Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Michael Marshall offers a reminder that even where it hasn't been able to achieve its ideal goal, a zero-COVID strategy has produced far better outcomes for people. The Ottawa Citizen's editorial board is rightly scathing in responding to Doug Ford's abandonment of his province. Emma Teitel writes that the building wave is the first where we're facing the explicit acknowledgment that we've been left to fend for ourselves, while the People's CDC is working on providing advice that isn't grossly biased toward keeping business open at the expense of public health. May Warren and Ghada Elsharif discuss why (even more than in previous outbreaks) it feels like COVID-19 is everywhere. Kayla Rosen reports on Joss Reimer's much-needed acknowledgment that the let-'er-rip strategy is setting up massive numbers of people to be afflicted with long COVID. 

- Fiona Harvey reports that scientists are warning that we need a rapid transition away from oil and gas dependency, while Seth Klein writes that the supply and confidence agreement between the NDP and the Libs falls well short of the mark. And Reuters reports on Ember's research showing that we can't blame a lack of renewable options for our continued reliance on dirty fossil fuels, as wind and solar energy are in fact growing at a fast enough pace to allow for a full transition in time to meet the 1.5 degree target. 

- John Michael McGrath writes about the Ford PCs' pitiful excuse for a housing bill in advance of an election where a lack of available homes and a propensity for catering to developers at the expense of citizens are major issues. 

- The Canadian Press reports on the push by Canadian jurisdictions to decriminalize drug possession in order to reduce the number of people dying of drug poisonings. 

- Finally, The Maple talks to Brent Patterson about the glaring lack of need (or use) for the F-35s fighter jets which the Libs are so eager to make the subject of a massive federal purchase.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Michael Bang Pedersen argues that the COVID pandemic offers a prime example of the importance of telling hard truths to the public - rather than engaging in the wishful thinking, sugar-coating and general denial we've come to expect from Scott Moe. And Susie Flaherty writes about new research confirming that children are spreaders of COVID-19 (and particularly its variants), while Lynn Giesbrecht reports that over a hundred Saskatchewan schools (plus several dozen daycares) are currently experiencing outbreaks.  

- Paddy Bettington rightly criticizes the UK Cons' version of "building back" for providing nothing but worse conditions for workers. And Paul Krugman points out the rightful revolt of American workers against being underpaid, put at risk and taken for granted.  

- Max Callaghan and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner discuss their new study showing how the vast majority of people are already affected by the climate crisis. And Oliver Milman, Andrew Witherspoon, Rita Liu and Alvin Chang observe that a climate disaster isn't merely a remote future prospect, but an imminent reality.  

- Simon Evans notes that the IEA's latest World Energy Outlook shows fossil fuel use peaking in 2025 if countries meet their climate commitments. But Rob Davies highlights how that limited and delayed change would be nowhere near enough to actually avert climate breakdown. 

- Meanwhile, Siddharth Joshi, James Glynn and Shivika Mittal discuss the obvious potential for solar power alone to meet the world's energy needs. And Dana Nuccitelli points out how a faster transition to a clean economy will also be a more affordable one.

- Finally, Brent Patterson examines what we know about the RCMP's unit dedicated to violating human rights to protect extractive industries. 

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The Globe and Mail's editorial board is rightly aghast at Doug Ford's choice to facilitate the spread of the coronavirus as a devastating fall wave hits, while Bruce Arthur writes that there may be no choice but to impose a lockdown as the cost of doing nothing becomes more glaring. And Andrew Leach rightly calls out Jason Kenney's attempt to declare a spike in infection to be a matter of personal responsibility, while taking no responsibility whatsoever for his government's failings. 

- Meanwhile, Stephanie Taylor reports on new Saskatchewan Health Minister Paul Merriman's worrisome takes on COVID-19 - including that anti-mask protesting is just fine, and that the availability of field hospitals (which are better described as warehouses) means we shouldn't worry about the effect of the pandemic on our health care system. And Colin D'Mello reports on warnings about Ontario's health care system, which may soon see surgeries and other necessary care cancelled again in order to prioritize COVID-19 treatment. 

- Brady Lang reports on the alarming increase in Saskatchewan drug overdose deaths to over one a day so far in 2020. And Kathrin Glosel offers a reminder that a full Housing First strategy not only saves lives, but also saves money compared to the cost of jails and medical treatment. 

- Meanwhile, Lisa Adkins and Martijn Konings note that the gap between the cost of housing and the wages available from work has grown to the point where middle-class workers are having to rely on inheritances to buy a first home.

- Paola Rose-Aquino writes about the spread of the right-to-repair movement across borders and party lines.

- David Pugliese exposes the plans of Canada's military to set up a propaganda unit to influence public opinion and behaviour. And Jim Bronskill reports on the RCMP's continued stonewalling of a Civilian Review and Complaints Commission report into its covert surveillance of environmental activists.

- Finally, Brent Patterson discusses how we could put public resources to far better use funding a Green New Deal rather than gratuitous military purchasing. And Darrin Qualman examines how climate change stands to harm agriculture in Saskatchewan.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Crawford Kilian highlights how ongoing inequality is among the many factors leading to stagnant life expectancies in Canada. Jim Stanford points out that tax cuts don't do anything to help workers facing stagnant wages due to policies designed to leave them under the thumb of employers. And Jamelle Bouie discusses the folly of the U.S. Democrats - or any party seeking to win under a progressive banner - failing to properly stand for the interests of workers.

- Brent Patterson lists the glaring failures of the Trudeau Libs' climate policy as the world again meets to try to plan to ameliorate the climate crisis. And the Canadian Press reports on new research showing that severe weather is the largest contributor to soaring food prices.

- Val Avery writes about the dangers to Canada's public health care system posed by Brian Day's attempt to enshrine privatized medicine as a Charter right. And Bob Bell, Danyaal Raza and Stefan Superina offer a warning as to how a two-tiered system led to the degradation of public services in Australia.

- Neil Macdonald calls out the continued gap between the Libs' words about reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, and their actions bent on preserving discrimination and avoiding compensation as long as they possibly can. And Doug Cuthand writes that it's long past time to provide compensation for breaking up First Nations families.

- Finally, Duncan Cameron writes about the authoritarian government being imposed on Alberta by Jason Kenney.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Sarmishta Subramanian writes that messages of exclusion and division tend to be amplified for political purposes rather than because they actually reflect broad public opinion. And Christopher Cheung discusses how the PPC in particular has chosen to use the language of selective inclusion to stoke xenophobia.

- Sheila Block makes the case for a wealth tax in Canada. And the Canadian Press reports on new data showing how the wealthiest few are not only increasing their income levels, but paying less tax on what they take in.

- Meanwhile, Dawn Foster writes about the much-needed ambition to improve the lives of workers embodied in UK Labour's plan for a four-day work week.

- Chris Hedges comments on the need to overcome corporate power in order to achieve a just transition to a sustainable society, while Brent Patterson writes that the growing climate strikes are only the beginning of the effort.

- Finally, Paul Adams points out the difficulty in adequately covering the a global climate crisis in the course of an election where it doesn't give rise to simple conflict narratives. And Derrick O'Keefe calls out Justin Trudeau's particularly galling choice to make a loud but content-free climate announcement in the shadow of the pipeline he bought to increase the burning of fossil fuels.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Robin Sears writes that it's long past time for Canada's wealthiest people and corporations to start paying their fair share of taxes. And Leo Gerard points out how the U.S. has gone in exactly the wrong direction by slashing its corporate tax rates and revenues to no end other than the further concentration of wealth, while Alexandre Tanzi notes that the upper middle class up to the 90th percentile is suffering as a result of an economy designed to favour only the most privileged few.

- Meanwhile, Karina Roman reports on the Libs' pathetic response to the glaring lack of protection for pensions and benefits in cases of corporate restructuring.

- Stephen Leahy writes about the absurdity of expanding the environmental destruction wrought by the extraction of Alberta's tar sands even as the world grapples with imminent climate catastrophe, while Mike Doherty interviews Bill McKibben about the role Canada needs to play to avert disaster. And Brent Patterson discusses the Extinction Rebellion and its efforts to foster direct action in the face of governmental climate negligence.

- Sarath Peiris points out that after using the issue briefly to beg for federal money, the Saskatchewan Party has resumed neglecting the province's liability for abandoned oil and gas wells.

- And finally, Allison Jones reports on the Ford PCs' decision to slash flood management funding just as its importance is most readily apparent.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Friday reading.

- Paul Krugman offers a reminder that the gap between the 1% and the rest of us is far larger than most people are permitted to see:

(T)here’s also a big difference between being affluent, even very affluent, and having the kind of wealth that puts you in a completely separate social universe. It’s a difference summed up three decades ago in the movie “Wall Street,” when Gordon Gekko mocks the limited ambitions of someone who just wants to be “a $400,000-a-year working Wall Street stiff flying first class and being comfortable.”

Even now, most Americans don’t seem to realize just how rich today’s rich are. At a recent event, my CUNY colleague Janet Gornick was greeted with disbelief when she mentioned in passing that the top 25 hedge fund managers make an average of $850 million a year. But her number was correct.
...
Why should we care about the very rich? It’s not about envy, it’s about oligarchy.

With great wealth comes both great power and a separation from the concerns of ordinary citizens. What the very rich want, they often get; but what they want is often harmful to the rest of the nation. There are some public-spirited billionaires, some very wealthy liberals. But they aren’t typical of their class.

The very rich don’t need Medicare or Social Security; they don’t use public education or public transit; they may not even be that reliant on public roads (there are helicopters, after all). Meanwhile, they don’t want to pay taxes.
...
(W)e should be able to understand both that the affluent in general should be paying more in taxes, and that the very rich are different from you and me ­— and Bernie Sanders. The class divide that lies at the root of our political polarization is much starker, much more extreme than most people seem to realize. 

- Sean Coughlan discusses how hollowing out of the middle class is destabilizing both our economy and our political environment. And Brent Patterson highlights the need to challenge an economic model based on selling what's shiny and new rather than building and preserving what matters.

- Crawford Kilian views the Notre Dame cathedral fire as a vivid example of the dangers of neglecting the maintenance of our social goods, while Aditya Chakrabortty notes that the ability of a few ultra-wealthy people to throw around hundreds of millions of dollars in response shows that there are plenty of resources available to actually take better care of ourselves and our world. And Carol Kroeger comments on the need for our political leaders to similarly pay far more attention to helping people, and far less to manipulating them to preserve their own power.

- Finally, Anne Kingston laments Canada's backsliding in lacking any female jurisdictional leaders, while noting that broken promises of proportional representation are a significant part of the problem. And Melanie Green discusses the harassment of Rubab Qureshi in response to her mere recognition that Islamophobia is a problem.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Tom Kibasi writes that the UK's best option in light of its impending Brexit is to develop a more active and entrepreneurial state:

So in a sense, Brexit changes everything and changes nothing: it exacerbates the UK longstanding problem with an investment rate that was already far below our international competitors at the time of the referendum. It makes it harder to achieve escape velocity from an economic model that isn’t working to one that does.
 

We know that rather than crowding out investment – as free marketers claim – greater public investment in fact crowds it in. Brexit will therefore make it even more important to get public investment up, not less. And with interest rates close to zero, a programme of quantitative easing that has not been wound down, fiscal policy will be the only option left to lift Britain out of any future recession. It is therefore illogical to say that Brexit must mean more austerity. It must mean the reverse. Paradoxically, the right response to Brexit is to become a more European economy, with a more active and entrepreneurial state. 

- Meanwhile, Brett Christophers examines the large-scale privatization of land in the UK - with roughly half of its remaining commonwealth in land by area, and more than that by value, having been sold off since 1979.

- Callum Burroughs discusses how the oil industry is failing to put its money where its mouth is in developing renewable energy even as it pours tens of millions of dollars into squelching any public policy improvements. And Chantal Hebert points out that the mindless oil industry jingoism being parroted by right-wing parties across much of Canada looks to be political poison for the federal Cons in Quebec.

- Troy Henderson notes that public-sector wage caps and general job precarity serve to drive down wages and working conditions for everybody.

- Taylor Scollon suggests that the disproportionate political influence of big money could be counterbalanced by ensuring that campaigns are financed through public dollars distributed based on voter choice.

- Finally, Brent Patterson is hopeful that Canada will see a wave of progressive millennial activists emerge comparable to the ones which are already reshaping politics in the U.S. and the UK.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Owen Jones writes that a four-day work week being developed by UK Labour could represent an important step toward genuine personal freedom:

(I)t is extremely welcome that Labour’s John McDonnell has approached eminent economist Lord Skidelsky to head an inquiry into potentially cutting the working week to four days. It should be part of a new crusade for the left: of defending and expanding personal freedom.

The champions of free market fundamentalism promised their creed would bring us freedom. But it wasn’t freedom at all: from the lack of secure, affordable housing to growing job insecurity and rising personal debt, the individual is trapped. Nine decades ago, John Maynard Keynes predicted that technological advances and rising productivity would mean that we’d be working a 15-hour week by now: that target has been somewhat missed.
...
(A) shorter working week would enable us to redistribute hours from the overworked to the underworked. Lord Skidelsky’s inquiry would need to look at cutting the working week without slashing living standards: after all, Britain’s workers have already suffered the worst squeeze in wages since the Napoleonic wars. But cutting the working week would free the individual, giving millions of workers more time to spend as they see fit. Human freedom should be the core aim of modern socialism. The right to work less would be an act of liberation – and a cause the left should embrace.

- Meanwhile, PressProgress exposes Ontario Proud's pitch for six-figure corporate donations to try to prevent workers from ever achieving any improvements, while Jim Stanford warns the Ford government that merely seeking to turn back the clock is no way to develop viable policy.

- Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on a push by Ontario students to achieve minimum wage parity with other workers. And Rob Shaw reports on British Columbia's move to put an end to contract-flipping attacks on public service workers.

- Rick Smith writes about the increasingly-visible human face of plastics pollution.

- Finally, Brent Patterson discusses the need to respond to what's wrong with the world with active steps to set matters right.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- David Moscrop discusses the need for a more meaningful definition of "progress" which doesn't hand-wave away the long-term harms and risks created by the single-minded pursuit of immediate gains in top-end wealth.

- Rajeev Syal reports that the UK Cons pushed through public-sector austerity with full knowledge of the increased poverty that would result. CBC reports on at least one private-sector employer, Quebec's Simons, which is recognizing the benefits of paying employees more than the bare minimum. And Mike Crawley notes that Doug Ford's list of attacks on workers includes delaying even a modest level of pay transparency.

- Meanwhile, Kwame McKenzie discusses the predictable public health costs of Ford's minimum wage freeze. And as a memo to the Saskatchewan Party: those problems with leaving the return on work at $14 per hour are all the worse when the minimum wage is nearly three dollars less.

- Brent Patterson criticizes the Libs' attempt to reframe the Trans-Pacific Partnership as "progressive", rather than a massive giveaway of wealth and power to the corporate sector. And David Schneiderman argues that the only truly progressive response to anti-social investment pacts is to decline to sign them.

- Finally, Ryan Maloney reports on Charlie Angus' plan to extricate Canada from any deal to contribute military weaponry to Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses. And Michael Harris writes about the costs of failing to stand up for human rights.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Ben Chu reports on the conclusion from the chief economist of the Bank of England that decreased unionization in the UK is responsible for reducing wages for all workers by .75% per year over the past 30 years.

- Hassan Yussuff warns that Doug Ford's insistence on reversing any gains for workers at the first opportunity will put many women in avoidable danger. And David Climenhaga comments on Jason Kenney's plans to similarly launch an all-out attack on workers, with no regard for evidence or public input.

- Eliza Barclay and Umair Irfan offer a list of suggestions to avert climate breakdown, while Noah Smith discusses the importance of clean energy development in China as part of the global fight against climate change. Matt Henderson points out the unfairness of pushing carbon debts onto future generations, while Brent Patterson makes the case for holding corporations to account for their carbon pollution.

- The Star's editorial board weighs in on the need to reduce traffic congestion in Toronto. And Kim Willsher reports on the success of Dunkirk's implementation of free public transportation.

- Finally, Sheila Block comments on the absurdity of obsessing over artificial limits on tax revenue:

Any politician promising better public services without touching property taxes isn’t telling the whole story.

Just to maintain the status quo — which shouldn’t be the goal in an expanding city — Toronto would need property tax increases that grow with both population and inflation. That would be about 50 per cent higher than inflationary increases only.
...
We see the impact of this unsustainable fiscal approach all around our city: dangerous crowding in subway stations, a desperate need for repairs in Toronto Community Housing, flooded streets during climate events, insufficient shelter beds in the height of winter, timid investments in the city’s poverty reduction strategy, and digital line ups to get kids into recreational programs.

Did I mention $30 billion in unfunded capital projects?

Even worse, each year that we delay increasing property taxes has an impact on both our current and future capacity to fund essential city services.

But what if we approached property taxes in a grown-up fashion?

As grown ups, we know that we’re better off changing the oil in our cars on schedule as part of a good maintenance program. We know that dealing with the mould in the basement as soon as possible is the best financial and health strategy. And when we can, we know that putting money aside for our retirement is the prudent thing to do.

We are doing none of this for our larger home, the City of Toronto. We are letting the mould spread. We are emptying our saving accounts. We are not investing in our children’s futures.
...
As residents, we also don’t get a free pass. Voters who choose tax-freezing candidates must come to terms with deteriorating public services and sticking the bill to our kids and grandkids.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- David Wallace-Wells writes that even "genocide" may be too gentle a word for the consequences of a climate breakdown. Josh Gabbatiss discusses the insanity of approving - and even subsidizing - fracking and other means of exacerbating the climate crisis. And the Globe and Mail's editorial board weighs in on the need for carbon pricing as part of any viable climate change policy.

- Larry Elliott argues that a global economic crash exacerbated by climate breakdown could be worse than any we've seen yet. And Barry Ritholtz writes that a combination of growing debt and risk mismanagement is making another financial crisis inevitable.

- Andrew Van Dam discusses new research showing that parental wealth is already a stronger determinant of post-secondary graduation than genetic advantages.

- Wanyee Li reports that Vancouver's housing shortage and price inflation have reached the point where the workers needed to ensure access to housing are themselves priced out of the city.

- Finally, Brent Patterson comments on Max Siegelbaum's report about Canadian pension funds putting their money into U.S immigration detention centres. And in a somewhat dated report, John Aglionby points out the World Bank's recommendation that refugee camps also be turned into a means of extracting corporate profits.

New column day

Here, following up on this post about the potential for a truly federal carbon pricing system if right-wing provincial governments keep griping about having the ability to develop alternatives.

For further reading...
- Anna Desmarais reports on the NDP's push for climate change policy to meet the standards set out in the latest IPCC report. And Gerald Butts for one has been echoing the language of a "moral obligation" - though without apparently prodding the Libs to any action beyond a public relations blitz.
- Brent Patterson highlights how the Libs have thus far fallen short of any reasonable standard of action to combat our climate breakdown. And Karl Nerenberg calls out Jason Kenney and Doug Ford for demanding even less.
- Finally, Gary Mason argues that anybody blustering against a carbon tax has an obligation to offer up an alternative. Mark Cameron and David McLaughlin suggest that carbon tax rebates may tilt the balance of public opinion in favour of meaningful pricing. And David Reevely points out that a refusal to rein in climate change now will result in costly attempts to adapt in the future.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Evelyn Forget makes the case for a national basic income which would provide a more stable fiscal base for Canada's provinces as well as its citizens. And Dennis Raphael writes about the social murder resulting from the wanton destruction of income supports and other policies which save lives. 

- Meanwhile, the CP reports on the recommendation of British Columbia's provincial auditor that it actually track the effects of tax expenditures, rather than merely taking for granted that they serve any useful purpose.

- Mel Watkins writes that the mistakes Canada made by giving up sovereignty in previous trade deals laid the groundwork for the latest NAFTA concessions. And Brent Patterson notes that the USCMA includes special protection for GMOs in order to benefit US agribusiness regardless of the risks for Canadian producers and consumers.

- The CP takes note that our current emission reduction targets fall far short of what's needed to rein in catastrophic climate change. And in case we needed more reminders of the immediate dangers associated with fossil fuels, Jesse Ferreras reports on the explosion and fire caused by an Enbridge pipeline rupture in B.C., while Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon talks to one of the workers in the immediate vicinity of the Irving Oil refinery explosion.

- Finally, Ed Broadbent and Hugh Segal argue that it's long past time for Canada to pursue electoral reform:

What used to be unusual occurrences in our system – minority governments – are fast becoming the norm both provincially and federally. Three of the past five federal elections have produced minority governments. With a first-past-the-post electoral system, this can be a recipe for increasing instability.

The reason for this is that such a system exaggerates the effects of even tiny swings in voting: Just a few votes in a single riding can be the difference between a majority and a minority government. As a consequence, parties that find themselves in a minority situation often engage in a constant game of “chicken,” continually jockeying for advantage with an eye to a snap election. In proportional systems, such gamesmanship is rare. A small change in the vote for a party only results in a small change in the number of seats. There’s no point in triggering a snap election. So people get on with governing. And, knowing a number of parties are likely to be elected causes leaders to be more collaborative and less confrontational with each other. This makes for better government.

The evidence of the past few months is clear. Given the realities of Canadian voting trends, converting our provincial and federal electoral systems to proportional ones needs to be an immediate priority. We hope that Quebec, B.C. and PEI get the ball rolling and we look forward to seeing other Canadian provinces and the federal level following their example as soon as possible.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jim Stanford discusses how abusing precarious workers has become the primary job of big business. But Owen Jones notes that strikes against McDonald's in the UK represent just the latest example of workers taking collective action to fight for a more fair economy.

- Meanwhile, Kevin Rawlinson reports on a new estimate of the amount of unpaid work performed in the UK every year.

- Alexandra Shimo reports on the contrast between Nestle's extraction of millions of litres of water from Six Nations of the Grand River treaty land, and residents' need to go without running water at all. And Brent Patterson writes that the oil industry is predictably one of the main winners in the new NAFTA.

- Anna Desmarais reports on the Environment Commissioner's conclusion that Canada isn't properly tracking the disposal of businesses' toxic waste. 

- Finally, Linda Leon points out the entrenched interests trying to undermine electoral reform due to the possibility that it might make governmental capture more difficult.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Jim Stanford writes that the D-J Composites lockout should offer Canada a much-needed reminder as to the reality of labour conflict:

Through 640 emotional days, the picket line has remained peaceful: the only injury was a union member hit by a vehicle charging through the line during a snowstorm. But genuine economic violence is being done every day to 32 workers separated from their livelihoods by an aggressive employer. The employer's position is all the stronger when it can hire others to keep working for less -- but no replacement worker should ever think they can participate in that process without facing scrutiny or challenge.

Ironically, Newfoundland Premier Dwight Ball has a promising solution to this mess sitting right on his desk, in the form of recommendations from an Industrial Inquiry Commission convened by the provincial government in 2010 following a long dispute at Vale's nickel operations in Voisey's Bay. Headed by labour lawyer John Roil, and advised by Prof. Gregor Murray, labour-relations specialist at the University of Montreal, the commission recognized the traditional balance of power between employers and workers has been disrupted by the power and flexibility exercised by global corporations. They recommended modernizing labour law to ensure foreign firms understand and respect Canadian practices. They also proposed a fallback mechanism to arbitrate settlements in intractable disputes, so long as certain conditions are met, including failure to bargain in good faith.

Those sensible recommendations were never implemented, but they were tailor-made to prevent long work stoppages such as this one. Prohibiting replacement workers -- especially during management-led lockouts -- would also promote faster settlements; British Columbia and Quebec already do this. In the end, provincial intervention of some kind is essential to end this conflict.

The D-J Composites lockout, while small, is a telling reminder that employers hold the upper hand in most modern industrial disputes -- and Canadian labour law has failed to address this imbalance. Economists and politicians alike bemoan persistently weak wage growth and stagnant household incomes. But this nasty little quarrel reveals exactly why this is happening. Governments across the country, starting with Mr. Ball's, should watch and learn.

- Claude Wittmann discusses the Ford government's blame-and-shame approach to poverty and the people who face it.

- David Moscrop comments on the folly of falling in line with the U.S.' destructive War on Drugs. And Tessie Castillo points out that the criminalization of drug use is precisely what makes it more dangerous than other potentially addictive activities.

- Brent Patterson offers a reminder (if perhaps one which came too late) as to why we're best served walking away from NAFTA.

- Finally, Max FineDay highlights the need to push back against weaponized misinformation such as residential school denialism.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Jagmeet Singh observes that much of the festering hate stoked by right-wing parties can be traced back to economic injustice and insecurity:

(I)f we really want to stop hate, we need to do more than just call it out. We need to recognize that it is growing economic inequality that creates the conditions for hate to fester. That’s the reality Andrew Scheer is trying to exploit: the economic injustice that has left so many very hard-working Canadians wondering why they can’t make ends meet, and what — or who — is to blame.

This summer I met a lot of those Canadians, Canadians who Scheer hopes will tune into his message. Workers juggling multiple jobs just to pay the rent and wondering why good quality, long-term work is so hard to find. Families that, every month, are just a few dollars away from not being able to pay their bills. Students grappling with debt and a job market with very little to offer. Seniors having to choose between paying for groceries and the medication they need. Parents struggling to find child care they can afford and rely on. Too many wondering how they’ll ever retire without living in poverty.
...
There is no excuse for inaction in the face of economic injustice. It’s time to implement real solutions.

Solutions like universal pharmacare, which economists say is more than feasible and will save us billions of dollars. Solutions like universal child care, which we know would more than pay for itself by allowing more parents, especially women, to go to work. Solutions like an immediate federal investment in housing, which we know would make an enormous difference to families struggling to pay skyrocketing rents for substandard accommodations.

We know we can help pay for these and other concrete solutions by finally clamping down on tax loopholes and tax havens, so that everyone in Canada, including the richest, pay their fair share. But Canadians have been waiting too long for that simple and fair fix.

- Thomas Kochan, Duanyi Yang, Erin Kelly and Will Kimball examine the widespread desire among U.S. workers to engage in collective action, even as Republicans go far out of their way to prevent anything of the sort. And Anna Patty reports on new IMF research showing how a labour market distorted in favour of employers is robbing workers of any share in economic development. 

- Cory Coleman reports on Regina's sharp increase in homelessness as a result of Scott Moe's decision to slash housing funding. And Philip Inman discusses how increased land values in the UK are enriching current owners while leaving everybody else behind.

- Finally, Brent Patterson calls out the dishonesty behind the Trudeau Libs' attempt to tie modest climate change policies to the publicly-funded expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. Peter Tertzakian discusses some of the implications of a world in which clean energy is no longer scarce - though it's worth noting the additional result that investments based on seeking rents from tight markets for oil and other energy will lose any prospective upside. And Guy Dauncey sets out a few of the climate change options which might make a meaningful difference in saving a livable environment.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Christo Aivalis discusses the future of organized labour and the need for workplace democracy in an era of increased automation:

New organizing models and shorter workdays are both viable solutions to address the struggles of encroaching automation, but neither strike to the heart of the matter that AI exposes. In our current capitalist system, the politics of automation are inherently adversarial, because while productivity increases and cost savings are consistently sought by owners, managers, and shareholders, the workers themselves don’t want to be displaced from the job that provides them their livelihood. Historically, many workers and socialists have acknowledged the immense social value automative processes have had in eliminating the most tedious and dangerous of jobs, meaning that we can shift our human resources in more productive and fulfilling directions. But automation driven primarily by profit motives serves to further concentrate power and wealth, making our society more unequal, and our democracy more imperilled. Even things like the basic income guarantee may fail to solve this issue, because putting the masses of people on mere subsistence incomes while an increasingly small number of owners and technical workers reap riches is more likely to lead to Elysium than to a just society.

So the rise of AI may well provide the conditions for a reinvigorated challenge to capitalism. Unions must not only bargain for better wages and conditions, but must push for mechanisms that give workers greater say in the direction of their workplaces, and a greater share of the value derived from actions which have traditionally served to unemploy them. But beyond bargaining, labour must align with politicians seeking to democratize workplaces and the wider economy by increasing the proportion of our economy owned not by capitalists, but by cooperatives and the public. If we are indeed at the precipice of a new industrial era, the only way to ensure 90 per cent or more of the population isn’t permanently marginalized from economic life is to demand that our democratic levers extend into the operation of industry. Put another way: in the automated age, democracy will need socialism.

- Wojciech Keblowski makes the case to abolish fares for transit to maximize the public good it can achieve. And Ricardo Tranjan discusses the crucial role of public service employment as a matter of both economic and social development.

- Maude Barlow and Sujata Dey offer a reminder that Canada can do just fine without NAFTA. Jerry Dias implores the Trudeau government to be willing to walk away from NAFTA negotiations if the Trump administration is being as reckless and heavy-handed as it appears. And Brent Patterson wonders whether an even worse NAFTA might serve as the impetus for a more fundamental challenge to elite-driven capitalism.

- Carlyn Zwarenstein writes about the value of harm reduction as a response to addictions issues. And Liam Britten reports that in keeping with its stellar early returns in managing British Columbia's public resources, John Horgan's government is suing opioid manufacturers for their harm maximization model of drug distribution.

- Finally, Bashir Mohamed highlights why birthright citizenship - and the associated recognition that no person should be treated as illegal or without status - is important for all Canadians.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Emma Paling discusses how the security of a basic income provides the opportunity to escape an abusive relationship. And Jim Stanford collects four views of a basic income from Australia, including this (PDF) from Ben Spies-Butcher:

There are two broad ways that politicians talk about welfare and social services that create these very different dynamics. One way is to tell a story of shared need. We all get sick, we all need Medicare. We all get old, we all need the pension. Those needs are often experienced differently. Some people get sick more than others. But the story focuses on what we have in common, and the policy is designed to emphasise what unites us. This creates a politics of universalism, and it does so even when the policy isn’t technically universal. In fact, there is little genuinely universal about Australia’s social policy; the pension sits next to super, Medicare next to subsidies for private health insurance. But the politics of these programs is based on a story of shared need, and so powerful is that story that even governments that initially opposed Medicare now legislate to retain it, and both sides of politics feel compelled to defend the pension.

The other story is one of rule following and deservingness, and ultimately of division. We can see it most obviously with immigration. Our expensive, unaccountable and inhumane system of offshore detention is the end result a form of ‘wedge politics’ based on showing how some people are deserving and others are not. The logic of ‘queue jumping’ mirrors the logic of breaching and quarantining for Newstart – it suggests there is a legitimate way to behave to access help, and if you do not behave that way you are cheating the system and should be refused. Conditionality is thus the cornerstone of wedge politics, it is the mechanism both to ‘test’ deservingness and to demonstrate to the public the importance of recipients being deserving. Of course, in both cases the very mechanismsthat are overtly designed to ‘test’ deservingness ultimately cause everyone to fail. In the public’s mind all refugees are suspect, and all those on Newstart are stigmatised.

It has been a very long time since progressives have won a debate about wedge politics. Victories are much more likely when campaigns reframe their goals in the language of universalism – as in ‘marriage equality’ and ‘love is love’. Of course, income payments are not the only way to reduce inequality and establish dignity. Decent jobs and social services are also important. Basic income is not a magic bullet, and when it is pitched as a retreat from those claims, as cheaper than public services or a safety net for mass unemployment, it is clearly not a progressive claim at all. But in the world we have, income is a basic social need – like health, education and housing – and income from employment is not guaranteed. In the short run, at least, it is an essential part of any progressive vision.

- The Equality Trust introduces its push for an Ownership Charter toward a more democratic economy in the UK.

- Jesse Eisinger writes that there may be a reason why the authors of extensive criminal activity around Donald Trump expected to avoid answering for their actions, as it's only the increased scrutiny of the political context that's led to the investigation of the type of white-collar crime which all too often goes unaddressed.

- Finally, Christo Aivalis examines some of the aftereffects of Maxime Bernier's announcement of a new, hard-right federal party. And Brent Patterson highlights the need for a serious response to Bernier's move to tap into the xenophobic sentiment that's done so much harm in other developed countries. 

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Scott Gilmore discusses how Canada is actually backsliding in some crucial development goals. And Colin Gordon writes about the inequality growing on multiple fronts around the globe.

- Kathy Tomlinson uncovers a Vancouver real estate market rigged to benefit developers and speculators. And Ryan Cooper points out the importance of a meaningful social housing policy to ensure that development can benefit the people who actually need a home:

Upzoning advocates argue that if we simply went on a wild private building spree, we'd eventually burn through all the luxury demand and actually reduce the price of midrange and affordable units (as opposed to only slowing the rate of increase). But that could take easily take decades, if it even works at all.

Great big new social housing projects, by contrast — say, one million in California for starters — are a way to efficiently cram in tons and tons of housing supply directly where it is most socially necessary, not where it is most profitable. And unlike traditional American-style public housing which is means-tested for poor people only, social housing could be largely self-funding by including many tenants paying market or somewhat subsidized rents (though a good fraction would be reserved for poor and working-class people, of course). That would have the side benefit of making projects socioeconomically integrated, not poor-only ghettos.
...
(B)ackers should abandon the neoliberal frame of this being a simple issue of free markets versus government over-regulation. Jonathan Chait, for instance, argues that while there may be complex sub-details, at bottom the housing crisis is explained by an "Econ 101 model of supply and demand." Gentrification is simply caused by "artificially constricted housing supply," and California progressives simply will have to choke down de-regulation and working with private developers if they want to solve the housing crisis. (It's a mark of how influential this frame is that both climate writer David Roberts and leftist Hamilton Nolan present the issue in much the same way.)

As we have seen, this is a terribly mistaken way of thinking about the issue. Neoliberal thinking is not just a highly sub-optimal way of addressing the problem, it is big source of the problem in the first place. NIMBY politics are bad, and often quite racist, but they are also in large part a natural outgrowth of the way the American housing market is structured. A great deal of NIMBYism is simply being a good capitalist by defending the value of one's major asset. (This raises the question of why so much American housing policy is dedicated to helping upper-middle class people put their money into a highly-leveraged, highly-illiquid speculative investment, but that's a subject for another post.)

Incoherent Republican-style notions about deregulation and the markets will be most convincing to the people dead-set against solving the housing crisis at all. Granting the reality that the state is inextricably part of all decisions about the ownership of property is more accurate, allows for better policies, and can then help create an anti-NIMBY coalition that might actually win.

- But if we needed another example of the Libs going in the opposite direction, Brent Patterson weighs in on their plans to turn public services into financial profit centres.

- Finally, Anna Mehler Paperny reports that Justin Trudeau has been trying to rewrite Canada's safe third country agreement with the U.S. - not to protect asylum seekers being denied a fair hearing under the Trump administration, but to further restrict when they're able to apply to be safe in Canada. And Brendan Kennedy and Michelle Shepard discuss how Canada is providing minimal aid to victims of war in Yemen while simultaneously arming the countries responsible.