Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Lauren Pelley reports on the certainty that Canada is facing a fourth major wave of COVID-19 even as right-wing governments try to proclaim the pandemic over. Natalie Grover reports on the Oxford Vaccine Group's conclusion that any hope of herd immunity is "mythical" based on the spread of the Delta variant. Matthew Chapman reports on the catastrophic harm being done to children with COVID in Arkansas, while North Carolina State University models the likelihood that three-quarters of students in a given school could be infected in the absence of appropriate masking and testing. And Julia Wong reports on the expert response to Jason Kenney's decision not to bother tracking the spread of COVID-19 in Alberta even as that wave crests. 

- Meanwhile, David Suzuki reminds us that the break from a destructive business-as-usual scenario should open the door to reductions in the days and hours we treat as the default for work.   

-  Robin Shaban and Ana Qarri examine how competition law could be used to avoid corporate monopolies generally, and collusive anti-worker arrangements in particular. 

- The Broadbent Institute discusses new polling by Abacus Data showing the priorities of Canadian voters - including strong preferences for more progressive taxes, and increased investments in public goods. 

- Finally, Steven Chase reports on a new study by Project Ploughshares and Amnesty International into how the Libs' continued supply of military equipment to Saudi Arabia is flouting human rights and international law.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Kit Yates offers a reminder of ignoring the exponential growth of COVID-19 as the Delta variant puts many jurisdictions back on that same path. And the BBC reports on the belated recognition by Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte that the slashing of public health protections was leading to high infection levels - particularly in bars and nightclubs. 

- John Agliata writes about the prolonged pain, stress and anxiety experienced by COVID long-haulers which creates obvious risks of suicide - a point which is distinctly ignored by the people who have demanded the relaxation of restrictions based on a supposed concern about mental health. Ashley Okwuosa discusses how an outbreak was allowed to overrun Brampton's Ontario Correctional Institute, resulting in dozens of COVID-19 cases among inmates, staff and their families. 

- Murray Brewster reports on a review panel's findings that Canada's pandemic warning system was gutted under the Harper Cons and never rebuilt while the Libs were in power. And Tom Parkin discusses how Justin Trudeau has undermined the movement for paid sick leave across Canada by shirking responsibility and pointing fingers at provincial governments. 

- Fair Vote Canada points out the risk that one of the Libs' most glaring broken promises could combine with Trudeau's cynical election posturing to produce the most unrepresentative majority government Canada has ever seen. 

- Finally, the Broadbent Institute calls for a fair tax system which doesn't reward idle capital owners with lower tax rates compared to workers. 

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Ed Yong discusses the preventable dangers created by a shift in COVID-19 messaging from one of public protection to one of individual choice. Moira Wyton offers some suggestions from experts as to people's options in getting a second vaccine dose - with the most important message once again to recognize the value of whatever vaccine is available, rather than worrying about custom shopping. And Murray Mandryk takes a brief break from his "everything is fine!" series to point out how vaccine hesitancy and complacency are putting Saskatchewan at risk, while Zak Vescera reports on the connection between vaccination rates and other forms of inequality and deprivation. 

- Meanwhile, Heide Pearson's report on Alberta's Foothills Medical Centre outbreak confirms that even full vaccination is far from bulletproof, as ten people who had received two vaccine doses nonetheless contracted COVID-19. Mickey Djuric reports on revelations that Extendicare Parkside residents were sent home from hospitals while still facing symptoms and complications from COVID-19. And Elizabeth Cooney discusses how children suffering from long COVID - no matter how many politicians try to wish away the risks based on their age.

- Chantal Braganza writes about Canada's deficient parental leave policy - and how it's been exposed by the pandemic.

- The Broadbent Institute busts some of the regularly-dispensed myths about a wealth tax. And Robert Reich points out the absurdity and gross unfairness of a U.S. tax system in which the wealthiest people can get away with paying absolutely nothing.

- Finally, Grace Blakeley discusses how capitalism has served to consolidate wealth and power into the hands of the richest few.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- John Guyton, Patrick Langetieg, Daniel Reck, Max Risch and Gabriel Zucman examine (PDF) the massive amounts of money which people at the very top of the income distribution hide from revenue authorities. And Nancy Cook reports on Joe Biden's plan to at least somewhat increase what the wealthiest few pay to fund a functional society. 

- Michal Rozworski highlights how the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the erosion of public planning capacity through decades of privatization and outsourcing.

- The Canadian Press reports on the NDP's push to eliminate for-profit long-term care - which was of course voted down by the corporate establishment alliance of the Libs, Cons and Bloc. And Christo Aivalis notes that there's plenty of room for additional ambition in bringing essential utilities including telecommunications under public control.

- Julia Peterson talks to Markham Hislop about the ongoing transition to clean energy - and the reality that it's happening no matter how desperately the petrostate tries to cling to the past century's economic model. 

- Karen McVeigh reports on new research showing that bottom trawling in the oceans is a major cause of carbon emissions. And Erin Brockovich writes about how we're endangering ourselves through the use of toxic chemicals.

- Finally, the Broadbent Institute has published a new set of principles for Canadian social democracy. And Elizabeth McIsaac discusses the need for the pursuit of equity to be at the centre of any work for social change.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- David Macdonald and Martha Friendly examine how the COVID-19 pandemic has put even more strain on a Canadian child care system which was already under severe stress. And the Broadbent Institute offers a look at how a COVID recovery plan can help remediate some of Canada's long-standing social and economic needs. 

- Meanwhile, Tavia Grant points out what transparency looks like in the few workplaces where we've been able to see the effects of an outbreak - while noting that we're still in the dark in most cases.

- Jeremy Appel discusses the challenges facing progressive entrants into Calgary's municipal scene. And Tanya Nayler notes that a substantial number of elected representatives are also landlords (with predictable effects on policy supporting the commodification of housing, including soaring prices benefiting those wealth enough to own property already). 

- Farhad Manjoo writes that an investment in long-neglected bus systems would improve the lives of millions of Americans.

- Finally, Elizabeth Renzetti discusses the dangers facing women behind the closed doors of their own homes. And Amanda Short reports on Saskatchewan's unconscionably high number of killings of women and girls even compared to other Canadian provinces.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Paul Krugman writes that the most frightening aspect of the U.S. Republicans is the party's commitment to climate destruction for political gain:

My sense is that right-wingers believe, probably correctly, that there’s a sort of halo effect surrounding any form of public action. Once you accept that we need policies to protect the environment, you’re more likely to accept the idea that we should have policies to ensure access to health care, child care, and more. So the government must be prevented from doing anything good, lest it legitimize a broader progressive agenda.

Still, whatever the short-term political incentives, it takes a special kind of depravity to respond to those incentives by denying facts, embracing insane conspiracy theories and putting the very future of civilization at risk.

Unfortunately, that kind of depravity isn’t just present in the modern Republican Party, it has effectively taken over the whole institution. There used to be at least some Republicans with principles; as recently as 2008 Senator John McCain co-sponsored serious climate-change legislation. But those people have either experienced total moral collapse (hello, Senator Graham) or left the party.

The truth is that even now I don’t fully understand how things got this bad. But the reality is clear: Modern Republicans are irredeemable, devoid of principle or shame. And there is, as I said, no reason to believe that this will change even if Trump is defeated next year.

- Meanwhile, the Red Deer Advocate reports on the Blackfalds school dance which was shut down due to a petro-parent's threats against any climate-related education. Geoff Dembicki examines how Imperial Oil fits among the oil giants which has spent decades denying its own scientific research about climate change. And Carl Meyer reports on the federal environment and sustainable-development commissioner's finding of a lack of coordination on environmental policy.

- Charles Mudede offers a reminder of the large number of U.S. workers making far less than a living wage. And Heidi Shierholz and David Cooper report on the Trump administration's plans to drastically increase the size of that group by facilitating the abuse of a reduced minimum wage for workers who may receive tips. 

- Scott Sinclair examines the effects of the new NAFTA, with marginal gains for workers far outweighed by dangers to the environment.

- Finally, the Broadbent Institute charts the plummeting taxes applied to Canada's wealthiest people and corporations - even as we're told that basic needs such as housing, food and medicine are beyond the means of the federal government which has engaged in decades of giveaways to the rich.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Larry Elliott discusses how the stock market is reacting with disgust against rare good economic news for workers and the general public. Asher Schechter interviews Angus Deaton about the connection between monopolies, rent-seeking and burgeoning inequality. And Bill Kerry writes that we have ample reason to ask what use the rich are to society at large when their wealth is hoarded and sheltered.

- The Broadbent Institute lists the Filthy Five worst tax loopholes which cost Canada eleven figures worth of revenue every year for no discernible social benefit. And PressProgress zeroes in on the business entertainment loophole in particular.

- CBC reports on a new study finding that nearly a million Canadians skimped on food or other necessities of life in order to pay for prescription drugs, while 1.6 million took less than the medicine they were prescribed due to an inability to afford it.

- The Local reports on Germany's proposal to make public transport free in order to cut down on pollution from vehicle use.

- Finally, Gordon Laxer writes that it's long past time for Canada to extricate itself from NAFTA rules requiring it to continue producing and exporting dirty energy.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Erica Johnson reports that the problem of bank employees being pushed to fleece customers (legality be damned) is common to all of Canada's major banks. And Lisa Wright reports that the result will be a national investigation. But it's appalling that it took anonymous reports to the media for systemic abuses to be noticed and addressed - particularly when an obvious alternative to leaving personal finances in the hands of a privileged few has been summarily dismissed without explanation.

- James Tapper discusses how the privatization of the UK's power market resulted in soaring rates for the public, and massive profits for the lucky (and well-connected) corporations involved.

- Meanwhile, Martyn Brown offers a detailed set of ideas to clean up British Columbia's pay-to-play political scene. And Matt Robinson reports on Christy Clark's refusal to protect renters from being gouged by her wealthy donors.

- Jacob Swenson-Lengyel argues that progressives shouldn't limit our scope to building a response to right-wing fringe movements when the general public is broadly in agreement with our values. And the Broadbent Institute introduces its Change the Game project to chart a course for social democracy in Canada.

- Finally, Chantal Hebert compares the Cons' leadership race built on anger and chaos to the NDP's developing on a foundation of shared values and policy choices. Jordan Foisy also reviews the NDP's first debate. And Peter Julian's contribution to the Ottawa Citizen focuses on the need to make Canada work for everybody, not only for elites.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Paul Edwards discusses the availability of a gradual transition to clean energy while avoiding more than 2 degrees of climate change - but only if we start swapping out fossil fuels for renewable energy now. And Christopher Grainger argues that a space race-style approach to research and development represents a necessary part of the transition we should be pursuing:

Carbon lock-in is one of the key insights of recent work in “directed technical change” by MIT economist Daron Acemoglu and colleagues. They find the most cost-effective way to address climate change is early action on both fronts: pricing carbon and supporting low-carbon innovation. Acemoglu and co differ from traditional economic models of climate change by properly considering how new technology emerges, instead of treating it as an “exogenous” process that suddenly arrives like manna from heaven.

Early policy intervention is crucial. It can change the path of innovation from “dirty” (carbon-intensive) to “clean” (low-carbon) and then once clean innovation gains a sufficient advantage it can be left alone, as profit-maximising firms will pursue clean innovation in their own interests.
...
If markets left to themselves will continue to merely pump out “innovations” along certain pathways, then it is up to the state to play a more direct role in starting a “greentech” revolution. Mariana Mazzucato, in her book The Entrepreneurial State, argues that major advances in tech from the internet to nanotechnology to pharmaceuticals were born either directly from government research or because governments made the risky investments necessary for the private sector to act.

The good news is that not all money is the same, and those behind Mission Innovation and the Breakthrough Energy Coalition seem to have read Mazzucato. They explicitly reference “patient capital” which can reduce the risk of uncertain technological investments. There is no question this is a major step in the right direction.

Governments certainly need to price carbon, but they should also act as entrepreneurs and market-creators to kickstart innovation for the green growth of the future. If we are underspending on this by orders of magnitude, then doubling is not nearly enough.

- Justin Fisher laments Brad Wall's continued determination to be an obstacle in the way of any progress. David Turnbull points out how much more is being spent on fossil fuel subsidies than on the latest round of climate change funding promises. And George Monbiot compares the UK Cons' cavalier attitude toward climate change to their eagerness to engage in war.

- Yves Smith weighs in on the futility of expecting economic growth out of corporate tax slashing. And Adrian Morrow reports on the Ontario Libs' corporate welfare programs which are burning through billions of public dollars in the absence of any apparent effort to set funding criteria or track any results.

- Richard Elliott highlights how the Trans-Pacific Partnership will limit the availability of desperately-needed prescription drugs.

- Finally, the Broadbent Institute highlights the Canadian public's eagerness for a change in our electoral system - though there's an obvious choice to be made between preferential systems supported by the public, and a ranked-ballot system which would have further inflated the Libs' seat count.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The Broadbent Institute details Rhys Kesselman's research on how the Cons' expanded TFSAs are nothing but a giveaway to the wealthy. And Dean Beeby reports on their withholding of EI supplements from the families who most need them - paired with a complete lack of responsibility or contrition now that the problem has been discovered.

- Matt Saccaro discusses the widespread burnout among U.S. workers as huge increases in hours worked and productivity have done nothing to improve wages or living conditions over a period of decades. And Bill Tieleman slams the Cons for gratuitously attacking the unions who offer the best chance of improving the lives of workers.

- Marc Lee summarizes the Cons' failed energy and climate change policies, as their only accomplishment has been to set back both our opportunities and our expectations when it comes to building a sustainable economy.

- Dr. Dawg writes about Aaron Driver's case as an appalling example of an individual being locked up for precrime. And Shannon Gormley argues that we don't face a choice between security and privacy, and that in fact overreaching legislation like C-51 threatens both:

So if a mass surveillance apparatus had only one job — preventing terror attacks — it might have fallen under the proud ownership of a trash collector by now. But cyber spies have other uses. It’s bleakly effortless to imagine a government getting creative with a system ostensibly designed to track security threats but — oh, what’s this? — also tracks every digital movement of political opponents, economic competitors, media critics and internal whistleblowers.

We needn’t imagine much. We already know: that Britain’s spy agency has listed investigative journalists as security threats and that its sticky tentacles have pocketed emails from the world’s top news organizations; that the NSA has mused that within the next 10-20 years it might conduct surveillance in a such a way that its “findings would be useful to U.S. industry”; that it has spied on Brazilian oil company Petrobras; and that its Five Eyes counterpart, the Australian Signals Directorate, has spied on an American law firm representing Indonesia when Indonesia was in a trade dispute with the U.S and — another exemplar of generosity of spirit — offered to share its findings with the U.S.

But even if surveillance agencies had a track record of intercepting and only targeting security threats, we might be troubled by something more fundamental: the assumption that privacy rights aren’t part of what people need secured.

A privacy violation is a serious security breach. When we can’t make a call to a client or send an email to a lover or type a character into a search bar without an overpaid 20-something in a far-off cubicle being able to know about it, then it’s not just our privacy that has being rudely violated. It’s our security as well.

And more besides. If people are partly made by what they think, and partly made by the ways they choose to share their thoughts, then in an age where our communication with each other is monitored relentlessly and without our consent, how is our personhood not under attack?

- But the B.C. Civil Liberties Association makes clear that the fight over C-51 is far from over, as voters will have every opportunity to judge Canada's political parties on their response to a threat to our civil rights. And Justin Ling reports on new polling confirming that its principled opposition to the Cons' fearmongering has been an important element in the NDP's rise in the polls.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Janelle Vandergrift reminds us that we should see ourselves as participating citizens, not mere taxpayers:

Taxes are a way to pool our resources and develop common infrastructure that can have a positive impact on us all. They build our roads and bridges, pay for our police and firefighters, offer support for raising children, provide income security and housing for people who are poor, contribute to foreign aid, and help to ensure our environment is clean and safe. All of these things are much cheaper and effective when we pay for them collectively. The taxes paid by previous generation benefits us today and the taxes we pay will hopefully benefit the generations of tomorrow.

"Taxes for the Common Good," a recent report from Citizens for Public Justice, summarizes up-to-date information on the costs and opportunities afforded by various federal tax policy options. It highlights the positive role taxes play in a democratic society.

Lower taxes are often promoted as the solution to all social problems, but rarely do we hear the risks. We don't hear about the good of programs paid for with tax dollars. We often forget the fact that we are the ones who benefit from the services and infrastructure that tax dollars provide. For more than two-thirds of Canadians, the benefit received from public services is equal to more than half their incomes. Corporations, who have seen record profits while their tax rates have fallen to record lows, benefit from our common infrastructure, too. They benefit from our stable economy and government, our roads and bridges, and from workers who have been educated in our schools. Yet, it seems that few are asking what is the real cost of tax cuts or who pays the price.

- Louis-Philippe Rochon nicely summarizes why we shouldn't believe austerity economics for a second - though we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that the Cons and their political cousins won't still continue to push it to the exclusion of any positive social development. And Thomas Walkom talks to the Democrats' chief economist on the U.S. Senate budget committee about the futility of obsessing over deficits when economic conditions cry out for public investment.

- Michelle McQuigge reports that the Cons are once again going out of their way to turn citizenship into something which can be stripped away at the whim of a government looking to fabricate enemies.

- Claire Cain Miller writes that a work culture which expects employees to be available around the clock leaves little room for families to be functional. But Bryce Covert points out that paid paternity leave would work wonders to ensure that women aren't penalized in their career prospects for having children - both in its direct effect on families' choices, and in its broader effect on work culture.

- Finally, Harry Leslie Smith comments on the absurdity of trying to replace with politics oriented solely in implausible aspirations. And for those looking forward to Smith's upcoming Canadian event series, the Broadbent Institute has details here.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Jay Baron Nicorvo discusses how the myth of U.S. meritocracy serves largely as a means of funneling profits toward the 1%. And Mary Hansen points out one way of fighting back against evolving forms of corporate power - being the development of new, cooperative alternatives to businesses designed to exploit workers.

- David Korten highlights a few of the most obvious dangers in the Trans-Pacific Partnership as just the latest and most draconian agreement intended to lock anti-democratic principles in as a restriction on government decision-making. And ICIJ and the Huffington Post shed needed light on how past attempts to account for the public interest in trade arrangements - in this case through the World Bank - have proven to be miserable failures due to a lack of interest in enforcing rules which protect people rather than profits.

- Meanwhile, Louis-Philippe Rochon notes that even the International Monetary Fund is admitting that decades of constant attacks on workers have served solely to drive down wages rather than doing anything to improve economic performance.

- Steven Zhou writes that the Cons' politicization of the Canada Revenue Agency to attack groups who disagree with their corporatist message represents a serious threat to democratic discussion.

- Finally, the Broadbent Institute highlights just a few of the ways the Cons are deliberately making inequality worse. And Scott Clark and Peter DeVries comment on the Harper Cons' catastrophic economic record:

At the end of 2014, the unemployment rate was higher than at the end of 2008. The labour force participation rate was lower than in 2008. The employment rate (the percentage of the adult population employed) was lower than at the end of 2008. The youth unemployment rate was higher than at the end of 2008. The share of total employment made up of full-time jobs was less than in 2008 — and the quality of jobs had sunk to its lowest level in a quarter of a century.

Then there’s Oliver’s claim that his government has put money back in the hands of Canadians through its commitment to reducing taxes. This government has definitely cut taxes for high-income, single-earner families with children under 18 — just 15 per cent of all families. They’ve been very good to families with teenage children who — somehow — still need ‘child care’. They’ve been generous to families who can afford to put their kids in sports leagues and summer camps, and they’ve cut taxes for high-income seniors who can split their pension income with a spouse.

The government has announced it will double the contribution limits for Tax-Free Savings Accounts, despite research by the PBO and others indicating this will — again — overwhelmingly benefit high-income Canadians and leave a growing unfunded liability to be paid for by all Canadians in the future. Oliver and Harper claim to be doing this for our grandchildren. Somehow we don’t think they’ll be grateful.

All of this, of course, came after the government’s biggest and most foolish tax cut — the two point cut in the GST which every economist warned them was a terrible idea. Sure enough, it was a major factor in putting the government into deficit.

The key thing to remember here is that these tax cuts accomplished nothing for the economy. None of them contributed to economic growth or job creation. They certainly didn’t contribute to tax fairness.

Numbers don’t lie, but people do. It’s one thing to spin your failures as successes — it’s another thing entirely to try to present a decade of fiscal failure as one long triumph.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Margot Sanger-Katz writes about the connection between inequality and poor health. Nicolas Fitz reminds us that even people concerned about inequality may underestimate how serious it is. And BJ Siekierski asks what will happen to Canada's economy in terms of both growth and equity as unsustainable resource and real estate booms come to an end.

- Of course, we could help matters by not burning billions of public dollars where they're needed least. On that front, David MacDonald compares the Cons' actual budget plans to the far more productive uses of public resources proposed by the CCPA. And Thomas Walkom discusses how the Cons have transformed a public welfare state into a costly vote-buying apparatus.

- Sarah Anderson and Scott Klinger write that the U.S.' desperate lack of infrastructure funding can be traced directly to a failure to ensure that corporations pay their fair share in taxes - and that still more tax amnesties in the name of bringing in one-time revenue will only make matters worse. And Chris Hedges talks to Jenny Uechi about the corporate buyout of Canadian politics which the Harper Cons have taken to new extremes.

- Rick Smith writes about the Broadbent Institute's role in pushing for progressive change in Canada. And Jeremy Nuttall writes that the 2015 federal election may offer an interesting test of different means of organizing to improve political outcomes - as Quebec unions are focusing on holding off Conservatives in specific ridings, while Saskatchewan's labour movement is focusing more on issue advocacy.

- Finally, Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on the Workers' Action Centre's study showing that employment standard laws need to be updated to deal with increasingly precarious work (much of which has been made that way precisely to avoid protections for employees), while Angella MacEwen offers her own suggestions. And Jeff Noonan points out that public-sector strikes can serve an important role in protecting the public interest.

#prgrs15 Wrapup

As readers may have noticed in my earlier posts, I had the opportunity to attend the Broadbent Institute's Progress Summit 2015. And as a whole, the summit was well worth attending, featuring a wide range of interesting speakers and topics, a strong turnout including plenty of people whose work is influencing my own blogging, and a well-designed schedule which packed plenty into just a few days. (On that front, the contrast to a convention which needs to fit in formal party business was striking - though there's still something to be said for being able to have direct and official input into elections and policy resolutions.)

That said, there were a couple of related points which I'd think might be worth considering for future events if they weren't already taken into account.

One of the weekend's headline events was the Great Budget Debate which more than lived up to its billing. But it was nonetheless jarring to see a progressive institution hand over half of its central talk on the economy to a laissez-faire position which is grossly overrepresented in nearly every other forum. And while it was a plus to see the right have to deal with a skeptical crowd for a change, I'd wonder whether there was an opportunity to debate economics from different progressive perspectives - e.g. discussing the relative merits of universality vs. targeted programs or balancing budgets in nominal terms vs. keeping debt to a set proportion of GDP from within the progressive movement itself.

And those types of discussions as to the relative merits of views which could be seen as progressive were relatively sparse in the panels as well, which (at least from my impression) were more diverse in voices than in positions.

Now, it could be that the event's planners were looking primarily to build progressive unity, making it useful to present a few obvious foils while otherwise focusing on points of agreement rather than dispute. But if there's anything I'd change for future summits, it would be some added effort to start conversations which may encourage more debate within the progressive movement as to the best means to pursue even as they serve to highlight the shared end of a stronger and more equal society.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on the work done by the Broadbent Institute and Mariana Mazzucato to highlight the importance of publicly-funded innovation:

According to a 2014 report by the International Monetary Fund, Canadian companies have been accumulating “dead money” at a faster rate than any other G7 country, rather than reinvesting profit into things like human capital or research capacity — suggesting that the rewards of innovative success are being captured by an increasingly narrow sliver of society, even when public money may well have been an early catalyst for achievement. 

But in taking a more active stake in innovative missions, the Institute suggests, the Canadian government could help better spread the benefits of success, by doing things like taking equity positions in companies it helps start, making loans contingent on local hiring, or asking for grants to be repaid when firms are successful.

“Government is always, in a sense, picking winners. It’s picking races,” says Sas. “And so the conversation we need to have is around making sure the public sees returns on those bets.”

- Steven Greenhouse reports on the damage done to service-sector workers by "flexible" employment arrangements which result in employers being to insist on harmful schedules. And BJ Sikeirski writes that the Cons are attacking pensions across the federal Crown sector with no regard for contracts or employees.

- Joyce Nelson discusses how the latest set of ever-more-extreme trade agreements results in a corporate coup d'etat. And Brent Patterson highlights how those agreement threaten Canada's universal public health care system.

- Finally, Chris Hall reminds us that CSIS has been sorely lacking for oversight even before the massive expansion of its powers planned under the Cons' terror bill. Wes Regan warns that C-51 likely represents a dangerous game of bait and switch. And Thomas Walkom notes that politics aside, C-51 is utterly unjustified in principle.

New column day

Here, on this week's confirmation from the Broadbent Institute that Canadians severely underestimate wealth inequality - as well as the strong popular support to reduce the wealth gap.

For further reading...
- The Norton/Ariely study of the views of Americans on wealth inequality is found here, and discussed further here, here and here.
- And Danielle Kurtzleben writes that actual wealth inequality in the U.S. has only been getting worse since 2010.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Carter Price offers another look at how inequality damages economic development. And the Broadbent Institute examines the wealth gap in Canada - which is already recognized as a serious problem, but also far larger than most people realize:



- Paul Buchheit discusses how the U.S. is turning poor people into commodities or criminals. Chuk Plante reviews some facts about child poverty in Saskatchewan - with a particular focus on the need to measure and reduce the alarmingly high rates of child poverty among First Nations children. Suzanne Moore points out how poverty in childhood affects a person for a lifetime. And Betsy Isaacson reminds us that a basic income would work wonders in eliminating poverty.

- Tim Naumetz exposes both the Cons' failure to spend budgeted public money on renewable energy, and their overspending on oil and gas. And PressProgress catches Christy Clark literally talking up the concept of lumps of coal at Christmas - offering about the most stark example yet that our petro-politicians have nothing to offer other than trying to talk up what's long been seen as an outcome to be avoided.

- Meanwhile, Giuseppe Valiante reports on what happens when a more independent body carries out a cost-benefit analysis of risky resource development, as Quebec's environmental review board has given a thumbs-down to shale gas development.

- Finally, Christopher Waddell observes that the Cons are destroying access to information in Canada.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Stephanie Levitz reports on the Broadbent Institute's study showing that Con-friendly charities haven't been facing any of the strict scrutiny being used to silence anybody who dares to speak up for environmental or social causes. And Jeremy Nuttall notes that the problem is probably worse than it seems from the outside, as charities are clamming up for fear of calling more attention to themselves:

Tom Henheffer is the executive director of Toronto-based Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, an organization with board members including journalists for the Toronto Star and CBC.

Henheffer said the Broadbent Institute's study confirms what has been suspected since the audits began.

"They want to bully people into not speaking out against them, that's the entire point of the audit," he said. "And it's working, that's the really sad thing."

While investigating the story The Tyee has had charities decline to comment or divulge information about those conducting the charity audits, saying they fear retribution from the government.

Henheffer said he's heard the same sentiments, adding organizations are "terrified" and checking with their lawyers.

- Meanwhile, the climate of fear is now spreading toward the Cons' treatment of individuals, as Tim Harper discusses how irrational fearmongering about terrorism figures to be used as an excuse to attack privacy rights. And Paul Adams writes that the Cons have plainly decided to make that fearmongering a central part of their next election campaign.

- But then, it's not only state actors who are working on suppressing individual freedoms, as Rosa Marchitelli reports on the growing list of corporations who are bullying people into silence about their bad business practices. (Clearly nobody could have foreseen such a development.)

- Joe Friesen and Renata D'Aliesio point out that the lack of accurate information about First Nations employment is allowing employers to hire temporary foreign workers rather than do anything to develop the pool of indigenous Canadians who would be able to do the work.

- Finally, Marc Lee rightly slams the B.C. Libs for yet another giveaway to the resource sector, this time a new set of gratuitous royalty and tax cuts for the liquified natural gas developers who were supposed to offer an economic panacea.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Robert Reich muses about how our economy would look if we actually paid people based on their contribution to society rather than their ability to exploit others. In related news, the Broadbent Institute's next Progress Gala is looking all the more fascinating with the announcement that Reich will be the keynote speaker.

- David MacDonald studies the distribution of income from the tar sands, and predictably finds that the 1% has managed to suck up obscene amounts of income while leaving crumbs for everybody else. But let's also note that the smallish gains for Calgary's bottom 90% over the last three decades don't represent an indication of a sound development strategy: workers across the country (PDF) regularly achieved in a decade what Calgary's bottom 90% added to their income in 30 years until wage suppression became a core element of economic policy.

- And Michael Rozworski points out how the erosion of bargaining power in recent decades caused even worker-friendly pension regulations to backfire.

- Carol Goar looks at the policies we should expect in a slow growth recovery - in contrast to the Con's insistence on austerity at all times. And Kevin Drum reminds us that gratuitous austerity has thoroughly undermined the U.S.' recovery as well.

- Finally, Matteo Mameli and Lorenzo del Savio discuss two competing challenges to a system of strict representative democracy - and the inevitable need to choose one side or the other:

The representative structures of contemporary democracies are under attack on two opposite fronts. One front finds its motivation in a desire to resist the effects that increasing economic inequalities are having on the distribution of political power, effects that are taking contemporary societies further and further away from the ideal of political equality. This is a proposal to cure the diseased state of democracy by making contemporary democracies more genuinely democratic. The other front proposes to cure democracy by making contemporary democracies less democratic. The proposal is to replace elected bodies with an efficient technocracy. Because of the distribution of real power in contemporary societies, this technocracy cannot be anything but an oligarchy-controlled technocracy, which would inevitably exacerbate the concentration of political power that the anti-oligarchic attacks on electoral-representative structures are trying to oppose.

Some might take this diagnosis as indicating that the critiques of electoral-representative structures coming from these two different perspectives counterbalance each other, and that it is thereby important to hold the centre by defending and protecting electoral-representative structures. We disagree. We think that the existence and strength of the two kinds of attacks show that the electoral-representative structures have become irremediably obsolete. Even if they played a positive role in the past history of democracy, they are now chronically malfunctioning and are destined to disappear as a result of technological change and globalization. The fight between the two opposite proposals will be crucial for determining the future of democracy and ultimately the future of humanity.