra-headed monstrosities is itself cut short by government fiat; when these arrive on top of the whole long train of abuses to which Parliament has already been subjected, starting under past governments but with conspicuous enthusiasm under the present – then the question for next year, and for years to come, is clear. It is whether we will still live under a Parliamentary system of government, or something else.

 - Michael Wolfson makes the case for a stronger Canada Pension Plan which pairs any age increase in benefit payments with recognition that lower-income seniors need an alternate source of income:

An expansion of the benefit levels of the CPP should be phased in more rapidly, say over 20 to 25 years rather than the 47 years implicit in all the current discussions. In parallel, the age at which full benefits from the CPP would start should rise gradually from 65 to 70. More rapid phase in of benefits, of course, means payroll taxes would have to rise. But a delay in the age when benefits become fully payable would reduce the need for tax increases.

Finally, the long run structure of the Old Age Security (OAS) and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) portions of Canada’s public pension system should be coordinated with any changes to CPP to assure it is fair to those with lower incomes – a point clearly lost on the Harper government with their most recent cuts to OAS and GIS.

These options open the possibility of a more creative and better pension bargain – more adequate pensions that are also fiscally sustainable. Are Canada’s finance ministers ready to think outside the box?

- Finally, Brad Lavigne's analysis of the NDP under Tom Mulcair focuses almost exclusively on what Andrew Potter would consider the cynical side of the party's interests. But it's well worth noting that the NDP's upcoming policy convention will provide an ideal opportunity to discuss exactly where members actually want to be on that spectrum - and to assess Mulcair's responsiveness to members' concerns.

Saturday Afternoon Links

This and that to end your Saturday.

- Andrew Jackson comments on how a premature push for austerity has driven the global economy to the brink of more disaster - as slashing intended to summon the confidence fairies has instead led businesses to reasonably conclude it's not worth trying to grow. And Trish Hennessy adds some numbers on the victims of austerity.

- Tim de Chant posts on how inequality within a city can generally be seen from space through a simple look at which neighbourhoods have the most trees.

-  While I haven't kept up as much with Robocon as would be ideal, pogge is always up to the task - this time correcting some media misconceptions as to who's investigating what.

- I'll give credit where due, as the Saskatchewan Party's willingness to fund the construction of some rental housing on the Whitecap Dakota First Nation looks to be a step forward in putting needs and results over jurisdictional excuses. But I'd be rather curious for an explanation as to how a government which can recognize the need for that investment can so blithely refuse to do anything but offer corporate tax baubles when it comes to the desperate housing shortfall in Saskatchewan's cities.

- Finally, Brad Lavigne's Policy Options discussion of the NDP's decade of growth under Jack Layton's leadership is well worth a read.

The broader view

It apparently took Stephen Harper and his party several years in office to figure out that what happens beyond Canada's borders is actually important enough to be worth their time.

Needless to say, it's good news to see that the NDP isn't taking such a limited view in advance of its push to form government. Which should both ensure greater links to international allies as the NDP works to win power, and ensure that it's ideally positioned to start reversing the Cons' damage if and when it gets the chance.

Refreshing

No, there's nothing particularly surprising in the NDP strategy reported by Laura Payton. But isn't a pleasant change that the official opposition actually has such a thing?

Juxtaposition

Lorne Gunter desperately tries to pretend that nothing has changed in the NDP's reach outside of Quebec:

Outside Quebec the party is relevant in 60 or 70 ridings, with most of those concentrated in Toronto, Vancouver and the North. There was no NDP surge outside Quebec. Indeed, beyond that province, the party has hit a glass ceiling. In ridings where there is no faculty club, no concentration of civil servants or public-sector workers (nurses, teachers, social workers, etc.), no large numbers of freshman and graduate students, and no colonies of enviro-agitators, there is not much hope for the NDP.

Which of course conflicts entirely with the vote and seat totals from May 2. But in case we needed a more direct contrast, let's ask some people who actually know something about the NDP's strategy:

Mr. Lavigne said that the party's dilemma is to capture seniors and immigrants, two increasing populations in Canada that have traditionally not favoured the NDP at the polls.

They've been working on that by focusing on issues such as pensions and health care as well as family reunification.

"We don't intend to give up the seats that we've gained," said Mr. Angus, adding that he expects to see the party grow north of Toronto, in the 905 area code region, and in southwestern Ontario. "We are actually seeing breakthroughs in areas now that are second-tier ridings that were never even in our universe before. We've already begun to do outreach and planning because it's not just about holding these seats; this is about taking government."

Not that I'd see any reason to complain if the Cons are as thoroughly off base as Gunter. But lest there be any doubt, the NDP is indeed building bridges into new communities across the country - and there's a strong chance that given four years to keep up the job with increased parliamentary resources, it'll be able to overcome the Cons' momentary advantage.

Thursday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your afternoon reading.

- Alice examines how vote splits actually played out in the Greater Toronto Area and concludes that areas which wanted to elected NDP MPs generally managed the feat, while the Cons' wins are generally traceable to Lib-to-Con switches.

- Paul Wells' campaign story continues, featuring this from a Con staffer:

Hence the “somewhat imbecilic” Ignatieff’s-a-Liberal ad, this staffer said. “That summarizes our appeal. It is, ‘You may even consider yourself a Liberal, but if you vote Liberal you’re voting for that guy.’ And if Canadians are thinking that, that does more to move votes in our corner than any other question.”

Or barely out of context, "somewhat imbecilic...summarizes our appeal". From one of the Cons' own staffers. And for once, there's little reason not to trust their analysis.

- Brian Topp comments on what the NDP has to work with now, while also noting that it took some brave choices to move the party to the point of having new resources at its fingertips:

To their eternal credit, Mr. Lavigne and the NDP campaign team didn’t try to rerun an old playbook in this campaign. They wrote a new one – a brave thing to do in politics. There were voices in our tribe insisting that it is a fundamental mistake for a federal NDP leader to say he is running to be prime minister; or to say he would like to lead the federal government; or to argue he has the better plan for the economy as well as for social programs; or to take on the Bloc Québécois in Quebec; or to build a new fundraising system; or to build a new organizing network; or to reach out to some of the best communication and advertising professionals in both English and French; or to do many of the other things this campaign did.

But the 2011 election proved something that I think New Democrats will never forget: If you leave behind your old playbook and write a new one, you just might leave behind your old results and get new ones, too.

- Finally, Frances Russell expresses her own hope that a majority Con government will be somewhat less repressive than its minority counterpart - while noting why how Harper has operated so far has to change.

On team-building

Most of the talk about the NDP's 30-day election readiness plan has focused on the number of days involved. But perhaps the more interesting messaging coming out of today's announcement comes from Jack Layton's note:

My goals for that election are simple. To defeat Stephen Harper. To elect a Prime Minister that cares about people. And to put a New Democrat team in cabinet you can trust to get things done.
...
Like me, I'm sure you've had enough of Stephen Harper's Republican-style partisan games. And like me, you probably think it's time for a little common-sense Canadian leadership.

That's what the next election will be about.

I believe it's time Canadians had a Prime Minister who cared about people. I believe it's time you had a team in cabinet you knew would get things done for you.

Of course, that message is accompanied in Brad Lavigne's message by a familiar theme to the effect that Layton is running to be Prime Minister. But the "New Democrat team in cabinet" concept looks to fit equally well with a coalition as with an outright NDP government - and the fact that the NDP's messaging is allowing for both offers reason for optimism that at least one national party will be standing up to the Harper Cons' attacks on cooperative politics.

Your money, their campaign team

Without completely spoiling my final post on the NDP's response on per-vote party financing, the largest issue seems to me to be the need for the NDP to actually challenge the Cons' idea of populism to shift votes, rather than signalling agreement and thereby validating the Cons' message. And it's a huge plus to see that's exactly what the NDP is doing in linking party funding to the Cons' (and Libs') blatant Senate patronage:

NDP campaign chief Brad Lavigne, who was showing off the party’s election headquarters Monday, noted that Senate appointments give the other parties “taxpayer-sponsored, full-time fundraisers, full-time campaign directors.”

His salary is paid for by party membership fees; his rivals, however, earn taxpayer dollars. “That’s an unfair subsidy,” Mr. Lavigne said. “I’d like to take that up with people and see how they feel about that.”

Indeed, it is a common practice for governing parties to reward their campaign strategists with Senate seats. Stephen Harper is no exception, despite his vow to see senators elected.

The Prime Minister appointed his fundraising guru, Irving Gerstein, to the Red Chamber. As well, he put his long-time campaign director, Doug Finley – whose wife, Diane, is the Human Resources Minister – into the chamber. Ditto for his communications aide, Carolyn Stewart-Olsen in the chamber.

The Liberals do the same. David Smith, who served as campaign director for Jean Chrétien and Stéphane Dion, is in the Senate; he was appointed in 2002 by Mr. Chretien.
...
“It’s not just the public financing, which we think has leveled the playing field. It’s taken big money out of politics and it’s led ... to less corruption,” Mr. Lavigne said. “Most of the developed world has some form of it but I know that most of the developed world doesn’t have a taxpayer-sponsored chamber like the Senate where full-time fundraisers and full-time campaign directors sit.”

Well said

Brad Lavigne points out that while the Libs are again looking for a quick fix to make up for years of ineffective opposition, Canadians don't have to settle for the same old politics:

While there is a growing desire to stop Mr. Harper, there is also a decreasing capacity of the Liberal party to play that role. In the last three elections, the Liberals have lost a million and half votes while the NDP has gained a million and a half. In the last few years, the Liberals have lost a net total of 41 seats to Mr. Harper while Jack Layton has actually taken a net total of three seats away from Mr. Harper.

A majority want Mr. Harper's minority government brought to heel. Many progressive Canadians despair at the Liberals' failure to conduct themselves as an effective opposition.
...
Today, Canadians are faced with a government that's growing ever more arrogant, more provocative. Mr. Harper rode into office on bold promises to be more transparent; now he presides over the most secretive government in history. After swearing he'd reform the unelected Senate, he's already appointed more friends to that crusty chamber than any other prime minister.

New Democrat MPs are focused on replacing both Mr. Harper and his agenda. All session long, they've shown their commitment to a better way. Their agenda balances fiscal responsibility with first steps toward better income security -- such as fixing EI and improving child benefits. Last Friday, Jack Layton joined Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter to outline a fresh approach to modernizing public health care. This week, he's promoting a new deal with aboriginal Canadians. And next weekend, he'll be in B.C. promoting practical solutions to the retirement savings crisis.

In short, Mr. Layton is out there articulating an alternative agenda that matches what the overwhelming majority of Canadians say they want from Ottawa. To give every Canadian a chance to vote for that is the NDP's electoral strategy.

Just wondering

Not that I endorse Brad Lavigne's choice of hashtags in spreading the word about the NDP's anti-torture bill. But let's ask this: if Lavigne hadn't included a jab at Michael Ignatieff in pointing it out, would commentators from any other party have so much as acknowledged that the bill exists?

On contrasts

I'm not entirely sure why Warren Kinsella is so proud of today's Question Period segment - particularly since it culminates in Brad Lavigne explaining reasonably why it's a good idea to reverse at least some of the Libs' historical assault on EI benefits while Kinsella tries to drown him out by mindlessly repeating "vote against it!". (Meanwhile, Tim Powers apparently gets lost in the phrase "enchanted forest".)

But if one wants to compare the substantive decision-making process of the NDP to the facade politics of the other two parties (which I'll do in more detail in a post to come), one could hardly ask for a better example. So I'll at least echo Kinsella so far as to suggest giving it a look.