Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Scott Santens argues that a basic income represents the best way to ensure that the gains from technological advancement are shared by everybody. And Thom Hartmann makes the case for a guaranteed income based on its simplicity and cost-effectiveness, while Mark Sarner sees it mostly as a mechanism to reduce poverty.

- Meanwhile, Lane Windham highlights the need for social benefits to be pursued through public policy rather than through employment relationships alone. And Sean McElwee writes that increased voter turnout in the U.S. figures to bring out far more progressive citizens to have their voices heard:

To examine how boosting voting might affect policy on inequality, I asked Pew about its inequality survey. These data also show that the nonregistered population is more liberal than the registered population. Pew asked people which would do more to reduce poverty: “Raising taxes on wealthy people and corporations in order to expand programs for the poor” or “Lowering taxes on wealthy people and corporations in order to encourage more investment and economic growth.” While majorities of both registered and nonregistered Americans say that raising taxes on the wealthy would do more to reduce poverty, nonregistered respondents were more supportive than registered ones (59 percent and 51 percent, respectively). In addition, while 69 percent of registered respondents supported raising the minimum wage, 82 percent of nonregistered Americans did. While 60 percent of registered respondents supported a one-year extension of unemployment benefits, 69 percent of those who are not registered did. These findings conform to other research suggesting nonregistered Americans favor a far stronger economic role for government.
...
(I)f states with the lowest class bias — New Hampshire, for instance — had the same high class bias as, say, Kentucky, the change would lead to a decrease of 17 percent in support for the introduction of bills related to welfare and 22 percent in bills related to housing. The opposite is also true: Decreasing the class bias of the electorate would lead to more bills related to these issues. In a recent paper, Franko finds that lower class bias leads to more spending on health care for children, higher minimum wages and more anti-predatory-lending policies.

Parties can change the composition of the electorate, but they have failed entirely to bolster voting among the poor. According to ANES data, only 37 percent of those earning less than $30,000 reported receiving contact from either party regarding the 2012 elections, compared to 47 percent of those earning more than $100,000. And this sort of outreach makes a difference. Using the ANES data set, I examined Americans earning less than $60,000 who did not vote in 2008. I found that 41.5 percent of those who were contacted by a party voted in 2012, compared with only 28.1 percent of those who were not contacted by a party. When I removed the control for those who did not vote in 2008, the effect became much stronger, with 85 percent of those earning less than $60,000 who were contacted by a political party voting in 2012, compared with only 64 percent of those who were not contacted by a party.

- But then, there's plenty of room for more progressive policy even with the electorate we already have - as Mainstreet finds that Alberta's voters are supportive of NDP platform planks including a higher minimum wage and meaningful carbon pricing even as the corporate press demands that Rachel Notley discard them.

- The Ottawa Citizen notes that the Cons' election strategy is all smoke and mirrors at this point. And PressProgress highlights the bleak economic reality which they're trying to deny.

- Finally, Tabatha Southey's fake interview with Kory Teneycke eviscerates the Cons' fearmongering, featuring what would strike me as a devastating conclusion for anybody with a conscience:

Me: So, will you be using more terrorist video as the campaign goes on?

You: What in God’s name have I done with my life that I can legitimately be asked this question?

The Decision, Part 1

A couple of brief notes on some potash decision or other that was made yesterday.

First off, it's worth being careful not to read too much into the 30-day response period provided to BHP Billiton to submit a reply. That period isn't an indulgence being granted by Tony Clement, but is instead required by section 23(1) of the Investment Canada Act.

Mind you, it says plenty about how our current legislation is set up that an applicant whose bid is rejected is automatically entitled to a do-over, while there's no formal mechanism to challenge a decision to approve a takeover. But at least for now, Clement hasn't done anything more in BHP Billiton's favour than he's required to by law.

Which isn't to say matters can't change in the next 30 days. And I'd keep a closer eye on these numbers than these ones in figuring out whether the Cons will figure it's safe to revert back to their apparent instincts on the bid - meaning that Kory Teneycke may be in for a busy month.

On temporary victories

I'll second pogge's reminder that Kory Teneycke's abrupt departure is far from the last word on Fox News North. But it's worth taking a closer look at what it does figure to mean for both the network and Teneycke personally - and the end result is that this is only the beginning of the battle for media space.

Let's start with Sun Media, where the conclusion looks to be fairly obvious: there's no apparent reason to think that Teneycke's departure will radically affect its overall plans. It's still cleared out its reporting ranks in favour of a group seen as friendly to the Cons; it's still going to be fronted by a Con insider such as to raise obvious concerns about the connection between the Harper government and the network; it's still pushing forward with the same apparent scheme to strongarm the CRTC into getting its way no matter how much political interference that requires.

The only missing piece will be the deliberately inflammatory face of the network thus far. And while it's a plus that Teneycke's ignorant and offensive persona has come to be seen as a negative even by the network which was set up to promote it, it's not hard to see Sun Media simply following the same progression as the political movement that offered Teneycke his past experience, shedding some of its more radical beginnings in favour of a longer-term plan to incrementally move the media toward its preferred format. (Indeed, one could see Teneycke as having shifted the Overton window as to what type of behaviour is acceptable in a big-name media operator - making it more likely that an only slightly less over-the-top replacement will have a better chance of winning approval than would have been the case if he'd never put on his show of buffoonery.)

As for Teneycke himself, there are a couple of readily-apparent possibilities (assuming Harper won't want to put him back on the federal payroll immediately). If he's determined to stay involved with Sun Media, then a Ryan Sparrow-style timeout would seem to be the likeliest course of action: a couple of months out of the limelight, followed by a rehiring into a role slightly less public than the one that's made him a laughingstock.

But at least since his hiring by the CBC (which he's apparently written out of his own resume), Teneycke has been less than shy about building his own profile even if that can only be done by making a show of cutting any ties with reality. And his resignation would figure to offer him the opportunity to go much further along that same path without the burden of being attached to a network that has to deal with public-interest standards and other similarly inconvenient limitations.

Wherever Teneycke ends up, though, it's worth keeping in mind that on the right, catastrophic failure and utter embarrassment are far from being career-limiting moves. Indeed, they can even serve as major boosts to anybody who's more interested in trading on the devoted beliefs of cultists than being seen as sane by upwards of half of the population.

As a result, this figures to be far from the last we'll hear from both Fox News North and its first pitchman. And while Avaaz and other can take credit for a noteworthy achievement, there's far more to be done to try to shift Canada's media scene from its various shades of corporatism toward something that actually speaks to and for the public.

And it begins

Even I wouldn't have expected the Libs to start bargaining away the principle of parliamentary supremacy before the next session of Parliament even starts. But apparently they're perfectly happy abandoning the existing order for production of documents in order to let somebody else deal with torture in Afghanistan on Stephen Harper's terms - effectively conceding any question of legislative vs. executive power to Harper before it's ever resolved.

Memo to Libs: Korn Kob Kory Teneycke is a Con strategist. Take his advice at your own peril.

Update: kirbycairo says it better:

When are the Liberals going to understand, winning conditions for an elections are not going to simply appear out of thin air??? YOU MUST CREATE THE CONDITIONS!!! And you do this by pushing key issues and refusing to back off. IT IS REALLY SIMPLE!

Take this issue of the order of the House to produce documents. If you find the Government in contempt and banish a couple of ministers from the House (or even imprison them which the House has the right to do) as a penalty, this unprecedented step would make world headlines and cripple Harper. Parties that have been found in contempt and have Minister(s) in Jail don't win elections except in Honduras.

For some reason, conservative(s) (not just in Canada but most Western nations) are the only ones willing to play hardball anymore. And each time you push and then back off like the Liberals constantly do, you lose a little more credibility and you bolster Harper's image of untouchability.

Fight back you idiots, or face extinction.

The working draft of history

Chantal Hebert is looking ahead toward the next chance for a progressive coalition to replace the Harper Cons in government. And while Hebert needlessly muddies the waters by combining the concept of post-election cooperation in Parliament with that of an electoral non-opposition agreement, she hardly figures to be the last to recognize the potential for a coalition to change the face of Canadian politics.

Which means that the experience of the last exercise in coalition-building figure to become rather important in the very near future. And it's worth pointing out just who it is that's managed to shape Ottawa's view of coalitions for the future.

When Brian Topp first started putting together his series of posts on the development of the progressive coalition, I'd figured that Topp's writing would lay the groundwork for a wide-ranging discussion among NDP and Lib sources as to what happened and why. In particular, some of his observations seemed to positively demand some challenge or spin from various factions of the Libs: from Stephane Dion's attempt to use the coalition to extend his stay as Lib leader, to Michael Ignatieff backers who were willing to cooperate only as long as their preferred leader was at the helm, to Ignatieff himself "huddled" with Con strategist Kory Teneycke, to Lib negotiators who were downright embarrassed to try to defend their positions when challenged.

But even as Topp's series became required reading for political junkies this month, none of his recollections seem to have been answered publicly. And while one can perhaps understand how the Libs' current power structure may be under extreme pressure to simply avoid talking about an issue which surely makes the party's current leader look bad both inside and outside the party, it's particularly telling that nobody from Dion's long-since-deposed inner circle has challenged any of Topp's accounts either.

All of which means that Topp's take on the coalition looks to have benefitted from a rare combination of ample attention and nonexistent refutation. And the fact that an NDP insider's take on the events of 2008 looks to have become the leading public account of what happened - not to mention what lessons should be drawn for any future coalition negotiations - should help make sure that the NDP's position in any future deal is strengthened by what Canadian politicos perceive about what happened last time out.

Deep thought

I can't imagine what story the Cons may have been trying to undercut by raising suspicions about their own bogus anonymous information.

Duly named

There's little reason to think Kory Teneycke's appointment as Stephen Harper's communications director will result in his being seen any more positively than the now-departed Sandra Buckler. But it would be a shame if his future battles with the press resulted in anybody forgetting about his stint lobbying his partymates on behalf of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association.

So to ensure that his trip through the lobbying revolving door doesn't get lost as he takes up his new role keeping meaningful information out of the hands of the media, I hereby dub him Corn Cob Kory.