Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Luke Savage responds to the attempt by neoliberals to escape growing discontent with corporate control and individual atomization by denying they actually represent a distinct position capable of being opposed:

The ubiquity of a particular phenomenon does not make discrete analysis of it useless; if anything, such omnipresence makes identifying it a more urgent and critical task. A phenomenon so diffuse that it seems manifest throughout politics, economics, and culture is hardly a chimera, and the apparent reticence of many commentators to recognize or even acknowledge its valence as a term can only be viewed as a symptom of neoliberalism’s continued stranglehold on our political, cultural, and intellectual life.

The longer something is a part of your reality, the more it tends to fade from your field of focus. Put another way: the more pervasive a particular object or phenomenon, the easier it can be to take its presence for granted. After its initially disruptive incursion in the 1980s, neoliberalism fast became a feature of our collective existence, so indelible many now seem unable to recall a time before it existed, let alone conceive a future that goes beyond it. An ideology secures hegemony at precisely the point it ceases to be considered an ideology: its claims transform into axioms; its theories harden into dogma; its abstruse vernacular becomes the lingua franca; its assumptions are subsumed under “common sense.”

That neoliberalism remains so poorly understood in the very political mainstream whose frontiers it now circumscribes is a testament to both the breathtaking scope of its counterrevolution, and the daunting task facing those of us who desire its overthrow. It is everywhere and therefore nowhere: at once so diaphanous it seems invisible; so internalized it appears inescapable.

- Cameron Fenton hopes that a minority Parliament will give rise to a Canadian Green New Deal. And Judy Rebick discusses what the NDP accomplished during the election campaign despite a disappointing outcome in terms of votes and seats.

- Desmond Brown reports on Toronto's continued lack of sufficient shelter spaces to ensure that homeless residents have safe places to sleep through the winter. And Robert Tibbo calls out Justin Trudeau for choosing to separate refugee families.

-Rob Ferguson reports on Doug Ford's plan to gift polluters with a low, one-time fee to dump hazardous substances wherever they want for as long as they want. And Matt Elliott notes that Ford's refrain about finding "government waste" has consistently been followed by a failure to find anything of the sort.

- Finally, Clifford Krauss discusses the flood of oil which looms as a potentially decisive threat to any hope of preserving a habitable climate.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Jim Coyle lists a few of the lies voters tell themselves around election time. And the Angus Reid Institute counts the large number of voters who cast a ballot for a party they don't actually support - with the Trudeau Libs as the main beneficiary of begrudged ballots. 

- Luke Savage discusses how the NDP can build off a campaign in which substantial progress on policy discussions and leadership approval led to disappointing vote and seat totals. And Ed Broadbent offers his suggestions as to how the NDP can exert influence in a minority Parliament, while Stefan Avlijas writes that an essential element of the balance of power is strengthening left-wing parties so they're in a position to fight another election campaign at any time.

- Meanwhile, Roberto Rocha points out how a financing system requiring parties to fund-raise through a large number of relatively small donors has affected Canadian politics.

- Emma Gilchrist discusses what we can expect on environmental issues from the new Parliament. And Chris Hall writes about the regional fault lines within Canada's new group of MPs.

- Finally, Greta Moran discusses the value of public ownership of utilities such as power grids. And an even more widespread planned blackout which will leave millions of Californians without power only confirms how poorly people are served when profit motives conflict with essential needs.

On legacies

For all the campaign talk about how this year's election campaign could have proven a parallel of the 1972 result, we've instead ended up seeing Justin Trudeau repudiate his father's response to another contentious result.

When he won a majority government in 1980 which lacked representation from the western provinces, Pierre Trudeau - to his credit - made an effort to seek cooperation from MPs in the region on a specific means to remedy the problem.

Faced with a regional wipeout along with the potential instability of a minority Parliament, Justin is instead responding by rejecting any form of structural cooperation whatsoever.

Instead, he's insisting that the same platform which underpinned his party's prairie losses is somehow a response to their cause - while planning to try to govern through perpetual games of chicken in Parliament like his most recent Liberal prime ministerial predecessor. And any outreach to the areas lacking representation is being limited to closed-door political maneuvering which figures to be as ineffective as it is cynical.

That sets up a thoroughly unflattering comparison between Justin and his father. And it certainly won't do anything to make the Trudeau name any less toxic for many.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your election day reading.

- Jagmeet Singh makes his case for Canadians to vote for what we believe in. Don Martin discusses how Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer have hurt their own causes as well as each others' by focusing on negative messages. And Nora Loreto discusses the need for traditional political parties to reinvent themselves to speak to and for people rather than merely reciting focus-tested talking points at them.

- Herman Rosenfeld discusses how free public transit is an essential element of any effective Green New Deal. And Angela Carter, Truzaar Dordi and Yonatan Strauch write that the federal election represents a crossroads for Canada's energy future (save for the incumbent trying to go in all directions at once).

- Katherine Scott examines what the federal parties have on offer to fight against poverty. Karl Nerenberg assesses their respective plans to address inequality. And the Tyee offers election readers on issues including pharmacare and dental care and electoral reform,

- Finally, Nav Persaud and Danielle Martin write about the cruel experiment being performed on Canadians who can't afford necessary medications - and the need for a universal pharmacare system to make sure nobody faces that predicament.

Canada 2019 - Election Notes

With Canadians going to the polls tomorrow, I'll offer a few thoughts on what to watch for on election day and beyond in a campaign whose early stability seems to have given way to some late shifts. 

First, a minority Parliament seems likely. But of all the predictions and expectations which can go awry based on unexpected late-campaign movement, few are more precarious than the balancing act required to create a minority situation. And 2015 offers a recent precedent where a seemingly close race turned into an unexpected majority.

By the same token, the seat projections which have shown effective ties for first and third place based on median expectations shouldn't be seen to make those into particularly likely outcomes in any event. The end of the campaign matters in ways which won't have been caught by earlier polling, and the default expectation should be that they'll be off somewhat (even if we can only make the most educated guesses possible as to how, with Frank Graves for one already reporting that a Lib majority might be in sight).

Second, if a minority does result from the vote, the next crucial question will be which party or parties hold the balance of power - or which might instead be dismissed as unworthy of any say due to being just short of the mark. (See Paul Martin, 2004.)

There, the most important swing factor is one which has received relatively little attention in mainstream coverage, even if it seems to be the subject of plenty of individual-level interest.

The Bloc has undoubtedly regained strength in Quebec compared to the previous two election cycles, with some models hinting at prospects of winning half the province's seats or more. But the NDP has pushed its way upward in the polls at the end of the campaign as it challenges the Bloc directly for the support of progressive voters.

That matters in two key ways: a relatively small shift may be decisive in Quebec seats with multi-party splits (as can be seen from the sharp turns at the end of both the 2011 and 2015 campaigns), while also determining who emerges with the larger caucus and the balance of power in Parliament as a whole. And for voters who want to see the Libs forced to act on the national progressive promises they're again trumpeting on the campaign trail after neglecting them in office, it's crucial for the NDP to be in a position to set the terms of any governing arrangement.

Plenty of other battleground regions could also substantially change the balance of power with relatively subtle swings. And most importantly, a strategic vote against another neoliberal majority now looks to involve ensuring that other, more progressive parties get the upper hand on the Libs wherever possible.

But particularly given the lack of much organization on that front, it doesn't appear likely that any attempt to be strategic will overcome the two main forces in the campaign, being the NDP's surge and the Cons' collapse relative to the Libs. And so the main questions for tomorrow seems to be which of those factors will have a greater impact in electing MPs.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Andrew Jackson calls out the Cons for their platform of taking from the many to further enrich the most privileged few. David Macdonald studies what the unspecified cuts promised by the Cons could mean in terms of losses to public services. And Mike Moffatt points out the absurdity of obsessing over nominal deficits - rather than value for public investment - as the sole measure of fiscal responsibility.

- Meanwhile, Canadians for Tax Fairness offers (PDF) a report card for voters looking at tax fairness as a key issue. And Toby Sanger looks in detail at the parties' plans for taxing digital giants.

- Meghan Bell joins the ranks of wealthy people who recognize the need to pay more taxes to support a functional society, while Jon McPhedran Waitzer, Claire Trottier, David Gray-Donald, Daniel Hoyer, Bronwyn Oatley and Sylvie Trottier propose to pay more to address the climate crisis in particular. Henry Aaron makes the case for an inheritance tax to reduce inequality both within and across generations. And Alex Williams writes about the bizarre motivations behind the accumulation of extreme wealth.

- Anne Gaviola laments the lack of discussion of housing as a major election issue - though of course it's not for lack of ambition and commitment in the NDP's platform.

- Finally, Amara Posslan argues that Canadian voters need to take collective action toward meaningful change rather than settling for a mediocre "strategic" option. Toula Drimolis hopes that the current campaign will be a first step toward being able to vote generally for what we believe in, rather than against what we're told to fear. Farzana Hassan writes that it's past time for our government to reflect the voters responsible for electing it. And Gloria Galloway weighs in on the unfairness of facing another first-past-the-post election after we'd been promised better.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Alexandra Zannis discusses the need to treat the end of poverty as a core policy goal. Peter Gilmer highlights how voters motivated by Christian ethics should be particularly focused on improving the condition of marginalized people. And Lynn Giesbrecht reports on Cindy Blackstock's work to call needed attention to the continuing systemic discrimination against Indigenous people in Canada.

- Meanwhile, Toby Sanger comments on the glaring need to crack down on tax havens and the wealthy few who abuse them to avoid contributing to the social good.

- Jason Markusoff examines the glaring flaws in the attempts of tar sands operators to paint themselves as environmentally responsible even by the standards of oil producers. Fiona Harvey, Damian Carrington, Jonathan Watts and Patrick Greenfield offer some suggestions to rein in the fossil fuel industry. Bruce Wilson writes that energy sector workers are well aware of the life-and-death stakes involved in carbon pollution. And Don Pittis rightly questions whether anybody trying to invest for the long term should want to bet on a dying sector.

- Eric Beinhocker writes about the need for a carbon abolition movement. And Polly Toynbee discusses the change in culture already flowing from growing activism against the climate crisis.

- Finally, Derrick O'Keefe writes that a strong turnout among young voters could result in a massive change to Canada's political status quo. And Laird Cronk and Sussanne Skidmore argue that voters should support an NDP government to end economic insecurity and precarity.

New column day

Here, discussing how Justin Trudeau is campaign entirely according to the formula so thoroughly documented by Martin Lukacs - and why voters seeking change need to reject politicians committed to the preservation of power and privilege.

For further reading...
- Others have also discussed Lukacs' The Trudeau Formula, including Nora Loreto and Joel Laforest. And some of Lukacs' own analysis can be found here and here.
- David Macdonald documents the high cost and minimal benefit of the tax cuts which represent the Libs' largest platform commitment.
- Finally, Duncan Cameron writes about the need to break the cycle of Lib and Con governments in order to ensure meaningful action in response to the climate crisis. And Charlie Smith points out the risk that Trudeau will again accept putting the Cons in power - though I'd note that the most significant factor might be Trudeau's willingness to support a Scheer government as the price of preserving an electoral system which freezes the public out.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Paul Kahnert writes that tax cuts never lead to widespread prosperity - but do further entrench the wealth and power of those who already have the most. Andrew Jackson points out how the Cons' platform follows a familiar pattern of freebies for the lucky few and austerity for the many. And Nicholas Kristof argues that there's ample reason to instead require an increased contribution from the people who profit off of the general public:

That’s the rot in our system: Great wealth has translated into immense political power, which is then leveraged to multiply that wealth and power all over again — and also multiply the suffering of those at the bottom. This is a legal corruption that President Trump magnified but that predated him and will outlast him; this is America’s cancer.

We hear protests about “class warfare” and warnings not to try to “soak the rich.” But as Warren Buffett has observed: “There’s class warfare, all right. But it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
...
By raising taxes on the wealthy, we could end the lead poisoning that afflicts half a million American kids, we could provide high-quality preschool for all, we could offer treatment for all people with addictions and we could ensure that virtually all kids graduate from a decent high school and at least get a crack at college.

The wealthy would still have more money than they could ever spend: Jeff Bezos would have had $87 billion in 2018 if Warren’s wealth tax had been in place all along, rather than $160 billion, according to calculations of Saez and Zucman. But we would be, I think, a fairer and better nation.

So should we soak the rich? You bet we should.

- Meanwhile, Halena Seiferling writes that an election focused on the cost of living should pay far more attention to the need for higher wages.

- Travis Lupick laments the failure of the Libs and Cons to engage at all with the known solutions to an epidemic of drug-related deaths. And Emma Davie reports on the call of the Canadian Association of Pharmacists to end medication shortages.

- Daphne Bramham discusses why Canadian voters are rightly suspicious of Andrew Scheer. And Fatima Syed and Alastair Sharp comment on Jagmeet Singh's response to a flurry of issues of race and representation in the course of the federal election campaign.

- Finally, Christopher Guly writes that electoral reform advocates have rightly refused to accept Justin Trudeau's attempt to declare fair elections an impossible goal.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Joao Medeiros writes about Mariana Mazzucato's push to have governments use collective wealth and power for the common good.

- Matt Elliott wonders why the Libs and Cons have nothing meaningful to say about housing or transit in an election where those loom as both key issues on their own, and vital parts of the solution to the climate crisis. And Aaron Saad offers a guide to the climate policies on offer from Canada's federal parties.

- Bruce Wilson writes that it's long past time to plan a just transition away from an economy dependent on fossil fuels. And Jillian Ambrose notes that renewable energy is set to replace dirtier legacy sources no matter how stubbornly any company or government tries to stay in denial.

- Sara Mohtehedzadeh and Melissa Renwick report on the many ways in which migrant agricultural workers are exploited.

- Finally, Jim Stanford discusses why we should aspire to far more than a system which allows a few people to hoard massive amounts of wealth. And Tax Justice Now allows anybody to model how the U.S.' economy can be made more inclusive and equal.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Scott Schmidt highlights how the wealthy have seized any gains in economic growth over a period of decades. Michael Hobbes discusses the "glass floor" keeping the children of rich families from facing any risk of failure. And Crawford Kilian discusses Thomas Piketty's observations about self-proclaimed left-of-centre parties who have chosen to serve the interests of the corporate elite.

- Trevor Herriot discusses the unsustainable subsidies which have resulted in far too many prairie residents prioritizing a fossil fuel economy and a car culture over sustainable alternative. And Judith Shulevitz writes about the social isolation caused by unsynchronized and unpredictable work and activity schedules. 

- Megan Leslie makes the case for Canadians to vote based on the environment. Ed Finn writes that voters looking for change should be supporting the NDP as it looks set to win the balance of power in a minority Parliament. And Charlie Smith offers a preview of the Libs' predictable attacks on Jagmeet Singh.

- Finally, Priyamvada Gopal discusses the need to call out and challenge racism by its name alongside other forms of structural inequality.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- David Moscrop writes that the Libs' choice to break the promise of electoral reform to instead lock in an unfair and unrepresentative electoral system fits with their pattern of action:

What of the strategic questions? Do the Liberals regret their decision to abandon electoral reform? Will they be able to live with themselves if they lose the popular vote, but form government? Well, have you met them? They’ll be fine.

What if they end up hoisted on their own petard, ejected from government altogether, out of power and influence despite winning more votes than the party that takes power? Given the chance, knowing what they know now, would they do things differently? History suggests not.

Since Confederation, the Liberal Party has governed more often than not. Parties that expect to form government would typically take a four– or eight–year time out than shut themselves out from total power in perpetuity. Under PR, it would be unlikely for any party to form a majority government on their own. Instead, parties would be incentivized to negotiate and cooperate with other parties: to govern as a minority or form a coalition.

Parties with a history of governing would rather take all the power half the time than half the power all the time—it’s how they’re wired.

- Cillian O'Brien and Avis Favaro highlight how people struggling to get by with low incomes would benefit from pharmacare.

- Jason Antonio reports on the increasing dependence on Moose Jaw's food bank. And Stephanie Babych writes about Calgary's mobile grocery store which is making healthier options available in food deserts.

- George Monbiot writes that a fossil fuel industry which has lied to us for decades about the known consequences of carbon pollution has managed to avoid answering for its harm to our environment by pointing fingers at individual consumers, while Emma McIntosh points out that the oil lobby's wishlist for Canada's election would only make matters worse. And Robinson Meyer notes that California's recent blackouts represent a direct result of climate inaction.

- Finally, Amanda Follett Hosgood discusses how northern British Columbia can transition away from relying on oil and gas production. And Geoff Dembicki notes that Jason Kenney is deliberately destroying the transition plans which offered some more sustainable opportunities to workers in the fossil fuel sector.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Linda McQuaig writes about the myth that we have no choice but to pursue privatization - and notes that electric vehicle production represents an ideal opportunity to build public economic capacity:

Is it feasible to save the once-vibrant Oshawa complex and transform it into a publicly owned plant producing environmentally essential products, as part of a Green New Deal?

Gindin notes that during the Second World War, GM facilities were converted to produce military vehicles. He insists that the Oshawa plant be expropriated today without compensation since Canadian taxpayers have already generously subsidized GM. While he acknowledges that the project is a long shot, he adds, “it seems criminal not to at least try.”

Indeed, what is needed is some bold, out-of-the-box thinking that takes us beyond the current dogma of privatization. Given that Canada’s historic auto-making centre is about to be shut down, we should consider creating a publicly owned facility that could potentially start a transformative industry here. If that idea is ultimately rejected, the rejection should be based on something more than the notion that such a project is too ambitious for public enterprise and is best left to the private sector.

In truth, the very ambitiousness of the project seems to call out for public enterprise. For most of our history, we’ve been mere "hewers of wood and drawers of water" and operators of branch plants. When we’ve risen above that, it’s usually been because we’ve created public enterprises that served a broader public purpose than what private interests were offering. We became the country we are today in part because, at key moments our past, some visionary Canadians had bold, ambitious ideas for public enterprises and weren’t deterred by the admonitions of the business elite.

There may be reasons not to turn the Oshawa plant into a green production facility, but let’s not succumb to the ill-informed notion that Canadians aren’t up to the task or that we don’t know how to do public enterprise in this country.

- Jon Milton discusses the importance of treating housing and transit as social goods rather than profit or revenue centres as part of any viable climate plan. And Bill Blaikie writes that we should be far more concerned about a long-term environmental deficit - the extreme damage we're inflicting on our planet - than about incremental differences in budget expectations.

- Erika Shaker compares how Canada's federal parties are addressing the increasing unaffordability of post-secondary education. And Anne Gaviola examines the numerous positive spinoff effects of forgiving student debt.

- John Geddes points out the minimal differences between the tax tinkering of the Libs and Cons (at a galling cost to the federal government's fiscal capacity).

- Finally, Michal Rozworski writes that it should be a no-brainer to bring in more revenue from Canada's wealthiest few, both to fund needed programs and to try to reduce the inequality in power which comes from the concentration of wealth. And Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman write that the U.S. too should be determining how to tax its way toward increased social justice.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins interviews Eugene McCarraher about the cultivation of capitalist greed as a new religion. And Annie Lowrey writes about the value of cancelling the concept of billionaires:

(T)here are far more urgent reasons than poverty to get rid of billionaires and reverse the trend of economic polarization. A growing body of economic and political-science research demonstrates that Gilded Age–type inequality does not just mean having too many with too little. It is warping the very social fabric of the country, stifling mobility, innovation, investment, and growth, and putting the country at political risk.

Dramatic inequality in wealth means dramatic inequality in terms of political power means a political system unresponsive to what most people want. Wealth inequality, in other words, is an anti-democratic force. A remarkable study by Lee Drutman found that just 31,385 people—one ten-thousandth of the population—accounted for more than a quarter of all political donations in the 2012 campaign cycle, with politicians getting more money from fewer people than in any other year analyzed. No wonder low-income households’ policy preferences have little effect on political outcomes in the United States, whereas high-income households’ policy preferences do, as research by Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern forcefully shows. One of those political outcomes? Inequality itself: Unequal societies tend not to correct their own inequality, because of the political influence of the rich.

The country’s inequality is also stifling mobility and damaging the country’s human capital. As the country has become more unequal, it has also become more sclerotic and class-dominated. Despite all the money the government spends on public education, private education, health, and welfare, rich kids are likely to stay rich and poor kids are likely to stay poor. Measures of absolute mobility have fallen: Children born in 1940 had a 90 percent chance of doing better than their parents did, whereas children born in the 1980s had just a 50 percent chance of the same. The steps of the income ladder are too far apart for kids to climb them, in other words. Safe neighborhoods, quality education, and security at home are out of reach for too many children. Inequality is now driving a longevity gap, an educational-attainment gap, and a health gap. It lurks behind the country’s falling entrepreneurship rate, too. The country will not prosper through growth alone, but only through sharing its prosperity more widely.

- Shannon Proudfoot writes that meaningless appeals to the "middle class" like those favoured by the Libs and Cons avoid the questions which should be asked about the concentration of wealth and power. And Nora Loreto views Martin Lukacs' thorough analysis of the Trudeau Libs (including the contrast between public and private pronouncements) as a crucial starting point for media and voters alike.

- Meanwhile, Hannah Thibedeau reports that the Libs' hand-selected expert on pharmacare sees the NDP as offering the best combination of structure and funding to ensure people have access to the medications they need. 

- David Macdonald points out the importance of taking into account all kinds of debt when developing policy - particularly when the alternative is to pile unmanageable amounts of debt on people in the name of arbitrary demands for government budgets. 

- Finally, Matthew Taylor and Jonathan Watts discuss the 20 companies responsible for a third of humanity's greenhouse gas emissions.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Jeff Spross discusses the effectiveness of a wealth tax both in generating revenue, and in reducing inequality. David Leonhardt notes that a wealth tax will actually boost the economy by putting to use assets which are otherwise idle (if not being used for outright counterproductive purposes). And Jonathan Ruga and Scott Young write that they and many other wealthy people recognize the need for higher taxes on those who can most afford to pay them.

- Bob Weber reports on Clean Energy Canada's study showing how clean energy projects to create far more future employment than fossil fuels. And Sandy Garossino's must-read report examines the utter lack of a basis in fact for Jason Kenney's conspiracy theories about environmental activism.

- Meanwhile, Drew Anderson takes the closest look we've yet been offered at the UCP's rigged leadership race - and the inclusion of high-ranking provincial and federal politicians in Kenney's scheme.

- Ed Broadbent writes that in an election where many parties are seeking to divide based on race and region, the NDP is leading the way in running a slate of candidates which reflects the full diversity of Canada. And Pamela Palmater points out the importance of recognizing and countering the interrelationship between individual and systemic racism.

- Finally, Garima Talwar Kapoor and Elizabeth McIsaac compare the tax tinkering on offer from the Libs and Cons, but ultimately recognize that both promises serve mostly to shovel money to relatively well-off families while neglecting the people who most need help.

New column day

Here, on the echoes of previous campaigns in Canada's federal election - including the possibility that the 1972 minority government scenario might be the best outcome of all.

For further reading...
- The column's discussion of public impressions of leaders is based on recent polling from Forum and Angus Reid  - with the latter also showing the NDP's strong opportunities for growth as a current second choice.
- Meanwhile, Duncan Cameron has also mused about the possibility of a minority government, while also pointing out the lack of a defining narrative so far. And John Ivison notes that the NDP's campaign against corporate excess represents another parallel between this year's election and that of 1972. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Tom Rand and Mike Andrade point out that the Alberta tar sands wouldn't be sustainable economically even if people ignored their environmental effects. Bruce Livesey offers a reminder that Andrew Scheer's plans are built entirely around favouring dirty oil at the expense of other industries and future generations. And Sharon Riley talks to some of the workers already making the transition from the oil patch to the renewable energy sector.

- Meanwhile, Eric Roston reports on reduced river flows around the world as another alarming byproduct of a deteriorating climate and a propensity to overuse natural resources. Trevor Hancock points out that we can't ignore how those same factors threaten our planet's biodiversity. And Tom Phillips reports on the Bolsonaro-backed land raids attempting to violently drive Indigenous people from their homes and expose the Amazon for exploitation.

- Andrew Jackson comments on the Greens' odd juxtaposition of promising massive spending, while simultaneously fixating on balancing the budget to a greater extent than any other party this side of the PPC.

- David Hulchanski examines (PDF) the context for decisions about Canadian housing policy, including both a low rate of current taxation and revenue generation, and a set of subsidies distinctly weighted toward ownership rather than rental housing.

- Finally, Haydn Watters takes a look at the electoral reform plans on offer in Canada's federal election.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Paul Krugman writes that complaints by the U.S.' wealthiest few about Elizabeth Warren reflect their insistence that extreme wealth be coupled with absolute and unquestioned power:

The point is that many of the superrich aren’t satisfied with living like kings, which they will continue to do no matter who wins next year’s election. They also expect to be treated like kings, lionized as job creators and heroes of prosperity, and consider any criticism an unforgivable act of lèse-majesté.

And for such people, the prospect of a Warren presidency is a nightmarish threat — not to their wallets, but to their egos. They can try to brush off someone like Bernie Sanders as a rabble-rouser. But when Warren criticizes malefactors of great wealth and proposes reining in their excesses, her evident policy sophistication — has any previous candidate managed to turn wonkiness into a form of charisma? — makes her critique much harder to dismiss.

If Warren is the nominee, then, a significant number of tycoons will indeed go for Trump; better to put democracy at risk than to countenance a challenge to their imperial self-esteem.

- John Michael McGrath discusses how a combination of arbitrary privatization and governmental heel-dragging has resulted in it taking far more time and trouble than necessary to build public infrastructure. Bryan Eneas reports on the Regina schools which are far over capacity due to the Saskatchewan Party's poor planning and underfunding.

- Thomas Walkom puts the Libs' costly tax tinkering in perspective by comparing it to the puny sums on offer for major social priorities. And Jonathon Gatehouse notes that Andrew Scheer's bombast against foreign aid is as inaccurate as it is dehumanizing.

- Finally, Owen Jones writes that we shouldn't be fooled by calls for both-sides "civility" as a response to organized violence and hatred by the right.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Suzanne Moore is encouraged that Greta Thunberg is challenging - and upsetting - a privileged male ruling class. Jennifer Ellen Good picks up on Thurberg's theme that an obsession with growth at the expense of sustainability can only lead to disaster. And Ricochet documents the UN speech of Autumn Peltier - whose message is every bit as compelling as Thunberg's, even if she hasn't received the same notice yet.

- Cameron Fenton writes that we should follow on the inspiration of last week's climate strikes by electing genuine climate leaders. And Nsikan Akpan highlights how the world's worst carbon polluters need to reduce their harm to our planet - with Canada's refusal to transition away from fossil fuel extraction representing the area where we most need to change.

- Jim Stanford offers a preview of the results of Con-style climate policy, as Australia's equivalent has led to massive emission increases (after a carbon price had produced some actual reductions). And John Paul Tasker notes that Andrew Scheer has yet to develop any clue how to deal with the climate protestors trying to alert him to the essential challenge of our time. 

- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on a new study showing the $33 billion cost of poverty in Ontario alone. And Colin McClelland notes the financial precarity facing an increasing majority of Canadians.

- Finally, Justin Ling writes about the strong evidence supporting the decriminalization of drugs - representing another area in which the limited distinction between the Libs and Cons masks the need for far more radical action than either can be bothered to consider.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Grace Blakeley writes that class politics are making a sorely-needed return, raising the prospect that people might again start to make gains against corporate forces:

The reemergence of class politics is not a fad; it is a response to the material conditions created by the collapse of finance-led growth. After a recession caused by the reckless greed of the few was followed by an austerity programme that sought to impose the clean-up costs on the many, it is more obvious than ever that the wealth and power of the elite comes at the expense of everyone else. Or, to paraphrase Bernie Sanders, there has been a class war in this country for a long time – it’s time the working class won it.

In this new political context, economic policy is no longer a question of tinkering around the edges of a stable model: economic policy today is about power. As I argue in my new book, this is the moment for working people to seize back control of our most important institutions and rebalance power away from capital and towards labour.

The only way to bring about such a shift is to promote state, worker and community ownership of society’s most important resources. In an economy in which ownership is mediated by the finance sector, this requires a socialist government to take on the banks the way Thatcher took on the unions.

Finance-led growth emerged because its advocates used their control over the state to smash the organised power of working people and convince them that capitalism had won, once and for all. As the finance sector became ever more powerful, and the alternatives to capitalism faded further from view, it became extremely difficult to believe that there could be another way to organise the economy. Today, the greatest challenge for the left is to remind people that history isn’t over, that capitalism hasn’t won, and that we still have the power to change the world.

- Emma Teitel points out how Greta Thunberg and other climate activists are rightly forcing people to pay attention to devastating climate risks.

- But Fatima Syed and Emma McIntosh report that the forces who brought the world such catastrophes as Brexit and the Trump presidency are trying to push Canadian voters to accept continued negligence. And Charlie Smith writes that the Libs and Cons alike are serving their wealthy donors and patrons by trying to keep any option to transition away from fossil fuel extraction off the ballot, while Linda McQuaig calls out Justin Trudeau in particular for throwing money at pipelines while refusing to invest in clean transportation.

- Finally, Naheed Nenshi writes that Trudeau's history of blackface shouldn't draw our attention away from the ongoing and deliberate hatred being stoked in the federal election campaign. And Desmond Cole, Azeezah Kanji and Amar Wala go into detail about how racism is still reflected in public policy.