Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Mariano Zafra and Javier Salas offer a handy visual aid as to how COVID-19 spreads indoors - showing that masking is a valuable partial solution, but that effective ventilation can significantly reduce community transmission. And Jessica Wong reports on the results of a teachers' survey showing how COVID-19 has dumped far more stress and responsibility on already-overworked educators. 

- Meanwhile, Apoorva Mandavilli discusses how some COVID-19 patients wind up with antibodies which attack their own bodies rather than the virus.

- George Monbiot exposes how the UK's move to privatize the coronavirus response resulted in untrained teenagers being handed the work of health professionals - with corporate cronies pocketing the difference even while failing to perform their duties. 

- Gordon Asmundson writes about five of the most dangerous mental health effects of the COVIS-19 pandemic. And John Paul Tasker reports on the wide range of social ills documented in the latest annual report from the Public Health Agency of Canada. 

- Corey Ranger argues that the Kenney UCP's response to the opioid crisis amounts to nothing less than social murder. And Zak Vescera reports on Saskatchewan's overdose crisis - which continues to worsen as Scott Moe prefers to spend his time posturing against Ottawa rather than saving lives in his own province.

- Campbell Clark discusses how the Trudeau Libs are trying to use the pandemic as an excuse to clamp down on access to information. 

- Finally, Willy Blomme offers a reminder that it's never too late to change the world for the better. And Glen Pearson writes about the need for people to join together in order to accomplish the task.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Jason Markusoff discusses Jason Kenney's race to the bottom as he uses a pandemic as an excuse to sacrifice yet more public money and workers' rights to corporate freeloaders.

- Richard Cannings points out how inequality is a drag on our economy (as well as a source of social ills). And John Loxley studies (PDF) the social impact bonds - including one in Saskatchewan - which have added a pointless, profit-driven frame to any attempt to improve social conditions.

- Evan Dyer highlights how rapid and reliable public support for people has been an essential element of any successful response to the coronavirus. The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour is seeking input into how to take into account the needs of workers as we plan the shape of our future economy and society. And Glen Pearson takes note of the importance of social capital - though I'd question his reluctance to include common ownership of resources as part of the effort of building a society that benefits everybody.

- Finally, Ed Pilkington writes about the COVID-19 calamity in the U.S. And James Fallows discusses how people around the globe have suffered due to the Trump administration's destruction of the public institutions counted on to support humanity in meeting a common threat.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Michelle Girash and Chandra Pasma write from personal experience about the uncertainty COVID-19 creates for workers. Bryan Borzykowski notes that the needed extension of the CERB through the summer has merely delayed the approach to a cliff for people who have rightly relied on public support. And Rachel Aiello reports on the Libs' stingy "volunteer" program for students which will pay less than minimum wage to participants while lining the pockets of a Trudeau-connected non-profit.

- Jean-Pierre Colin points out the opportunity to build a green economy in the course of redeveloping from the coronavirus pandemic. And Glen Pearson argues that we should take the opportunity to move away from an emphasis on growth at all costs.

- Shadia Nasralla reports on new research showing how just one pipeline has been emitting massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere - confirming the folly of allowing natural gas operators to ignore what they spew. Laura Tretheway discusses the "plastic superhighway" of waste finding its way into the environment and our food chain. And Jimmy Tobias reports on the Trump administration's use of cyanide bombs to wage war against wildlife on behalf of businesses.

- Rebecca Gao offers a primer on the definition and reality of systemic racism for the many leaders who seem utterly unaware of it.

- Finally, Sarath Peiris recognizes that police should be a last resort rather than a first option in responding to social ills. And Shawn Fraser writes that spending on remand beds represents an expensive way to avoid addressing the real causes of crime and insecurity.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Dylan Matthews writes about the growing body of evidence showing that minimum wage increases boost pay for lower-income workers while having no effect on the availability of jobs. And Paul Karp and Amy Remeikis report on new research challenging the explanation for reducing Australian superannuation rates in the name of wages.

- The Sutton Trust's polling shows how a strong plurality of UK voters see significant deterioration both in the equality of opportunity, and in the standard of living for future generations. But Grace Blakeley highlights the massive gains which can be achieved through UK Labour's plans for a transition to a green economy.

- Sharon Riley reports on the health and environmental risks imposed on Alberta landowners by the province's existing network of pipelines - particularly ones which are intended to be abandoned by their operators. 

- Andrew MacLeod discusses the importance of accountability and responsiveness to whistleblowing in ensuring that public institutions actually serve their intended purposes.

- Finally, Glen Pearson writes about the need for progressive leaders and activists to be willing to cooperate - though it's well worth noting which parties have shown their inclination to work together toward shared policy goals, and which has stubbornly rejected the concept.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Emilie Prattico comments on the need to move past an economy that generates billionaires and widespread precarity in order to ensure that collective problems can be meaningfully addressed:

While the public has never been as outspoken in its support of urgent and ambitious climate action, money talks, too—and that sound you’re hearing is the crushing din of an economy designed to further the interests of a capital-owning ruling class.
...
...(T)he kind of transformation we need to tackle climate change will require the overhaul of the entire economic system, not the incremental adjustments made by individual companies or countries. Shifting toward a net-zero carbon economy requires innovation in products and processes, the development of new business models, and new forms of cooperation across industries. It will unleash large amounts of investments into new, low-carbon plants and infrastructures. It will call for radically new legal, fiscal, and policy frameworks. It is highly unlikely to sustain the kinds of inequalities we witness today, nor support the existence of philanthropic billionaires.
...
The climate is the rare problem billionaires can’t throw their money at. We don’t need donations. We need a fundamentally different kind of economy, and radical action to profoundly transform the capitalist system that allows for billionaires to exist in the first place.

- David Suzuki writes that we can't afford to fiddle while our planet burns. And Dennis Wamstead notes that even in the U.S., renewable electricity generation is now exceeding that from coal.

- Alicia Elliott questions why safe water supplies continue to be lacking for far too many Indigenous communities. And Emily Mathieu reports on Leilani Farha's work to point out the absurdity of a homelessness epidemic being allowed to fester in cities as wealthy as Toronto.

- John Michael McGrath points out that the Ford PCs have chosen to maximize how much damage they do to the province in the name of satisfying base impulses, rather than paying any attention to the importance of programs and funding they're slashing. And Glen Pearson discusses the distinction between conservatism based on the preservation of institutions and values, and the current version built around lashing out in anger.

- Finally, Hassan Yussuff rightly argues that nobody should die for their job - even as over 1,000 Canadians do just that every year.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Glen Pearson discusses the glaring gap between what citizens actually value, and what gets done by the governments they elect through distorted political systems:

This past weekend, I wrote a column for the London Free Press, in which I stated the following:

“What polls continue to reveal is that the coming generations of leaders and voters are increasingly bent on achieving social justice, environmental reform, gender equity, affordable housing, stronger communities, and a political order in line with those values.”
...
A look at 2018 Pew and Gallup polls revealed some fascinating realities about American views in the midst of a white-hot Trump era.  Consider these:

• 70% of Americans support medicare for all
• 74% favour strong environmental laws
• 82% want equal pay for women
• 59% agree with free child care
• 58% favour breaking up the big banks
• In something of a shocker, 75% favour immigration within proper quotas
• 62% support labour unions
• 61% want the minimum wage increased in their respective states
• Surprisingly, 61% wish to see cuts to the military budget
• 71% are pro choice

This is not the America we hear about or see every day and yet it is part of the reason for the successful Democratic mid-term wave.  We are convinced that our neighbour to south is a culture of guns, but then learn that 78% of Americans don’t even own a gun.  The United States is more than we are seeing right now and what isn’t being recognized is how progressive it is.

The problem, then, is really one of politics, and much of the blame for that lies not with the politicians but with citizens themselves.  It shouldn’t surprise us to learn that 46.9% of Americans who could vote didn’t bother.  That is 106,516,046 people – almost three times the population of Canada.  With that number of citizens staying home, the majority of whom, as research and polls show, significantly support the above values, then it’s inevitable that that those of the opposite view prevail in elections and public policy.  And, yes, the electoral college in the U.S. often works against the popular vote (which conservatives lost by more than three million votes in 2016 and yet still prevailed).  What kind of democracy is it when the majority loses?  There are numerous answers to that question, but the point is that democracy itself is not served by such realities.

The other real problem is the grouping of the political, financial and corporate elites who have overseen our political and financial order and yet have failed to keep pace with the progressive instincts of their respective populations.  Voters trusted their promises, only to see jobs disappear, the environment continue under increasing threat, women still not receiving equal pay, and electoral reform frequently getting squelched.  That trust is now eroding.  The key job of the elites was to solve the primary problems of the entire citizenry, not maintain the status quo.

- Michael Sainato writes about the push toward a union by Amazon's warehouse employees seeking a more fair balance of power against an exploitative employer. And Simon Murphy exposes a UK employment agency whose appalling practices including fining workers for being sick.

- Alan Freeman comments on the combination of waste and mistreatment of employees that resulted from the Cons' and Libs' choice to impose the Phoenix pay system on the federal civil service.

- The Canadian Press reports that rural internet access is among the infrastructure which the Libs are holding hostage to the goal of finding private-sector profiteers. And Spencer Macnoughton and Conall Jones report on the desperate measures being taken by patients in need of insulin which has been priced far beyond their means.

- Finally, Paul Krugman discusses how it's possible to lay the groundwork for needed action to avert climate breakdown on an urgent basis even in the U.S.' political system where a denialist executive branch will prevent any immediate progress.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Somini Sengupta writes that the extreme heat experienced so far in 2018 shows how ill-prepared humanity is for the climate change it's causing. And the Economist offers a warning that the oil industry can't realistically expect past prices to continue to apply under a future transition toward other energy sources.

- Meanwhile, UC Berkeley unveils new research as to the effectiveness of regulations in reducing multiple types of industrial emissions without affecting output.

- But Ben Parfitt points out the role of British Columbia's heavily-subsidized natural gas and "gas liquids" in facilitating the further destruction wrought by the oil sands. And Andy Crosby and Jeffrey Monaghan expose how the federal government has consistently used public resources to spy against activists on behalf of the oil industry, rather than doing anything to identify and defend the public interest.

- Sarah DelVillano highlights the need for leadership from the federal government to combat poverty in Canada. And the Star's editorial board suggests that a valuable first step would be to take on the basic income pilot project so callously trashed by Doug Ford, while Glen Pearson is particularly aghast at the ideological cancellation of research into an idea capable of earning support from multiple points on the political spectrum.

- Finally, Chris Dillow argues that UK politics are failing to select for anything approaching desirable attributes in distributing power - and a few of the concerns appear to apply far more broadly.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Peter Gowan discusses UK Labour's push for greater social control over economic development. And Rainer Kattel, Mariana Mazzucato, Josh Ryan-Collins and Simon Sharpe set out a useful framework to evaluate policies which are intended to shape markets rather than merely attempting to fix them.

- Anis Heydari reports on the choice far too many Albertans face between food and housing when neither is affordable. And Glen Pearson comments on how poverty can trap people in a cycle of deprivation and pessimism:

What do kids in low-income situations do, for instance, when school is out? For many, camps are beyond reach because of the expense, vacations to other regions virtually impossible, and for some, hunger pangs will increase with the loss of school breakfast and feeding programs. It’s a sad irony of our times that agricultural growing seasons flourish at the same time as kids go more hungry than usual.

For working parents pressed down with precarious or vulnerable work, inquiring as to what their plans are for the summer can prove to be a moment of insensitivity. They possess no cottage, boat, travel agenda or, for some, even a car. They can enjoy the sun like everyone else, but not in those more exotic locations most citizens can get to.

This is what modern-day poverty looks like — not just a lack of resources but also a loss of hope.

It is this psychological state that presents democracy and politicians with one of their greatest challenges because there seem to be no solutions if the economic status quo prevails. And those losing faith in their future are frequently working adults, trapped in vulnerable employment, unable to escape their situation.
...
The longer we put off pressing for change, the closer the tentacles of poverty come to us. We all know people in our neighbourhoods and among our friends and families who have become increasingly vulnerable to low-income pressures, despite their best efforts to retrain, finish their education and work unbearable hours. There is more of this to come.

- But on the bright side, Matt Robinson reports on Vancouver's action to expropriate slum hotels to ensure they can be properly maintained and made available for people who need the housing. And Cami Kepke reports on a push by several Regina city councillors to stop further commercial development in Wascana Park. 

- Finally, Michael Harris weighs in on Doug Ford's choice to impose chaos on Toronto's municipal governance.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Glen Pearson makes the case for transcending cynicism in our politics, including the choice to stay involved once an election is done. And Ian Welsh reminds us that our definition of property is socially established - meaning that many of the assumptions as to what we can and can't do are subject to change:

The larger we expand the sphere of property, as with intellectual property and the right to patent genetic codes, the more we say “only person X can make decisions about what to do with these resources”.  We had better be damn certain that that one person, or corporation or whoever owns this resource is making at least good decisions, and ideally better decisions than would be made if that resource stayed in the commons, available to be used by many people.

And when we give a very few individuals and corporations the right to control a plurality or majority of our resources, locking out virtually everyone else from real decision-making beyond the anemic level of “consumer” and the neutered level of “voter”, we had best, again, be sure that those few people are making better decisions, for everyone, than would be made if a larger number of people had control over those resources and were making the decisions.
...
Freedom is the ability to choose what you do from meaningful choices.  The choice to work for Oligarch A or Oligarch B is not a meaningful choice.

Maximal property definitions and maximal acceptance of property concentration, deprive most of the population of their freedom. It is that simple.
...
A sane property definition allows people to own what they need to do their work and take care of themselves and any dependents. Larger concentrations of property, meant for big projects, are necessary, but they must not be allowed to balloon in oligarchical control of politics and economy.

And I will suggest to you that this is both a much nicer world to live in and a more vibrant one.  A world in which we are not slaves, but have freedom, will burst with creativity and projects.  A world where ideas can be used by anyone will be a world in flower.

If you want freedom, look hard at property.  The larger the sphere of property and the more it is concentrated, the narrower most people’s world will be.

- But of course, some people are going out of their way to enlarge the power of entrenched capital at the expense of public freedom. On that front, Brent Patterson notes that the Trudeau Libs are going full speed ahead in giving corporations the right to challenge Canadian governments under CETA. And Eric Lipton reports on a U.S. giveaway to Monsanto ensuring that it will never be liable for the public health damage done by its chemicals.

- Emily Badger discusses how precarious housing is both an effect and a cause of poverty. And Michele Biss is the latest to weigh in on the need to address poverty with a rights-based model.

- Finally, Chris Selley writes that electoral reform might prod the Cons to remember the concept of independent thought, rather than looking for somebody to give orders like Stephen Harper did throughout his tenure.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jim Stanford examines what Canada's federal election says about our attitudes toward economic choices:

(P)rogressives need to advance our own economic agenda, to fill the vacuum left by the failure of the Conservative vision. The modest infrastructure spending and small, temporary deficits that form the centerpiece of the Liberal macro plan certainly do not constitute an alternative agenda. So we have a lot of work to do.

In conclusion, I believe that the power of progressive economic ideas has become modestly stronger in Canada. The federal election campaign both reflected progress that was already underway (on issues like inequality and climate change), and incrementally contributed to that progress (through the way that some key issues, like deficits and pensions, were addressed by the competing parties and received by Canadians). Of course, the new Liberal government has a modest agenda, it will be receptive to business demands, it will compromise and abandon key promises, and its vague commitment to “change” will soon be tarnished. Alex Himelfarb, speaking to the Ontario CCPA’s excellent post-election roundtable, summed it up perfectly: This government will do less harm, and be open to more good, than the last one. But how much good it does, depends totally on how much it is pushed by us.

My judgment on whether the election advanced or undermined progressive economic ideas is not based on who won, so much as on how economic discourse among Canadians – so-called “common sense” – has evolved and is evolving. That is more important in the long run. The end of the election is just the beginning of our continuing work as advocates on all of those issues, as we continue to engage in the ongoing “battle of economic ideas.” But I am somewhat more optimistic about the prospects of that work than I was a year ago.

- Karen Ho examines how the myth of meritocracy serves only to lock in entrenched privilege. John Bingham reports on new research showing that the gap in life expectancy between the rich and the poor is growing rapidly in the UK, while Geoff Leo reports that cardiac rehabilitation in Regina is being limited to the people who can afford to pay for it. And Desmond Cole makes a compelling case against giving in to the threats of the rich who don't want to contribute to a stronger society.

- Meanwhile, Glen Pearson makes the case for a basic income to ensure everybody has some measure of income and life security. And Tom Cooper discusses the spread of living wages as another way to ensure economic progress is shared more widely.

- Ashley Renders and Hilary Beaumont confirm that Justin Trudeau doesn't plan to bring anything more than Stephen Harper's climate change plan (or lack thereof) to the Paris conference this month. And Jenny Uechl reports on the sorry state of environmental regulation in Canada by looking at the treatment of whistleblowers who have raised concerns about pipelines with the National Energy Board.

- Finally, Andrew Mitrovica offers some suggestions to create oversight under Bill C-51 - though his most important point is that the proper solution would be to scrap it entirely.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Michael Den Tandt and Jonathan Kay both point out the willingness of conservative (and Conservative) supporters to brush off the obvious misdeeds of their political leaders. And Glen Pearson rightly concludes that the responsibility to elect deserving leaders ultimately lies with voters:

We are guilty of asking to little of ourselves. We find it remarkably easy, natural even, to blame our representatives and yet we put them there. They have no real answers to our unemployment situation, but we either continue to support them because of the party we serve or because we have just given up altogether. We turn away in disgust at all the corruption trials, the hanging around with nefarious types, and the constant role-playing to populist politics, and in that very act of walking away we poison the wells for our children’s future. We will continue to dote on our kids at Christmas, providing what they require, but we won’t fight for their cheaper post-secondary tuitions, their future healthcare requirements, their ability to purchase their own homes or to have meaningful jobs. Our children will be entrusted with billions of dollars in public infrastructure deficits and our way of dealing with it is to walk away from the public space instead of fighting for it – for them.

Apathy is a kind of public trap, with no challenges and therefore no rewards. It just is and the consequences are inevitably bone chilling. Most of us care, just not enough, and if we maintain that attitude then we need to prepare ourselves for more mini-tyrants overrunning our public space. This isn’t about Left or Right, is it? It’s about competence and our ability as a people to overcome our challenges and build on our past successes.

The simple reality is this: it’s not really about Rob Ford and his ilk; it’s about us, and how much incompetence we are willing to endure. We got what we voted for and now we’re paying for it. We need better politicians, but our only way of achieving that target is to be better citizens.

- Meanwhile, Frances Russell writes that any attempt to hand more power to the Senate only figures to render the federal government ineffective in responding to Canadians' needs.

- Josh Eidelson discusses McDonald's instructions to employees to break their food into pieces and stop complaining (as an apparent alternative to being paid enough to avoid hunger and stress). And Jillian Berman finds Walmart going a step further - holding a food drive for its own employees who plainly aren't paid enough to feed themselves.

- Which leads nicely to Alexandre Boulerice's view of the proper role of government in allowing workers some recourse in dealing with employers whose strategy includes grinding them into poverty:

But how do you better advocate for those people who are working at Walmart?
I think as legislators our responsibility is to let the workers decide by themselves. I’m not saying that it’s the role of the government to create unions but it’s the role of government to create an environment where it's possible to create a union when you want it -- you can have legal capacities to fight back if you are against an employer like Walmart or McDonalds that clearly doesn’t accept a union in their workplaces.

- CAUT studies how corporate funding is warping Canadian university research projects.

- Finally, Paul Adams contrasts the NDP's clear position on referendum standards against the Libs' well-practiced ignorance.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Murray Dobbin recognizes that there's more at stake on the federal political scene than merely replacing the Harper Cons - and that the most important debate may be found within the NDP. Meanwhile, Tim Harper is concern trolling on that front, demanding that Thomas Mulcair silence Linda McQuaig and anybody else whose principles might not align perfectly with Fraser Institute talking points.

- Carol Goar makes the case (as I've done before) to deal with the Senate through a new convention which simply avoids future appointments. But Andrew Coyne proposes a far more difficult path, proposing to deal with constitutional amendment procedures rather than the single illegitimate institution which cries out for action. And Don Lenihan uses that opening to argue for inaction on all fronts.

- Glen Pearson questions the corporatist orthodoxy that the rich must be appeased with preferential access and policy treatment lest they stop creating wealth for themselves. But Tony Clement makes it abundantly clear that his government isn't interested in anything but all-out war against Canadian workers.

- Finally, Jim Stanford calls for another look at the relative merits of infrastructure investment and corporate tax cuts:

Because corporations are taking in so much more than they are spending, liquid cash assets in the non-financial corporate sector continue to swell, and now total almost $600 billion.  Many blue-chip companies, literally holding more money than they know what to do with, are finding ways to distribute excess cash to their owners — either through share buy-backs (like the Royal Bank and CN Rail) or boosting dividends (like Enbridge, Brookfield, and Fortis).  While this may reduce the amount of cash sitting idly in corporate coffers, it will have no direct impact on real business investment, which is what the economy really needs.

The stagnation of business capital spending is a huge disappointment to the advocates of the dramatic reduction in corporate income taxes which has been a central feature of Canada’s fiscal policy in recent years.  Since 2007 the Harper government has cut the federal CIT rate from 22.1% (including a former surtax) to 15% today: that’s a decline of 7.1 points, or about one-third.  Many provinces also cut their rates, bringing the combined federal-provincial average rate down to around 26% today — among the lower rates of industrialized countries, and far lower than America’s 35% federal statutory rate (closer to 40% when we include state CITs).  The federal CIT cut has reduced federal revenues by about $13 billion per year.

The argument has been that tax cuts would elicit more business investment spending.  In 2006, the year before the Harper CIT tax cuts were announced, non-residential business investment equaled 10.5% of GDP.  In the first half of 2013, with corporate taxes reduced by one-third, non-residential business investment has equaled 10.7%  of GDP.  That apparent increment of 0.2% of GDP represents $4.6 billion in “extra” capital spending.  Motivated from a $13 billion tax cut.  In other words, the government had to spend almost $3, for each $1 in new business spending.  (Of course, there are many other factors influencing investment that vary from one year to another, so it’s hard to isolate the impact of the tax cut.)  So far in 2013, business investment has actually declined, making a bad situation worse.

Three times as much investment would have been motivated if the government simply spent the $13 billion directly on new public infrastructure (something we badly need, and that would boost private sector productivity.  And here’s the biggest irony of all: econometric evidence suggests that the biggest influence on business investment is the pace of economic growth (since businesses won’t invest, if they are worried final demand for their products will be unable to ratify the capacity added through their investment).  Growth generates investment (and hence more growth) via multiplier and accelerator effects that are stronger, based on econometric evidence, than any positive effect of lower taxes on business investment.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Glen Pearson theorizes that inequality will be the defining theme of the current political era. Tavia Grant and Janet McFarland document the extreme (and continually-increasing) disparity between the top 1% and the rest of the world. And Eduardo Porter writes that education can only go so far in creating fair opportunities for everybody in the face of political and economic structures designed to leave most people behind.

- David MacDonald highlights the fact that the Cons' needless program cuts and their brand-new fire sale of public assets both reflect utter mismanagement rather than fiscal prudence:

What is substantially contributing to the surplus in 2015 is a new freeze in operational funding as well as a fire sale of assets. In the Speech from the Thrown the government announced that it would continue its freeze of operational funding. In practice what this means is that, in an uncoordinated way, individual departments will cut back services in order to meet inflationary needs. In other words, if you have the same amount of money each year and inflation increases costs, you can buy less and less every year with your constricted budget. This will mean more closures of veterans’ offices; increasingly long wait times to access EI, either due to lost employment or maternity; fewer inspectors for food and transport; etc.

What’s specifically new to the fall update is an asset fire sale. In the past, these have largely involved selling buildings the government occupies with an agreement to lease them back for a long period assuring sustained profits for new landlords, well above whatever they bought it for.  This makes poor economic sense, particularly to finance election promises in 2015.

In short, the larger surplus in the fall update is due to asset sales and service cuts, which are only partially offset by a freeze in EI premiums. There is no financial management magic here, only fewer supports for Canadians and longer term costs.

- Meanwhile, Simon Enoch discusses the glaring conflict of interest when consultants who profit off of P3 schemes are hired to determine whether they should be undertaken in the first place:

(A)ll the "big" accounting firms that advise governments on P3 proposals -- KPMG, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and Price Waterhouse Coopers -- are sponsoring members of the Canadian Council for Public Private Partnerships. Described as the premier lobbying organization for the P3 industry, the Council's explicit mandate is the "promotion and facilitation of public-private partnerships across Canada and with all levels of government." One has to question the ability of an organization to impartially assess P3 proposals when they have a stated commitment to their expansion. Secondly, as Stuart Murray explains, "because of their historic role as auditors, these major accounting firms have established a reputation for fair dealing and independence." However, as these firms have branched out into general consulting services, the dual role of both auditor and consultant creates a "potential conflict-of-interest" because accurate auditing -- such as counseling against a P3 -- might result in conclusions that could jeopardize potential millions in consulting fees. And those fees are substantial. The much-beleaguered Brampton Civic Hospital P3 registered $34 million in consulting fees alone. So it is perhaps not all that surprising that these accounting/consulting firms would regularly counsel governments on the superiority of P3s.

So here's the question we should ask when assessing the independence of these firms. Have they ever counselled a government against a P3 model? The P3 industry regularly states that P3s are not a panacea for public infrastructure and that they should only be used in certain cases. Indeed the CEO of PPP Canada, John McBride, has publicly stated that P3s are only useful for maybe 15 to 20 per cent of public infrastructure needs. But have any of these firms ever determined that conventional public procurement is the better model for public infrastructure construction? If these firms cannot point to one instance where they advised a government that a P3 model was not the best choice, while the P3 industry itself admits that only 15 to 20 per cent of infrastructure projects would benefit from the P3 approach, what does this say about the supposed "independence" of these professional accounting firms? The provincial NDP's call for an impartial assessment of the P3 school proposal that is independent of government is a welcome and prudent suggestion. However, to truly be impartial, it must also be independent of the P3 industry. Unfortunately, none of the major accounting firms can currently claim to have the requisite distance from the P3 industry to make the independent and impartial assessment that the citizens of Saskatchewan need on this issue.

- Finally, Charlotte Gray, Lawrence Martin and Rosemary Barton all offer noteworthy takes on Thomas Mulcair as a prime minister in waiting. And TC Norris, Chantal Hebert and Scott Feschuk each tell a rather different story about Justin Trudeau.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Debbie Chachra discusses why an effective government is a necessary element of civilization - and why charity can't fill in the gap:

Taxes aren't the only way to pay for civilization, of course: community groups, charities, and churches also contribute. But I consider myself a fairly prudent consumer, and I want my money to be used well.

Even excellent charities are inefficient. Take food banks. We have a distribution system that goes from farms to warehouses to grocery stores. Food banks then set up more warehouses and pick-up sites to get sustenance out to those in need, often food that's already gone down the first chain. It's far more efficient to give people the means to use the retail distribution network than to create and have them use an alternate system.

Charity is also ad hoc: it's difficult to get help to people who need it in a systematic way that makes sure no one falls through the cracks. And charities, especially ones that do take on the challenge of large-scale issues, need to spend much of their income asking people like me to help.
...
(W)hile I regularly donate to charities and I believe they play an important role in society, I don't want them in lieu of more efficient systems. I don't want to go to fundraisers to pay the medical bills of artists; I want them to have health insurance. I want to be able to go to meetings on the other side of the country and buy chicken for dinner without worrying about my safety. And I want programs like WIC to provide services that reduce the need for more expensive interventions. 

- Barbara Kermode-Scott writes that big pharma's move to trash British Columbia's Therapeutics Initiative is being met with some international response from doctors who want more information about drugs than what manufacturers put in their promotional materials.

- CBC's series on offshore tax evasion continues with a look at the role Barbados plays in concealing large amounts of wealth siphoned out of Canada. 

- Graham Thomson writes that the Redford PCs' response to a judicial finding that they've deliberately and wrongfully shut the community out of environmental review processes has been to operate in denial that the decision was ever made.

- And Aaron Wherry surveys how Canadian courts have rejected the Cons' mandatory minimum sentence approach to criminal justice.

- Finally, Glen Pearson's takedown of backroom power brokerage is well worth reading (and applying as a test to all political parties):

For whatever reason, these former kingmakers, having had their day, refuse to ride quietly over the horizon. But for all their expertise and experience, their veiled arrogance hints of the kind of political class thinking that increasingly repels the average citizen. The brutality of their language sounds exactly like the regular partisan rants that emanate from the House of Commons on any given day of the week. It is the old politics that sees voters turning away from the political space in droves.
...
There is a new democracy [slowly] emerging to fight such shadows, not only in Canada, but in other nations at present that is calling for increased respect, an instinct for cooperation, that is commensurate with the significant challenges faced by communities and reacts with revulsion to those who play at politics while unemployment rises, jobs grow more scarce, our infrastructure deficit runs in the billions, and our middle class facing the greatest challenges in a generation. In such a world, the playground of former kingmakers appears not only out of place, but downright maddening.

The new democracy is more about citizen activism than backroom shenanigans and pressing for transparency than secret dealings. It ultimately opts for cooperation over contention, public policy over punishing partisanship, and a sense of the integration of power over its ideology. This is the politics more and more Canadians are requesting, but it's all fluff and airy ideals to the likes of Reid and Kinsella. They prefer the smell of the trenches over the messy work of the grassroots. Elections are their game, not engagement.

Ironically, our public fate in Canada depends on the outcome of the war between these two practices of democracy. How can citizens possibly win out over such courtiers, when power itself prefers the secret corridors over the public thoroughfares? Well, it's slowly happening regardless of the backroom boys. Activism in our communities is inevitably filling the vacuum left by an increasingly vacuous hunt for political power for its own sake. But this doesn't suit the power players, who show little interest in our daily struggles and who, ironically, are guilty of the same trait they accused Michael Ignatieff of: they're just visiting.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Andrew Jackson rightly questions Greg Mankiw's faith-based assertion that increasing wealth accumulation is based solely on merit and contribution to society rather than hoarding and rent-seeking. And Martin Lobel highlights a few of the distortionary policies that have served to exacerbate inequality in the U.S.:

Everyone admits that our current tax system is broken and many "reform" proposals are being considered. But, our current tax code is too fragile to support most of the current "reform" proposals that powerful interests want to layer on it. Instead, we need to strengthen and simplify the tax code to provide a broad tax base before carving out another loophole, like territorial taxation, to "reform" the tax code. We need to reform the tax code so that it doesn't continue to increase the disparity in wealth between the very rich and the rest of us. We also need to remember that the more complicated the proposal, the more likely it is that some lobbyist is proposing another unjustifiable tax expenditure (aka tax subsidy, tax loophole) to benefit his wealthy client. In fact, any business that doesn't seek a tax subsidy is a fool because the rate of return is far higher than it could get in the market. According to a recent study, multinational companies had a 22,000 percent return on tax expenditures they lobbied for, although small in comparison to the 77,500 percent return earned so far on the $116 million the prescription drug industry spent lobbying for legislation to prevent Medicare from bargaining on drug prices.
...
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1 percent of households (the upper class) owned 35.4 percent of all privately held wealth, and the next 19 percent (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5 percent which means that just 20 percent of the people owned a remarkable 89 percent, leaving only 11 percent of the wealth for the bottom 80 percent (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1 percent of households had an even greater share at 42.1 percent. In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35 percent of all privately held stock, 64.4 percent of financial securities, and 62.4 percent of business equity. The top 10 percent have 81 percent to 94 percent of stocks, bonds, trust funds and business equity, and almost 80 percent of non-home real estate.

 Or to put it in a different perspective, from 2009 to 2011, "Top 1 percent income gains grew by 11.2 percent while bottom 99 percent incomes shrunk by 0.4 percent. Hence the top 1 percent captured 121 percent of the income gains in the first two years of the recovery."

Yet, individual income and payroll taxes on the middle and lower classes have increased over the last 60 years while estate and corporate income taxes have declined substantially as a percentage of receipts. The only logical conclusion is that government tax policies have been instrumental in the shift of income from the middle and lower classes to the rich. This conclusion has been supported by almost all of the non-industry supported research, including the Congressional Budget Office which recently reported that over 50 percent of the 10 largest tax breaks went to the richest 20 percent of Americans and 17 percent went to just the top 1 percent, while the middle quintile only got 13 percent and the bottom quintile only got 8 percent.

Besides taxing the almost $2 trillion of stateless income offshore, there are other alternatives to make our tax and economic system more efficient. Although the Republicans talk about cutting tax expenditures and did cut some in the 1986 Tax Reform Act, they ought to get serious and cut all the corporate tax expenditures which now cost the taxpayers just about the same amount as the corporations pay in taxes. We could also eliminate the cost and distortions of tax accounting and just tax the profits that these corporations report to their shareholders.

- And Brendan Fischer writes about a much-needed pushback against privatization in the U.S.
- even as Canadian governments earmark massive amounts of public money for the sole use of private contractors.

- Meanwhile, James Bloodworth takes another look at Ireland to see whether the poster child for corporatist economics is seeing any public benefit as a result. Spoiler alert: not by a long shot.

- Glen Pearson rightly questions why 200,000 people are homeless in Canada in the midst of what's supposed to be unprecedented wealth and prosperity. But the answer can likely be found in a government more interested in putting the screws to marginalized individuals than improving their standard of living.

- But of course, we should be glad to see examples of inspiring leadership where they arise. And so Lana Payne's column on Naheed Nenshi's response to Calgary's flood is well worth a read.

- Finally, Lorne writes about the plight of disposable labour in Canada - with temporary foreign workers treated particularly harshly for lack of any ability to push back against abuse.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Dana Flavelle and Rachel Mendleson both cover Lars Osberg's study on the harmful effects of inequality. But let's highlight the key conclusion from the original source:

(T)he continuation of a divergence in income growth trends necessarily creates changing flows of consumption and savings. Although aggregate demand can be maintained in the short run if the savings of the increasingly affluent are lent to those with stagnant incomes, their increasing indebtedness leads inevitably to financial fragility. The trend in the U.S. and Canada to rising income inequality thus leads to periodic financial crises, greater volatility of aggregate income and, as governments respond to mass unemployment with counter-cyclical fiscal policies, a compounding instability of public finances.

The conundrum in all this inequality-induced macro-economic instability is that it clearly can be avoided. A steeply progressive income tax system can reduce the imbalances of financial flows, lessen the volatility of GDP and help pay off government deficits. Yet, in both the U.S. and Canada, the progressivity of the income tax system has been substantially eroded, over the same period in which the pre-tax incomes of the top 1% have grown most strongly. Even if an occasional deviant multi-billionaire protests that his income tax rate is absurdly low, indeed less than the tax rate of his employees, he is outgunned by the other billionaires who contribute to anti-tax crusades. There appears to be little likelihood of a return to the progressivity of tax regimes during the era (1946 to late 1970s) when income shares were roughly stable in North America, and massive financial crises were avoided.

The recent historical experience of Canada and the U.S. is clearly inconsistent with the simplistic political economy theories that predict that the ‘median voter’ in a more unequal society will vote in more redistribution and more progressive taxation. Indeed, recent history offers much more evidence consistent with the ‘deeper pockets’ model of political influence — that one can expect great wealth to be used in the political process to accentuate further wealth inequality.

- Meanwhile, Renata D'Aliesio manages to pitch Canada's drop from second to sixth in the OECD's latest quality-of-life assessment as good news. But it surely can't escape our notice that it's continued inequality that's pushing Canada down in the world. And that goes doubly when (as Glen Pearson notes) we have plenty of money to eradicate hunger and poverty if we're willing to limit how much we spend on military vanity projects.

- Jim Stanford points out that corporate-oriented free trade agreements have proven a flop on all counts - even in measuring the trade they're supposed to encourage:

Total exports of goods and services were equivalent to 31 per cent of Canada’s GDP last year – down from 38 per cent when the Harper government was elected (and 46 per cent in 2000). If the goal is truly boosting trade (as opposed to enshrining business-friendly economic rules or propping up authoritarian governments in Latin America), then this government is failing miserably.

Canada’s export failure cannot be blamed on foreign trade barriers. Instead, we must look in the mirror – at the structural inadequacy of our business sector. Canada has chronically failed to nurture and develop domestically based globally active firms that produce innovative, high-value products for world markets. Working to fix that problem (through proactive technology, innovation and sector-development strategies) would do more for our actual trade than all the free-trade talks in the world. If you truly believe in trade, don’t be distracted by the trade deals.

- And finally, Bea Vongdouangchanh reports on the copyright bill the Cons are set to force through Parliament, featuring this apt observation from Tyrone Benskin on the difference between holding hearings and actually listening to concerned citizens:

Mr. Benskin told The Hill Times last week, however, that the “sweeping bill” was “rushed” and more importantly, the government did not listen to stakeholders. 

“This is their argument for every single solitary bill they’ve put forth: we talked about it in 1792. It’s ridiculous. Yes, they did see hundreds of people and yes they did hear hundreds of hours of testimony. And they ignored each and every hour of that. It’s one thing to say, ‘I heard it,’ it’s another thing to say, ‘I listened to it.’  They have selective hearing,” he said.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Frances Russell criticizes the Cons' latest attempts to stifle parliamentary accountability. And the Citizen can only scoff at Tony Clement's claim to be an advocate for open government:

What matters is whether government makes information available. The statistics from access-to-information requests suggest that less information is getting out under this government, not more. And the Conservatives' highly defensive position on such matters as the detainee documents, or who put "not" on an international-development funding document, has not increased Canadians' trust in their government.

Public servants and scientists are too scared to talk to reporters. Even communications staff want questions in writing, and some are slow to respond.

In fact, Clement himself has damaged his credibility by refusing to be candid about the funding decisions that were made under the guise of G8 legacy projects in his riding. It's a bit much for a minister so closely identified with a slush fund and with obfuscation to be the champion of open government.

- If there's any sure signal as to how ill-advised the Cons' corporate tax-slashing strategy is, just look at Neil Reynolds' latest - where Reynolds has to selectively cite the same pack of Republican presidential candidates seen as a "hodge-podge of marginal types" who are destroying their own party to find anybody else on the planet so obsessed with handing out money to the corporate sector, and even then finds himself offside against the front-runner.

- Meanwhile, a more reasonable take on the impact of corporate tax cuts comes from Glen Pearson:

Just this week the Government of Canada reduced the corporate tax rate. It stood at 21% in 2005 but is now a mere 15%. In the last two years the government has lost $11.5 billion in annual tax revenue because of the scaled reductions.

We are constantly being informed that such reductions are necessary to keep us competitive and our economy healthy. There are surely boatloads of money being made each and every year in Canada but the 99% can’t find it or get some kind of boost in their standard of living because of it.

- And the constant corporate tax slashing looks all the more unproductive in light of the revelation that those billions of free dollars haven't stopped employers from retrenching on pension funding - not to mention the attacks on workers from Stephen Harper's own poster employer.

- Finally, Alice presents a fascinating look at a poll carried out by Brian Topp for the NDP's leadership race.

Tuesday Evening Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Glen Pearson follows up on the importance of organized labour - particularly as a desperately-needed counterweight to the pressures faced by public officials which may not be obvious to anybody less connected to the political scene:

I often thought about this during my time in the Canadian Parliament. Corporate presence and pressure was everywhere – hard to ignore and even harder to oppose. Politicians blessed with benefits, holiday pay, and the kind of pensions that unions struggled so hard to attain for everyone, learned to give lip-service to union representatives while at the same time passing legislation that serviced the corporate sector but deprived not only union protections, but the abilities of average workers to gain a productive wage.

And so we come to a sad truth. Beginning in the 1970s, corporations on both sides of the 49th parallel undertook a comprehensive assault on unions. In Canada, opportunities emerging in the global economy meant that they didn’t want to be linked to Canadian labour legislation anymore. While the majority of small and medium-sized businesses continued to abide by the arrangements, the large corporations wanted to slip the reins and move unhindered. Unions slowly awoke to the reality that a new unfettered capitalism was about to sever the historic link between employers and their workers.

- The CCPA has released its annual focus on soaring executive compensation. But if one needed to know how striking the 27% jump over last year actually is, take a look at Mike Moffatt's immediate suspicion that the numbers had to have been torqued by a redefinition of the term "CEO" to produce such a massive increase - followed by his subsequent recognition that in fact the CCPA has merely measured what's actually happened from a consistent baseline.

(Of course, now that the increase is known to be a real phenomenon rather than merely a shocking number, Moffatt is back to suggesting that it's nothing worth worrying our pretty little heads over.)

- Meanwhile, Frances Woolley points out how the unintended consequences can be seen in past building construction - raising a nice illustration of the importance of focusing taxes on the right sources of funds. Though I'd argue that high-end incomes which have relatively little positive impact in terms of either economic or social outcomes would look to be a more important source than consumer-based reserves.

- Jean Sorensen points out that B.C. voters have intervened in a couple of attempts to privatize drinking water.

- Finally, Anu Partanen points out that Finland's efforts at improving education as a matter of equal access to quality schools have produced far better results than the U.S.' competition-driven system.

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- Dr. Dawg asks some rather important questions about whether we think our current checks and balances are enough to rein in the Harper Cons:

The lesson of the first story is, for me, how quickly the “normal” can be disrupted, our country taking a sharp and nasty turn to the extreme racist Right. When it came to safety over liberty, not a second thought was given by government or populace—and it didn’t hurt that the property of these instant-pariah Canadians was sold at firesale prices to their white neighbours.

The proclamation of the War Emergency Measures Act by Pierre Trudeau is another example of how quickly the “normal” can be transformed. In a trice, the country was effectively placed under martial law, our civil liberties suspended by decree. The mayor of Vancouver tried to use the legislation to round up hippies. And most of us just watched, as Trudeau suggested we do.
...
Indeed, the lines between the government, the media, industry (e.g., the Alberta oil sands) and the military (Harper’s Canada as “warrior nation”) have become blurred to the point of practical extinction. The unions are the largest independent counter-force remaining, but have been hobbled to the point of helplessness by barrages of legislation. And a crescendo of gratuitous slurs against them by Conservative front-benchers indicate that union rights, too, are on the chopping-block.
...
My single New Year’s resolution? To fight like hell against it. And it should be yours, too.

- Which means that while I don't necessarily see Murray Dobbin's proposed solution as the best one, it's well worth highlighting the problem to be dealt with over the next four years:

There is a deep malaise in Canadian democracy rooted, it seems, in a profound alienation from politics and radically lowered expectations of what is possible from government. Much of this is the result of a deliberate strategy of voter-suppression employed by the Conservatives, a strategy of making politics so offensive and good government so unimaginable that millions of people simply tune out, as if it has nothing to do with them.

For those who thought that this was a temporary attitude of the Harper anti-government, that there would be more civility with a Conservative majority, the evidence is in. This is a permanent strategy to keep the party in power. It will not diminish with time or with the advancement of the Harper agenda. This was never about Harper being frustrated with his minority status. It is about who the man is, a malignant political rogue, contemptuous of his own country.
...
(W)ith the election of Stephen Harper, everything changed. No prime minister in Canadian history has come to power with such a ruthless determination to implement an agenda so at odds with the interests of the country and the values of its citizens. This involves not just a set of policies aimed at eliminating the social and economic role of the federal government. It includes, on a parallel course, a determination to change the political culture of the country to one that either supports or acquiesces to that policy agenda. (The Governor General's Christmas message was about volunteerism and philanthropy, Harper's long-term replacement for the state.) Working in tandem, these two political streams, if allowed to proceed for any length of time, could effectively change the country permanently -- or at least for all currently living generations. Harper aims for nothing less.

- Meanwhile, Glen Pearson highlights one of the desperately-needed institutions to keep the worst corporatist instincts in check - and signals that political parties who share the same values shouldn't be shy about recognizing the value of a strong labour movement:

Governments and legislation years ago sanctioned unions specifically because the wealthy elite walked away with the money while workers toiled in poverty. Parties of all stripes supported the effort. Within a decade the middle-class in Canada began to flourish. As unions grew, their efforts at bargaining also improved the lot of those working in non-union jobs. Consider this list of what union support brought to average citizens, regardless of where they were employed.

weekends off – lunch breaks – safety standards – overtime pay – employment insurance – pensions – health benefits – collective bargaining for workers – holiday pay – child labour laws – 40-hour work week – 8-hour work day – sick leave – minimum wage – long and short-term disability – pregnancy and parental leave – the right to strike.

These are just some in a long list of hard-won options for Canadian workers. But to listen to many ardent voices these advances are the reason why companies can no longer compete. That’s also what they said 60 years ago, when it wasn’t uncommon for people to work 80 hours a week with no breaks. The companies and their agents turned out to be wrong.
...
Once a steadying reality, union density in Canada is now below 30%. Again the linkage between worker’s rights and the economic health of a nation are seen to be linked – as unions decline, so does the middle-class and the equitable strength of our economy. Wages and benefits are now in decline, even as massive profits are being accrued by companies.

This development is something that should be of great concern to all of us, but instead certain proponents of a privileged capitalism want you to believe that you and your community would be helped far more if we could just get rid of unions. Really? Since unions are in decline along with income fairness and corporate profits continue to balloon, how does that rationale figure? As citizens, if we buy into this kind of lunacy then we will all suffer in the realm of wages and benefits.

- Finally, Gillian Steward points out that the western provinces held up as the Cons' model for how an economy should operate are also the ones with the worst levels of inequality. And both Lana Payne and the CP highlight the fact that billions in corporate tax cuts are producing no apparent investment.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Maude Barlow comments on what's needed to rein in the worst instincts of the Cons' new majority government:

What is needed now is a coming together of progressive forces in civil society and the labour movement as never before in our country's history. Social and trade justice groups, First Nations people, labour unions, women, environmentalists, faith-based organizations, the cultural community, farmers, public health care coalitions, front line public sector workers, and many others must come together to protect and promote the values that the majority of Canadians hold dear. And we must work with, and demand the active representation of, the opposition forces in the House of Commons. In particular, the NDP must oppose the Harper agenda with the full weight of its new power and the Liberals must redeem themselves by working alongside the NDP in defending the interests of the people of Canada.
...
(S)upport for the Harper agenda is paper-thin, as most Canadians do not share the values of this agenda. This then is our task: to work hard over the next four years to protect the laws, rights and services that generations of Canadians have fought for from being dismantled; fight the corporate-friendly, anti-environmental, security obsessed agenda that will come at us; and prepare the way for the kind of government in four years that does in fact, express the will of the people -- one with an agenda of justice and respect, of care for the earth, of the more equitable sharing of our incredible bounty.

This will be hard work and will take a great deal of courage and commitment. But really, what more important thing do we have to do?

- Paul Wells' review of the campaign is of course a must-read. But I'll take particular note of this observation:

When Ignatieff hired them, Donolo and Sorbara had asked for a year to get ready for the next election. By the fall of 2010, the year was up. Liberals started to tell one another it would soon be time for an election, and then, being Liberals, they began to tell reporters. Late last fall, La Presse ran a column by Vincent Marissal in which he quoted senior Liberals who said they didn’t intend to let the next Harper budget pass a confidence vote if they could help it.

The Conservatives took Marissal’s column as gospel, and pounced. “If the Conservative party wins again, I think the single biggest strategic mistake the Liberal party made was telegraphing their intentions to bring down the government in the fall of 2010,” a senior Harper strategist said. “This basically gave the Conservative party and the operatives and the people who control the money licence to do two things: one, delay the budget as long as possible; and two, start an attack-ad campaign as early as possible and run it as long as possible.”

Jim Flaherty had delivered the 2009 budget on Jan. 27, a not unusual time. This year he waited and waited before finally admitting he would deliver one on March 23. The Conservatives filled the space with by far the longest and heaviest anti-Ignatieff advertising barrage they had ever run. Earlier campaigns had run a few weeks. “This one went on for part of January, all of February and almost all of March,” the Harper strategist said. “And the Grits actually did that to themselves.”

- Of course voters weren't allowed to find out about a massive oil spill which by all rights should have constituted a major late-campaign discussion point until after the election was done with. After all, who can accept having such an inconvenient disaster influence public opinion when it counts most?

- Just a thought, but if a party is at the point where it has six steps to pass through before getting to "finding a purpose for existing", doesn't that speak rather poorly for the likelihood it's worth anybody's time?

- Finally, Glen Pearson's post-mortem is well worth a read in general. But I'd highlight in particular how Pearson's late-campaign revelation about the Cons' tactics fits with Stephen Harper's view of politics as a one-way flow of information:

At doors I canvassed I kept hearing certain stories about how I spent too much time in Africa, or that my voting presence in the House wasn’t too impressive. When I informed them that I only spent one week a year on that continent (Sudan), and that I take it on my holiday time over New Years and on my own dime, I could sense the hesitation in their voice. “Oh … that’s not what we heard when the Conservatives phoned us last night.” Something that hadn’t been an issue heretofore was suddenly looming large in the final days. It was frustrating, but I didn’t know who to talk to. It was only when the election was over that a good Conservative friend informed me that they had actually been utilizing a central office for phone calls and that none of them emanated from London itself. They had poured big money from afar into influencing my riding. What I had thought to be a local campaign had suddenly taken on national dimensions.

I should have figured it out earlier. While the opponents from the other parties were front and centre in the campaign, the Conservative candidate had been AWOL, appearing at only one televised debate in the entire five weeks. Instead, the Conservatives opted for phone calls and signs – no replacement for flesh and blood candidates, but they were looking to win from a distance.

It’s hard to describe this. Across the country, news trickled in that Conservative candidates refused to be present at debates; what was supposed to be an exercise in local democracy had become a faceless excuse for a campaign. It’s never easy being so accessible, but all the other candidates believed it to be their democratic duty. Not the Conservatives, however.

Now, I'd hope that most candidates (Pearson included) would see direct public engagement as more than just a matter of duty, but also as an essential opportunity to interact with constituents and potential supporters. And while the Cons unfortunately managed to win by launching smears at as many opponents as possible through mechanisms which left no opportunity for correction or accountability, there's surely some reason for hope that a concerted effort to cultivate real and direct links to voters over the next four years will beat out any attempt to replicate their campaign.

[Edit: fixed link.]