Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Naomi Klein writes that Donald Trump's cabinet represents a direct takeover of the U.S. government by the corporate oligarchy - and comments on what the progressive movement needs to do to fight back:

Let us be clear: This is not a peaceful transition of power. It’s a corporate takeover. The interests that have long since paid off both major parties to do their bidding have decided they are tired of playing the game. Apparently, all that wining and dining of politicians, all that cajoling and legalized bribery, insulted their sense of divine entitlement.

So now they are cutting out the middleman and doing what every top dog does when they want something done right — they are doing it themselves. Exxon for secretary of state. Hardee’s for secretary of labor. General Dynamics for secretary of defense. And the Goldman guys for pretty much everything that’s left. After decades of privatizing the state in bits and pieces, they decided to just go for the government itself. Neoliberalism’s final frontier. That’s why Trump and his appointees are laughing at the feeble objections over conflicts of interest — the whole thing is a conflict of interest; that’s the whole point.

So what do we do about it? First, we always remember their weaknesses, even as they exercise raw power. The reason the mask has fallen off and we now are witnessing undisguised corporate rule is not because these corporations felt all-powerful; it’s because they were panicked.
...
All this makes Trump incredibly vulnerable. This is the guy who came to power telling the boldest and brashest of lies, selling himself as a champion of the working man who would finally stand up to corporate power and influence in Washington. A portion of his base already has buyer’s remorse, and that portion is just going to grow.

Something else we have going for us? This administration is going to come after everyone at once. There are reports are of a shock-and-awe budget that will cut $10 trillion over 10 years, taking a chainsaw to everything from violence-against-women programs, to arts programs, to supports for renewable energy, to community policing. It’s clear they think this blitzkrieg strategy will overwhelm us. But they may be surprised — it could well unite us in common cause. And if the scale of the women’s marches is any indication, we are off to a good start.

- Meanwhile, Vikram Patel highlights how extreme inequality in India - which doesn't seem to be improving with economic development - fits into the broader global political picture.

- Sarah Boseley reports on Neena Modi's research showing the stark connections between childhood poverty and a wide range of health problems. And CBC discusses how workplace instability too is linked to health issues, as restructuring and layoffs tend to lead to sick leave and depression.

- Reuters reports on the latest major oil spill to highlight the dangers of rubber-stamping pipelines without recognizing the risks to the environment around them. And Emma Gilchrist notes that British Columbia's much-repeated talking points about "world-leading" oil spill responses don't mean for a second that anybody is prepared to deal with foreseeable disasters.

- Finally, Chantal Hebert examines where the Libs now stand on electoral reform, and points out that even their attempts to stack the deck in favour of false majorities have been met with strong public pushback.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Alex Hemingway highlights the similarities between Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump in pushing infrastructure plans designed primarily to turn the promise of public services into long-term corporate profit centres:

But as I described recently in the Canadian context, these “partnerships” have proven enormously costly:

“P3s are simply less efficient – on average costing dramatically more than the public sector alternative. And it’s not hard to understand why…
Traditional publicly-funded and operated projects… don’t require paying out profits to private investors and, importantly, have lower financing costs, since government can secure much better interest rates than a private corporation.
This has all been well understood since the 1990s and documented over the years in a whole range of research on P3s.”

In fact, the Ontario Auditor General recently reported that the province had lost a jaw-dropping $8 billion over a decade by building projects as P3s rather than as traditional public infrastructure projects.

To top it off, privatization tends to increase inequality by driving down wages and ramping up user fees, while eroding the capacity of our public sector. That’s why many cities across Canada and around the world have begun bringing services back in-house after failed experiments with P3s.

Now, ignoring this body of evidence, our own federal government is working from the same playbook as Donald Trump, planning a major privatization of Canadian infrastructure.
...
This should all be deeply worrying to Canadians. The push for privatization illustrates how neoliberalism is alive and well – in Trump’s America and Trudeau’s Canada. Yet the evidence is clear: selling out our public infrastructure is both unnecessary and incredibly costly. And it’s taking us in precisely the wrong direction at a time when we need a renewed public sphere to meet huge collective challenges.

- Meanwhile, David Rider and Betsy Powell report on the fight against the privatization of Toronto's garbage collection. And D.C. Fraser reports that the Saskatchewan Party's first major move following from Brad Wall's attack on wages has been to threaten the jobs of over 250 custodial workers.

- While I'm still skeptical about what we can expect from Karina Gould as the minister of democratic institutions, PressProgress tracks down some past statements which would suggest she recognizes the need for a proportional electoral system.

- Finally, Andrew Potter discusses the de-institutionalism of media organizations as a means of ensuring reporting standards - while hinting that it may be possible to develop alternate ways to avoid being swamped by fake news.

The Minister of Silly Excuses

Yes, Justin Trudeau has set up his predictable excuse for breaking his promise of electoral reform by putting a new minister in charge of the file during a crucial period. But let's see what Karina Gould has had to say about a more fair democratic system in communicating with her constituents (PDF):

Participants focused on the importance between direct and proportional representation. It was expressed that being able to vote directly for someone to represent constituents was important. Some felt that the Mixed Member Proportional system provides this ability. However, participants also expressed concern that most people do not understand proportional representation. Some participants also indicated that Canada is too large and sparsely populated in certain regions for Proportional Representation to be an appropriate option. 

The consultation demonstrated that electoral reform is a complex issue and there are many considerations to be made before one can identify an ideal system for Canada.

Sadly, that combination of blaming proportional systems for the confusion being fostered by the Libs themselves and otherwise stacking the deck against the very concept of proportionality (no matter what the people being consulted actually say) looks to explain Gould's appointment.

Which isn't to say it represents a reasonable formulation of any coherent approach to the state of our democracy. But it represents exactly the kind of smokescreen Trudeau favours as a statement of the Libs' self-serving opposition to their own core electoral promise - and it'll be a pleasant surprise if Gould offers anything more reasonable in her new position.

Update: Kady O'Malley links to the formal report (PDF) from Gould's consultation. While the first paragraph of the text above is very close to one within the report, readers can draw their own conclusions as to how the broader discussion was pared down in Gould's message to constituents.