Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Ewen Callaway writes about the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic - with both a high baseline of cases, and frequent "wavelets" in comparison to seasonal diseases as new variants develop and spread with little resistance. 

- Tina Yazdani and Meredith Bond report on the unsurprising revelation that privatized surgery costs far more than public-sector health care - while also recognizing the Ford PCs' determination to keep enriching private operators rather than funding care. And Raisa Patel reports on the Libs' refusal to act on the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board's work to reduce drug prices. 

- Meanwhile, Mike de Souza discusses how the UCP has coordinated efforts to enrich fossil fuel operators while concealing the government meetings used to discuss them. And Cory Doctorow writes about the problems with the breakdown of strong institutions, particularly in transferring effective power to weak institutions which can easily be taken over by corrupt or extreme actors.  

- Paul Hannon discusses how inflation is "sticky" due to its connection to corporate price-fixing rather than other factors - representing a noteworthy step toward recognition of the obvious on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. 

- Finally, Michael Spratt calls out Pierre Poilievre's reality-deficient attempts to stoke fear over crime as an excuse to make nonsensical policy demands. 

On first steps

Hey look, some positive election results! Congratulations to everybody who ran in Regina's municipal elections (and in those around the province) - and particularly the progressive electees who will have the chance to shape policy for the next four year.

But while it's a relief to have representatives in place who can be trusted to make the right decisions on the matters placed before them, I hope they'll take the opportunity to go beyond that and instead work on developing more participatory processes for budgeting and policy-making.

That's so for a couple of reasons.

First, municipal governments and school boards are creatures of provincial legislation. And the Sask Party - like its cousin governments elsewhere - has never been shy about stripping away any power which might be used to support local decision-making which isn't fully in line with its plans.

There's no away around the theoretical risk of the province meddling. But it will be possible to impose a much higher price for any interference if more people are invested in what's at issue.

Second, a large number of Regina's races were won with small pluralities or narrow majorities. In the former case, there's an obvious need to build support just to be able to withstand a reduced number of candidates in 2024; in both cases, it's worth reinforcing the trust constituents have offered, lest any failure to engage be seen as reason for them to vote differently next time out.

In sum, I'm very much looking forward to seeing what this term will hold for Regina. But ideally, we'll look back at last night as only the first step in a long-lasting change toward people-centred governance.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your weekend.

- Lana Payne highlights the Harper Cons' culture of hate with just a few recent examples:

Veterans. Informed-debate. People’s right to a union and free collective bargaining. Voting rights. These are all under threat in Harper’s Canada.

This really is a government that hates; hates anyone that disagrees with them. Hates unions and the ability of people to work collectively to get a fair share of the economic pie. Hates democracy. Hates people who vote for other parties. Just plain hates.

This is not healthy for our country, our society. This is no way to govern. This is no way to build an inclusive nation where fairness prevails. This is just simply nastiness and hate. And we should call it out for what it really is.

- And kirbycairo comments on the Cons' distaste for basic principles of governance (h/t to Boris):

Good governance requires certain basic elements - commitment to the fundamental principles of democracy, the desire to foster dialogue, a basic commitment to an effective civil-service and the good programs that they need to deliver, a commitment to giving a voice to the voiceless and providing care and protection for society's most vulnerable, a strong commitment to the constitution, a respect for fairness and the democratic traditions of the House of Commons, a respect for the judicial arm of government and the necessary (role) it plays, and a commitment to protecting the environment for future generations. Our government has no commitment to any of these. In fact, it actively undermines all of them. There is not a single element of good governance to which this government is committed.
...
It is difficult to live in a society which is inching gradually toward autocracy as many of the citizens seem to blithely ignore the coming danger. There is a certain nonchalant attitude taken by many to the dangerous and insidious actions of a government that is falling into fascism. They have trouble believing that it "can happen here" or that our traditions can be subverted and perverted by a bunch of men dressed in suits. But not every coup is a violent one and sometimes what is best in a society is lost in a (quiet) war of attrition.

- Meanwhile, Karl Nerenberg looks at the particularly glaring gap between the Cons' eletion-rigging legislation and the principles they agreed to just last year when their election fraud scandal was in the front pages. And the CP reports on the NDP's efforts to give the public some voice in the rules governing elections - even as the Cons insist that nobody but themselves should have any say in determining what constitutes a fair electoral process.

- The CP also reports on a new study showing the link between tar sands tailings ponds and groundwater contamination. But the most noteworthy part of the story is the joint industry/government position that new development must be allowed to barge ahead without environmental reviews, while any regulation (or even tracing of projects' contributions to groundwater damage) should be put off until we're absolutely sure the development is causing irreversible damage.

- Finally, Paul Wells notes that Justin Trudeau has taken sole and full ownership of the Libs' historic self-image, while J.J. McCullough sees Trudeau as prioritizing high status over any connection with the public. Needless to say, these theses seem fully compatible.

Deep thought

I've written before about the dangers of government by manufactured crisis - which is all too familiar under the Harper Cons and the Wall Sask Party alike.

But in light of recent events, I feel compelled to add that an inexplicable "you must accept our plan NOW! NOW! NOW!" only gets worse when followed by a gleeful "MWAHAHAHAHA!!!".