Monday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- The Associated Press reports on Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus's warning that the COVID-19 pandemic is far from over. Mary Papenfuss discusses how people living in Trump-supporting counties (with lower vaccination rates driven by COVID denialism) have thus far been twice as likely to die of the coronavirus. And Ja'Han Jones writes about the latest research showing how widespread the ill effects of long COVID have been even among people fortunate enough to avoid severe initial symptoms.

- Meanwhile, Zak Vescera reports that the list of public health crises being allowed to run rampant by the Moe government includes Saskatchewan worst-ever level of HIV infection.

- Nisha Patel writes about the "shrinkflation" which is allowing corporations to pad profits while providing less of what people need. And Scott Horlsey discusses the corporate concentration that resulted in the U.S. having no baby formula available for families which desperately need it. 

- Jon Quealley writes about Oxfam's call for taxes on concentrated wealth and windfall profits to reduce poverty and inequality. And Will Bunch notes that even the oligarchs of the world are ultimately better off not competing for total domination.

- Dave Robbins interviews George Monbiot about his new book on how to sustainably feed the planet. And Mia Rabson points out the need for more resilient infrastructure and more effective disaster response to address the harm already wrought by climate change.

- Finally, Brian Topp offers a post-mortem on Jason Kenney's tenure in charge of Alberta. But Scott Schmidt warns that nobody should assume the UCP can't find someone even worse.

Monday Morning Links

 Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Alex Himelfarb, Andrew Jackson and Brian Topp write about the need for a tax system which collects a fair share from the wealthiest in order to fund the recovery and renewal we should be demanding. And Ben Steverman reports on Raj Chetty's work showing how the coronavirus pandemic has disproportionately hurt people who were already falling behind.

- Bruce Campbell writes about the positive ideas hinted at in the federal throne speech, while also warning of the Libs' propensity for deferring to elites who would rather see everybody else's lives get more precarious as long as it enhances their own wealth and power. And Scott Schmidt highlights W. Brett Wilson as a prime example of how the reactionary instinct is based on nothing more than trying to protect undeserved and unfair wealth and privilege based on the assumption that it's normal:

COVID presented a new way of looking at our society and oligarchs like Wilson desperately need you to forget the realities you’ve been presented with this year. Before the pandemic, it wouldn’t be hard for a man like Wilson to convince the public that the unemployed or down-on-their-luck were on their own, that they somehow contributed to their situation and the rest of us weren’t responsible for getting them back on their feet.

The pandemic should have shattered that mirage entirely the moment we hit lockdown and sent millions of our family, friends and neighbours into unemployment.

“Wait a minute,” we were supposed to say. “Could it be that people aren’t always at fault when they lose their job? Is it possible that circumstances beyond one’s control can thrust them into poverty? Maybe we should ensure these people have nothing to worry about financially in case this happens to me one day.”

Wilson wants you to forget that. Wilson wants you competing, blaming, fighting; he wants it because that’s how he’ll gain even more wealth. People like Wilson want society back to where it benefits them the most – one where individuals are in constant competition.

Wilson wants to own businesses where he can pay people low wages at part-time hours so he can maximize profits for his already massive bank account, all the while acting like he’s just another boot-strap go-getter who scraped and clawed his way toward that fortune. And now he’s claiming to be mad at the government for paying people to stay healthy and safe because that’s apparently more than he is willing to offer those same people to spend their days feeding his profits.

It’s been a long, trying year for everyone – especially those who lost their job – and it’s easy to see why people want to “get back to normal.” Just remember that the “normal” Wilson wants is the one where he gets rich off your labour and then sticks you with a bill when he’s done.

- Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood points out how the Libs aren't showing any of the needed urgency when it comes to abating a climate breakdown. David Suzuki draws a connection between carbon pricing and soap in a pandemic as a simple and necessary (if insufficient) part of an overall plan to improve outcomes. And Emily Eaton writes about the desperate need for a realistic appraisal of climate change in Saskatchewan to replace myths designed to excuse as much carbon pollution as the oil sector can spew.

- Finally, Indi Samarajiva writes that the U.S. is facing a decline familiar to people who have lived through descents into violence and war. And Scott Gilmore discusses the parallel sicknesses facing Donald Trump and the U.S. generally.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign.

- NDP McGill has prepared handy summaries of the background and policy proposals of each of the leadership candidates.

- Tim Harper writes that Charlie Angus is relying on the NDP's grassroots as the foundation for his campaign - particularly compared to the new members signed up by Jagmeet Singh.

- Althia Raj takes an extended look at Guy Caron's political background and goals within the race. And John Ibbitson and Joel-Denis Bellavance each discuss Caron's place in the campaign - including the endorsement of Brian Topp, whose role as a strategist and strong leadership contender would figure to give Caron a significant boost if he's substantially involved in the campaign.

- Ryan Maloney reports on today's Canadian Nurses Association town hall featuring all four leadership candidates.

- Finally, Chris Watson offers his take on the importance of standing up against Quebec's Bill 62 and other anti-human rights legislation.

New column day

Here, on how the sudden disappearance of Danielle Smith and her fellow Wildrose Party defectors offers a case in point of the dangers of forgetting that politicians ultimately answer to the public.

For further reading...
- CBC reported on the actual deal between Smith and Jim Prentice here, while Darren Krause reported on Smith's nomination defeat. And CBC examines Wildrose's bounce back in the polls as it elected a new leader.
- Don Braid notes that Smith was warned about some of the dangers of crossing the floor at the time, while Andrew Coyne sees a bait and switch in the promises Smith got from the PCs. 
- And finally, Brian Topp explores some of the lessons we can draw from the Smith-Prentice deal, while recognizing that they shouldn't be taken as reason not to work across partisan lines.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Stephany Griffith-Jones points out the lack of any coherent argument against a Robin Hood tax on financial transactions - and the public support when political parties actually raise it for debate:

Major financial sectors such as the United States, Hong Kong and South Korea already have FTTs which together raise tens of billions in revenue annually without causing economic damage. In the UK we have the very successful stamp duty, an FTT on share transactions that raises more than £3bn a year, of which 40% is paid by foreign-based investors and banks. It too rightly taxes all those trading UK shares, wherever they are based. This is the same principle on which the European FTT will be based.

Fortunately, the European commission is clearly supportive of the proposal, as is the European parliament. Eleven European countries, representing 66% of European GDP, remain committed to implementing the tax.

It is encouraging that in coalition talks between the German SPD and CDU, they achieved clear consensus on the FTT. This is not surprising, as in Germany 82% of citizens, according to Euro-barometer, support a European FTT. In France this figure reaches 72%, and the EU average is 64%. Let's hope politicians elsewhere will listen to their voters and fully implement the tax soon.

- Brian Topp draws a connection (as I've done before) between the caucus fraud scandal of the Grant Devine PCs and the Harper Cons' Senate abuses. And Haroon Siddiqui finds a disturbing number of similarities between Harper and Rob Ford in their common demonization of anybody who would question their laughable claims to infallibility.

- Meanwhile, Chantal Hebert sees the Cons' convention as a missed opportunity to propose and push a national Senate referendum.

- Finally, Bruce Livesey writes that the NSA's surveillance has little to do with security, and almost everything to do with the pursuit of economic advantage:

During the Cold War, signals intelligence agencies focused mostly on the Soviet Union and its satellites and allies. But with the collapse of the Soviet bloc, these agencies needed a new raison d’etre. In my 1998 Financial Post piece, I detailed how these agencies were now focusing on economic targets, such as spying on countries to glean information that would give them an advantage in trade talks, or allow multinationals to garner business deals to the detriment of their foreign competitors. “We were all looking at other ways of earning our living other than military and political intelligence,” Mike Frost, a former CSE operative who spent 18 years with the agency, told me when I was researching the Post story. “It was just a given we would be looking at economic things. We thought there was nothing wrong with this.”

For example, the CSE spied on South Korea while Canada was attempting to sell $6 billion worth of CANDU nuclear reactors to that country (presumably to ensure the deal went through). And it spied on Mexico during the 1992-93 NAFTA talks, again to garner advantages in those discussions.

In the current scandal over the NSA, it’s clear that the real intention of the agency’s spying on America’s so-called allies like Germany, Brazil, France and Spain, is solely for economic purposes. After all, these are not countries that are hotbeds of Islamic or al Qaeda terrorism that would justify this level of espionage.
...
Today, intelligence agencies can pretend that all of their spying is to hunt down “terrorists” in our midst. In reality, their entire function is to further the interests of capital, even if it means trampling our privacy and civil rights in the process.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- On the anniversary of Jack Layton's death, Tim Harper points out how far the NDP has come in just a year, while Brian Topp highlights where the party still needs to go:

(W)hat to do about the federal government’s crisis of relevance? Recent Liberal and Conservative governments have worked together on a common agenda to make Canada’s national government largely irrelevant to the daily lives of most Canadians. Today’s federal government is a Parliament, it is a public service, it is an army and police force, and it is a largely unconditional bank machine for provinces.

Small wonder that Canadians increasing tune federal politics out. Small wonder Parliament in recent times has been about embarrassing squabbles over trivia. What else was there to talk about? Here is the fundamental mission of the New Democrats: to demonstrate that the Liberal/Conservatives are wrong, and that there are indeed important projects and priorities that Canadians can and should work on together. Not symbolic issues, designed to get us angry and to divide us from each other. The real stuff: Equality. Jobs. Health care. Economic security. The environment. Reclaiming our good name in in the world.

New Democrats need to find a way to give Canadians hope that we are more than the sum of our parts, and that there is much we can do together to make a good country a much better one – carefully and prudently, one practical step at a time, without reigniting the old federal-provincial wars that separatists and conservatives build on, each in their own special way

Meanwhile, John Ibbitson has a rather smaller vision for the NDP, suggesting that it should do nothing but accept the top-down, consumerist political style that's turned off so many voters. Ryan Cleary offers his own tribute, and Cityslikr challenges anybody who claims to respectfully disagree with Layton's proposals for greater generosity and equality to suggest some alternate means of building a better society.

- Mia Rabson rightly questions Elections Canada's lack of interest in prosecuting attempts at foreign influence on Canadian elections. And Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher report that even as Elections Canada directly intervenes to provide evidence useful to Ted Opitz's argument over Etobicoke Centre, it's withholding information which might be relevant to the Council of Canadians' challenges in seven other ridings.

- Edward Greenspan and Anthony Doob are almost entirely right in criticizing the Cons' attitude toward criminal law. But it's worth adding a proviso to the headline: the Cons' view is more along the lines of "once a criminal, always a criminal unless a Conservative", as the party is quick to offer absolution to anybody who's seen as politically useful.

- Finally, Matt Miller neatly sums up the mentality of "drawbridge Republicans":

(W)e’ve never had two wealthy candidates on a national ticket whose top priority is to reduce already low taxes on the well-to-do while raising taxes on everyone else — even as they propose to slash programs that serve the poor, or that (like college aid) create chances for the lowly born to rise.

Call them the Drawbridge Republicans. As the moniker implies, these are wealthy Republicans who have no qualms about pulling up the drawbridge behind them.
...
Most rich Republicans who champion regressive tax plans find it necessary to at least pretend they’re doing something to help average folks. John McCain, who’s lived large for decades thanks to his wife’s inheritance, famously had trouble keeping track of how many homes he owned — but McCain also tried bravely to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. George W. Bush campaigned as a “compassionate conservative,” and touted education initiatives that made this claim plausible.

Today’s Drawbridge Republicans can’t be bothered. Yes, when their political back is to the wall — as Romney’s increasingly is — they’ll slap together a page of bullet points and dub it “a plan for the middle class.” But this is only under duress. The rest of the time they seem blissfully unaware of how off-key they sound.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Friday reading.

- Michael Harris neatly sums up the Harper Cons' legacy:

In many ways, the Harper legacy will come down to this: how much can he get away with? Incumbency furnishes a speedy getaway car. From a legislative perspective, Harper might as well be King Tut. He can do whatever he wants for the next three years or so. Bill C-38, which makes the War Measures Act look like a piece of legislation declaring a public holiday, demonstrates just how aware this PM is of the total power vested in him. And how oblivious he is to Canada’s institutional integrity. One-third of C-38′s monstrous abuse of process is dedicated to dismantling environmental legislation that was never mentioned in the 2011 Tory master plan.

Harper gets it. It’s now or never, baby.
...
Stephen Harper’s gamble comes down to this — do Canadians give a hoot about the fact that their democracy is now a mere formality. Do they accept the Nixonian proposition that when your leader does something wrong, it’s actually right because he’s your leader? In other words, do we, like the wall-eyed People of the Corn in the Republican Party south of the border, believe that the office sanctifies the man?

Harper has concluded that with the proper balance of fear, marketing, and suppression of dissent, he can successfully argue that a small pox scar is really a dimple. Look what climate change deniers have done with a handful of zealots and scads of money from people like the Koch brothers.

But there is only so much fear you can put into people, just so much, and no more. And when people stop fearing you, that dimple starts looking like a small pox scar after all.

- But Brian Topp offers some rather important perspective: while the Cons are looking to make politics as small and substance-free as possible, a real debate in values is developing thanks to the NDP's strength as a progressive opposition. And Bruce Campbell notes that there's plenty of room for discussion as to how we want to develop our economy for the decades to come.

- For the most part, we know not to take any of the Cons' constant and fact-free boasting too seriously. But every now and then it's worth testing some of their claims - and John Geddes' post comparing the environmental progress under several previous governments to the total lack of action  under the current one nicely highlights the gap between spin and reality.

- Finally, Dan Gardner comments on how logic is Canada's most regular victim of crime thanks to the Cons:

(T)here’s plenty of fear in Toronto now. Stephen Harper failed. He betrayed the city.

Or at least that’s what I would write if I were as ruthless as the boys in the PMO.

But I try to set the bar at least a little higher. So I’ll write this, instead: The efficacy of a policy cannot be proven or disproven by a single incident. Or even a series of incidents. We should not let the passions of the moment, or lazy assumptions, or tired dogma, cloud our judgment. We should base our conclusions about the efficacy of tougher sentences on properly designed and carefully conducted research.

And that research says it doesn’t work.
...

Just as it doesn’t matter that Fantino’s claim about the Eaton Centre shooting and tough sentences — Our approach failed, which proves it’s critical! — is so bizarre it’s hard not to suspect the man was tripping on LSD.

Evidence and logic are irrelevant to Conservative crime policy. As Justice Minister Rob Nicholson famously observed, “we’ve made it very clear that we don’t govern on the basis of statistics.”

No, for Stephen Harper and company, crime policy is about nothing but dogma and politics.

 [Edit: fixed formatting.]

Sunday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Sunday reading.

- It's undoubtedly an embarrassment for John Baird to have leapt at a thoroughly implausible bit of anti-UN spin. But I'd think there's more reason for hope than concern in the long run: if a year into their majority mandate the Cons are still operating based on the minority-government mindset that they can do nothing better than to spin first and verify later (and then refuse to admit they were wrong), then surely that doesn't speak well of their ability to plan for the longer time frame leading up to the next federal election.

- Meanwhile, some commentators have bought into the claim that Peter Kent's response to climate change deniers in his own party sets him up as something less than the worst possible environment minister. But it's worth pointing out how his response frames what he sees as the acceptable range of debate: according to Kent the paranoid and/or polluter-funded ravings of anti-science denialists are "fair discussions", but anybody with the nerve to suggest that environmental considerations (including climate change) should actually be reflected in policy can only be classified as a traitor to Canada to be attacked by every means available.

- And on a related point, Dr. Dawg points out another bit of partisan absurdity, as Cons within the Senate are refusing a motion to apply their own overheated rhetoric about foreign involvement in Canadian charities when it comes to anybody other than the environmental movement the oil industry wants to silence.

- Finally, Brian Topp's Policy Options retrospective (PDF) on Allan Blakeney's tenure as premier of Saskatchewan is well worth a read.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Harald Bauder comments on the Cons' continued efforts to provoke a race to the bottom when it comes to wages:

(B)oth the planned EI reforms and the temporary foreign workers program are part of a wider strategy of lowering the bar on minimal working conditions. Both policies seek to add a segment to the bottom of the labour market, below normal wage and labour standards.

In fact, the foreign workers program has been very effective in establishing wage and labour standards below those of what Canadians would accept. This program has established a double standard, according to which foreign workers are more vulnerable and exploitable than Canadian workers.

Now Finley asks Canadians to lower their standards to the same level. Canadians who are unwilling to accept the same working conditions kept artificially low by the foreign workers program will lose their EI entitlements.

If the Conservative strategy is successful, then McDonald’s and other employers would gain access to a low-wage and docile workforce of Canadians who are just as vulnerable and exploitable as foreign workers are today.

- But Lawrence Martin notes that even as the Cons push as far as they can in the opposite direction, public opinion is firmly on the side of combating growing inequality and personal insecurity:

Until now, the blowback against the undoing of the old Canadian way has been held in check by several factors, among them Stephen Harper’s skill at not appearing radical in what he is doing, the ascendancy of Western conservatism, the weakness of the Liberal party and the power of the Harper team to frighten and intimidate critics.

But there are signs of change. The New Democrats, leading the Conservatives in a poll released this month, have reached historic highs. The issue of inequality is now ranked as the most pressing concern of Canadians. It being an issue that is a hallmark of a regressive society, it could spur a progressive revival.

- Bea Vongdouangchanh reports on the growing list of former PC ministers reacting with due alarm at the Harper Cons' attacks on Canada's fisheries.

- And finally, Brian Topp wonders what would happen if we applied the anti-government crowd's assessment criteria for public investments to the types of corporate structures that have so regularly led to economic ruin.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Brian Topp weighs in on Canada's history of raw resource exploitation that should offer a lesson for anybody interested in learning. And pogge points out why Thomas Mulcair is right to dig his heels in, while Frances Russell observes that Mulcair is just plain right.

- Meanwhile, this may be the most appalling example yet of the Cons combining a short-sighted obsession with the export of raw resources with an utter unwillingness to do anything about climate change:

Although greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands have more than tripled since 1990, according to the same inventory statistics, their emissions per barrel have decreased by 26 per cent over the same time period. But Kent suggested that some of the reductions were achieved by transferring activities and their associated pollution to other sectors such as the refining industry.

"This reduction is due to technological innovation and equipment turnover, increased reliability across operations and the avoidance of upgrading emissions by exporting more crude bitumen," said Kent's statement.

So it's not that anybody is pretending that less emissions are being produced as a result of the exploitation of the tar sands - only that Kent is trying to claim environmental success by moving actual emissions off of Canada's balance sheet onto somebody else's with a level of brazenness that would make the minds behind Enron blush.

- Karl Nerenberg and Michael Qaqish raise effectively identical questions about the NDP's strategy - wondering in particular whether it's being too reasonable in responding to the Cons' childish smears and bullying tactics. But I'll note that the long-term path to success for the party involves changing how Canadians view politics rather than engaging on the Harper Cons' terms - and the more it's possible to build public support by raising the standard people expect from political leaders, the better.

- Finally, Pat Atkinson makes the case for full-day kindergarten.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your weekend.

- For much of the relatively recent past, one of the areas of relative consensus in economic theory is that productivity increases would find their way to workers. But Paul Krugman shows that hope to be utterly misplaced:

Where did the productivity go?

The answer is, it’s two-thirds the inequality, stupid. One third of the difference is due to a technical issue involving price indexes. The rest, however, reflects a shift of income from labor to capital and, within that, a shift of labor income to the top and away from the middle.

What this says is that widening inequality makes a huge difference. Income stagnation does not reflect overall economic stagnation; the incomes of typical workers would be 30 or 40 percent higher than they are if inequality hadn’t soared.

Which confirms all the more that we need to work more on redistribution, rather than on the hope that expanding the economic pie through productivity gains will benefit anybody other than those constantly angling for a larger share.

- But of course, the Cons are doing their utmost to make sure as little of the benefit of any economic growth as possible goes to mere workers. And the Star takes them to task on their efforts to push cheap, disposable foreign labour to replace Canadians who might know and act on their employment rights:

Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper assumed power in 2006, the number of foreign temporary workers admitted into Canada has grown by 40 per cent. The temporary worker stream is now larger than the stream of permanent workers intending to set down roots and become citizens.

...
When Canada introduced its temporary foreign worker program in 2002, the governing Liberals vowed never to adopt the European model route in which “guest workers” are paid less than nationals and treated as second-class residents.

But under Harper, the country is now moving in that direction.

Likewise, Thomas Walkom has this to say:

Employers could solve their labour shortages by offering higher wages or — in the case of skilled trades — by training Canadians to do the job.

But, if government is willing, it’s easier and more profitable to import cheaper, trained labour from abroad.

And this government has shown that it’s willing. It says that if Canadians don’t want to see jobs going to foreigners, they should quit whining and accept lower wages.

Which is why Ottawa’s answer to complaints made about temporary foreign workers is to toughen Employment Insurance rules.

Kenney has warned that unemployed workers who refuse to take low-wage jobs will have their EI benefits cut off. If Canadians agree to work for less, he explains, Ottawa won’t have to bring in as many low-wage outsiders.

All of this is a solution of sorts, I suppose, albeit a 19th century one. But it is a solution that threatens to bring with it the kind of agitation now seen in countries like France, Holland and Greece — where the racist right is on the rise and where far too many workers view immigrants as mortal enemies out to steal their jobs.

- Lawrence Martin asks whether we still live in a democracy - and the answer is rather disturbing. And the Canadian Association of Journalists gives the Cons their due reward for suppressing information.

- Finally, Michael Hollett suggests that anybody hoping for a more progressive and representative government get behind the NDP in order to implement proportional representation. And Brian Topp points out that the Libs' own perpetual appeals to strategic voting - which I'd note represent arguably the lone consistent note in the party's campaigns over the past decade - may end up being the greatest obstacle to their efforts to rebuild.

Friday Morning Links

This and that to end your week.

- Paul Wells comments on the NDP's new style of opposition:

When I used to ask the Liberals, when they were the Official Opposition, why they didn’t calm down a bit in QP, they would complain that gesticulating was the only way to get on the news. And indeed the calmer New Democrats are not getting a lot of space on the news. What is getting space is Bev Oda’s global OJ adventure, Stephen Harper’s 70-year digressions, and private members’ bills that seem inspired by the Danielle Smith playbook of political success. Which may explain why the NDP does not begrudge the government its time in the spotlight.

The sharply reduced tolerance at Langevin Block for Oda’s expense account, once it became public, and the clear signal of disapproval for Stephen Woodworth’s motion, suggests Harper is realizing he is no longer facing the ineffectual histrionics the Liberals threw at him for five years.

And it looks like there's ample reason for Harper to be worried.

- Lysiane Gagnon points out that Quebec's child care system - so often highlighted by the right as example of unsustainable spending that should be stopped through an end to interprovincial transfer payments - is in fact a smart use of resources which more than pays for itself. But that won't stop the Cons from trying to demlish it.

- Althia Raj reports on concerns that the Cons' tight time frame for comment on proposed electoral boundaries might shut Canadians out of the process. But I'd view the concern more as reason to be prepared than reason for panic - as it's still open to anybody to be heard as long as we recognize the limited opportunity to do so.

- Finally, Brian Topp cites Wildrose's campaign flop as an example of parties needing to rein in their candidates, and points to the leading precedent for the type of hypercentralization that's now seen as the default setting in Canadian politics:

Our political system tends towards hyper-centralization, and imposes a discipline on elected representatives that, at least some of them sometimes believe, disrespects and disempowers them. A “crisis of surplus consciousness” can result, in which the few at the top end up with too much to do (and therefore cannot do it well), which the vast majority of other team members end up with too little to do (and aren’t happy about it). This, to be precise, used to be said with reference to the hyper-centralized system in place in the Soviet Union. It could also be said of a number of poorly-led, hyper-centralized private corporations. It may be what parliamentary systems inherently drift into.

That said, I'd think it's worth distinguishing (as Topp does to some extent) between "bozo eruptions" that reflect poorly on a party primarily to the extent they call into question whether its candidates are fit to hold public office, and the use of respectful disagreement a political gotcha.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Yesterday's Alberta election certainly proved somewhat of a shocker - producing about the best possible result short of a minority scenario that would have allowed the NDP to exercise the balance of power, as the slightly-less-right party won even as its most notorious ideologue went down in flames. But I'd still think it's a wide open question as to whether the PCs will actually govern consistently with the wishes of the progressive voters who offered strategic support (as suggested by Sheila Pratt), or whether they'll instead veer right in order to win back some of the mass of Wildrose voters - meaning that even a majority government provides virtually no certainty as to what comes next.

- Keith Beardsley points out a massive opening for the NDP to make ethics and accountability into a decisive issue in the next federal election, while Lawrence Martin has some suggestions as to reach that result. Meanwhile, a new CROP poll shows the NDP with a commanding lead in Quebec.

- Brian Topp is back writing for the Globe and Mail online after the NDP's leadership campaign - and his take on the first phase of France's presidential election is well worth a read.

- Finally, Stephen Gordon breaks down the types of taxes collected by the OECD countries.

Leadership 2012 - Candidate What-Ifs

Following up on this post, let's look at a few what-ifs from the NDP's leadership campaign in retrospect - this time wondering how the outcome might have changed from the perspective of the candidates based on choices made during the course of the race. And it's fairly easy to narrow down the list based on those whose campaigns ran about as smoothly as could be expected (Niki Ashton, plus Peggy Nash minus her convention presentation), those who figure to have achieved all they could realistically have hoped for (Martin Singh) and the actual winner (Thomas Mulcair).

Having pared down the list to that extent, here are a few open questions as to how the campaign might have turned out differently...

What if Brian Topp had released full polling data of his own in response to Paul Dewar's poll release?

Again, one of the hazards for those of us trying to interpret the race from the outside was a lack of reliable information about the candidates' actual support levels. And as a result, Dewar's choice to go public with his full polling results had a disproportionate impact in shaping the balance of the campaign.

But Topp could have met transparency with transparency. If indeed he had data showing himself all alone in second place, then he might have avoided the perception of a tightly-bunched pack of challengers to Mulcair by releasing the underlying data in full - which would figure to have set public impressions at worst near the midpoint between the publicly-released polls (including Mulcair's released in the wake of Dewar's). And that in turn would have allowed him to run as a stronger challenger to Mulcair, rather than one of a bunch of candidates whose positioning was uncertain.

Mind you, Topp may instead have decided that he didn't want to be wasting time comparing himself to Dewar in any event, and worried that responding to Dewar's numbers would only give them more attention. And I'm not sure Topp would have done better in the end if the race had polarized more between himself and Mulcair as the two main options - as he came remarkably close even without much perception of momentum near the end of the campaign. But if he had a chance to boost his fortunes just a bit, that could have made all the difference.

What if Robert Chisholm had stayed in the race?

The great question for Paul Dewar doesn't involve anything he could have influenced directly. But with Chisholm's exit, Dewar was left as the weakest French speaker among the candidates left in the race. And that made it all too easy to define Dewar in those terms - where a flailing Chisholm might have made language seem like much less of an issue for Dewar (or anybody else) in comparison.

As it turned out, though, it's also questionable whether Dewar had much of a path to victory in any event. So let's turn to the biggest what-if of all...

What if Nathan Cullen hadn't put joint nominations at the centre of his campaign?

It's fairly clear how Cullen may have seen a need to stand out in the race. And his joint nomination proposal worked wonders in some respects for his campaign - contributing thousands of members signing up solely for the purpose of supporting Cullen, providing a focal point for Cullen's campaign and ensuring that he'd be mentioned often throughout the race.

But of course, the flip side is that Cullen turned off a large number of NDP members from the beginning of the campaign. And while he likely succeeded in winning some of them over by the end, it's a wide open question whether Cullen's personality could have positioned him to emerge from the pack if not for a highly controversial central plank.

As with Topp's conundrum, there's a real possibility that the candidate involved reached the right answer for the purposes of the leadership campaign. And as party allegiances evolve in the years to come, Cullen's choice - winning him a higher profile across not only the NDP membership but the public at large - may have as profound an impact on some future NDP leadership campaign as it did on this year's.

Leadership 2012 Lessons Learned - Pundit Edition

With a week's perspective on the NDP's leadership campaign, I'll take a quick look back to see - particularly in comparing my own impressions as to how the vote might play out to what actually happened.

To start off with, let's note that of all the publicly-available metrics available to evaluate the race, none served as a particularly useful means of evaluating first-ballot support. The only ones which correctly pegged the two top of Thomas Mulcair and Brian Topp were fund-raising and endorsements. But the former suggested a much tighter five-way race than proved to be the case, while the latter would have placed Nathan Cullen a distant fifth rather than a strong third.

Indeed, the closest overall single metric looks to have been...media mentions. Which may give rise to some chicken-or-egg philosophizing, but also offers a data point to suggest that those who took the time to cover the campaign did fairly well in collectively assessing its outcome.

That said, there are a couple of points I'll take away from the campaign for future punditry.

First, while it was fairly obvious that different dynamics were at play in different parts of the country, my biggest mistake lay in presuming that one Saskatchewan-specific dynamic would play out similarly elsewhere.

My impression is still that Brian Topp's Saskatchewan endorsements (which he trumpeted at several points in the campaign) were well out of proportion to his share of support among at least the members at the events I attended. And I extrapolated from that view to figure that Topp's support elsewhere was similarly top-heavy. But instead, he had enough grassroots support to come closer than I'd thought possible on the first ballot.

(Of course, it's possible that Topp could have dispelled any false impressions by releasing some of his own campaign's data, rather than treating a perceived lack of momentum merely as a PR issue to be swatted away with a mere "nah, that's wrong". And I'll expand on that possibility in a future post about lessons learned and what-ifs for the candidates.)

The other obvious mistaken impression was as to Paul Dewar's first-ballot support. But that one simply looks to be a matter of reality defying all evidence available at the time of the vote - which if anything should serve as a warning about pretending to know more than we do before a vote takes place.

So the take-aways from the NDP's leadership campaign are to listen more to...spin-meisters and the mainstream media. Which may make for the most surprising outcome of all.

Leadership 2012 - First Ballot Endorsement

The NDP's leadership campaign has presented such a wide variety of opportunities and questions for party members that it's been difficult to decide who to endorse - and I've reached my own first-ballot decision only after taking time to see how those have been balanced out in this afternoon's leadership showcase. But for what it's worth, here's my endorsement for the many members who have chosen to wait to decide for themselves.

To start with, I'll be shifting my first choice from my preliminary endorsement - not because Brian Topp's positive message is any less important than it's always been, but because his late-campaign strategy has been so closely identified with personality politics directed toward Thomas Mulcair.

My goal on the first ballot is both to shape the choices for subsequent ballots, and to make sure that some of the key themes of the campaign are reflected in the voting results. And given the presumptive lead held by Mulcair so far (meaning that there's no need to vote for him immediately to keep him on the ballot), the choice has come down to two candidates.

Throughout the leadership campaign, Nathan Cullen's joint nomination proposal has been more a source of controversy than strength. But with Mulcair now taking the position that he doesn't want to cooperate with other parties even in a post-election coalition, Cullen's position now takes on some additional importance: undoubtedly it'll be tougher for Mulcair to orient the NDP away from its longstanding and highly successful cooperative approach if the candidate who's encouraging a move in the other direction receives a vote of confidence from the party's membership.

Meanwhile, Paul Dewar's interest in party organization and movement-building stands in contrast to Mulcair's still-unclear position. And a strong first-ballot showing for Dewar could work wonders in ensuring that an eventual leader pays due attention to that part of the NDP's mission, rather than focusing excessively on the conventional-wisdom bubble which so often excludes many of the voters the NDP needs to win over.

As I've mentioned before, I consider Cullen to be the better retail politician of the two, and arguably the one I'd most want to see elected leader as the convention plays out (so long as he himself focuses more on building the NDP rather than what still seems like a futile mission toward multi-party electoral strategies). For now, though, my first-ballot support will go to...

Paul Dewar.

But of course, whether you agree or not, now's the time to vote. And we'll find out soon how all we've seen over the past few months will translate into members' support.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

I didn't think much could come along at this point in the NDP's leadership campaign to significantly change my voting considerations [edit: other than the type of organizational problem discussed here]. But the CROP poll published in Le Soleil may well do just that.

No, it isn't a surprise to see Thomas Mulcair well ahead of the field in Quebec. But for all the best efforts of the rest of the campaigns as well as two debates centred on the province, not a single other candidate ranks ahead of "none of the above". And while I've emphasized the importance of allowing for three and a half years worth of growth rather than simply assuming candidate profiles will stay where they are, it's rather difficult to ignore the lack of progress so far for the rest of the field - particularly as others point out the potential for Mulcair to extend the NDP's Quebec reach.

Meanwhile...

- Paul Dewar's endorsement from two Sikh student groups may be a highly significant development if it allows him to win over enough down-ballot support from Martin Singh's camp - though of course Singh's own stated second choice would seem to render that possibility moot.

- Alice discusses Peggy Nash's candidacy:



- Brian Topp releases his closing argument:



- Environics places the NDP in a dead heat with the Cons nationally. Chantal Hebert and Antonia Maioni discuss how the leadership campaign will affect the broader political scene in Quebec, while Carlito Pablo considers it a matter of defining the NDP. Marcus McCann worries about the effect of a large number of new members on down-ballot support - though accounting for about 10,000 new Quebec members, a few thousand apiece attracted by Nathan Cullen and Martin Singh and the normal sign-up work we'd expect from the rest of the candidates, I'm not sure I see much reason for concern. But Joan Bryden's report on the complexities and uncertainties involved in a preferential voting process will certainly make the weekend interesting. Geoffrey Rowan analyzed the candidates' messages. And finally, CBC broke the race down into four main themes.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

Another day, another set of NDP leadership campaign stories.

- Niki Ashton won the support of the NDP's Socialist Caucus.

- Nathan Cullen expanded on his joint nomination proposal with a far more appealing discussion of co-operation in general:

Cullen isn't shy about what he has in mind.

"If the explicit question is put to me: Am I willing to work with the Liberal party in a coalition government, then yes. I was last time."

Moreover, he said the parties should make it clear while they are seeking votes from Canadians that a coalition is a "possible scenario."

"Here is the challenge that we cannot avoid. It is that you can't say the Liberal party are evil incarnate or the worst things ever before an election but we're willing to work with those same people after. It's discordant. It doesn't sit right, particularly with progressive voters."

In the last election, Harper centred his strategy around repeatedly warning voters that he needed a majority government to prevent the opposition parties from forming a coalition.

The next time, said Cullen, that argument won't wash with many voters because they have seen how Harper's Tories have governed so pompously with the current majority...

Meanwhile, both Frank Graves and Barbara Yaffe talk about some of the possibilities for cooperation.

- Alice offered her assessment of Paul Dewar:



- Thomas Mulcair offered up an election strategy including a 338 Fund for riding-level campaigns and a commitment to have at least some campaign ready in every riding across Canada. That offers some useful indication as to how he's thinking about organizational issues - but still doesn't answer the question of what his plans would be between now and 2015.

- Tim Naumetz reports that other campaigns are "shocked" about Brian Topp's lack of organization. But let's give Topp this much: he's still apparently convinced Jeffrey Simpson and L. Ian MacDonald that he's one competitor in a two-person race - while Carol Goar slightly more thorough summary of the choices.

- Duncan Cameron reiterated his support for Peggy Nash, pointing out her positive reviews in the media during the leadership campaign as a new reason for the endorsement. The Ottawa Citizen recognized how much Ed Broadbent's comments last week were blown out of proportion. Tim Harper commented on the race to define the NDP's new leader. And the imminent election of the NDP's permanent successor to Jack Layton is also leading to plenty of discussion about what Jack accomplished - ranging from winning 3.5 million new votes for the left to building a bridge between social democracy and the wider public (with some associated costs) to "sinister mind control experiment!". Which offers an always-appreciated excuse to link to IP.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

A quick look at the latest news as the NDP's leadership convention approaches.

- Alice's latest Power Play appearance saw her discuss Nathan Cullen's campaign:



Meanwhile, Cullen received an endorsement from Murray Dobbin - which is particularly noteworthy since Dobbin had previously lined up behind Peggy Nash.

- Paul Dewar's interview with Jessica Bruno included this on his top three priorities:

What are the top three policy issues you think the NDP should focus on? Why?

“Retooling our economy and fixing up the mess being brought in by the Conservatives. Over the past six years, the Harper government has been slowly turning the clock back on our economy, turning away from solid manufacturing and value added jobs to being completely focused on energy exports. We need to stop looking back to the 19th century and start creating the innovative 21st century jobs that will drive our economy for the future.

“Strengthening our social safety net. The Harper government’s attack on OAS, Health Care, and other fundamental parts of our social safety net is also an attack on the caring society we as Canadians celebrate.

“Correcting centuries of injustice by respecting Canada’s First Nations. That means more than speeches and meetings. It means addressing the inequalities that exists in health care and education for many First Nations. And moving forward it is dealing with First Nations on a nation to nation level—one of mutual respect and understanding. There is no reason that in Canada, in this day and age, that we can stand back and allow these conditions to continue."

- Brian Topp succinctly summed up the lesson worth taking from the 2011 election:

Topp said it's important to remember that Layton left "an extraordinary legacy" before his death last August.

"He showed that the NDP, as the NDP, could be very successful."

- Alice unveiled a detailed post on fund-raising and momentum - with Brian Topp's late-campaign returns looking like a rather striking development. But while she focuses on the relative positioning of the candidates, I'll again note how important the total fund-raising looks to be as compared to the spending limit: with three candidates already over $300,000 in revenue and two more in the $200,000 range, the entire NDP leadership field figures to have less campaign debt than the Libs' new leader alone did in 2006.

- Jamey Heath theorizes that the most important split in the campaign is between candidates who see last year's federal election as having drastically changed the NDP's position, and those who don't. Peter O'Neil wants the NDP to favour unfettered tar sands growth as a matter of national unity - because it worked so well for the last opposition leader to do exactly that. Steve V takes a look at the possible outcomes. And Joan Bryden reports that the NDP will be ready to start defining its new leader from day one - rather than waiting for the Cons to get there first.

The decisive question

Following up on my candidate questionnaire and previous posts about party organization, I'll offer my own observations on the final two questions I posed to the leadership candidates.

I start from the premise that the primary goals of a leader are to serve as the party's public face and chief strategist. And while all of the candidates have shown at least some obvious ability in either or both of those areas, the biggest issue facing members this week will be to sort through the fact that there's such a wide range of strengths which may not all be applied under some scenarios.

It's fairly easy to see the strengths of the lower-tier candidates worked into the structure of whoever wins: surely nobody will want to undermine the enthusiasm Niki Ashton has built on the Prairies and among young members, or Martin Singh's inroads into the Sikh community.

As for the perceived upper tier, Brian Topp may not have caught fire as a candidate, but I don't see that affecting the general view that he's one of the country's top strategic minds (and someone who should remain part of the NDP's inner circle for a long time to come). Nathan Cullen stands out as the candidate with the highest upside as the face of the NDP outside of Quebec (and arguably within it as well). Paul Dewar's organizational plan would serve as a valuable blueprint for any of the candidates, but speaks particularly well to his own thought process as a leader. Peggy Nash has lots to offer on the party- and movement-building side as well, while also having plenty of ability to strengthen the party's economic credentials (as all candidates seem to agree we need to do). And Thomas Mulcair has displayed his massive strengths as both a spokesperson and strategist within Quebec, with potential to expand that appeal nationally.

Ideally, we'd see all of those talents put to good use. But there are still some reasons for concern as to whether or not they will be.

The obvious rivalry between Mulcair and Topp over the course of the leadership campaign leads to some worry that a Mulcair-led inner circle would have doubts about the NDP's long-time strategic team - and Mulcair's limited answers about his plans for the party don't help matters. Mulcair has also criticized Dewar's party-building plan, leading me to wonder whether he'll use what may be the best available organizational blueprint. And Cullen's rapport with voters may not achieve the greatest possible effect if it's being used to pursue an interparty strategy that doesn't find a willing partner or serve the purposes it's intended to achieve.

Of course, the members' means of trying to achieve that end is through a vote for a single leadership candidate. But that leads to what may be the key question in evaluating the candidates: who, if elected, would best recognize and apply the collective strengths of the leadership candidates, caucus and party at large? And my suspicion is that the answer to that question - viewing the candidates in terms of organizational leadership, rather than either personal profile alone or compromises among camps - should be our guiding principle in deciding which candidate to support.