Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Lauren Pelley and Adam Miller discuss the reality that Canada has never seen its previous COVID wave fully recede even as a new one looms, while the Ottawa Citizen asks people to exercise the responsibility and judgment that's sorely lacking from their governments in taking precautions to avoid further spread. And Ziyad Al-Ali interviews Stephanie Desmond about the reality that even mild cases can result in prolonged heart issues, while Jessica Wildfire writes about the folly of surrendering to a disease that affects people's cognitive function in all walks of life. 

- Meanwhile, Alison reviews Nora Loreto's Spin Doctors as an essential read on the pandemic and how it's been misdiagnosed in the media even as right-wing governments seize on the harm to our health care system for their own ideological ends. Jake Johnson discusses how a growing takeover by private equity has led to resident neglect in U.S. care homes. And a group of labour federations calls for the public to take action against any move toward U.S.-style profit-driven health services. 

- Karl Nerenberg makes the case for Canada to stop allowing oligarchs to shelter their fortunes in secrecy here. 

- Christine Berry highlights how corporations are making a killing by raising prices while falsely blaming outside economic factors. And Megan Devlin reports on Mark Lee's call for a windfall profit tax to prevent the fossil fuel sector from profiteering in the face of war and a pandemic. 

- Drew Anderson reports on the plight of a Yorkton family which has seen the value of its home and business lost to environmental contamination, while the two corporate giants responsible stonewall and the government tries to relieve them of any liability. 

- Finally, Ian Welsh offers a concise summary of the features which make for good leadership - and which are all too often lacking in the people who do exercise authority. 

New column day

Here, on how the UK's general election should remind us that we're not beholden to establishment voices (whether in the media or within a party) in deciding who's fit to lead us.

For further reading...
- I've already pointed out John Harris and Gary Younge have written about the rise of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, along with Michal Rozworski's take on the prospect of meaningfully democratizing an economy.
- Joseph Stiglitz argues that Labour's most important promise is to put an end to decades of destructive austerity.
- And finally, George Monbiot writes that Corbyn has offered the type of hope which he and other voters have never seen before.

New column day

Here, on the leadership choices facing the federal and provincial NDP - and why neither should be too quick to assume that changing leaders will necessarily help to rebuild after election disappointments.

For further reading...
- I've dealt with the background to the federal party's decision on Mulcair in a previous series of posts leading to last night's performance review, as well as this column. And plenty more people have offered varying takes on Mulcair's leadership which deserve a look (even if I don't necessarily agree) - including Nicholas Ellan, Peter Thurley, Tom Parkin, Benjamin Fox Dickerson, Bill Tieleman, Peggy Nash and Dan Harris.
- Mulcair's latest rating as a potential prime minister can be found via Nanos here (PDF). And Cam Broten's approval ratings from the provincial election campaign are here and here, showing him at a steady 39%.
- Finally, CBC offers a roundup of NDP reactions to this week's election result. 

[Edit: updated link.]

On performance reviews

Following up on this post, I'll weigh in with my own take on the federal NDP's leadership review - based primarily on the question of what Tom Mulcair seems to have taken away from the 2015 federal election, and how it will position the party in the years to come.

As alluded to in some previous posts, I'd sum up my expectations in the wake of the election to be roughly the following:
- to critically assess what happened in the previous election campaign to determine what lessons can be learned, both for better and for worse;
- to put to rest any (however implausible) question as to which is the most progressive party in Parliament;
- to prioritize MP empowerment and outreach over caution and discipline;
- to transition away from "default opposition" status toward a stronger focus on policies and values; and
- to focus on long-term and broad-based movement-building, including with a concerted effort to approach people who were excluded from involvement with the party.

And on all counts, I'd see Mulcair as having at least taken meaningful steps down the right path.

The NDP's interim report and final campaign review (PDF) has received plenty of attention. And both offer at least a useful high-level set of reflections and ideas. 

But some of the more noteworthy moves since the election also include significant issue-based initiatives by MPs, as well as a strong policy focus on inequality, precarious work and fairness for First Nations. And Mulcair's own pre-budget tour featured ample interactions with party activists and interested newcomers alike, while his pre-convention discussions have included some important recognition of the need to build from the NDP's membership base.

The most important question for me is then whether those steps should be seen as a temporary nod to the base in light of the impending leadership review, or the starting point in building the movement needed to elect a truly progressive federal government. And I see both reason for optimism that Mulcair himself recognizes the need for a change in course following the election, and another opportunity to address any continued shortcomings at the next NDP policy convention.

When the generally positive direction in a new political environment is combined with the strengths Mulcair has always brought to the table, I'm looking forward to seeing what he can work on building given the opportunity. And so I'll be voting to support Mulcair in Edmonton - with both the hope and the expectation that we'll see more sustainable party renewal without a leadership race than with one.

On threshold questions

Althia Raj is predictably dispensing Lib talking points about the potential outcomes of the NDP's leadership review. So to set the record straight, let's examine what the numbers actually mean.

There's exactly one threshold which produces a binding outcome:

3(a).v
At every convention that is not a leadership convention; a secret ballot vote will be held to determine whether or not a leadership election should be called. If 50% plus one delegate supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one year of the convention vote.

So yes, 50%+1 is indeed the standard to set in motion a mandatory leadership election process.

In contrast, any other threshold being thrown around within the pundit class is simply a matter of judgment. Any leader has the discretion to step down at any time - and talk of 70% or any other number represents pure speculation as to whether Mulcair might choose to resign his post, even though he's won in terms of the formal requirement to stay on without further review. And whatever numbers anybody else throws out, we wouldn't necessarily expect a matter of personal judgment - as distinct from voting process - to be defined in advance.

At the same time, nothing in the NDP's process suggests that a leader could lose on a majority vote, but deny the vote has any significance after the fact by claiming uncertainty about voters' intentions. Because that would just be asinine.

On timing

Following up on the subject of the federal NDP's leadership, I'll note that the Edmonton convention won't figure to be the only one before the next federal election - and that there might be a case to hold off for now.

The NDP's constitution provides for conventions not less than every other calendar year, meaning that another one should take place well in advance of the 2019 election. And there are factors mostly beyond the NDP's control which may influence any question as to who is best suited to lead the party.

In particular, there's likely some truth to the theory that a different electoral system might produce different incentives for political parties in general. And Mulcair may be a textbook example of a leader better suited to some systems than to others for members primarily concerned with electoral viability.

Mulcair's broad acceptability is a particularly strong asset under first-past-the-post or alternative voting systems, particularly if his relative fortune compared to Justin Trudeau gets reversed again. But in a more proportional system, somebody with a stronger personal connection to issue-based organizing might be better suited to take on the leadership role.

And there are plenty of other risk/reward considerations involved in holding a leadership race sooner rather than later. Even if one assumes a leadership race will happen at some point, the value of building a new leader's personal brand over a longer period of time can be weighed against the advantage of knowing who other parties (notably the Cons) will be putting forward before making any final decisions.

I won't presume to wade through all of the considerations which might affect a party decision as to who ought to lead it. But I do think it's safe to say there might be something to be gained by gathering more information before making any irreversible choices.

On organization

Given some of the odd twists and turns in Paul Wells' latest piece on Tom Mulcair's future, I'm hesitant to give too much credence to his unnamed sources. But to the extent it's accurate, Wells' take on the lack of much organization on any side of a leadership vote seems fairly important:

Back to my first anonymous source. “There are a few angry, angry, angry people,” this person said, “who I would say are concentrated among the MPs. They’re pinning everything on Mulcair.” This person thinks it’s harsh to blame Mulcair entirely for the loss of 51 seats last October. Justin Trudeau also had something to do with it.

“But I would say there’s a growing consensus that Mulcair needs to step aside,” this person continued. “But there’s no organizing or campaigning going on.”

The constitutionally mandated leadership review after an election is a simple matter. Delegates to a national convention vote on whether there should be a new leadership convention. In any party, dissatisfaction with the leader is unlikely to crystallize unless there’s a present and available alternative.
...
Maybe Mulcair will launch his charm offensive when the House returns at the end of January. Maybe he has no need to charm anyone. With no credible replacement, his opponents may well fold their tents. That’s not an ideal campaign slogan for 2019, but you make do with what you’ve got.

Now, I'd disagree with the theory that any new leadership vote would be predicated on there being some obvious successor waiting in the wings. But even if any leadership campaign could wait until later, the "organizing" side is rather important.

If there were indeed a broad consensus as to the need for a new leadership contest, we'd expect it to be relatively easy for somebody to build some structure around that position. Conversely, if it's true that no substantial organizing is happening around the leadership vote, that would tend to signal that complaints about Mulcair are better classified as meaningless backseat driving, rather than a significant rallying point.

Of course, I've pointed out that some of the most important questions about Mulcair himself revolve around his fit to lead a movement-based party rather than a government-in-waiting. And I'm certainly hoping we'll see some more visible steps in that direction in the near future - whether or not they're seen as responding to a leadership challenge.

But if the most important potential weakness on Mulcair's part applies even more strongly to anybody trying to oust him, that hardly serves as an impetus for change.

#elxn42 Campaign Closer: Conservatives

With Canada's election day looming tomorrow, I'll take a quick look back at the campaign from the standpoint of each of the major parties.

Let's start with the Cons - who haven't exactly found an answer for the key problem they've faced from the start, but have managed to stay far closer in the race than they deserve by sidestepping it.

The Cons were never able to use their preferred plan to grind a primary opponent's leader to dust due to the reality that they've had to account for two parties and leaders with more immediate appeal than they could offer.

This time out, Stephen Harper has effectively never been seen more positively than either Thomas Mulcair or Justin Trudeau since they won the leadership title for their respective parties. But it wasn't until the middle of the campaign - when it became clear that both opposition leaders were going to remain broadly popular, and that no appeal to the lizard brain could boost Stephen Harper's personal appeal - that the Cons finally gave up on trying to win another leadership contest.

Now, they're reversed course toward a strategy which could hardly have been better coordinated with the Globe and Mail's much-mocked corporate endorsement. Rather than accepting a ballot question which involves Harper at all, their goal now is to turn the election into a question of Generic Conservatives vs. The Other Guys - leading to a focus on grossly oversimplified issue messaging, as well as a willingness to associate with anybody who can possibly appeal to even the smallest pool of hard-core conservative voters.

And that line of attack seems to have worked better than might have been expected.

While some of the more leader-driven portions of the campaign saw the Cons sink into the mid-20s in the polls, more recent numbers have them around or above the 30 per cent mark again. And there's probably still a combination of modest vote switching, trickery and vote efficiency which could position the Cons to have a real chance at maintaining power.

But the big question now is whether the Cons' past secret weapons (most notably the apparent election-day bump compared to previous poll results) will still apply after the shift in strategy. And it could be that the Cons have solidified their ideological base in advance of the election at the expense of the plan to build on that number when it counts most.

New column day

Here, on the link between personality politics and the culture of scandal that's developed around Stephen Harper, Rob Ford and other political figures.

For further reading...
- Once again, Dan Leger and Leslie MacKinnon provide the column's starting point in discussing the central focus on scandals in 2013.
- Eric Grenier's year-end political grades offer a prime example of the type of election-results-only evaluation that feeds into the problem.
- And Frank Graves discusses the Canadian public's waning trust in its current crop of politicians.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Paul Krugman highlights why inequality is indeed an issue which demands action - both for its own sake, and for its impact on other goals such as economic sustainability. And Bill Moyers discusses the difference between a government responsive to its people and one completely controlled by elites:

The historian Plutarch warned us long ago of what happens when there is no brake on the power of great wealth to subvert the electorate. "The abuse of buying and selling votes," he wrote of Rome, "crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, this process of corruption spread in the law courts and to the army, and finally, when even the sword became enslaved by the power of gold, the republic was subjected to the rule of emperors."
...
Why are record numbers of Americans on food stamps? Because record numbers of Americans are in poverty. Why are people falling through the cracks? Because there are cracks to fall through. It is simply astonishing that in this rich nation more than 21 million Americans are still in need of full-time work, many of them running out of jobless benefits, while our financial class pockets record profits, spends lavishly on campaigns to secure a political order that serves its own interests, and demands that our political class push for further austerity. Meanwhile, roughly 46 million Americans live at or below the poverty line and, with the exception of Romania, no developed country has a higher percent of kids in poverty than we do. Yet a study by scholars at Northwestern University and Vanderbilt finds little support among the wealthiest Americans for policy reforms to reduce income inequality.
...
I should make it clear that I don't harbor any idealized notion of politics and democracy. Remember, I worked for Lyndon Johnson. Nor do I romanticize "the people." You should read my mail and posts on right-wing websites. I understand the politician in Texas who said of the state legislature, "If you think these guys are bad, you should see their constituents."

But there is nothing idealized or romantic about the difference between a society whose arrangements roughly serve all its citizens (something otherwise known as social justice) and one whose institutions have been converted into a stupendous fraud. That can be the difference between democracy and plutocracy.

 - Andrew Sullivan makes a similar point in commenting on the impact of Pope Francis' discussion of market zealotry (h/t to Cathie):

(T)he way in which market capitalism has become a good in itself on the American right is, well, perniciously wrong. As soon as a system ceases to be a means to a human good, and becomes an end in itself, it has become a false idol. Perhaps the apotheosis of that idol worship was the belief – brandished on the degenerate right in the past decade or two – that markets are self-regulating. Of course they’re not, as Adam Smith would have been the first to inform you. Another assumption embedded on the American right is that more wealth is always a good thing. The Church must say no. This is a lie. Wealth is a neutral thing above a certain basic level of non-drudgery. Above that, it can be an absolutely evil, deceptive thing, distorting human souls, warping their dignity, vulgarizing their character. An American right that worships at the altar of both free markets and material wealth, and that takes these two idols as their primary goods, is not just non-Catholic. It is anathema to Catholicism and to the Gospels.

- Michael Valpy writes about the connection between extractive economics, inequality and social exclusion - while observing that those exact factors are serving to reinforce each other in Canada.

- Meanwhile, Matthew Hays offers a devastating look at how Canada is beginning to look from abroad - with Rob Ford serving only as the most prominent example of a crude, selfish and thoughtless persona. And Scott Reid points out the systematic elimination of any sense of shame from right-wing politics as a substantial part of the problem.

- Finally, John Geddes writes that the Cons' patently absurd attacks on improvements to the Canada Pension Plan are making it needlessly difficult to discuss how to ensure retirement security for Canadians. And Tammy Schirle and Kevin Milligan offer their own proposal to bolster the CPP.

On independent thought

It's for the best that the idle speculation and gossip about a single point of policy difference between Thomas Mulcair and Linda McQuaig have been put to rest. But let's make clear just how pernicious the "ZOMG!!! Candidate X occasionally thinks for herself!!! Clearly she must be muzzled!!!" line of political analysis actually is.

Simply put, there's absolutely no contradiction between:
- a party leader promising that a given policy that will form part of the party's platform; and
- a candidate holding the personal opinion that a particular different policy would produce superior outcomes, while nonetheless supporting the party in general.

In fact, I'd see far more reason for concern with a party so beaten down by its leader that it thought anybody who disagreed with any of its policies should be forcibly evicted from the tent. And as ugly as it is when leaders squelch dissent in the name of consolidating their own power, it's even more disturbing to see the media spreading that theme for no reason but to generate a story where none exists.

Now, the above isn't to say that McQuaig's advocacy for a more fair tax system isn't important. And I'll definitely hope to see her to use the political platforms held by a candidate and an MP to advocate for change both within the NDP and in the wider political system.

But that should serve as reason for journalists to seriously discuss the important policy questions she raises - not to write stories which implicitly or explicitly demand that intelligent political thinkers like McQuaig be silenced.

[Edit: Fixed wording, added link.]

Of rules and rulers

I'll readily agree with the Star's editorial board that we should expect our lawmakers to have some respect for the law. But while David Climenhaga draws one contrast between Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper, I'll point out what looks to be a more apt comparison - one which also involves sheer personal indulgence rather than any statement of principle:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper went ATVing today...on the runway at Tuktoyaktuk.

He took off, and left his RCMP detail in the dust. They then chased him. Two officers on ATVs, and some more in pickup trucks.

Harper roared up and down the Tuktoyaktuk airport runway. He was going very fast. His security detail continued to chase him.

When asked if he had a licence to drive an ATV, especially on a runway, Harper said, "I think I make the rules."

Of course, the correct answer to that is...no, no he doesn't, as discretionary executive power doesn't extend to exempting the Prime Minister from vehicle licensing laws and airport safety standards based on nothing more than his own whims. In fact, that's more the territory of tinpot dictators than democratic leaders.

But Harper, his security detail, the RCMP and his party are all perfectly fine with that modus operandi.

So, to sum up...

Bad: a leader who believes himself to be above the law (particularly while voting for strict mandatory sentences for those not so privileged).

Worse: a leader who believes himself to be the law. Which is what we're stuck with now.

And more importantly, better: a leader with respect for both the law and the people who enforce it. Which is hopefully what we'll have as a country once the next federal election is in the books.

On tests of character

Dr. Dawg has rightly pointed out the Cons' attempt to invent a story based on Tom Mulcair's audacity in driving to his own parking spot. (Though we can be assured that members of the limo-propelled Con cabinet will never face precisely that same scenario.)

But if there is a story worth noting, I'd see it in comparing Mulcair's response to a simple misunderstanding to the way far worse stories have been handled by his political counterparts.

Here's Mulcair's reaction to the incident:

Thursday morning, however, a new guard was on duty at the checkpoint and she didn't recognize Mulcair.

"I waved. I thought I got a wave back but I didn't so we wound up having the slowest promenade in front of the building. I went around the back (followed by) another officer who'd been dispatched to see who it was. The other officer was able to verify my identity and that was it."

A while later, Mulcair said he went back to the checkpoint to clear up the misunderstanding.

"When I went back and talked to her, she was apologetic and I apologized myself for the misunderstanding. I didn't want the misunderstanding to last. She felt bad, I felt bad, we shook hands and that was the end of it."

In contrast, let's take a look at the Cons' responses to incidents involving deliberate breaches of security check points. First, there's Pierre Poilievre:

Poilievre, who could not be reached Friday for comment, apologized to the RCMP two days later after he learned CTV was doing a story on the incident.

And second, there's Helena Guergis:

Junior cabinet minister Helena Guergis has issued an apology for her rude behaviour at the Charlottetown airport, where she allegedly threw a tantrum and screamed obscenities at staff who asked her to take her boots off for security screening.

 "On Feb. 19, I was rushing to catch a flight at the Charlottetown airport and spoke emotionally to some staff members," Guergis, the minister of state for the status of women, said in an unusually abject mea culpa. "Regardless of my workload and personal circumstances, it was not appropriate and I apologize to airport and Air Canada staff."
...
In her apology issued Thursday, Guergis said: "It was certainly not my intention to create any additional stress for airport or Air Canada employees who already have a very difficult job."

And as an added bonus, here's Justin Trudeau today on the tens of thousands of dollars he's charged to charities and public institutions in speaking fees:

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau says he is willing to make amends with any charitable organizations that have paid him to speak and felt they did not get their money’s worth.

“I am going to sit down with every single one of them and make this right,” Trudeau told CTV’s Question Period Sunday, addressing an issue first raised in reports about his work with The Grace Foundation, which supports a seniors’ home.
...

“I’m willing to pay all the money back, if that’s what it comes to,” Trudeau said during an interview with CTV’s Question Period.

So where can we see a difference in the respective reactions? I'd see two key points worth noting.

First, in the cases of the Con and Lib examples, the MPs involved did absolutely nothing to try to address concerns until after the stories had surfaced in the media. Which signals that each sees the matter as solely one of public relations (see in particular Trudeau's "if that's what it comes to" as to his willingness to address charities' concerns), rather than a matter of personal integrity. In contrast, in Mulcair's case the effort to follow up with the new guard took place shortly after the events in question - at a point when it may not have been clear whether the events resulted in a story at all.

And more importantly, Mulcair actually reached out to the person involved and spoke to her directly - both to determine what happened, and to facilitate apologies on both sides.

Now, most of us might consider such politeness to be common courtesy. But it stands in stark contrast to the choice of Poilievre, Guergis and Trudeau to run to the media and issue blanket statements intended to depersonalize their issues - rather than to talk personally to the people individually affected by their actions.

In other words, the personal interactions necessary for any politician to do his or her job offer plenty of opportunities to test character based on variations of the Waiter Rule. And Mulcair looks to have passed with flying colours - while there's precious little evidence that the culture of the NDP's competition encourages their leaders to meet the standard.

[Edit: fixed typo.]

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Robert Cross and Glen McGregor point out how "Pierre Poutine" covered his tracks in the course of sending out fraudulent robocalls to direct voters away from the correct polls. And it's particularly worth noting how blatantly the entire scheme was planned to conceal the Cons' misdeeds even before the robocalls themselves were recorded.

- Dan Gardner rightly recognizes that the output of a political system often has much more to do with broad agreement among multiple parties rather than the choices of any "great man" at the centre of it. But I'm surprised he doesn't point out today's Canada as a rather glaring counterexample (even if "great" isn't the word many would use to describe Stephen Harper): would anybody outside the Cons' propaganda department claim that the current government's policy direction has anything in particular to do with following a national consensus, rather than trying to wrench the country as far from it as they can get away with?

- Heather Mallick takes aim at Jim Flaherty's belief that Canadian workers should have no choice but to accept any job they can get.

- Alexis Stoymenoff reports on what may be one of the more interesting consequences of the Cons' obsession with pipelines: namely, will the seizure and destruction of citizens' property prove as controversial on the federal level as it did (say) in propelling the Wildrose Party to its gains in Alberta?

- Finally, Alice comments on the political calculations which figure to go into any by-election in Etobicoke Centre. But perhaps more interesting than a close race for a single seat is this choice facing the Cons:

A risk for the (Cons) in pursuing the appeal is that it will further commit them to the position taken by Mr. Opitz's legal counsel before the Ontario Superior Court that it is not necessary for every procedural detail of the Elections Act to be followed in order to have a vote counted. This is the exact opposite of the strategy being pursued by the Republican Party south of the border, where very strict voting rules are being promulgated in Republican-controlled states apparently in order to curtail voting by certain groups and in areas less favourably disposed to their party.

A Healthy Society - Chapter 8 Discussion

In chapter 8 of A Healthy Society, Ryan Meili discusses how to improve our democratic system, distinguishing between the participatory action research model which is helping to drive development work in Mozambique and the top-down structures and cynical views of the political system that have all too often been the norm in Canada. And Meili suggests that treating the public as having an ongoing interest in politics rather than being simply a source of votes every four years may benefit both our political system as a whole, and the parties who best address the public interest:

From big picture issues like international development and energy production to local concerns around the allocation of health care resources and community economic development, it’s clear that people care deeply and want a say in the decisions that affect their lives and communities. The disconnect between passionate interest and lack of involvement stems from a growing perception that electoral politics are not a fruitful arena for public engagement. Be it the perception that the hands of governments are tied by international structures, beholden to large corporations, or simply disinterested in the voice of the average citizen, people feel they are being ignored in the democratic process.
...
A democracy is not a fixed and perfect system. It requires constant reconsideration to ensure that it functions smoothly and is truly representative.

Within a party, this would mean a continuous process of citizen engagement to keep it active and healthy. This goes beyond selling memberships and passing resolutions at conventions. Consultation can’t be token and inconsistent; it needs to be constant and meaningful. A party that develops mechanisms by which to compile the diverse opinions of multiple and varied constituencies can lead the way in setting a vision for change at a larger level. Structures that enforce accountability of those in leadership to the party membership will strengthen the commitment of citizens to that vision. This could lead to the commitment required to develop functional local councils on key issues: the economy, education, the environment, health care, which is to say a meaningful system of citizen leadership in addressing the determinants of health. In this way Canada could follow the example of other countries that have been successful in enacting significant reforms and increasing citizen engagement. Local areas, based on local understanding and expertise, can work with provincial and federal governments to meaningfully direct their own development. The party that leads such a transformation would be a party that had truly found its voice: the voice of one who listens.
...
The reason I choose to align myself on the left of the political spectrum is that while an attitude of “we’re all in this together” has room to emphasize an ethic of personal responsibility and initiative, an attitude of “every man for himself” cannot provide for all and actively interferes with the need for an organized approach to improving society. The key to a healthier society is not the elimination of government; it is the re-structuring of government to be what it should be: a mechanism for achieving the will of the people, a truly democratic institution that allows the good instincts and ideas of people to be reflected in a larger plan. It is the idea of society as a project we’re all working on, and government as the workshop.

Largely left out of Meili's focus on a localized decision-making structure is the role of the leader - which is of course in stark contrast to how politics are generally addressed by the media (and indeed analyzed within parties as well). But I'd think it's worth noting how important leadership is to a "workshop" model.

That isn't because I see all that much to be said for tight control, but because of how rare it seems for those with a position of nominal decision-making authority to offer genuine decision-making authority to anybody other than political advisers in the pursuit of maximum partisan gain. And the end result of the familiar tendency toward central control may be as much a problem for an individual leader's own goals in the long term as for the system as a whole.

In principle, the governing-from-the-centre model implemented by Trudeau (and taken to extreme lengths by Harper) allows for easier control over government in the short term. But the effect of building a party where all principles can be discarded at a moment's notice without cost - and where there are no countervailing forces listening to or representing smaller constituencies - is to make the party entirely vulnerable either to a takeover by anybody looking for the shortest path to the greatest amount of power in good times, or to utter collapse if a leadership choice goes wrong. And the federal Libs may offer a cautionary tale on both fronts - as Paul Martin's path to temporary power set the stage for what's looking like an ever more precarious existence.

In contrast, a party which builds and supports consultative and decision-making structures at multiple levels should be much more resistant to either outside domination or internal atrophy. But it only takes one leader going too far in centralizing control to alienate the citizen base that's vital to both partisan and governing success in the longer term. And so one of the most important criteria we should look for in any progressive leader is an emphasis on allowing decisions to be made by the people in the best position to make them - rather than assuming that the simplicity of top-down control is worth the long-term cost.

Saturday Morning Jack Layton Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Adam Radwanski astutely recognizes that the outpouring of sympathy and grief following Jack Layton's death speaks to the gap between what most political parties limit themselves to pursuing, and what many people actually want from their leaders:

All the available information, the numbers and research and chatter, tells us that we care less and less about them. That we don’t trust them. That they are generally considered among the lowest forms of human life.

Then one of them dies, and we go into a state of national mourning.

A cynic would say that we only love our politicians when they’re gone – and even then, only when they’ve left us in heartbreaking and terrifying ways that remind us of human frailties. But in the spirit of optimism, which seems fitting given Jack Layton’s much-quoted final words, it’s possible to see something else in his posthumous status as a hero. Perhaps we’re not really so inclined to look down on our politicians; perhaps we’re eager to look up to them, to like and occasionally even love them, if only they’ll give us the chance.
...
(T)he people who gathered en masse this week to say goodbye – not just in Ottawa and his hometown of Toronto, but in Vancouver and Edmonton and Montreal as well – didn’t seem to be thinking just of how Mr. Layton left them. They seemed also to be thankful for the traits that preceded his illness – the evident compassion for people, the relentless work ethic, the eagerness to work with others, the unshakable optimism, and the fact that he rarely seemed to be putting on any kind of act.

While it may have taken his death to bring all these attributes into sharper focus (and to cause some of his more grating characteristics, including his penchant for self-promotion, to be overlooked), the fact that he consistently polled as the most personally popular of the federal leaders suggests that at some level they always resonated. And what stands out, when you stop and think about it, is how unremarkable these supposedly remarkable qualities were – how little they went beyond what should be expected of the men and women who enter public life.
...
The optimists among us might wonder if, long after Mr. Layton has been laid to rest, politicians and the people who elect them might keep what happened this week in the backs of their minds. It needn’t be a relationship of unquestioning loyalty and admiration; far from it. But it’s not too late to save it from perpetual mistrust and resentment. If both sides are willing to treat politics like a noble calling, it just might become one again.

- Joan Bryden and Derrick O'Keefe both note that Layton himself made the decision to ensure that his death had some positive political repercussions. And I'd see another opportunity for reflection on our broader views of politics in that choice: can Layton's example inspire Canadians generally to see politics as something sufficiently important to be worth discussing, rather than a topic unfit for polite company?

- Meanwhile, Chantal Hebert theorizes that Layton's long-term political legacy will be his ability to bridge Canada's two solitudes.

- Finally, Gerald Caplan highlights the gap between the Canada Layton inspired to build, and the one the Cons are digging us into:

What a Canada he wanted us to become – a dominion of love and hope, of justice and equity, of inclusiveness and tolerance, of fairness and peace. On every issue he was on the side of the little guy, the underdog, and they knew they could always count on him.

Our bon Jack, un vrai mensch.

But today’s Canada does not seem to be living up to Jack’s expectations. It may well be moving in the opposite direction in a Stephen Harper-led culture war committed to “conservative” values that put individual self-interest ahead of community, divisive politics ahead of the common good, and the whims of charity ahead of the commitment to solidarity.

Update: Let's add Tabatha Southey's latest:

These stories make more than a persona. They make a man. All of which is to say I was mistaken: Jack Layton was not an archetypal politician. He was more passionate, compassionate, shrewder, tougher and smarter than most. But – such is the curse of familiarity – years of accumulated evidence brought me to that conclusion with a thud only when I read of his death.

I'd taken it for granted that whether or not I believed he could realize it or applauded all the methods he used attempting to achieve it, Jack Layton would always be there, articulating, more often than not, my vision of what it meant to be just and Canadian.

[Edit: Fixed links.]

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Alice's CPSA wrapup is well worth a read in general, but one bit of post-election analysis looks to have plenty of potential to carry over into the new Parliament:

From Ipsos-Reid’s work on leadership, Michael Ignatieff had been so far behind both Harper and Layton prior to the campaign, it begged the question for Darrell Bricker as to why the Liberals had pushed for an election at all. On key questions about preference for a coalition versus a Harper government, voters split 50:50 prior to the election (and the Conservatives finished up with 40 of the 50, and a majority government). But when asked whom they believed – Harper who said the opposition would form a coalition, or Ignatieff who said they wouldn’t – survey respondents sided with Harper 62:38.

And when asked pre-election who would have made the best prime minister of a coalition government, 59 per cent picked Jack Layton, while 27 per cent preferred Ignatieff and 14 thought Duceppe would. Moreover Layton was winning on every measure of likeability (including as the leader respondents would most like to have a coffee or a beer with), though Harper always topped the list on measures of competence (“who will get things done”). Bricker said the Liberals must have been seeing the same numbers, and said it was no surprise the NDP would have wanted to go to an election if they saw the same thing as well.

Of course the Libs no longer have to worry about public perceptions of Ignatieff - and it may be that an interim leader will avoid the worst of the ad blitzes that undermined their previous two standard-bearers. But there's little indication that they'll be able to avoid a leadership disadvantage for a long time to come, which may only help to entrench the election alignment going forward.

- Scott Stinson recognizes that Stephen Harper's political strategy is based on playing Canadians for suckers - leaving only the question of whether he'll remember the lesson by the next time Harper puts on a facade for electoral gain:

Over the last five years, anyone inclined to rationalize Stephen Harper’s latest foray into decidedly non-conservative territory always had the minority government to point to. His hold on power was tenuous, one could say, so there were times he just had to choke down his principles and take action to protect his party’s station.

So, when David Emerson crossed the floor in 2006, it was only so B.C. could have an experienced voice at the Cabinet table. When the Conservatives created a regional slush fund — sorry, economic development agency — for southern Ontario in 2009, it was simply a way to shore up votes in a key area. And when he began appointing partisans to the Senate in 2009 — in big blue dollops — it was just so his government could ensure that House legislation wasn’t held up by an unelected body.

He didn’t like doing these things, you see, but they just had to be done. Couldn’t be helped. Hold your nose, look away, and await the day when this unpleasantness was no longer necessary.

That day was supposed to have arrived on May 3. But as Wednesday morning’s events in Ottawa have made brazenly clear, the Prime Minister is not about to do a damn thing differently. Those of us who thought he might? There’s a word for that: suckers.

- But in fairness, Kady notes that the history of Conservative Senate reformers abandoning their principles when the opportunity for patronage arises is as old as Canada itself.

- Finally, Andrew Leach is right to note that reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will require some significant action (which the Cons are only exacerbating by ruling out a cap-and-trade system). But the more important message is that continued delays out of the Harper government will only make matters worse:

Mr. Kent’s decisions will determine whether or not we are in a position to meet our Copenhagen commitments, and determine either the costs we incur to meet our targets or the costs we incur as a result of not meeting them. Meeting them will require the most aggressive GHG reduction efforts undertaken by any economy in the world, and the challenge gets tougher with every day we do not act. Not meeting them may limit access to markets for our exported products and access to capital for our investment projects. Inaction could also provide other nations with justification for the imposition of low carbon fuel standards or border adjustment tariffs on our products.

If we are not going to meet our targets because we are not prepared to impose the regulations which would be required, then we need a significant shift in our strategy internationally. We should recognize that the gold standard for global effort on GHGs, the EU, has imposed a carbon price on their economy which only amounts to about $20/ton today. Canada would be much better served by committing to match our effort to theirs, rather than committing to do more and delivering less.

With a majority government in hand, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mr. Kent can and should set a clear path forward for Canada on GHG emissions. Whatever choices they make, they will not be easy ones.

On leadership

Gerald Caplan's election post-mortem is worth a read. But I can't help but to think he's utterly missed one factor that gives the NDP a far better chance of overtaking the Harper Cons than any recent incarnation of the Libs:

Then there’s the less high-falutin business of down-and-dirty politics. Progressives of all stripes must never underestimate this little caper of Jack’s massage. The smear of Jack Layton by the powerful the Sun Media chain is only the tiniest tip of the iceberg of garbage that would be thrown at any liberal party that had the slightest chance of forming a government. The history of the Rae government is the model to study – a systematic, relentless gang-up of various media, businesses of all sizes, government-relations firms, bond-rating agencies, many professionals, and lots of insubordinate cops, including senior ones. Even respectable sources can be expected to join the fray, as shown by the recent story in this very paper agreeing that Mr. Layton was smeared by the Sun but insisting that, after all, it was a true smear.

The other side plays for keeps. They believe they’re in a war and act accordingly. They smear, lie, malign, distort, divide, terrify, destroy. They play it the American Way, as Michael Ignatieff can testify. It’s like Jon Stewart versus the Tea Party. He’s clever, knowledgeable and adorable and wins debating points. They’re vicious and unscrupulous and win the war.

While there's no doubt that the Cons and their media cronies can be counted on to leave no mud unflung, there's a key difference between their attempts to smear Layton and their ruthless campaigns against the last couple of Lib leaders.

Unlike the Libs' new leaders (including whoever they end up choosing next), Layton isn't starting from a position where he's largely undefined with the Canadian public. Instead, he's been the most positively-perceived leader in Canadian politics for the better part of the past decade. And his position only seems to have been strengthened as Layton won more public attention through this year's campaign:

Marzolini was gobsmacked. “I’ve never seen in 580 election campaigns anybody as popular as Jack Layton ... Basically, he was on a par with Don Cherry in the eyes of Canadians. He was right up there with David Suzuki and Canadians think Suzuki walks on water.”

Which isn't to say that I'd expect Layton's stratospheric positive impressions to stay entirely in place now and 2015 as he becomes the chief focus of the Cons' attacks.

But Layton's stature as a well-defined and well-respected leader among the general public gives him a far better chance of weathering the storm than any new leader facing the Cons' usual attack-ad blitz - as Layton himself demonstrated as he came under attack at the end of the election campaign. And the fact that the Cons will have a much tougher time getting negative impressions to stick to Layton makes for reason to see the NDP's rise as a plus for the chances of toppling Harper next time out.

Post-Election Questions: The Liberals

From what I've seen, all indications are that the Liberals plan to take some time to rebuild before starting a leadership race or otherwise making any significant moves. And it certainly makes sense for a party which has been trapped in short-term thinking for half a decade to take the opportunity to take a step back to consider its future.

But there's one major question about the plan to put off the big decisions that look like they'll be left for a year or two.

Can the Liberals stay relevant while putting off any definition of their direction or values?

Granted, it sounds well and good to focus on organization-building, fund-raising and other structural work. And there's no doubt the Libs have some catching up to do on those fronts.

But in order to rebuild to any significant degree, the Libs will need to extend their appeal beyond the limited cadre of party insiders that's proven less and less effective with each passing election. And as long as the Libs are on autopilot, unable to take strong positions which might not fit with future leadership and policy choices, it'll be awfully tough to motivate the donors and volunteers the Libs need to rebuild.

Indeed, it's entirely possible that an overly long interim leadership period will only exacerbate what's already been a weakness in limiting themselves to reactive questioning of Con scandals. And there's less reason than ever to think the Libs will be the beneficiaries to the extent they're able to make any dirt stick.

What's more, the Libs' competitors aren't going to have any incentive to leave the most promising ground for future growth unclaimed in the meantime.

The NDP has already become more trusted than the Libs on issues like health care, the environment and government services - and it'll surely be working to entrench that position with its new wave of MPs. Meanwhile, the Cons will presumably plan to line up corporate Canada behind their government and further pitch an economic message as part of Harper's long-standing plan to become Canada's establishment party. And the more both parties do to own those issues, the less opening there will be for the Libs to try to retake them once they've held a leadership race.

So while it makes sense for the Libs to take some time to consider their options, they'll also need to confront the reality that those options may only become more limited if they wait too long. And if that happens, the tasks of leading and rebuilding the party will look even more daunting and less worthwhile than they appear already.

On non-confidence votes

As usual, any discussion of Michael Ignatieff's future needs to be prefaced with caveats about there being no mechanism for the Libs to change leadership until past the next election, about there being little prospect of another leader winning much more internal support, about how the inevitable Con ad blitz would affect anybody, et cetera.

But all that aside, it's rather stunning that after a summer spent trying to cultivate a partisan base, Ignatieff's leadership is this unpopular among his own party:

Half of respondents to The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey say the Conservatives need to replace Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

And 64 per cent say the Liberals need to replace Michael Ignatieff.

Harper at least enjoys solid support among those who identify themselves as Conservatives: 74 per cent say they don’t need a new leader.

By contrast, 59 per cent of Liberals want Ignatieff to go.

What's particularly astonishing is the lack of any meaningful difference between Lib partisans and the general public in wanting to see Ignatieff gone: among both the general public and Lib supporters, roughly 6 in 10 respondents apparently want a change of leadership.

At best, one can try to paint that remarkable similarity as partly the result of other parties' supporters wanting to see Ignatieff stay in place (so that the level of actual support for Iggy would still be higher within the Libs themselves). But that explanation hardly offers a vote of confidence for Ignatieff's ability to inspire either his own side to make gains, or supporters of other parties to join him. And one has to wonder whether the Libs will see a need to find a way to get rid of Ignatieff if even a majority of their own supporters don't think he's up for the job.