Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Bruce Arthur calls out Doug Ford for choosing (like other conservative premiers) to prioritize the "freedom" of uninformed anti-vaxxers to endanger everybody over the health of the population at large. The Economist charts how vaccinated people have not only been better protected from COVID-19, but also less likely to die of other causes - which, while not subject to a causal analysis, would make sense from the standpoint of a dividing line as to the recognition and calculation of risk. [Update: Yes, this would seem related too.] Pat McKay tells the story of a family facing limited care for prematurely-born twins due to Scott Moe's choice to flood the health care system with COVID patients. And Theresa Kliem reports on the health care workers who no longer see a future in a province which places so little value on them or their patients - exacerbating what was already a shortage of care workers. 

- David Coletto unveils new polling data showing that a large majority of Canadians - including a plurality even among the most recalcitrant provinces and political parties - want to see far more action to protect our climate. 

- But Oliver Milman reports on a new study by Systems Change Lab showing that not a single industry is pulling its weight to pull us back from reaching and exceeding 1.5 degrees of warming. Oil Change International points out how countries are continuing to subsidize carbon pollution by throwing money at oil and gas operators, while Bob Weber reports on Canada's place as the worst offender of the lot in funding the entrenchment of dirty energy rather than a transition to cleaner options. And Geoffrey Morgan reports on the giant windfalls being pocketed by oil companies even as governments go out of their way to avoid having them post security for their environmental damage. 

- Georgia Wright, Liat Olenick and Amy Westervelt point out the U.S.' worst climate villains. Belen Balanya, Lala Hakuma Dadci, and Myriam Douo discuss how dirty energy interests have blocked climate action in Europe. And Tim Gray and Devon Page highlight how the UCP's inquiry attacking environmental activists represented an unconscionable abuse of power - even if its results proved to be a damp squib. 

- Finally, Colleen Silverthorn reports on the grossly inadequate benefit amounts under Saskatchewan's income support system, while Yasmine Ghania reports on yesterday's rally to at least reverse the Sask Party scheme which has pushed dozens of people out of their homes and into tent cities. And PressProgress exposes how the Ford government is not only slashing assistance to people, but ensuring that Republican cronies reap profits as a result. 

On plausible alternatives

One of the perennial frustrations in following federal politics is the tendency of media coverage to default toward a Lib-Con duopoly. That pattern typically manifests itself when polling data and other circumstances create an obvious opening for an alternative, and is particularly striking when one of those parties is still treated as the primary alternative even while trailing the NDP and votes in seats. (See: federal politics from 2011-2015 and Ontario politics today.)

Of course, there are reasons for that: most notably, two-party horse race coverage is far easier to generate than discussion of the nuances of multi-party democracy. And particularly in the case of the Cons being propped up as the primary alternative to the Libs, there are some explanations which hold at least a modicum of validity (such as what figures to be a fairly firm floor based on the Cons' prairie base), and some which are rather less justifiable (such as media outlets' systematic backing of the Cons no matter how inept or destructive they are). 

But while we can count on conventional media to ignore the prospect of a new contender emerging, there seem to be plenty of forces coming together to raise the possibility of the NDP becoming the primary alternative to the Libs in an election this year.

We're seeing endless election speculation based on the Cons' pitiful performance. And it's true that in a two-party campaign, the Libs would figure to be well positioned to improve their position compared to a party with an unpopular leader, and with no obvious direction other than to keep running well-worn actions from an increasingly outdated Harper playbook.

But the NDP has been creeping up in the party standings, while Jagmeet Singh's approval rating has regularly ranked at the top of the pack (due in no small part to his party's work ensuring people have what they need through a pandemic, rather than looking to undercut support like the Cons have done). 

And this weekend may have seen the Cons' membership firmly reject the very possibility of making up ground.

Just before the Cons' national convention, David Colletto offered a snapshot of the types of voters who aren't currently in their camp, but might be willing to consider them. And the convention proceedings could hardly have been scripted better to repudiate the interests of young people, who recognize the need for racial justice and view climate change as a serious issue.

None of the above means that Erin O'Toole won't put on the usual mask of fake moderation. And indeed, he's spent much of his time since winning the Cons' leadership trying to pose as a worker-friendly populist, while begging people not to look at the track record of himself or his party. 

But that pitch always relied on people actually finding him believable - which doesn't appear to be working.

Which means that we're at least into a position where there's a plausible path toward the NDP pushing ahead of the Cons as the social democratic alternative to a Lib government which has done plenty to cater to the corporate class. (Consider this the British Columbia model transposed onto the federal scene.) And we may soon reach the point where anybody looking for the most likely party to overtake the Libs - and the most plausible narrative for change - will have to look to the NDP.

On political evolution

Both Chantal Hebert and the combination of Bruce Anderson and David Coletto have written recently about the state of federal politics in Quebec, with particular emphasis on what we can expect as the Bloc Quebecois appears to crumble. With that in mind, I'll offer a quick reminder as to one of the more subtle factors behind the 2011 Orange Wave - and how things have changed less than we might think at first glance.

As I've mentioned before, the NDP's relatively strong push into Quebec happened to coincide with an election where both the Cons and Libs had obvious reasons not to put much effort into the province - based in large part on the Bloc's success in campaigning against their preferred themes.

Which isn't to say that the NDP was obviously ahead of its competitors at the start of the campaign (see: polling prior to April 2011 passim). Instead, its increased strategic focus figures mostly to have counterbalanced the Libs' and Cons' historic advantages. And with no national party going into 2011 with much expectation of winning over a substantial amount of Bloc support, the outcome might be seen as reflecting two factors: not only the popularity of Jack Layton, but also the growth of natural voter preferences in a rare case where political targeting played a relatively small role.

Of course, that's all changed going into the next federal campaign. Now that the obvious obstacle to growth in Quebec for all of the federal parties is seemingly disintegrating, every party has an incentive to test its prospects within a much larger pool of available voters and seats. And there's reason to think the NDP, Libs and Cons have all done just that.

In turn, that makes the lack of change in voter support just as noteworthy as any further shift would have been. The NDP's change in leadership from Jack Layton to Thomas Mulcair hasn't affected its massive advantage on that question. And renewed pushes from both the Libs and Cons haven't significantly altered the party standings aside from the Bloc's further decline - which, as noted by Anderson and Coletto, may actually bolster the NDP's position compared to its competitors.

Not that any party can rest on its laurels now: after all, it's the illusion of stability over an even longer period that caught nearly everybody off guard in the last election. But if 2011 showed us what the Quebec electorate looks like following relatively little work to cultivate party interests, the last few years seem to indicate that voters are comfortable with the landscape.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Content goes here.

- David Coletto of Abacus Data offers his theory for the NDP's surge in Quebec which has since spread to the rest of the country:

Has all the talk about coalitions at the start of the campaign actually laid a foundation for NDP growth in Quebec?

The BQ has clearly stated it won’t join in a formal coalition with any other parties. And no party has said it would want BQ members in cabinet. Perhaps Quebec voters have decided that although the BQ has done a good job at representing Quebec in the past, it really can’t prevent a Stephen Harper majority. In fact, voters may have figured out that by electing NDP MPs they can actually prevent a Harper minority – by giving the NDP enough seats in Quebec to form a working arrangement with the Liberals elected outside of Quebec.

Fewer BQ seats in Parliament means that the math becomes more palatable for Canadians because the real problem with coalitions was not the principle of a coalition but the idea of separatists holding a government hostage.
...
We found that in Quebec, when given the choice between a Conservative minority government and a coalition or agreement between the Liberals and NDP, 57% of Quebec respondents preferred a coalition while 29% preferred a Conservative minority. 14% were unsure.

An Angus Reid poll released today found that 61% of Quebec respondents believed that “The Conservative government has performed poorly, and does not deserve to form a government after the next election” – the highest percentage in Canada.

So what we may be seeing in Quebec, and the data backs up this argument, is that Quebecers have realized that they can prevent another Conservative government not by voting BQ, but by voting NDP. If this is true, what we could be witnessing is a collective decision to vote strategically from a large part of a provincial electorate.

- Toby Sanger notes that fair taxation of Canada'a financial sector could generate upwards of $10 billion per year in extra revenue - which would seem to make for a rather compelling contrast against the service cuts on offer from the Harper Cons.

- It shouldn't come as much surprise. But since I haven't yet seen anybody put the factors together, let's note how the regular polling as to which party is most trusted on health care may largely miss the point as to what position will actually sway votes:

Twenty-seven per cent of voters ranked the economy and job creation as the most important election issue, compared to 18 per cent who placed health care as the most important issue and 18 per cent who put government ethics and accountability at the top of the list, the survey suggests.
...
Of the voters who ranked health care as the most important issue, 87 per cent of the survey respondents said they were in favour of supporting medicare rather than having more privatization of medical care and services. Although Ottawa transfers billions of dollars annually to provincial governments for health care, the provinces have jurisdiction over delivery of health services.

Preference for supporting medicare over having more privatization was highest in the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia. Fully 98 per cent of respondents in both regions said they want to support medicare over more privatization. In Ontario, of the medicare supporters who said the issue is the most important in the campaign, 90 per cent favoured medicare support over more privatization.

Given that the Cons are actively affirming their support for private health service delivery, that finding would seem to confirm that there's virtually no overlap between the relatively high number of voters listing the Cons as their first choice on health care (about 30 per cent in the polls linked above) and the voters who are actually motivated by the issue - while the NDP's position as the strongest advocate for public delivery has the potential to deliver a large number of votes.

- Dan Gardner points out that there's no reason why a minority government can't function under reasonable leadership - making the Cons' desperate plea for a majority into more of an admission of their own failings than a reasonable argument:

In the last Conservative budget, the gap between what the NDP asked for its support and what the Conservatives offered was tiny and so a new Conservative minority could make modest concessions to the NDP, pass the budget, and get on with governing. But Harper has already said his government will re-introduce the budget without changes, which suggests this simple bit of negotiation and compromise won’t happen. And we will get the instability the prime minister predicted.

Why? It’s not a defect inherent in minority government. Nor is it that the big three parties have irreconcilable visions and policies. In fact, the substantive disagreements between the parties are as small or smaller than they’ve ever been in modern times.

No, the problem is the leader.

Stephen Harper gambled everything on winning a majority. Now, after swearing that anything less would cause earth to shudder and sky to weep, it would be personally calamitous if a Conservative minority government functioned smoothly. Harper said there would be instability, damn it. And he will make sure of it.

- Finally, there's a new leader in race for the dubious honour of "most bizarre campaign coverage from a major media outlet": Tamsin McMahon's article which not only wastes readers' time with the question, "does the federal NDP actually want to be in power?", but manages to answer with something close to a "no".