Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Owen Jones offers his take on how the UK's Labour Party should proceed following Jeremy Corbyn's most recent leadership victory - and while the exact circumstances may not apply to the NDP's upcoming leadership campaigns, his ideas as to how to combine the interests of base supporters and softer voters are well worth keeping in mind. And Jeremy Nuttall discusses Niki Ashton's continuing efforts to advance one of Jones' ideas by giving millenial workers a voice in an economy currently designed to exploit them.

- Yves Smith highlights the gross falsehood of corporate spin trying to push for even lesser business contributions to the society that makes profits possible.

- Tim Richter and Ryan Meili rightly argue that Canada's housing crisis should be seen as a public health emergency. And the Times Colonist highlights the importance of better addressing homelessness and housing issues in Victoria in particular.

- Duncan Pike points out why anybody concerned about an intrusive surveillance state should take the time to weigh in on the federal government's security consultations. And Brendan O'Connor reports on the equally-worrisome and rapidly-growing use of private surveillance the U.S. (largely supported by public funding).

- Finally, Murray Mandryk offers a handy example of "make it awkward" in action by calling out Brad Trost's regressive Conservative leadership campaign.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Tabatha Southey rightly turns Brad Trost into a poster boy for the Harper Cons' deliberate aversion to critical self-evaluation:

We shouldn’t be too quick to judge.

Let’s instead take a cue from Conservative MP Brad Trost, who, when questioned regarding the calls, said, “I don’t think there was anything wrong with the robo-call. I think it was good and accurate information and we should stand behind it.”

Then Canada’s Candide went on to add, “I didn’t hear it. I don’t know the script. Don’t know anything. … One of my colleagues had it at her residence and her husband got it and he said it was fine. I’ll take his word for it.”

We may have lost the penny this week, but I hope we coined the word “Trostful,” which I will define as “marked by a total belief in the reliability, truth and strength of anything your colleague tells you was said to her by her husband, or similar evidence.”

 - Meanwhile, Murray Mandryk is rather sharper in his depiction of the Cons:

That the Conservatives denied involvement in the anonymous robocalls until being caught, red-handed, by the PostMedia voice analysis makes this explanation a dubious one. But that they have kept repeating the deceit at every available opportunity pretty much shows how disingenuous their denials really are..

They offered nonsense briefs to the commission arguing Saskatchewan hadn't grown much in the past 10 years and rural and urban voters had identical interests anyway. They stacked the meetings with friendlies spewing similar nonsense. They exaggerated how many of their friend-lies actually attended the meetings or presented briefs and then they claimed these meetings represented 75-per-cent provincewide opposition to the new boundaries.

And even when caught with their little "miscommunication" of the truth - even when the Conservatives had to own up to the fact that they were the ones responsible for the phoney and misleading push polling - they remorselessly did it in a way in which they simply repeated every one of the above falsehoods all over again.

Remorse? You've got a better chance of finding it in most federal prisons.

- Charles Hamilton reports on the Sask Party's announcement that it won't countenance any public benefit from alcohol sales. Don Gunderson rightly responds that it's the citizens of the province who will lose out as a result of that corporate giveaway.

- Chantal Hebert and John Geddes both wonder whether the particularly egregious abuses of public trust and money from Stephen Harper's highest-profile Senate appointees will pave the way for the abolition of the unelected chamber.

- And finally, John Ibbitson concludes the Globe and Mail's series on making Parliament relevant again by writing that courage on the part of MPs is the most important ingredient in a democratic revival.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Paul Wells points out that despite the Cons' best efforts to get Canadians to panic over the state of our retirement system, the truth is that we're actually better positioned now than was projected 20 years ago. (And for those looking inexplicably for middle ground between the status quo and the Cons' apparent plans: no, a mere modest increase in seniors' poverty isn't a positive outcome.)

- Lest there be any doubt, it's well worth researching personalized health assessment - so kudos to the Cons for planning to fund the idea. But of course it'll be worth keeping an eye as to whether the plan turns into an excuse to devolve payment to the individual level. And in also in the department of credit where due (though only to the extent due), Brad Trost's musings about MP independence deserve some support even if his own plans figure to be even worse than the Cons' Harper-dictated policy and talking points.

- Of course, we'd have a lot more confidence the Cons didn't have ulterior motives if they weren't so insistent on governing in secret. Or if they could provide an honest and relevant answer to even the most direct of questions. Or if they didn't suddenly announce the end of programs without warning.

- Finally, Rob Rainer writes that the answer to reducing inequality is simple enough - if only we didn't have a federal government determined to go in the wrong direction:

As the London-based Equality Trust states, there are two compatible options:

• Reduce the differences in employment income before tax; and
• Increase the redistribution of income through tax and benefit systems...

(T)he more effective option for combating inequality is for governments to, first, rebuild greater fairness into our systems of taxation and, second, increase the distribution of income from the "top" to the "bottom." In 1948 there were 19 personal income tax brackets in Canada, and the top marginal tax rate was 80 per cent on incomes over $250,000 ($2.37 million in 2011 dollars). Today, we have but four brackets and the top rate is but 29 per cent, kicking in on earnings over $132,406.

The key to solving inequality seems pretty clear. Have we the public will now to support the political will for a fairer, better society?

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Bryan Breguet crunches the numbers as to how today's Quebec polling projects into seats, coming up with the following results:

NDP: 31 (CROP), 32 (EKOS)
Bloc: 28 (CROP), 22 (EKOS)
Libs: 9 (CROP), 12 (EKOS)
Cons: 7 (CROP), 9 (EKOS)

Which nicely matches my rough estimate of the relative position of the NDP, Bloc and Libs. And will hopefully help the media to stop coupling polls showing the NDP at 36% with analysis suggesting that it's only in contention in six seats.

- David Climenhaga is right to note that the Harper Cons' constant set of attacks on the Libs has worked to the NDP's advantage. But it's worth noting that plenty of other attacks have had a similar effect too.

After all, the Bloc's attacks on Harper for two election cycles have ensured that the Cons couldn't win more than a handful of Quebec seats. And the attacks on the Cons by all parties have played into the NDP's "Ottawa is broken" narrative to help the party appeal to good-government voters.

So the real story is that while the rest of the parties figured the NDP could safely be ignored (allowing Layton to build popularity and the party to build trust on policy issues) only to be marginalized once election day drew closer, the actual campaign is proving otherwise.

- Munir Sheikh is the latest to point out how corporate tax cuts may merely transfer revenue from Canada to the U.S. rather than encouraging investment or economic growth anywhere.

- Michael Byers has apparently converted to the view that strategic voting does more harm than good.

- It isn't particularly news that the Cons relish the opportunity to poke organizations like Planned Parenthood in the eye for having the nerve to try to improve sexual health around the world. But I don't think there's much doubt they'd hoped to avoid having that reality surface during the campaign.

- Finally, Barbara Yaffe notes that both the Cons and Libs are focusing their campaigns mostly on scare tactics which don't seem to be working.

On golden opportunities

BCL takes Brad Trost's bizarre answer to one reporter's questions about stadium funding as a sign of indecision. But I'd look on the bright side and consider how many juicy stories we can count on from Trost's response:

Other MPs, however, refused to comment. Brad Trost said his answer to any question from the reporter is: "Yes, no, maybe."

Just think of the possibilities that philosophy raises: anytime the Star-Phoenix needs an explosive political story, it can now ask Trost the kind of question where that such an equivocal answer will make for news in and of itself.

Need a Con source to support a theory of internal dissent? Just ask Trost whether he supports his leader. (Or better yet, whether he's planning an internal coup.) One "yes, no, maybe" later, you'll have your story.

Want to question the Cons' motives? Ask Trost whether, say, their gun registry machinations are simply an attempt to dupe rural supporters into giving money. And let the party spend the next several months trying to explain away "yes, no, maybe" as an answer.

And of course, questions about the Cons' actual policies themselves will also give rise to interesting answers. Is "lock and load" under consideration as the Cons' immigration plan? Do they plan to turn their neglect of the health care system into active demolition? "Yes, no, maybe", instant firestorm.

Granted, one would prefer to actually receive some meaningful content after asking a reasonable question of a Member of Parliament. But surely Trost's invitation to create stories at will is the next best thing - and I'll hope to see the Star-Phoenix take full advantage.

Standing up against Saskatchewan

Shorter Darryl Hickie:

Of course we know Brad Trost and the federal Conservatives are completely wrong in their insulting portrayal of flooded-out municipalities as kids trying to avoid their homework. But who are we to try to set the record straight for our political bosses?

The reviews are in

Saskatchewan's media has weighed in on Brad Trost's arrogant condescension toward municipalities whose infrastructure work has been delayed for reasons beyond their control. And perhaps not surprisingly, the reviews are less than positive. Here's Murray Mandryk:

(W)hat's more galling? Trost's stupidity in not understanding why the work isn't getting done? His condescension towards "low level" politicians who actually have real responsibilities? Or was it his single- and simple-minded devotion to the prime minister's dictates at the expense of the interests of the Saskatchewan voters that elected him? Is Trost reflecting the supposed sympathy and concern Harper offered flooded-out farmers and businesses when he came here two weeks ago?

Certainly, Brad Wall must be steamed. But any sympathy one might have for Saskatchewan's premier should be couched by the fact that he's allowed his backbenchers to act every bit as arrogantly over the hiring of a new chief electoral officer...

(T)his is an utter abuse of power. Like Trost, Sask. Party caucus members have lost sight of the fact that their job is to serve the public's interests -- not their own interests.

And the Star-Phoenix editorial board:

"I think people are just, you know, wishful thinking," Mr. Trost said. If Ottawa appears to be looking at facts, using logic and being reasonable, next thing one can expect is that "every municipality from one end to the other will have a reason why their deadline should be extended."

Those fabricated reasons, one supposes, includes the more than 43 days of rain since April that flooded every below-grade project in Saskatoon, forcing workers to pump out the worksites, add more shoring and still take greater risks if they are to get in the muck and try to work, rather than "play in the park."

Saskatoon isn't alone in its challenge to manage the water. According to the Saskatchewan Association of Urban Municipalities, there are at least 33 projects across the province, worth at least $36 million, that have been delayed by weather. And one must assume that Alberta and Manitoba, which have also been hit with record amounts of rain, apparently are equally cursed with workers ready to leap on any excuse to goldbrick.

One shouldn't be surprised that Mr. Trost has such a disdainful view of his home province. After all, the entire batch of Saskatchewan's Conservatives has made it a practice of tossing local constituents under the bus in order to curry favour with the party leader.

Beneath consideration

Con MP Brad Trost offers a clear answer as to whether the Sask Party's choice to serve as Stephen Harper's lapdog has done anything to get the federal government to pay attention when Saskatchewan needs it most:

Saskatchewan Party Municipal Affairs Minister Darryl Hickie confirmed the province -- along with Alberta and Manitoba -- has asked the Conservative government to push back its March 31, 2011, deadline for the completion of stimulus projects because heavy rains on the Prairies have caused major construction delays.

Failing to meet the deadline would mean federal dollars wouldn't flow, leaving municipalities either to abandon projects or be forced to foot the bill on their own.
...
But Trost, the MP for Saskatoon-Humboldt, said pushing back the deadline would be a "massive headache" and "there's really been no consideration given.

"I think people are just, you know, wishful thinking..."

Now, it's bad enough that the the Harper Cons aren't bothering to act on what would seem to be an obviously unforeseeable impediment to getting construction work done. But Trost has gone beyond mere neglect to offer up a direct slap in the face, stating outright that the Sask Party can't even get the Harper Cons to consider Saskatchewan's request.

That may come as a shock to a Sask Party government which has done little but hope that its legwork for Harper would be repaid with anything of substance. But it was entirely predictable for those of us who recognize that the real wishful thinking was the belief that Harper would ever do anything but take Saskatchewan for granted - and it looks to make for just one more abject failure for the Wall government.

On crowded fields

Sean breaks the news that there's another entrant in an increasingly-crowded group of candidates in Saskatoon-Humboldt, as Saskatoon Councillor Darren Hill will be seeking the federal Libs' nomination to challenge Brad Trost, Denise Kouri and Jim Pankiw.

For those wondering how Hill's decision to join the race will affect the NDP's chances of winning, keep in mind that the NDP's share of the vote in the riding has regularly been between 26% and 32% - even as the number of viable candidates has varied from two to four, and the Cons' share of the vote has ranged from 27% to 54%. So when the NDP has come closest to winning, it's been the result of extensive vote splitting.

Now, with Hill apparently cutting into the Cons' support from the left while Pankiw pursues it from the right, Trost figures to be in a world of trouble trying to hold onto his vote. And the NDP still looks to have the best chance of taking advantage of that opening.

From personal experience

Shorter Brad Trost:

The real point of increasing consumption taxes on individuals is to find an excuse to hand free money over to the corporate sector. As we Cons know well from experience.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

On silver linings

BCL picks up on what looks to be the most interesting question surrounding Jim Pankiw's entry into the next election in Saskatoon-Humboldt: namely, what are the chances that his candidacy will help shift the riding into the NDP column? But while BCL notes Pankiw's recent vote percentage alone, let's take a look in some more detail at how past Saskatchewan MPs/MLAs have fared in recent years when challenging party candidates as independents.

To start with, it's worth noting that while plenty of high-profile candidates have tried similar gambits to Pankiw's, none has yet managed to either win a seat in the past decade, or even have anything but the most tangential impact on the outcome in any riding. Instead, here's how they've fared:
- Former Con Premier Grant Devine posted the best share of a popular vote, taking 27% of the vote to finish second in Souris-Moose Mountain in 2004. Devine came within 10% of Con victor Ed Komarnicki's share of the vote in a riding where Con/Reform candidates otherwise haven't faced a race closer than 44 points since 1997. Note that this race didn't involve an incumbent candidate from any party.
- Pankiw himself has run twice as an independent in federal elections. His 2004 Saskatoon-Humboldt result was the closest any independent candidate has come to either winning or obviously flipping a Saskatchewan riding in recent decades: Con Brad Trost took just under 27% of the vote to narrowly beat out the NDP's Nettie Wiebe and the Libs' Patrick Wolfe (just under 26% apiece) and Pankiw at 20%. But he nonetheless came in fourth place and came closer to tipping the riding into NDP or Lib column than he did to retaining the seat himself.
- In 2006, Pankiw came in a distant third with 14% in Battlefords-Lloydminster - though there he apparently didn't have any impact on the relative strength of the other parties, as the Cons, NDP and Libs each seemed to lose 4%-5% of the vote to make up Pankiw's share.
- Having previously won Desnethé–Missinippi–Churchill River for both the NDP and the Libs, Rick Laliberté finished fourth with just under 10% of the vote in 2004 as the riding's incumbent. It's worth noting that Laliberte was the only candidate on this list to spoil the riding for his most recent ex-party on paper, as the Libs lost by a lower share of the vote than Laliberté took for himself.
- Finally, the ultimate in futile independent runs came in Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, where even with the advantage of incumbency Larry Spencer could only hold 5% of the vote in 2004 as Tom Lukiwski first won a seat in the House of Commons in a tight three-way race.

From that track record, there's little reason to think that Pankiw will have much chance of emerging victorious in the next election: even the track record of having won in the previous election wasn't enough to keep the seat in his hands back in 2004, and there's no indication that he'll be any more successful now. But there would seem to be a reasonable chance of his siphoning off enough of the Cons' vote to turn the seat into a winnable one for the NDP, which has emerged as the strongest challenger for the seat in 2006 and 2008 (in fact picking up its share of the vote while the Libs have dropped into the low double digits).

So in order to try to turn Pankiw's hate into something positive, now would seem to be a great time to show your support for Denise Kouri. And if the result is that Trost ends up as the next candidate to be reduced to running as an independent after the Cons decide to try to put an even more friendly face on their same old brand of bigotry, then so much the better.

Update: added links.

Update II: Welcome to those finding their way here from the Boycott Jim Pankiw, Boycott Racism Facebook group, which already boasts an impressive 2,000+ members just days after Pankiw announced his run.

Silenced

The news that the Wall government is planning to eliminate dozens of provincial boards and commissions doesn't really mean much on its own. But taking a closer look at exactly what's being axed, there's serious reason for concern that the Sask Party is entirely eager to cut off important lines of communication with unfriendly stakeholders - and all without any actual savings resulting from the move to insulate Sask Party ministers from genuine input.

To start with, the majority of the boards and commissions to be cut do appear to be ones which are dormant or which have completed their work. In most of those cases, the decision to carry out officially what's already happened in practice serves as a mildly useful administrative move, though not one which can plausibly be claimed to save money or otherwise result in government efficiencies. (Though it's worth noting that the Sask Party itself may have something to do with driving some committees into hibernation: take for example the Minister's Provincial Park Advisory Committee, which held its last meeting just after the Wall government took power, and is now being slashed for having "not been active since November 2007".)

Another broad group of the committees being cut includes those which are explicitly being replaced by something else of the Sask Party's creation. Notable on this list are the current advisory committees on drug and alcohol abuse and HIV/AIDS, as well as labour and education forums.

Now, this might be seen as somewhat less objectionable than a declaration that input actually isn't required on those issues. But the replacement of one committee with another does raise a couple of important issues.

First, it's downright dishonest for the Sask Party to claim savings from eliminating the existing committee without taking into account the cost of creating a new one - particularly when there's bound to be more work involved in developing something from scratch than maintaining an existing structure. And more importantly, it's worth wondering whether the new committees will actually represent as broad a group of participants as the existing committees, or whether the Sask Party will pick and choose only those voices which they want to hear in areas where there's obvious potential for socon or corporatist biases to lead to disastrous results.

Which is of course an even greater problem where existing consultation mechanisms are being replaced with absolutely nothing. And there are many key areas where the Wall government is sending a clear signal that it doesn't think meaningful stakeholder consultations are worth its time.

Oddly enough, the largest group of these falls under the agriculture portfolio, where no less than 8 advisory committees are being eliminated on the basis that the Ministry of Agriculture "already consults directly" with affected parties. But there's a significant difference between the type of consultation available through an ongoing committee which both facilitates discussion among stakeholders and provides a regular checkpoint between that stakeholder group and the government, and that based simply on a Ministry dealing with parties on a one-on-one basis. And the Sask Party's eagerness to systematically eliminate the latter type doesn't speak well to its interest in working collaboratively with the groups involved.

Among other particularly egregious examples:
- The Advisory Committee on Family Planning is to be disbanded, with its role taken over by non-government organizations. Who else sees a possible issue with allowing right-wing politicians to hand-pick their ideological buddies to set the province's direction on reproductive health?
- FSIN's Circle of Partners Advisory Committee - highlighted just this spring as an example of the Sask Party's commitment to engaging with First Nations - has apparently been "determined to be unnecessary by Enterprise (Saskatchewan)". We'll see how kindly the FSIN takes to being told by big business that its input is neither necessary nor welcome.
- The Early Learning and Child Care Advisory Board is being eliminated in favour of "ad hoc" consultations. Which would seem to send a strong signal that child care is headed absolutely nowhere as long as Wall is in power.
- Finally, the Provincial Youth Advisory Committee is being cut on the basis that "(youth) representatives on boards across government make this Committee unnecessary". Aside from the issue of allowing for collaborative efforts rather than mere token representation, that seems to leave the door wide open for a single Sask Party supporter to be taken to speak for youth across the province on any given issue.

We'll find out soon just how determined the Sask Party is to follow through on the cuts. But from what I can tell, the Wall government's move seems to be aimed entirely at trying to selectively freeze out voices it doesn't like rather than actually finding efficiencies - and it'll be important for everybody affected to speak out now before being silenced by the Sask Party.

The appropriate response

For all that's been said about Brad Trost's attempt to eliminate federal funding to Planned Parenthood's international operations, the definitive word so far goes to Stephen Whitworth:

Reasonable, tolerant people do not launch petitions against Planned Parenthood because it provides legal abortions. I'm officially calling it and I'm sticking to it: Saskatoon MP Brad Trost is unfit for public office and frankly he's a threat to human rights, freedoms and civil society.

Well said

Stephen Moore criticizes the anti-gay policies of both the federal Cons and the Sask Party, then puts it all in a bit of historical perspective:

A couple of years back, our family watched the excellent PBS documentary, Eyes on the Prize, the story of the US Civil Rights movement.

After seeing a clip of George "segregation forever" Wallace, my young daughter turned to me and said, "Dad, what's segregation?"

Trying to explain Wallace's logic, this father came up short.

That's not because racism and prejudice have become unthinkable here in Saskatchewan -- clearly they haven't.

I firmly believe, however, that one day, some future Regina father, perhaps after viewing a different video clip, will struggle to answer his child's question: "Dad, what's homophobia?"

Let's hurry that day along.

Ambushed

Never mind that he went voluntarily to a socon news outlet to pitch the story that one of his partymates had been punished for failing to discriminate against the gay community. Now that the whole incident has proven an embarrassment, Brad Trost is outraged that anybody would have any follow-up questions:

After the interview was over, Trost accused the StarPhoenix reporter of "ambushing" him with questions about the issue and pressed the stop button on her voice recorder.

Update: BigCityLib has more.