Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Nathaniel Lewis laments the state of the U.S.' woefully insufficient social supports, while emphasizing the importance of public social spending in particular:

(P)rivate “social spending” is, for the most part, regressive and narrowly distributed. Households are bearing the cost directly for the goods and services that they themselves consume (like health care).

Public social spending is different. Often (though not always), it is a transfer of funds from the better-off to the worse-off. Think of a progressively funded, single-payer system. You get health insurance whether you have a job or not, and if you have a low-paying job, it will cost proportionally less than if you had a high-paying job.
...
There is a strong, direct relationship between public social spending and poverty reduction. This is even more impressive when you consider that “public social spending” does not automatically mean “progressive.”
...
...(P)ublic social spending does not just reduce poverty. It also creates a more equitable environment for society as a whole.
...
(I)t follows fairly obviously from the above that the US should be making large outlays on social welfare that it currently is not making. While other wealthy countries apparently view their inhabitants as part of a society with universal needs, the US largely leaves its people to fend for themselves.

- Elizabeth McIsaac writes that social assistance should be a key point of comparison for Ontario voters in this year's election. And David Pfrimmer points out that the federal Libs are again kicking the can down the road rather than putting any meaningful resources into fighting poverty.

- Meanwhile, Peter Martin reports on new research estimating the cost of Australia's tax giveaways to the rich at $68 billion per year. And Andrew Leigh notes that the current government's plan is only to make matters worse - even in the face of opposition from four out of five citizens.

- Marshall Steinbaum, Eric Harris Bernstein and John Sturm study (PDF) the economic and social harms resulting from corporate monopolies.

- Jia Tolentino highlights the perversity of a gig economy which treats the eradication of "life" from any attempt at work-life balance as a plus. 

- Finally, Ian Capstick offers a worthwhile read on the dangers of looking at politics solely through a partisan lens - particularly to the extent the result is to limit empathy toward political competitors.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign.

- Mainstreet has released what looks to be the most useful poll of the campaign so far, showing Charlie Angus and Niki Ashton in the lead among a substantial number of self-identified NDP members. But the gap between Angus and Ashton is tiny compared to the number of later-ballot vots, and all of the candidates look to have plenty of potential for growth based on the still-substantial number of undecided voters.

- Ian Capstick offers his view of the noteworthy strategic choices that have been made so far in the campaign. And Christo Aivalis reviews this week's debate while also summarizing where the campaign stands.

- Angus makes the case for affordable housing as a human right, while pointing out that we have no fiscal excuse for failing to meet it. Jade Saab argues that Ashton is the candidate offering transformative change. John Ibbitson and Konrad Yakabuski both offer their take on the pros and cons of Jagmeet Singh based on his religious background - though it's worth noting that neither can identify any impact Singh's religion is supposed to have on his political choices (other than an erroneous claim by Yakabuski). And Erin Weir takes the view that the next leader needs to ensure that federal carbon pricing and green house gas emission regulations don't merely push the generation of emissions outside of Canada's borders.

- Finally, Kady O'Malley writes that while the public hasn't yet paid a great deal of attention to the campaign, there's reason to suspect that will change - particularly during the voting stage. And Luke Savage warns against trying to frame the NDP's campaign solely in terms of developments in other countries and parties.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the NDP's federal leadership campaign.

- The Canadian Press reports on Pat Stogran's official campaign launch. And Alex Ballingall highlights Stogran's criticism of Justin Trudeau's empty-suit governance, while Jeremy Nuttall focuses on his message about challenging politics as usual.

- Charlie Smith interviews Peter Julian about his "just transition" energy policy and its appeal to MPs from Quebec and elsewhere. Niki Ashton writes about the importance of economic justice - both as a campaign theme, and a focus for activism. Ben Leeson talks to Guy Caron about his plan for the NDP to set a different path and deliver on the change promised (but not delivered) by the Trudeau Libs. And Liam Casey reports on Charlie Angus' continued work to ensure a safe home for the Kashechewan First Nation in the wake of another evacuation.

- Tom Parkin argues that there's a need for the leadership candidates to tell a stronger story as to how many Canadians are being left behind by economic structures designed to benefit the few.

- And finally, Ian Capstick talks to Libby Davies about her experience working with Jack Layton as the NDP's leader, as well as her hopes for the new candidates to match both his authenticity and his interest in working with others.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign...

- Marie-Danielle Smith reports that Jagmeet Singh is laying the groundwork to join the race. And Steve Paikin offers his take as to what that might mean for the current candidates - while also raising the (seemingly unlikely) prospect that Thomas Mulcair might join the fray.

- Meanwhile, Eleanor Davidson reports on the much lower-profile entry of Ibrahim Bruno El-Khoury. And anybody looking for some background on El-Khoury's view of the NDP can find it on the site set up when he was seeking the party's nomination in Papineau.

- Cory Collins interviews Guy Caron about both his basic income proposal, and the political strategy needed to win power to implement it. Charlie Angus writes about the need to question CEO perks (and the public policies that facilitate them) in order to ensure fairness for workers. James Kelly talks to Niki Ashton about her work to build a Bernie Sanders-like movement in Canada. And Ian Capstick's On the Road podcast features conversations with the MPs in the race about their experiences in school.

- Finally, Ed Broadbent highlights the need for the NDP to set the political agenda no matter who emerges as leader, while Kristy Kirkup interviews Broadbent about his take at the Progress Summit. Kenneth Dewar discusses what he sees as tension between strong principles and a path to power - though he doesn't provide much evidence that one is actually a barrier to the other. And Thomas Woodley wonders whether an amicable leadership campaign will allow NDP members to test which candidates can best challenge Justin Trudeau's political skills and policy choices.

On growth strategies

Plenty of commentators have piled on Ian Capstick in the wake of his musings about the number of candidates in the NDP's leadership race. And I won't belabour the same point others have already made in refuting speculation about particular candidates dropping out.

But there's another part of Capstick's analysis that I'd think deserves a bit more of a challenge:

Capstick: “I can only hope that this bout of common sense is contagious and that we can slim down the field to a little bit more manageable number. [Ed: With Chisholm gone, eight are still vying for the job] I don’t think that Niki Ashton can go toe-to-toe with the prime minister. I don’t think that Romeo Saganash is somebody who can go toe-to-toe with the PM.

Now, the above passage is obviously a matter of opinion rather than a declaration of fact as to the prospects of Ashton or Saganash in serving as the NDP's leader. But I'll argue that it somewhat misses the point as to what NDP members should be seeking in the leadership race.

After all, none of the leadership contenders currently have anywhere near the national profile to go "toe-to-toe" with Stephen Harper in an election campaign if one were called for April 2012. And that's not a matter of personal weakness or failure: instead, it's inevitable as a contrast between a prime minister whose public image has been crafted by a decade's worth of headlines, advertising and careful image-building, and a challenger who hasn't yet been on the receiving end of the same level of attention.

And that's as much the case for the perceived upper-tier candidates as for, say, Ashton and Saganash. Thomas Mulcair is the only arguable exception to the extent he might qualify as a popular household name in Quebec - but for all but one candidate in one province, a leadership win will only be the start of building a personal profile to compete with Harper's.

Which is exactly why my focus in the leadership campaign is less on the profile any given candidate has enjoyed from day one, and more as to how effective the candidate proves in building on that base. Ultimately, the question of whether an NDP leadership candidate can go toe to toe with Harper by 2015 depends more than anything on the candidate's capacity and plan for growth - and the thinner and less diverse the field, the less likely we'll be to take our opportunities to expand beyond what might seem within easy reach at the moment.

NDP Leadership Quick Links

As promised, let's take a quick run through plenty of material on the NDP's leadership campaign...

- Straight Goods has posted Ish Theilheimer's interviews with each of the candidates.

- I can only figure Justin Ling has been reading Future Babble and looking to Dan Gardner's criticism of reckless pundits as a model. But even if one wants to play the "heads I win, tails you forget we had a bet" game, it normally isn't the best plan to predict that the coin will undergo a spontaneous existence failure before landing - which is about as plausible as Ling's suggestion that Thomas Mulcair's campaign is dead.

- One of the main points I'll be looking to emphasize through the leadership race is the need for a future leader to be able to serve as both spokesperson and strategist. Romeo Saganash hints at his ideas for the latter role in describing his plan to defeat the Cons in 2015.

- Among the other notable developments from the candidates, Mulcair has been blitzing Quebec to sell new memberships. Peggy Nash has picked up on how the Harper Cons have turned Canada into an international pariah. Paul Dewar has called for an end to photo-op politics, and earned the endorsement of former MP Tony Martin. Brian Topp has focused on ending disparities in terms of both democracy and economics. Niki Ashton unveiled her first set of endorsements, with Ashton and Dewar each earning a huge number of key Manitoba supporters. And Nathan Cullen has offered up an FAQ on his cooperation proposal.

- Finally, Ian Capstick's strategist index offers one interesting set of opinions on the race. (Though I'll hope that any future updates include some explanation rather than just the list, as the "how" seems far more important than merely presenting the candidates' names in order at this stage of the campaign."

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Murray Dobbin rightly notes that the main effect of the NDP's surge looks to be to bring our political system more in line with the values of Canadians:

If the NDP surge is real, it may represent the breaking of an historic contradiction in Canadian politics. One of the largely unspoken features of Canadian political culture is the gap between the majority's stated social and community values and their voting patterns. The CBC's fatally flawed Vote Compass notwithstanding (it's virtually impossible to get a result suggesting your values line up with the NDP), years of polling and focus groups suggest that if there was a direct line between voting and values, the NDP would win every election, hands down.

Even though the NDP is skittish when it comes to talking about tax increases (rightfully anticipating a firestorm of media attacks), the fact is Canadians say they would support tax increases if they could be assured the money would be spent on things they want. And the things they want are, of course, essentially the list of things the NDP has always run on: Medicare, affordable post-secondary education, generous social assistance, human rights, genuine EI, eliminating poverty. You know the list -- if you are part of the 70 per cent majority, it is your list, too.

- Meanwhile, Ian Capstick has some simple suggestions to make sure the NDP wave keeps rising until election day.

- I suppose it shouldn't come as much surprise that the closest anybody has come to criticizing the NDP's answers to questions on its platform is to suggest that it would somehow be better off pretending that it doesn't matter whether policy proposals are affordable. But Boris points out that the NDP's stance really amounts to nothing more than treating Canadian voters like responsible adults - which makes for a particularly nice contrast after the Cons' 2008 "never a recession! never a deficit" nonsense.

- Finally, David Climenhaga notes that the CBC ranks near the top of the list of Canadian institutions which figure to be on the chopping block - and that at least one Con backbencher who reliably sticks to the party line is making that explicit on the campaign trail.

On rebranding

There doesn't seem to be much doubt that the possibility of a party name change will be one of the significant topics for discussion at the NDP's upcoming convention in Halifax - with Ian Capstick making some of the case both for and against here. So I'll take the opportunity to wade in on the issue.

Off the top, I agree with the view that it's time to remove the "New" from the party name. In general the goal of a name should probably be to capture a party's long-term philosophy rather than ephemeral forces behind its creation. And the problem with focusing on initial "newness" is only highlighted once the term has formed part of a well-established party's name for upwards of four decades.

What about the choice between merely dropping the "New", and looking to add a "Social" or "Progressive"? It's probably true that either of those terms would be more descriptive when set out in full. But it's worth noting that a rebranding effort will also have to consider the new shorthand term for the party. And with a two-word lead-in, the end result would likely be another set of initials (SDP or PDP) or an abbreviation (SocDem or ProgDem) which is both less memorable and less positive than a single-word descriptor.

In contrast, "Democrat" alone as a shorthand for "Democratic Party" would set up the best possible footing to make sure that casual discussions about the party involve positive associations rather than neutral or negative ones.

That is, assuming that there isn't a problem to be found in confusing the party's brand with that of the U.S. Democrats. But just as I don't see the Obama phenomenon as much of a point in favour of trying to adopt the name, nor would I expect there to be too much trouble in maintaining a distinct identity - particularly given that the same faces now associated with the NDP would present the first public image of a Canadian Democratic Party.

Mind you, that also reflects an important reason to rein in any expectations as to what a rebranding will accomplish. After all, the expected continuity in the party would make for a difference from most of the recent party rebranding efforts which might be looked on as positive precedents, since those have tended to be combined with clear efforts to unite substantial elements of two or more parties. (See e.g. the Alliance and the Conservatives federally, and the Saskatchewan Party provincially.)

And I'd also want to be careful in throwing out too much of the NDP's branding during the course of a changeover. For example, while Capstick looks at a name change as a chance to drop orange as the NDP's main colour, I'd wonder whether there's much to be gained in that department given the lack of viable alternatives that aren't already associated with other parties. (About the best options would be either trying to elbow the Greens out of the colour which also forms their name, or switching to a yellow which wouldn't seem to be much of an improvement - and either of those would come at the expense of years of work based on concepts like Get Orange, the Orange Room, etc.)

In sum, I agree generally with Capstick's view that a name change should make for a net plus for the party. But it's important as well to be aware of the limits on what the change would accomplish - as it'll ultimately be the structure behind the brand that matters most in determining the party's success.