Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- SBS News reports on the WHO's warning that not only is the COVID-19 pandemic far from over, but cases are spiking globally. And Mike Lapointe reports on the work of at least some political leaders - notably including NDP MP Don Davies - to push the federal government to both take preventative action to limit spread and address the growing crisis of long COVID. 

- Gabriela Calugay-Castilla writes that the lack of paid sick days forces people to choose between necessities in trying to provide the necessities of life without making themselves and others sick. And Katherine Scott discusses how women continue to bear the brunt of the effects of the pandemic. 

- Doreen Nicoll writes about the need to measure public policy generally based on social health outcomes rather than GDP and profit levels. 

- Isabella O'Malley reports on the revelation of a large hole in the ozone layer over tropical regions of the Earth. Carey Gillam reports on research finding that 80% of Americans tested have detectable levels of the weedkiller glyphosate in their systems. And Tom Perkins explains how EPA tests likely severely underestimate the pollutants found in U.S. water.

- Finally, Liam O'Connor discusses the increasing concentration in ownership of Saskatchewan farms, as the economics of a corporatized sector leave no room for people to operate smaller farms even as a few wealthy people look to farmland as an investment. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Jeff Spross calls out the absurdity of gutting protections for health and safety in the name of "regulatory certainty" - particularly when that really only means businesses know they can get away with as much damage on the public as they can inflict.

- Alice O'Keeffe writes about the importance of child care to set children and families up with opportunities to succeed. And CBC News reports on Don Davies' bill to finally introduce a national school nutrition program.

- Hilary Agro makes the case for drug legalization to avoid maximizing the harm from drug use.

-  Ellen Barry writes about the growing number of municipalities looking at free transit as a means of building a safer, more affordable and more environmentally friendly city. And Jolson Lim points out that Canadian mayors are pushing for dedicated transit funding as part of the federal budget.

- Finally, Paul Krugman offers a reminder of the Republicans' hypocrisy over deficits - which of course applies equally in Canada as right-wing governments gut public services to only partially paper over the holes they've created in budgets with reckless giveaways to the corporate sector. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Wanda Wyporska writes that growing inequality is primarily the result of political choices:

If it seems ridiculous that 1,000 people work harder or offer more value than 40 per cent of the population, that’s because it is.

This level of inequality isn’t natural or desirable, it’s not about fair competition between people of differing abilities, or about people’s relative ‘productive capacity’ or any of the myriad excuses offered by inequality apologists. It is true that certain, perhaps inevitable, changes to our economy and businesses have exacerbated inequality – we know for example, that the changing nature of jobs has, in part, led to greater inequality.

However, the real drivers of inequality have come from political choices. These include a sustained attack on trade unions and the role of collective bargaining in driving up low wages, a relentless cutting of high-rate tax levels paid by the wealthiest, and the wholesale attack on social security.

Unfortunately, our current Government appears to have committed to similar policies. A planned increase to the income tax threshold will benefit better-off households, as will the expected increase in the higher rate threshold. At the same time, the roll-out of Universal Credit will see many low-income households have their support cut. A recent report from the Resolution Foundation estimated these policies would see inequality increase to record levels by the end of the current parliament.

Inequality widens the rungs on the ladder, making it harder and harder for people to move up. Moreover, the fear of falling back and forfeiting social status is increased, creating additional pressures and stresses on us all, even the well-off. Worst of all, inequality makes it harder for people to understand and appreciate the lives of those on different rungs of the ladder to them. In effect, greater equality is the glue that binds us, and weakening this glue causes social relations to unravel.

- Alan Freeman discusses the many tax goodies oriented toward the wealthy which the Trudeau Libs have no apparent interest in eliminating. And Will Fischer and Barbara Sard note that the U.S.' spending on housing provides far more to wealthy property owners while doing virtually nothing for people who actually need assistance.

- Brent Patterson writes about Alberta's ban on for-profit plasma clinics, while wondering when other provinces will also work on taking the profit motive out of the supply of plasma. And Don Davies makes the case for a universal national pharmacare program.

- Finally, Mariam Baldeh points out how the harmful consequences of discrimination include poor health outcomes.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Paul Krugman writes that the ultra-wealthy's contempt for anybody short of their own class is becoming more and more explicit around the globe - even when it comes to basic rights like the ability to vote:

It’s always good when leaders tell the truth, especially if that wasn’t their intention. So we should be grateful to Leung Chun-ying, the Beijing-backed leader of Hong Kong, for blurting out the real reason pro-democracy demonstrators can’t get what they want: With open voting, “You would be talking to half of the people in Hong Kong who earn less than $1,800 a month. Then you would end up with that kind of politics and policies” — policies, presumably, that would make the rich less rich and provide more aid to those with lower incomes.
...
(T)he political right has always been uncomfortable with democracy. No matter how well conservatives do in elections, no matter how thoroughly free-market ideology dominates discourse, there is always an undercurrent of fear that the great unwashed will vote in left-wingers who will tax the rich, hand out largess to the poor, and destroy the economy.
...
(T)hese strategies for protecting plutocrats from the mob are indirect and imperfect. The obvious answer is Mr. Leung’s: Don’t let the bottom half, or maybe even the bottom 90 percent, vote.

And now you understand why there’s so much furor on the right over the alleged but actually almost nonexistent problem of voter fraud, and so much support for voter ID laws that make it hard for the poor and even the working class to cast ballots. American politicians don’t dare say outright that only the wealthy should have political rights — at least not yet. But if you follow the currents of thought now prevalent on the political right to their logical conclusion, that’s where you end up.

- Meanwhile, Heather Digby Parton discusses the latest in Republican anti-voting hysteria. And Don Davies points out that a free trade agreement with Honduras represents yet another blow for business against democratic governance and human rights.

- But on the bright side, Poverty Costs highlights the fact that Saskatchewan has finally (if belatedly) joined its provincial counterparts in announcing an outline of a poverty reduction plan.

- Finally, Andrew Coyne notes that this week's tragic shootings in Ottawa resulted in a brief moment of the type of measured political discussion we should expect more often. But Thomas Walkom and Linda McQuaig are rightly concerned about the Cons' easily-anticipated pivot toward fomenting panic for their own partisan gain. And Alison reminds us just how many important causes figure to fall within the Cons' selective definition of dissent to be suppressed.

Change for the better

In case there was any doubt whether the NDP was looking to improve on the performance of past opposition parties, Mitchel Raphael's overview of the party's strategy looks to confirm that it's ready to take on the Cons on all fronts.

To start with, after years of the Cons setting and manipulating the rules (all too often abetted by other parties willing to see how their changes played out), the NDP is ready to fight back:

Since they have always been an opposition party (though now with a huge increase in resources), NDPers have fine-tuned every trick in the book to force delays and fight procedural wars on issues dear to them. Toronto NDP MP Olivia Chow says her party, over the last four years, helped delay the free trade deal with Colombia and a transportation bill. However, NDP deputy leader Libby Davies says watch for the Conservatives to work hard to erode their ability to challenge bills within the current system.

And more importantly, the NDP looks to recognize that its place in the spotlight can best be used to challenge the Cons on values rather than merely looking to prod them about the scandal du jour:

NDPers also say to watch for a different kind of question period. After the G20 in Toronto, the Liberals hammered the government over items such as the infamous “fake lake,” while the NDP went after the Conservatives on the trampling of civil rights. Re-elected NDP MP Don Davies, who was his party’s public safety critic last session, says he expects there will be more focus on substantive issues in QP rather than simply a bunch of scandal questions, a strategy the Liberals had turned into an art form. Former Liberal MPs told Capital Diary in the past they were literally harassed by their own party to help when mud throwing was needed.

Of course, it remains to be seen how well those principles get applied in practice. But for now, the plan looks to be exactly what's needed both to establish the NDP as the leading alternative to the Cons in the longer term, and to help define the territory where future elections will be fought.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted material for your weekend reading.

- It's looked for some time like the NDP has an opportunity to make some serious inroads in Quebec. And the NDP's plan looks well designed to differentiate the party from the Bloc without disturbing the Gilles Duceppe's efforts to paint the other national parties as one and the same:

The NDP is taking another route, lashing out at planned corporate tax cuts, but also trying to present a new face on sustainable development in the province.

NDP MP Thomas Mulcair said his party has been working with opponents of the ongoing exploration for shale gas in Quebec, and that its new candidate in Manicouagan, Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, was a key player in the fight against uranium development in the province’s north.

Mr. Mulcair added that unlike the Bloc, the NDP not only expresses its opposition to the oil industry in the West, but can do something about it with MPs all over the country.

“The Bloc can only talk about the tar sands in Quebec,” Mr. Mulcair said, comparing that party to a hockey team made up entirely of defencemen. “That’s the difference with the NDP, which is a social-democratic, pan-Canadian party, with a strong track record that is attracting more and more people in Quebec.”

- Rick Salutin points out how the Cons' governing philosophy is based on trying to break down public trust in democratic institutions:

There are people who don’t just have trouble trusting others, they don’t even seem to trust trust when they see it in action. They cringe at the sight. I think of Stephen Harper in this category. It’s not just his attempt to control what others say, or the flow of information. He couldn’t wait to cancel the national child-care program and replace it with small grants to families. You’ll never accomplish a lot that way but you avoid anxiety and disappointment over how a large national program might work out. Ask yourself this: Can you imagine the Harper government (as they now say) bringing in medicare?

What of Harper’s claim that this election shouldn’t be over “distractions” like trust, but about the economy? I’d say an economy is all about trust and distrust. Next Tuesday’s budget will focus on taxes, which are the concrete form of political trust. If we trust our leaders to use our taxes to do things we can’t achieve on our own, then we pay — not happily but willingly. If we don’t trust them, then we’d rather not pay and we choose leaders who will do less. The whole Harper economic program has been to lower taxes incessantly, starting with the GST, so there’s less money to do things and less reason to take a chance on the kind of public trust required to deal with large problems.

Nothing is more fragile and easier to lose than public trust, especially in the area of taxes. When bankers took tax money as bailouts and then used it for further bonuses, they hammered that trust, justifying Harperian distrust.

- Greg is on a roll in pointing out why there's every reason to be wary of the Harper Cons' motives in trying to push for military action in Libya.

- Finally, it seems to have completely escaped any mention by the media, but NDP MP Don Davies has introduced a private member's bill to lower Canada's voting age to 16. Of course the odds of such a bill passing in the near future seem low (and I still suspect that the ideal would be to go somewhat further), but it's still a huge plus to see at least one party working to ensure that more Canadians are able to have a say in the country's electoral system.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Dan Gardner suggests that we may be better off planning to reduce the damage from most risky elements of our current economy instead of having to convene a new Committee to Save the World every decade:

(A)dmitting uncertainty and unpredictability does not mean we can do nothing. Building codes dramatically reduce the damage done by earthquakes, and insurance makes it possible to clear the rubble and re-build.

So, too, in economies, there is a role for regulation of the sort Flaherty envisions. But what about insurance?

Governments themselves can act as insurers. They did in 2008. But of course that was something of a fiction. The money governments spent to save the financial system was borrowed. Ordinary people and their children will be paying it off for decades.

That’s not fair. Or wise. The wizards of the financial system got rich taking on the risks that ultimately blew up in 2008. By not making them pay for the cleanup, governments gave them a powerful incentive to do the same again. Or worse.

The alternative is to require the financial system to pay insurance premiums: A tiny tax on financial transactions would allow governments to create substantial reserve funds which could be used in the event of financial meltdowns.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy continues to push a variant of this idea. Flaherty and others are adamantly opposed.

The better solution, Flaherty says, is a Committee To Save The World.

They’ll get it all figured out. Sure they will.

- Memo to Scott Simms: No, it isn't worth disassociating yourself with one of the most important opposition lines of clash against the Harper government for the sake of a "gotcha" moment.

- In contrast, it's great to see NDP MP Don Davies' pushback on the Cons' plan to push pardons out of the reach of the people likely to need them most.

- Finally, I know I feel reassured now that the same political communications staffers who have restricted any public comment by Canada's top scientists are declaring that there's nothing to be concerned about.

On review mechanisms

Obviously it's a plus to see the NDP demanding answers to some of the most glaring questions raised by the Harper government's G8/G20 debacle:

Demonstrations are inevitable at events such at the G8 and G20 and downtown Toronto is an extremely challenging area for police to secure. Following the summits, serious questions have been raised about the implementation of security plans.

* Why did the federal government ignore the concerns and suggestions of the local government in holding the summit in downtown Toronto on a weekend?
* Who requested the temporary suspension of basic civil liberties for the duration of the summits? And why was this done in secret?
* What role did federal officials play in the Integrated Security Unit in policing the summit?
* Will the government compensate Toronto for the damage that Harper’s summits have caused?

“The estimated billion dollar budget for security should have been Harper’s first clue that downtown Toronto was the wrong place to hold a summit like the G20,” said NDP Public Safety Critic Don Davies (Vancouver-Kingsway). “It’s incumbent on the federal government to work with the Integrated Security Unit, the city of Toronto, the Province of Ontario and all three levels of police forces to find answers to the questions being asked about how strategic decisions were made and the way in which demonstrators and journalists were treated. I will be asking the Public Safety Committee to get to the bottom of these lingering questions and develop a post-summit accountability report.”

But while the NDP looks to be asking the right questions, there are a couple of reasons why it's worth wondering whether the committee system is the best way to get at the truth.

First off, there's the combination of the Cons' invocation of "ministerial responsibility" to avoid questioning of anybody below the cabinet level, and their refusal to have ministers answer questions about anything "operational". Which will almost certainly limit any committee hearings to a battle of political spin rather than an exchange of meaningful information - at least to the extent that witnesses are under the Cons' thumb.

And second, there's the question of what kind of findings and report can be generated. In general, the committee wouldn't figure to be able to go into the level of detail required to completely sort out the competing arguments from the police and protesters. Plus, it's a mortal lock that the Cons would both delay the release of any report, and issue a dissenting opinion praising Stephen Harper to the skies to counterbalance even clear findings from the rest of the committee.

All of which makes this exactly the type of case where the opposition parties should be calling for an independent inquiry to take the most detailed possible look at the evidence available, and reach conclusions that the Cons won't reasonably be able to dispute. And hopefully the Libs and Bloc will share the NDP's determination to get answers about the billion dollars spent to repress Canadians.

Update: Of course, it never hurts to make it known that the public is paying attention to the issue as well. So join the Facebook group calling for an inquiry if you haven't already.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Wait and see

With the political scene in British Columbia seeming to have been significantly reshaped by the HST petition campaign, it was only a matter of time before the issue was raised again on the federal level despite the Harper Cons' attempts to distance themselves from the tax. And the NDP has found a key area where the Cons can obviously make important decisions one way or the other despite their protestations to the contrary:

Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton sent a letter in April to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, urging him to put off implementation of the tax until the referendum process is complete.
...
(NDP MP) Don Davies said there's no rush to bring in the tax before a possible referendum takes place, especially in light of the petition, which he called “one of the greatest expressions of public democracy in British Columbia history.”

“The least that Mr. Campbell and Mr. Harper can do is respect that by not proceeding with the HST on July 1,” he said.

“We think that the only democratic thing to do and the only smart public policy thing to do is to stop this tax now and let's wait and see what the people of British Columbia decide to do.”

Of course, the agreements signed to implement the HST seem to have been nicely structured to allow each side to claim that it's locked in by the other. But there can't be any room for doubt that the governments involved can override their agreement to impose the tax without considering the views of the public if they're both willing to do so. And it makes all the sense in the world to keep the status quo in place while the petition/referendum process plays out, rather than converting the province's tax system so as to make it costly and complicated to de-harmonize sales taxes again.

That is, unless the Harper Cons plan to hold B.C. to the terms of the agreement even in the face of a massive popular revolt against the HST. But if that's their choice, then it's only fair that they'll have to face the political consequences. And the NDP is nicely positioned to speak along with the public in condemning any decision to force the HST ahead.

On retention strategies

I’ll mostly leave it to others to discuss the merits of Don Martin’s advice for Michael Ignatieff. But it’s worth using Martin’s column as a reminder that there’s more than one path from the status quo to a Harper majority – and the Libs’ current state of disarray may only help to produce that result.

Here are the relevant pieces from Martin:

Fire Denis Coderre

The former Quebec lieutenant did more than mere subordination when he quit in a huff at being overruled in a Montreal riding nomination fight. When he summoned media to blast his leader’s Toronto preference, he precipitated a family feud and handed the Bloc Québécois an invitation to attack the Liberals as a poor fit with Quebec interests. Having watched Prime Minister Stephen Harper ditch a candidate this week for merely stating the obvious — elect a Conservative if you want stimulus megabucks in your riding — Mr. Ignatieff must show similar spine and get rid of an MP who became a traitor to his party’s hopes. If he wants to be a particularly evil genius, he could simply refuse to sign Mr. Coderre’s nomination papers, thus denying him the right to run as a Liberal. It’s drastic, but necessary, action.
…
Bond with caucus

This is a very speculative rumble, but at least two MPs have mused in private about crossing the floor to join the Conservatives. Others complain their leader is deaf to their input and trivializes their value. Given that the Conservatives are no longer markedly different from the Liberals in fiscal or social policy, Mr. Ignatieff might be more caring of his caucus lest his MPs start looking for another party leader who can do better.

Now, the connection between these two items should be obvious when one considers the current party standings in the House of Commons. At the moment, the Cons’ 143 seats leave them 12 short of a nominal majority in the House.

But that number is somewhat misleading for two reasons. First, with Lib Peter Milliken serving as Speaker (removing his vote from the picture in most cases and obliging him to vote to preserve the status quo in the event of a tie), the Cons effectively gain a relative vote compared to the opposition. And second, Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier independent MP Andre Arthur was effectively made an honorary Con as Harper elected not to run a candidate against him – and usually votes the part.

What’s more, the upcoming set of by-elections is likely to see at least one more Con elected, as Bill Casey’s resignation leaves Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley likely to return to its usual party leanings. And it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that another seat might wind up in Con hands.

Now, as long as the party standings leave the Cons 12 seats short of a true majority, the prospect of flipping enough current MPs to bridge that number of seats looks relatively remote. And even a position 8-9 seats short of a functional majority - with no apparent momentum toward getting MPs to switch sides - may make for a sufficiently daunting gap to keep Harper focused on adding to his caucus through elections rather than through floor-crossing.

But if Ignatieff were to expel Coderre from the Libs, it’s difficult to imagine that either Coderre or Harper would have too many scruples about a switch to the Cons. And if a Coderre party switch were followed by two more Libs also gravitating toward power – reducing the majority gap to 5-6 seats while setting a precedent for others who might consider jumping – then the cost/benefit analysis involved in trying to entice existing MPs might look far more appealing both to Harper and to the opposition MPs who might be interested (presumably consisting of power-seeking Libs and right-wing Bloc MPs).

So what does that mean for the Libs’ strategy at the moment? For one thing, they’d be well advised to support Don Davies’ anti-floor-crossing bill if only to increase the pressure on their own MPs to stay loyal.

From a party management standpoint, though, Ignatieff has to worry not only about keeping his party generally satisfied with his leadership, but also with keeping his individual MPs from finding their way over to the Cons as a matter of personal interest. In Coderre’s case, that presumably means trying to be conciliatory rather than responding to his petulance in kind; in the case of caucus members who might be tempted to jump to the Cons even without being expelled first, that requires making a compelling argument as to why individual MPs who may have been enticed to get involved in politics due primarily to the promise of power should stick around opposition benches rather than seeking what Harper might have on offer. And if Ignatieff fails in those tasks, then all the ad campaigns in the world won’t help stop Harper from reaching majority status.