Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Rebecca Solnit writes about the many warnings and precedents which foretold California's current wildfires - and the importance of recognizing the cost of forgetting. Freddy Brewster and Lucy Dean Stockton point out the massive subsidies to the fossil fuel sector which have left California with limited resources for firefighting and public safety. And Greg Sargent discusses how Donald Trump is using the wildfires to attack public services, while Nitish Pahwa writes that the immediate flurry of fascist conspiracy theories spread using the most concentrated wealth on the planet seems to be baked in as an inevitable response to any public emergency. 

- Hamilton Nolan highlights the choice between a response to climate change which values and account for all people's well-being, and one which merely allows a few rich people to profit from the carnage and seek to escape the destruction imposed on everybody else. And George Monbiot discusses the oligarchy which is at the heart of current politics and which is driving us toward the latter path.

- Nora Loreto discusses how Justin Trudeau's effort to attach himself to progressive vibes bore no resemblance to his actual policy choices which favoured corporations. David Moscrop points out that it was a lack of political viability rather than any ideological orientation which resulted in his caucus rebelling against him. And Jeremy Appel writes that while there's reason for suspicion that the next Lib leader will be inclined to run to the right, there's no basis to think that strategy will be successful. 

- Stewart Prest writes about the need to be ready for the Trump administration's planned attacks on Canada. And Linda McQuaig discusses how Pierre Poilievre is entirely playing into Trump's hands by attacking Canadian institutions. 

- Finally, Tom Parkin is somewhat optimistic that Canadian voters will rightly reject a Con party which is happy to amplify the idiocy of the likes of Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk. But Bruce Arthur warns that Facebook's elimination of fact-checking will make it easier for bad actors to control the flow of information. And Brian Beutler writes that the U.S. election offers a damning refutation of the hope that people will make political choices based on facts rather than widespread disinformation.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Jeremy Appel reports on a new study showing that Alberta has both avoided developing the capacity to manage tailings pond spills, and misinformed the public to minimize the harm from the oil and gas sector based on the data it actually has. And John Woodside notes that after over nine years in power, Justin Trudeau still hasn't bothered to set caps on fossil fuel extraction emissions. 

- Barb Mayes Boustead discusses what "normal" now means in the midst of a collapsing climate. Damian Carrington reports on a new study showing how the climate crisis is undermining the Earth's water cycle. Darrin Qualman warns that Canada's Prairies may face a grim future as hotter temperatures and increased drought exacerbate the already-volatile nature of agriculture. But Jeremiah Budin notes that agrivoltaic solar panels may help to make farming more productive in addition to generating clean energy, while Wade Thorhaug discusses how locally-supplied public markets can enhance food security. 

- Prem Sikka discusses how concentrated wealth and power are corrupting democracy in the UK and elsewhere. George Lakoff and Gil Duran offer their New Year's resolutions to respond to the second Trump administration and its corporate backers. And Gene Monin writes about the need for Canada to stand up to Trump rather than allowing itself to be bullied into acquiescence. 

- Finally, Taylor Lorenz exposes how Instagram has already gone out of its way to suppress LGBTQ-related content. And Robert Booth reports on Facebook's decision to eliminate fact-checkers while promoting (and lobbying to spread) hate speech. 

On windows of opportunity

Following up on yesterday's post, the NDP's decision to advance a non-confidence vote obviously reflects a different path than the one which seemed promising to me. And there's at least one explanation as to why there may be an interest in an election sooner rather than later:

Speaking with sources within the NDP. There is a noticeable shift in the parties attitude towards and election. They WANT an election against Trudeau. I have been told there is data coming showing them in a steady 2nd place against Poilievre with a shorter than expected ground to reclaim.

— JB (@jb.polaris.tube) December 20, 2024 at 12:43 PM

From the standpoint of merely managing party interests in Parliament, that type of data would create a strong incentive for an early election - particularly if the main alternative is trying to negotiate with a leader whose ability to give effect to any agreement is in doubt. 

But I'm still not convinced there isn't a better third option which could pair a relatively strong party position with a concerted effort to tap into public resistance to an American oligarchy which seems likely to overwhelm domestic discussions in any election campaign. 

Meanwhile, it's also worth noting the timing involved. Just as now isn't a time when there's a realistic prospect of negotiating legislation, it's also too late for any non-confidence vote to take place for at least a period of months. And there's risk in assuming that both of the conditions seen as favouring an election now (the assumption of polling momentum and Justin Trudeau's continued leadership of the Libs) will still be in place by the time there's any chance to act on today's declaration. 

On disruption

There's little doubt that Chrystia Freeland's resignation from the federal cabinet (with associated spillover effects) has managed to earn the notice of even those largely disconnected from politics. And while the most common reaction seems to have been to wait for something more to happen internally among the Libs, a few commentators including Karl Nerenberg, Steve Burgess, and Aaron Wherry have offered some view as to what might come next.

But it's worth discussing the reality that both the stakes involved and the range of potential outcomes extend far beyond the realm of Liberal personality politics.  

Keep in mind that the last two Canadian federal elections have involved a consistent state of stalemate. The Libs lost their majority in 2019, but maintained enough seats to stay in power with other parties' support; the Cons perceived possibilities of taking power, but instead plateaued in terms of both vote share and seats. And a two-year stint of minority government led only to a virtually identical result in 2021, as Libs focused on holding power, Cons determined to seize it through reflexive criticism, and an NDP looking to secure benefits through legislative concessions in a minority Parliament all ended up stuck roughly where they started. 

After three more years of the same dynamic in Parliament, however, the positioning of the national parties has stabilized at a rather different level - with the NDP nearly catching up to a sinking Lib vote share. And Trudeau's past ability to hold the line in close two-party races in the past offers no reason to think he can suddenly overcome the weight of baked-in public disapproval and massive support deficits - particularly without some plan to do anything differently other than cribbing from Doug Ford's Book of Temporary Giveaways. (On that front, the familiar calls for every other party to sacrifice their own interests to rally behind a Prime Minister who's hemorrhaging support in his own caucus are particularly laughable.)

But there are opportunities to shift the foundations of the parties' current positions. And while Trudeau may be able to influence which ones are able to proceed, there's potential for a shift to happen without his acquiescence. 

From the Libs' standpoint, a leadership race would shift the party from being focused on defending (or seeking to topple) a single insular leader, to having multiple leadership candidates pursuing a broad-based outreach program with an obvious incentive to bring in new members and supporters. And if it's true that Trudeau lacks a path to build support at this stage, a leadership race would quickly sort out who's capable of offering greater growth potential. 

Of course, the downside for the Libs is that the leadership voters' assessment might not match that of the general public. But the fact that's the worst possible outcome of electing a new leader only serves to demonstrate how little there is to gain sticking with the status quo: the worst-case scenario in trying someone new is the same electoral wipeout that looks unavoidable under Trudeau. 

Meanwhile, the NDP has an opportunity to take on a new role which might lead to much greater heights than its current position holding the balance of power in Parliament. 

If Trudeau does announce his departure, a caretaker Lib government wouldn't likely be in any position to meet any demands for improved legislation. Which means that the NDP would need to treat its legislative accomplishments as having been locked in for the next campaign, and turn toward another primary focus of activity and engagement while the Libs are focused on their leadership election. 

On that front, Charlie Angus has already received plenty of well-deserved attention for his challenges to the impending Trump regime (and its bootlickers among the Poilievre Cons). 

But when Trump actually takes power and begins his campaign of state repression against both political opponents and members of out-groups, many people will have reason to look for a resistance party in Canada. And the NDP should generally have a clear path to establish itself as both the Parliamentary voice and the organizing hub for people on both sides of the border who have reason to fear the worst of Trump and his government. 

Importantly, that opening will arise no matter what Trudeau decides to do. If he stays in place, his choice to bend the knee at Mar-a-Lago - together with Freeland's declaration that he's failing to react to the Trump threat - will make it difficult for him to try to claim the title for himself. And while leadership contestants may look to take anti-Trump rhetorical positions, the fact that they'll be focused primarily on their own vote counts would limit their effectiveness in achieving substantive results. 

In the end, there can't be any serious doubt among Canadian progressives that something needs to change before a federal election in 2025. And the best-case scenario would see two reinvigorated and viable challengers to Poilievre's assumed ascension to power. 

Update: So much for that idea.  

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Michael Scherer and Josh Dawsey document the dark-money false flag operation used by Republicans and their wealthy owners to depress Democratic turnout. And Justin Ling calls out Pierre Poilievre for relying on absurd claims to try to generate outrage within the Cons' low-information base. 

- Meanwhile, Thomas Zimmer laments how the U.S.' upper class is indicating its plans to accommodate Donald Trump's authoritarianism in order to preserve its position of privilege. 

- Clement Nocos discusses how Justin Trudeau's temporary GST giveaway is a poor substitute for removing consumption taxes from essential goods. And Danyaal Raza points out that Canadians in general are paying for the private health insurance that's prioritizing the wealthy and undermining our public health care system. 

- Mike Moffatt points out that mixed-use, walkable neighbourhoods can do wonders to both alleviate the housing crisis and minimize avoidable carbon pollution. And Iglika Ivanova and Anastasia French discuss how soaring housing costs are driving up the living wage needed to get by in Vancouver (among other cities). 

- Finally, Nadia Hasan writes about the need for real disability benefits to account for the fact that most people will be disabled at some point. 

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Richard Sandbrook makes the case for a Green New Deal as combining the ambition and the feasibility needed to halt climate change. And Stewart Elgie and Kathy Bardswick argue that we can still build a cleaner climate, rather than focusing solely on trying to hide from the effects of continued breakdown. 

- But then, Bill Hare rightly notes that Australia - like Canada and other fossil fuel exporters - is severely harming the cause of climate protection by subsidizing carbon pollution that's intended to be spewed without being counted as part of any global carbon budget.  

- James Faris discusses how a shortage of housing only figures to get worse as climate impacts make existing cities uninsurable and unliveable. Geoffrey Deihl observes that the harm we've already done our living environment is causing wildfires and other effects which cancel out our modest mitigation efforts. And Lou Robinson and Angela Dewan report on CarbonPlan's research showing that most of the world will be too hot to host an Olympic Games by 2050 if we don't change course. 

- Meanwhile, Troy Farah writes that the Olympics have become a painful reminder of collective denial around COVID-19, both through highly visible impacts on the athletic events themselves and on the mass infection which inevitably follows from large crowds doing nothing to mitigate spread. 

- Finally, A.R. Moxon points out the value of making a positive case for caring for other people as the only viable counter to the well-funded spread of fascism. David Moscrop discusses the absurdity of Pierre Poilievre's attempt to paint Justin Trudeau's neoliberalism as communism in order to bring conspicuous cruelty into the middle of Canada's Overton window. And Gerry McGovern notes that one of the main effects of artificial intelligence - and one of the ones which makes it particularly appealing to the techbro right - its role in outsourcing accumulated bigotry and prejudice to machines which can be treated as neutral. 

Monday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your Boxing Day reading.

- Robert Reich discusses the dangers of relying on - and indeed building a political and economic system to favour - the social costs of extreme greed. And the Canadian Press reports on the Trudeau Libs' plan to take foreign aid even further in that direction, prioritizing funding for privatized infrastructure projects over humanitarian resources.

- Meanwhile, Peter Zimonjic, Tyler Buist and Arielle Piat-Sauve report on Justin Trudeau's refusal to consider windfall taxes on the corporations profiteering at the expense of Canadians - even as Portugal joins the numerous countries showing it can be done.

- Benjamin Mateus writes about new research showing that COVID-19 was the leading cause of death worldwide in 2021. And Emily Putman reports on the expert recognition that an ongoing pandemic and other infectious diseases highlight the value of a true national pharmacare program, while Yvette Brend points out the need to ensure (sorely-needed) funding for health care is put toward preventative measures.  

- Michael Janz writes about the value of dedicated bike lanes to ensure healthier communities for cyclists and drivers alike. And Carlton Reid reports on the revelation that electric car batteries are generally lasting longer than anticipated, meaning there's less need for churn and reprocessing than once expected. 

- Don Lee discusses how work from home has allowed for an increase in workforce participation by people with disabilities - at least until arbitrary rules about office work are reinstated.

- Finally, Catherynne Valente writes about the longstanding pattern of corporatized sites and apps trying to push people to buy things and/or hurt each other - as well as the potential for a return to online relationships better focused on sharing meaningful information.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Jon Henley writes that COVID is surging across Europe as governments and people alike ignore desperate warnings not to let their guard down. And Eric Topol writes about the reality that reinfection produces even worse outcomes than initial exposure - even as governments have largely abandoned any effort either to minimize spread through public health measures, or to reduce individual impacts through further vaccines. 

- Alex Cosh discusses how more and more Canadians are going hungry while corporate profits soar. 

- Fiona Harvey reports on research showing the need for consistently accurate climate messaging for people to understand the urgency of our climate crisis. David Moscrop writes about the stark contrast between Justin Trudeau's spin on climate change and his government's consistent catering to the fossil fuel sector. And Jan Gorski argues that Canada is more than capable of meeting its climate commitments if it stops operating in denial of the steps needed to get there. 

- Meanwhile, John Michael McGrath points out how the determination of where to bury nuclear waste comes down to a decision as to whose water supplies will be put at risk of radioactive contamination if all doesn't go as planned.  

- Finally, Ken Rubin discusses how Canada's access to information system has fallen far short of the promise of open government due to the combination of overly broad exemptions and governments' cynical refusal to comply with either the spirit or letter of access legislation. And Elizabeth McMillan reports on the results of the Mass Casualty Commission's review showing how the RCMP endangered lives by withholding crucial information from the public in the midst of a shooting spree.

On barriers to cooperation

It's for the best that the NDP and Libs have been able to come to terms on a supply and confidence agreement which should at least provide for substantial material gains for people who need them, and may go further in setting up core elements of a universal health care system which have long been lacking. And it's particularly gratifying to see at least some recognition of the leadership that requires. 

But while it's well worth celebrating what looks like a turn for the better, it's also worth a reminder as to what - and who - has prevented that type of cooperation from happening in the past.

Remember that Jagmeet Singh's message after the 2019 election was one of willingness to work with the Liberals on shared priorities. And Justin Trudeau's response was...to reject any systematic cooperation with a single party, as he preferred piecemeal politics and perpetual Parliamentary chicken to acceding to any NDP priorities in exchange for ongoing confidence.

After last year's election, Singh again floated the possibility of closer cooperation, while apparently seeing it as futile to even suggest a formal confidence agreement. But even with that lesser possibility on the table, the Libs expressed at most "not a closure" in response, with nothing coming of it until talks between the leaders this year. 

And lest there be any doubt, that disparity in interest in working together is all too familiar for anybody who has hoped that Libs would treat minority Parliaments as opportunities to achieve progressive outcomes. From Paul Martin sneering that Jack Layton was "two votes short" of being worth talking to, to Pierre Trudeau torpedoing a functional confidence arrangement to manufacture a majority for himself, the history of the two parties is rife with theoretical possibilities which fell victim to the Libs' hubris and/or self-interest. 

Needless to say, that leaves reason for concern that the same factors will affect both the length of time the current agreement figures to hold up, and the expectations as to what will be achieved while it does. And while the points of agreement may make some major achievements seem like real possibilities, there's a lot of work to be done to keep pushing toward actually bringing them to life before the Libs decide to go it alone.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- David Bush discusses how the latest wave of COVID-19 would have been entirely avoidable if we hadn't allowed corporate interests to suppress vaccine availability and turn workplaces into super-spreaders, while Andreas Laupacis confirms that we had (and have) more than enough knowledge to rein it in if our leaders cared enough to bother. Clara-Laeila Laudette reports on new research showing that the Omicron variant is far more likely to cause reinfection than previous versions of COVID, but no milder when it does take hold. Alexander Quon reports on Dr. Saqib Shahab's warning that people need to be cautious over the holidays, while Denis Campbell reports on the calamitous state of the UK's health-care system as massive spread among workers leaves nobody to treat increasing numbers of patients. Sabrina Maddeaux writes about the importance of proper ventilation in reducing viral spread.

- Ashleigh Stewart reports on the disinformation campaign pushing anti-vaccine positions in Canada. And Phil Tank reports on the steps anti-vaxxers took to take over Saskatchewan's Buffalo Party before putting themselves at Scott Moe's service.

- Graham Thomson discusses why Albertans need to be wary of the UCP's attempts to torque the province's political system to gloss over their past wrongs and eliminate competing voices just in time for the next provincial election.

- Finally, Matt Gurney writes that Justin Trudeau's hatred for the left reflects the fact that it actually stands for the principles which he seeks to claim for his own through mere lip service. And Eoin Higgins discusses how the COVID pandemic and other crises have pushed people to distinguish fakery from actual principles and solutions.

On priorities

While I've pointed out the absurdity of yet another round of anti-coalition scaremongering, it does seem clear that any discussion between the NDP and the Libs will instead involve a confidence and supply arrangement. And that may well be for the best, as it maximizes the policy outcomes the NDP can expect to generate from an agreement. 

That said, in determining which priorities should be given precedence, it's worth keeping in mind what can realistically be achieved in that type of arrangement - particularly in light of the dynamics it would create between the parties involved. So let's look at a few of the criteria by which we can evaluate possible points of agreement - and which options might best fit within a deal.

• Public Benefit - Needless to say, the core consideration for anything the NDP requests needs to be a tangible benefit for people. While this might seem obvious, remember that the Libs once considered it a good idea to keep the Harper Cons in power in exchange for partisan progress reports on stimulus spending. The NDP hopefully knows better than to pursue process points over substance - but in case there's any doubt, it needs to view the contents of a policy deal as embodying the belief that political choices can improve people's welfare. 
• Immediacy - Any supply agreement will necessarily be for a limited period of time, with a risk that Justin Trudeau will see an opportunity to call an election early no matter what time period is agreed on. And that means whatever concessions the NDP can win will need to be capable of implementation within a period of a year-plus. That likely rules out anything which would require starting any major program design or public consultation from scratch without a fairly well-understood end goal. And so while a basic income or electoral reform would make for worthwhile demands on the merits, they may not be practical as core components of a supply agreement. 
• Durability - That said, there's also reason for concern if any agreement fails to have a lasting impact. For example, while improved pandemic benefits are rightly an important consideration for now, there's surely little value in committing to support a government past the point when they may cease to be necessary. This may be where the NDP's past success in pushing for Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan and Petro-Canada serves as a precedent as to what's possible. And while there may be limits on the structural change the Libs are willing to accept, the NDP should be keeping an eye on ensuring that the effects of any agreement last beyond the Parliament in which it's reached. 
• Acceptability - Of course, any demand made by the NDP is futile if it's beyond what the Libs can be pushed to accept. And while the Libs aren't setting up any particularly strict lines at the moment, there's a real risk that they'll see options to stay in power by other means (particularly by daring the Cons to bring them down) if the price for a supply agreement is seen as too high.
• Differentiation - By the same token, however, the NDP surely wants to be able to claim justified credit for the results of any agreement, rather than facing any plausible argument that the Libs would have done the same if they'd had a majority. And there may be particular value for the NDP in being able to claim to have pushed the Libs to action in an area where they'd otherwise proven reluctant to live up to their promises or stated principles. 
• Progressivity - Finally, different isn't necessarily better - so it matters which types are chosen for emphasis. While platform development always includes some effort to be everything to everyone, the terms of a supply deal will be taken as the ultimate declaration of the NDP's priorities. And it would be a waste of the balance of power to use it to pursue policies which tend toward political gimmickry rather than the expression of supporters' values.  

Not surprisingly, the main goals mentioned by Jagmeet Singh since the election (action on housing, dropping litigation against Indigenous children/providing compensation, and climate action) can meet each of the above criteria depending on the steps chosen. But even on those topics, the nature of any agreement may make a world of difference: indeed, a housing plan oriented toward subsidies for purchasers could easily fail the public benefit, differentiation and progressivity tests. 

Conversely, the best option may be one which isn't at the forefront of Singh's current messaging. The Libs have already put some effort into determining what a national pharmacare program could look like, meaning that it's as "shovel-ready" as any national benefit program is likely to be. But they've abandoned any commitment to following through or funding it, presumably due largely to industry pressure. 

That means the NDP can be the driving force behind a crucial national program which would carry both individual and systemic benefits, and which the Libs would have little reason to oppose directly (even if they haven't been willing to spend their own political capital implementing it). 

With pharmacare (ideally coupled with public-sector pharmaceutical capacity) along with a substantial contribution to a climate change plan (say, redirecting the value of fossil fuel subsidies to the NDP's proposal for a Civilian Climate Corps and green infrastructure investments?) as the centrepieces, there would then be room to add further elements which are either more limited in duration, or more distant in implementation. 

It remains to be seen exactly how willing the Libs are to pursue a more formal arrangement. But there's room for both the NDP and the country to benefit immensely if they can be pushed to do so - and after an election campaign where an immense amount of energy was spent to accomplish very little, it would be for the best if some well-selected pressure now can remind people what effective cooperation can achieve. 

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Mark Armstrong reports on the G20's agreement on a painfully-unambitious vaccination target for poor countries which is still unlikely to be reached. And Tahir Amin draws a connection between the dystopia of Squid Game and the reality of vaccine exclusion. 

- Jennifer Schuessler discusses David Graeber and David Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything as signaling the evolution of social structures far earlier and more broadly than we usually assume. And Wengrow takes that history as a basis for optimism about our current challenges - including the need to join forces to protect our living environment in the face of imminent climate breakdown.  

- David Wallace-Wells makes the compelling case for climate reparations - including the need for wealthier countries to both bear our share of the loan in mitigating the damage we're doing to our planet, and ensure that the people we've exploited along the way have opportunities to adapt and develop. And Laurie Macfarlane writes that we can't address the climate crisis without also addressing economic and social injustices. 

- Umair Haque discusses why the U.S. looks to be just beginning a full-on societal collapse. 

- Adam Lachacz reports on the frustration of Alberta municipalities with the UCP's blinkered devotion to promoting a costly and unnecessary provincial police force, rather than doing anything to actually improve people's lives. And Sheila Wong and Emma McIntosh explore just how corrupt and counterproductive the Ford PCs' push for another major bypass actually is. 

- Finally, John Clarke calls out the absurdity of Justin Trudeau's effort to equate left-wing activism toward equality and justice with right-wing bigotry. 

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Katherine Wu, Ed Yong and Sarah Zhang set out six rules which will shape how we handle the next wave of COVID - including recognition that vaccination alone isn't going to be sufficient to avoid a tragic human toll.

- Yasmine Ghania reports on the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation's rightful frustration with the lack of isolation for COVID-positive students. Zak Vescera reports on some of the patients who are missing out on needed care and treatment because the Moe government has allowed COVID to run rampant. And the Canadian Press reports on the suspension of organ donations as a particularly damaging outcome. 

- Linda McQuaig calls for the NDP to use the balance of power to pursue hearings on a wealth tax - though the more substantive option would seem to involve avoiding that step and pressing the demand directly. 

- Meanwhile, Sabrina Maddeaux writes that we shouldn't be surprised to see the Libs refusing reform of an electoral system which disproportionately benefits them at the expense of other parties and interests. 

- Finally, Wyatt Schierman writes about the lack of much for anybody to celebrate arising out of Monday's election. And Sonia Theroux notes that if Justin Trudeau were serious about wanting stability and a longer mandate, he'd be best served working on a formal agreement rather than continuing his pattern of repeated games of confidence-vote chicken. 

On echoes

Plenty of commentators have pointed out the symmetry between this year's election and that of 2008 in terms of low voter turnout and general dissatisfaction with the outcome on the part of all parties. But it's worth noting the similarities between the two campaigns and their aftermath on the part of the NDP in particular.

2008 was treated as a golden opportunity for Jack Layton and the NDP to improve their standing. But even with the most popular leader among the national parties, a well-run campaign, and seemingly uninspiring or downright self-destructive competitors, the NDP ended up with...a small increase in the percentage of the popular vote due to declining overall turnout; a slightly improved seat count which fell far short of the party's number of targeted ridings and left it in fourth place in the Parliamentary standings; and punditry which questioned Layton's strategy of running for the position of Prime Minister, and asked whether he might have hit his ceiling as the party's leader. 

Sound familiar?

Needless to say, it was for the best that Layton was able to continue applying his experience and popularity to the cause of building the NDP for another election cycle. And any attempt to treat the replacement of a generally popular and able leader as a cure-all is as misguided now as it would have been in 2008. 

Indeed, the next election cycle may well match 2011 as one in which a leader with strong recognition and approval is a particularly potent force. 

The Cons look to be deciding whether or not to push Erin O'Toole out the door for making even token efforts toward moderation. And any review process and leadership campaign on their end raises a real possibility of schisms within the party, an extreme shift to the right which could disqualify them as a perceived alternative government, or the Cons' version of Michael Ignatieff's saviour complex and lack of self-awareness. 

Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau's negative impressions figure to be thoroughly baked in at this point, meaning that voters may be primed for change by the next (hopefully non-pandemic) election. Yet unlike some commentators, I'd have to see it as unlikely that he'd be pushed without wanting to leave - or that he'll choose to leave government without pursing another shot at a majority as long as there's any hope of winning one. 

To be clear, there's plenty the NDP needs to reckon with as a result of the campaign. Among others, those include the need for clearer and more ambitious policy (an area where I'll again point out COVID response as an obvious lost opportunity), as well as concerns being raised about a centralized campaign which spent plenty in the pursuit of a relatively small number of ridings, yet had difficulty converting those into seats. 

But the fact that there's room to learn lessons doesn't mean it's time to throw out the work the NDP has already done. And it shouldn't come as any surprise if the path of slow progress leading to a breakthrough is one the NDP can navigate again. 

[Edit: fixed typo.]

#Elxn44 Roundup

The latest from Canada's federal election campaign.

- Christo Aivalis discusses Jagmeet Singh's much-needed willingness to take on the power of the rich to fight for a country that works for everybody. And Shelly Hagan writes about the resulting possibility of greater social contributions being required of those who can most afford to make them.  

- In contrast, Luke Savage highlights how Justin Trudeau's promises - particularly those aimed at progressive voters - are made to be broken. And the Centre for Canadian Progress offers (PDF) takes a look at the options for left-oriented voters on the key priorities of housing, climate change and pharmacare. 

- Richard Saillant reviews the parties' housing policies and finds the NDP's to be the one best suited to meeting the needs of people in precarious situations. And Richard Cuthbertson and Alaina Luck report that the Libs' idea of an "affordable housing" plan is to provide private developers with preferential terms to build units which cost up to double double the average rent within a community. 

- Meanwhile, Jackie Brown, Amit Arya and Andrew Longhurst discuss how to reach the NDP's goal of ensuring that long-term care homes are focused on care rather than profit. 

- Finally, David Akin examines the state of the race and concludes that we're likely headed for another minority Parliament. 

On concealed motivations

Martin Lukacs worked for years documenting and explaining the Libs' concealed raison d'etre...

Whenever discontent builds up, the Liberals have always been there to safely channel it, like a political shock-absorber.

They’ll wink to the elite, and then pose as anti-establishment to the broader population.

And...Trudeau just...he blurted it out.

#Elxn44 Roundup

Assorted content from Canada's federal election campaign. 

- Seth Klein examines the considerations to take into account in casting a ballot for real climate action. And Michelle Gamage compares the parties' positions on fossil fuel subsidies. 

- Andre Picard asks whether voters will actually be motivated by health care - a key question given the NDP's commitment to head-to-toe health care while the other parties try to keep their plans as vague as possible. And Ken Dryden theorizes that the key issue for voters should be child care. 

- Linda McQuaig calls out Erin O'Toole's blatant bullshitting as a means of smuggling anti-social policy into the halls of power. And the Canadian Labour Congress points out his dishonesty on pensions in particular. 

- Meanwhile, PressProgress fact-checks Justin Trudeau's indignant refusal to accept he's engaged in litigation against Indigenous children against his track record. And Kristy Kirkup reports on the increased risk of fire-related deaths on reserve as one more area in which Indigenous people are facing unnecessary dangers due to a lack of policy action. 

- Samantha Reusch writes about the importance of engaging young voters - even as Elections Canada has made their participation more difficult by eliminating its campus voting program. And Menaka Raman-Wilms reports on Jagmeet Singh's work in meeting younger voters on their platforms of choice. 

- Finally, Alex Marland laments the tendency of voters to cast ballots based on party affiliations rather than local candidates. 

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Kevin Maimann discusses how Alberta's health care system is on the brink of collapse due to a complete COVID governance failure. Zak Vescera reports on the health care workers begging Scott Moe to make some effort to avoid the same in Saskatchewan, while Yasmine Ghania reports on the people trying to do their part by getting tested who are facing unconscionable delays due to the lack of testing capacity. And CBC News reports that public support for vaccine passports is soaring in both Saskatchewan and Alberta despite provincial governments taking the side of COVID. 

- Meanwhile, in case there was any thought that the Delta variant would be the last source of further COVID waves, Kenyon Wallace reports on the spread of the Mu variant in Ontario. And Katharine Wu discusses why people who may have given up on wearing masks while being told the pandemic was over should be rethinking that course of action. 

- Amy Westervelt calls out the oil industry's "discourses of delay" as a means of pushing for continued fossil fuel extraction and avoiding the action we need to avert a climate catastrophe. And Martin Lukacs discusses how the Trudeau Libs have eagerly served Canada's oil barons while attempting to greenwash themselves and the industry. 

- But Carbon Tracker points out how anybody looking past the short term will need to reckon with the inevitability of leaving fossil fuel assets unexploited. And Adam Hoverman and Melissa Lem weigh in on the increasing calls among health care professions to end our reliance on fossil fuels.

- Finally, as we plan pandemic and energy transitions, David Beers offers a reminder of the roads that were open to us after 9/11 - and the loss we've suffered by accepting violent imperialism rather than a more caring society. 

#Elxn44 Roundup

The latest from Canada's federal election campaign.

- PressProgress offers some background on the agitators disrupting Justin Trudeau's campaign events, while Max Fawcett points out why there's no reason for us to lend any undeserved credence to anti-vaxxers. But Meshall Awan notes that we also shouldn't allow posturing over fringe views to distract us from fundamental issues including the climate crisis.  

- Gillian Steward is rightly appalled at Erin O'Toole's willingness to follow the Kenney/Moe road to disaster in responding to COVID-19 and handling our Medicare system. 

- Adam Radwanski takes note of the seemingly unanimous agreement on the need for a rapid transition to electric vehicles. 

- Camellia Wong criticizes Elections Canada's refusal to allow for on-campus voting as a failure for democracy - which is particularly unacceptable when concentrated within a population which is about to set habits defining its level of participation for decades to come. 

- Finally, Luke Savage discusses why Justin Trudeau's attempt to manufacture a majority for himself is backfiring as voters decide they're ready for change. 

#Elxn44 Roundup

The latest from Canada's federal election campaign.

- Jim Stanford writes that the direction of our rebuilding from and after the COVID pandemic is one of the core issues at stake. Anna Desmarais highlights how people are suffering from the arbitrary rules the Trudeau Libs attached to CERB with unmanageable income reductions even as the COVID pandemic continues. And Kiavash Najafi discusses why ensuring the rich pay their fair share of taxes is a policy with appeal across all parties and ideological backgrounds, while Sheila Block rightly defends the practicality and desirability of a wealth tax against Philip Cross' attempts to paint the richest few as the truly hard-done-by.

- Anya Zoledziowski offers a summary of the climate change plans on offer from the major national parties. And Anjali Helferty and George Tjensvoll Kitching write that cutting off fossil fuel subsidies is a bare minimum to ensure that we're not funding the destruction of our own health.

- Meanwhile, the CCPA Monitor examines the Libs' platform - including its maddeningly ponderous incrementalism as compared to the NDP's commitments in areas like climate change and housing. 

- Justin Ling reviews the back-and-forth over racism in the first French debate, with Jagmeet Singh's contribution offering desperately-needed recognition of the realities of system racism:

“I’ve talked to people who lost their family member, because of police violence,” Singh told Blanchet.

“When I introduced a motion to deal with this racist discrimination, I didn’t see any MP say no—even the Conservatives didn’t say no—except a single MP,” Singh began, referring to Therrien. “When I looked at him, he did this-” Singh proceeded to make a sweeping motion with his hand, as though Therrien was brushing him off. “This is exactly the kind of thing which happens for Indigenous communities, like Joyce Echaquan,” Singh continued, before being drowned out by an interrupting Blanchet. 

It was a stunning moment, and a rare mention of Echaquan—or, indeed, any issues of systemic racism—on the campaign.

- Joyce Nelson discusses why military spending should be a significant election issue - and why neither the Libs nor Cons offer an acceptable plan to direct our resources toward peace and well-being rather than the military-industrial complex.

- Finally, David Molko reports on the continued embarrassments of Lib candidate Taleeb Noormohamed, who wants to be treated as an advocate for affordable housing while having made massive amounts of money carrying out the property flipping he pretends to decry.