Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Scott Stinson writes that there's no reasonable explanation for Donald Trump's constantly-shifting position on tariffs, while Greg Sargent discusses the growing body of evidence that the tariffs are primarily an attempt to shake down Canada for its sovereignty. And Michael Byers argues that the U.S.' hostility to Canada represents a decisive reason to cancel the outstanding order for F-35 fighter jets which would further their control over our national defence - particularly since the U.S. is making clear that longstanding alliances and promises can't be counted on. 

- Lawrence Douglas discusses how the Trump regime is turning the corporate media into a propaganda machine for his government. And Anthony Nadler and Reece Peck set out how to build a reality-based ecosystem to amplify the voice of the working class. 

- Nora Loreto rightly argues that we shouldn't allow Canadian-branded corporate raiders to profiteer off of the U.S.' threats, while Justina Ray notes that a long-term perspective needs to include recognition of the importance of a healthy environment. And Matthew Mendelsohn and Jon Shell discuss some of the options to keep our own economy in Canadian hands, while Craig Lord reports on the first step in that process as the federal government makes a long-needed move to include economic security as a basis for reviewing takeovers.  

- Jared Wesley points out how the shift in public priorities from individualism to collective action is anathema to the plans of the Cons and their right-wing cousins. 

- Finally, Tanya Lewis talks to public health experts about some of the lessons learned after five years of COVID-19. And Lore Kelley interviews Katherine Wu about how a growing measles outbreak precipitated by vaccine rejection is starting to cause its own cataclysmic effects for American children. 

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Lauren Pelley surveys the latest on COVID-19 - including the reality that viral variants and different affected populations are resulting in it presenting with different symptoms than previously. Natalie Grover discusses how the Delta variant seems to be winning the race against vaccines in the UK. And CBC News' Manitoba update includes news of a girl under 10 who has died of the coronavirus. 

- Pooja Salhotra and Amy Zimmer report on New York City's plan to ensure all classrooms have two air purifiers to limit the spread of COVID-19 among unvaccinated school populations. And BBC News reports on Australia's decisive moves to stop the spread of the Delta variant. 

- Aparna Gopalan discusses how big pharma is using COVID vaccines as a profit centre at the expense of public access in India (just as it's doing elsewhere). 

- Sudipta Saha argues that we can't expect an exploitative capitalist system to respond to either the COVID-19 pandemic or the climate crisis. And Katharine Hayhoe writes that we shouldn't need another IPCC report to recognize that it's vital to start reversing our climate's breakdown as quickly as we can. 

- Michael Byers calls out the Trudeau Libs for abandoning Canada's long-held (and hard-won) resistance to ballistic missile defence systems. 

- Finally, Leyland Cecco reports on Murray Sinclair's call to reveal the "undiscovered truths" of residential schools before it will be possible to begin to heal. 

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Linda McQuaig discusses how Justin Trudeau, Bill Morneau and the federal Libs are focused mostly on further privileging the rich:

There’s lots of lamenting about the way the rich keep getting richer while ordinary folk struggle to keep their heads above water. Along with the lamenting, there’s usually some resigned muttering about how it’s all just part of today’s global economy.

But there’s a much simpler explanation: our governments keep passing laws that make the rich richer and ordinary citizens poorer.

An example of this is currently being played out in Ottawa as the Trudeau government — ostensibly a “progressive” government that champions the middle class — is moving forward with legislation aimed at stripping away pension benefits from potentially hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers.
...
The Trudeau government defends its proposed changes on the grounds that workers must “consent” to having their pensions converted to the new riskier format.

But this is like the “consent” given by women who get groped by a powerful boss; employers can get their unionized workers to “consent” by locking them out if they don’t agree to the pension change at the bargaining table.

Certainly, Trudeau and Morneau seem comfortable with today’s corporate mantra that workers can no longer count on things in the new economy. Learning to live with risk is the new black.

The corporate keenness to foist riskier pensions on their workers is not driven by necessity. Corporate profits have risen significantly in recent years, even as companies have switched to the stingier pensions that transfer all risk to employees.

Even fabulously rich corporations are adopting the new pensions — not because they can’t afford to pay workers fixed pension benefits like they used to, but because they’d rather not be obliged to do so.
...
Risk may be good for those lower down the ladder, but for those at the top, guaranteed lifetime abundance still apparently has its place in the global economy. 

- And Cristobal Young points out that a look at actual evidence strongly challenges the claim that high-wealth individuals will leave jurisdictions with more progressive tax structures.

- Nick Hopkins notes that the UK Conservative government is choosing not to crack down ton tax avoidance, preferring instead to inflict austerity measures on the people with the least. And Jim Tankersley discusses a union-led push to test whether corporate tax giveaways will be passed along in the form of wages as claimed by Donald Trump and his band of merry looters (in the full knowledge that there's no plausible reason to think they will).

- The Globe and Mail's editorial board discusses why net neutrality is essential for consumer and business fairness, while Colin Horgan writes that the U.S.' policies may have a profound influence far beyond its borders. And Michael Byers makes the case that Canada should ensure the protection of net neutrality as part of its NAFTA bargaining position.

- Finally, Jonathan Thompson maps out the U.S.' hundreds of pipeline spills over just the last two years. And Erik Heinrich notes that it's far from clear who will ultimately foot the bill for spills in Canada - and that even pipeline proponents may have no interest in going ahead with projects if faced with the environmental risk.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Larry Elliott interviews Joseph Stiglitz about the rise of Donald Trump and other demagogues in the wake of public anger over inequality and economic unfairness. And Stiglitz also joins a group of economists calling for an end to austerity in the UK.

- Phillip Mendonca-Vieira highlights how rent controls provide some needed stability for tenants who would otherwise face a constant risk of housing upheaval. Emily Mathieu and CBC News each report on some of the elements of the impending federal housing plan - though it looks to be noteworthy mostly for falling short of any intention to treat housing as a human right. And Kate Wilson writes about BCGEU's much more ambitious plan to ensure that housing is available and affordable in British Columbia. 

- Jessica Lindsay discusses the connection between poverty and mental health. And David Baxter reports on new research showing that over 24% of Saskatchewan's children are living in poverty.

- James Wilt writes about the widespread public support in Canada for strong action to rein in climate change. And Louise Dickson reports on Michael Byers' suggestion that the corporations who have profited by polluting our planet should be on the hook for the resulting costs.

- Finally, Richard Wood offers seven reasons to scrap the distorted results of first-past-the-post in favour of a proportional electoral system.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Linda McQuaig discusses the radical difference between how Canadians want to see public resources used (based on the example set by governments elsewhere), and the determination of the Cons and their corporate allies to instead fritter away every dime of fiscal capacity the federal government manages to find:

Last week, Germany completed its plan to provide free university tuition to all its students. It’s an idea that no doubt would excite the hopes and dreams of young people in Canada — which explains the need to snuff it out before it catches on.

Certainly, it’s the kind of big idea that powerful interests here are keen to keep off the radar as Ottawa finds itself flush with surplus cash — $6 billion next year, with bigger surpluses expected in future years.

Accordingly, a phalanx of right-wing think tanks is gearing up to ensure that, after years of cutbacks and austerity, ordinary Canadians don’t get any wild ideas about spending that surplus money on national programs that would greatly improve their lives — programs that could, for instance, provide them with affordable access to universities, child care, home care, public transit, adequate pension benefits, a pharmacare plan, unemployment insurance benefits that are actually available to people who are unemployed, etc...

Suppressing such aspirations in Canadians has long been the stock-in-trade of right-wing think tanks and the corporate interests that fund them. And they’ve been hugely successful in keeping these sorts of generous public services and benefits — which are the norm in most northern European countries — well off the agenda here.
...
(W)hen Ottawa started generating big surpluses in the late 1990s, it quickly began slashing taxes — particularly on corporations and high-income earners. As a result, Ottawa now collects about $50 billion less in taxes per year than it would have if it hadn’t done all that tax-cutting, according to labour economist Toby Sanger. That has deprived governments of the revenue they’d need to provide the kind of enhanced public programs many Canadians probably would like.

Tax-slashing has been the pattern in Canada for decades. It has left Ottawa, in recent years, collecting less in tax revenue as a percentage of GDP than it has at any point since 1940. No wonder we can’t afford European-style social programs. Public revenue has been vanishing into the pockets of corporations and the very rich.

- Meanwhile, Robert Kuttner traces the factors which led to a more equal distribution of wealth after World War II - and which unfortunately have had far less impact on more recent economic developments.

- Ian Welsh notes that global inequality and needless austerity are making ebola into far more of a threat than it should be. And Richard Murphy charts how the UK's move toward needless government-slashing resulted in the reversal of what looked to be an economic recovery.

- Andrew Gage and Michael Byers examine how climate change may create enormous risks for the oil industry (and governments who rely unduly on it as an economic engine). And Aaron Wherry muses about how much more we'd be doing about climate change if only it could be solved through combat.

- Finally, Ludvic Moquin-Beaudry discusses how the NDP's continued strength in Quebec flows from the desire of voters to play a significant role - and have a strong voice - on the federal political scene. And Graeme Truelove highlights the NDP's use of smart parliamentary tactics to raise the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women even as the Cons seek to stifle any debate.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Bill Moyers offers up a superb summary and reading list on inequality:

Inequality in America: How bad is it? In 2011, Mother Jones published a series of charts capturing the depth of inequality in the US, which remains one of the best big-picture looks at the problem out there. We have greater inequality of accumulated wealth than income, and University of California sociologist William Domhoff’s “Who Rules America” provided the details. In The Atlantic, Max Fisher offered a map of global inequality that named the US among the most unequal wealthy countries, and Mark Gongloff reported in the Huffington Post about a study that found that we have the fastest growth in inequality in the developed world. Thomas Shapiro, Tatjana Meschede and Sam Osoro wrote a brief on the black/ white wealth gap at the Institute on Assets and Social Policy, and Brookings’ Benjamin Harris and Melissa Kearny offered 12 facts about America’s struggling lower middle class.

I’m not poor. Why should I care? Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett argued in The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better that greater inequality correlates with, and may cause, all sorts of social harms – from crime to obesity to alcoholism. John Crace interviewed the authors for The Guardian, and Wilkinson penned an article for CNN. A study conducted by Sir Michael Marmot, a professor of epidemiology at University College London, found that high levels of inequality cause stress and harm the health of both rich and poor. Justin Wolfers noted that higher inequality correlates with less upward mobility. A report by the UN found that higher levels of inequality were accompanied by slower overall growth. World Bank economist Branko Milanovic found that it’s more “fun” to live in more equal societies.

- Justine Hunter writes about the litigation expected to follow from the Cons' rubber-stamp for the Northern Gateway pipeline.

- Sheila Pratt reports that 75 officers from Alberta's already non-functional environmental regulator have been lured into an industry-funded group doesn't offer much reason for confidence that public interests are going to be represented any better in the near future. And Douglas Fischer takes a look at the massive amounts of private money being used to fund climate denialism with less and less donor transparency.

- Michael Byers critiques the Cons' obsession with the North Pole. And Matthew Fisher writes that the Cons' posturing has taken away from efforts to present a sound scientific position - which may result on Canada losing out on claims it might otherwise have been able to win.

- Finally, Joel Harden reviews Brad Lavigne's Building the Orange Wave - and it's well worth noting his take on what's often left out of Lavigne's otherwise strong account:

This, as some have said, wasn’t the NDP our grandparents built. Gone were any pretensions to socialism in the party’s constitution. Absent were genuine efforts to row against the tide of established thinking.

Present instead was "social-ism," an approach Tony Blair championed (using the ideas of Anthony Giddens) to move the British Labour Party "beyond left and right." Layton’s adoption of this mantra involved repeated claims to make "Parliament work for people."

Lavigne claims the party did this at several crucial moments: during budget wrangles with Liberals in 2004 and 2005, and the parliamentary dispute of 2008-2009. I’ll leave it to others to debate the merits of those claims.

My issue is with Lavigne's view that the NDP’s rise came from a shift "beyond politics," and embrace of populist messaging, neither of which rings true for me. Lavigne’s focus on high-level strategy undermines his assessment of Layton’s strengths, and why many activists and movements held him in such high regard.

For me, the Orange Wave started with Layton’s courting of Quebec voters and reputation as an activist politician.

Unlike most NDP leaders, he didn’t antagonize Quebec on constitutional questions, was proudly green and opposed to war in Afghanistan. This made the NDP, as Lavigne explains, a magnet for public animosity in Quebec against Harper, and a rallying point for those seeking to oust him.
...
There’s a real difference between strategy to seek a political vision, and strategy as a political vision -- we need more of the former and less of the latter.

As Lavigne notes, the Conservatives have built a solid infrastructure to communicate their ideas and mobilize grassroots supporters. A recent study insists that the left needs a similar infrastructure to challenge corporate power and its dissemination of fend-for-yourself, neoliberal ideas. Strategists like Lavigne have an important role to play in that process, but not without the energy, and commitment, of social movements.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Andrew Coyne sees the disproportionate influence wielded by the representatives elected by a minority of voters in Canada and the U.S. as evidence that both countries should move toward proportional representation:

Two systems, both dysfunctional, in opposing ways. Is there nevertheless a common thread between the two? I think there is. Both have become hostage to small groups of voters, the objects of vastly disproportionate amounts of the parties’ time and attention. In both, the parties are sharply divided on regional lines. And in both, politics has become increasingly, corrosively nasty. I suggest these trends are not accidental, but have to do with a feature the two share: the first past the post electoral system.

The most important thing to know about first past the post is that it is highly leveraged: Not only do the parties’ representation in the legislature bear no resemblance to their respective shares of the popular vote, but tiny swings in the vote lead to exponentially larger swings in electoral outcomes.

Finding and mobilizing those votes are thus a matter of huge consequence to the parties. In Canada, these are typically the swing voters, the uncommitted and disengaged; in the more polarized politics of the U.S., it is more a matter of “ginning up the base,” motivating your most committed — and therefore demanding — supporters to get out to vote.

So where our politics has converged on the centre, theirs is increasingly dominated by the fringes. But in both, politics has become less and less about the broad public interest, more and more focused on appealing to a small fraction of the electorate. Some votes really are worth a great deal more than others.

- Gary Mason discusses Vancouver's crisis in dealing with severe mental health issues. But it's particularly worth noting that a drastic increase in arrests based on dangers to public safety doesn't seem to have been matched with much effort by any level of government to actually fund treatment for the people fighting mental illness.

- Pat Atkinson wonders whatever happened to the Cons' promise of a culture of accountability - and Tabatha Southey's best suggestions as to how to find a plausible justification for the latest abuses of public money by Mike Duffy can't quite answer the question. Instead, it's the NDP proposing to fix the problems exacerbated by Stephen Harper - both in addressing patronage and cronyism generally, and the Senate in particular.

- Michael Byers observes that the Cons' military procurement plans seem to be largely inspired by Monty Python.

- Finally, Bruce Johnstone comments on the Sask Party's inability to cooperate with anybody:

What it suggests is a government that “doesn’t play well with others.” In other words, the Saskies don’t like sharing power or tax dollars with any organization they don’t have complete control over. The common theme running through the Wall government’s economic development record is impatience with any group, program or policy that a) they didn’t come up with or b) isn’t controlled directly or indirectly by them.

One could accept the Sask. Party government’s small-c conservative philosophy that government shouldn’t be subsidizing business or “picking winners and losers,’’ if they actually practised what they preached. But for every program or organization they’ve shut down, a new one has taken its place, spending even more tax dollars than its predecessor.

 [Edit: fixed typo.]

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Paul Krugman draws a much-needed connection between austerity politics and Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine:

What Smith didn’t note, somewhat surprisingly, is that his argument is very close to Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, with its argument that elites systematically exploit disasters to push through neoliberal policies even if these policies are essentially irrelevant to the sources of disaster. I have to admit that I was predisposed to dislike Klein’s book when it came out, probably out of professional turf-defending and whatever — but her thesis really helps explain a lot about what’s going on in Europe in particular.

And the lineage goes back even further. Two and a half years ago Mike Konczal reminded us of a classic 1943 (!) essay by Michal Kalecki, who suggested that business interests hate Keynesian economics because they fear that it might work — and in so doing mean that politicians would no longer have to abase themselves before businessmen in the name of preserving confidence. This is pretty close to the argument that we must have austerity, because stimulus might remove the incentive for structural reform that, you guessed it, gives businesses the confidence they need before deigning to produce recovery.

And sure enough, in my inbox this morning I see a piece more or less deploring the early signs of success for Abenomics: Abenomics is working — but it had better not work too well. Because if it works, how will we get structural reform?

So one way to see the drive for austerity is as an application of a sort of reverse Hippocratic oath: “First, do nothing to mitigate harm”. For the people must suffer if neoliberal reforms are to prosper.

- Meanwhile, Esther Hsieh writes that Norway's rejection of laissez-faire economics has resulted in the most productive economy on the planet - with social support for skilled workers (such as universal child care) and income equality serving as key drivers of that economic success. And the Canadian Institute for Health Information observes that universal public health care serves as an important form of income equalization in Canada.

- Michael Byers and Purple Library Guy each offer an assessment of the lessons to be drawn from British Columbia's election results. And Alison reminds us what Christy Clark has sounded like when she hasn't been trying to neutralize her party's penchant for environmental destruction.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom recognizes that the problems with Canada's Senate go far beyond Mike Duffy. And Michael Harris notes that the scandal surrounding Duffy includes Stephen Harper and his inner circle (no matter how much they scramble to escape accountability now):

But we do not live in a better world, we live in this one. Stephen Harper’s inclination is to make up the rules as he goes along. I for one do not see this as loyalty to his minions, but rather as a show of power. When, for example, the ethics commissioner has caught a cabinet minister or two in a breach of the rules, the PM has been known to simply dismiss the finding. The cases of Christian Paradis and Jim Flaherty come to mind.

So Harper’s initial instinct was to save Duffy. He began that process by taking the public on a mind-numbing sojourn into the rules and regulations of the Senate. He used the escape clause of the Deloitte audit, that by Senate definition, knowing where you live is a brain-twister. And he has never had a problem dismissing the ethical part of any problem if it collided with his agenda. Look what he did to Kevin Page for the high crime of outing the PM’s lie over the cost of the F-35s.

But dry-cleaning Duffy quickly turned into a sticky proposition. For one thing, this one has gone right up the nose of the public and people are gagging. And then there are those two mutually exclusive stories about how the senator’s debts were paid off.

...

One enduring question is this: Why did Nigel Wright bail out Mike Duffy before the sharp pencil boys from Deloitte had even finished their damning audit?

But there is an even bigger issue. If Stephen Harper doesn’t see anything wrong with his chief of staff making a $90,000 gift to a sitting Conservative senator engulfed in scandal, is there anything he wouldn’t endorse for partisan gain?

Monday Morning Links

An opinion-heavy set of links to start your week, as there's been some great commentary worth highlighting...

- Greg pins down Stephen Harper's governing philosophy:

Since Canadians insist on paying their taxes, we must spend the money as wastefully and thoughtlessly as possible until such time as we can convince them that taxes should be abolished.

- Chet offers his theory as to why the Cons are so eager to trash Canada's census:

I think that what Harper really doesn't want is for the census data to show what the effects of his own policies have been in the here and now. Harper appears to like control more than anything else, and there's just no way he can control what a thorough and complete census will tell. He's perfectly happy to take the limited data that he gets from Bay Street which seem to show that Canada's economy is doing all right in the abstract: he may not be so happy about broader census data that may show that such prosperity is not getting through to average people.

This is why governments of all stripes have often grumbled about StatsCan: the facts are usually any government's most powerful critic. Want to gauge how a party has fulfilled its election promises? The numbers can tell you a lot about that. But this government is going farther than just complaining about its marks: it's burning its report card before Mom and Dad ever get to see it.

This is in part a legacy matter: Harper wants to control his own reputation long-term, and the one thing he can't control is reliable, independently collected and analyzed data. Therefore, he's just going to prevent its collection in the first place.

- Michael Byers points out that the Cons' $16 billion fighter jet purchase looks to be based more on what the U.S. wants us to buy than what Canada actually needs:

The cost of developing the F-35 is estimated at an astonishing $276 billion (U.S.). The cost of the F-22, which is based largely on the same technology, is even higher.

The United States is desperate to spread those costs, without selling its very best planes. It needs Canada firmly on board so that other allies — some of whom are wavering — will also commit to buying F-35s. It can't wait for a tendering process.

Neither can the Harper government. For opening the procurement to tenders would require revisiting the ridiculously narrow operational requirements, and reveal that we've been sold a pig in a poke — on instructions from the Pentagon.

- Finally, lost in the revelry over the fact that the CRTC rightly denied Fox News North's application for a mandatory license is the fact that the Cons' former spinmeister apparently doesn't plan to take "no" for an answer:

Kory Teneycke, a former chief spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper who is at the helm of the new channel, said the company is preparing an amended Category 1 application and will soon try again with the CRTC.

"We're optimistic that this will be resolved in a way that works for us and allows Canadians from coast to coast to have access to the channel," he said. "We're confident that we'll have a licence in place that meets our needs prior to our scheduled launch in the new year."

Which leads me to wonder: will anything be "amended" on the new application aside from a hand-written note saying "Approve this or die. - PMSH"?

On substantial control

Michael Byers becomes the first prominent NDPer (Non-Saints Division) to chime in to support a NDP/Lib merger. But while everybody will find something to disagree with in his piece, it's particularly worth noting his take as to who would figure to exert the most influence in a merged party:

(A)ny concord between the Liberals and NDP would have to be a partnership of equals. The Liberals have lost more than half their seats over the last three elections; the NDP have almost tripled theirs. The NDP, in short, has the momentum — and therefore more to lose.

Jack Layton is likely playing the long game, hoping either to replace the Liberal party as the dominant party of the centre-left or to merge with and substantially control it.

Michael Ignatieff cannot be the leader of a merged party. He is perceived by many New Democrats as too right-wing, too tainted by his views on torture and Iraq, too elitist and patronizing. This likely explains why Ignatieff vehemently opposes the merger idea.

On turnout

Alice has some excellent advice for anybody who wants to focus unduly on cutting into other parties' support as the main growth strategy for the NDP:

Using the per cent of the electorate rather than per cent of the vote allows us to look at the fastest-growing “party” of the last 20 years in British Columbia: non-voters. In fact, if the non-voters were a political party, they would have won every B.C. seat in 2008 except Saanich-Gulf Islands and Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale.

Looking at elections results this way, we notice that Conservative support has remained fairly constant in most B.C. federal ridings since 1988. It’s just that the turnout is down.
...
NDP support is most likely to drop when turnout drops, since their support correlates with low-income status, and that correlates with lower voter participation. And in 1993 as the NDP vote plummeted in virtually every B.C. riding, about half of the drop could be accounted for by big increases in non-voters. But in 2004, the B.C. seats showing the biggest gains for the NDP were also seats where turnout went up.

So, Byers may want to go back to the drawing board to find a more successful formula, and perhaps a different dance partner.

Of course, the alternatives aren't necessarily mutually exclusive: presumably some of the same messages which may help to win additional voters away from other parties may also get some new participants involved in the political process, and the NDP will likely need a mix of both to continue its recent growth. But to the extent there's a choice to be made, there's more theoretical upside to be found in working to boost turnout overall than in following suit with the Harper Cons' brand of slice-and-dice politics - and it may be that the next possible wave of support for the NDP among regular voters will only surface once it's brought out enough new participants to reshape the current party standings.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that the by-elections themselves provided a strong example of the dangers of low turnout in a riding where the NDP made relatively modest gains compared to what it may have hoped for:

An official with Elections Canada said that based on by-election data they had available dating back to 1960, Monday’s 22.3 per cent turnout in Hochelaga is the lowest.

I've pointed out one side of the equation in the riding, to the effect that a clear cross-party push would be needed to make the NDP the default federalist option for the riding. But with the Bloc taking more than half the riding's votes as it was, it's apparent that no amount of federalist cooperation will flip ridings like Hochelaga unless it's paired with some additional turnout as well.

All of which is to say that for all the differences between Canada's assorted regions, the most important part of the NDP's formula for growth may well be the same across the country. And while it will be difficult to tell before a general election whether the party has made any progress in reversing the recent slide in voter interest, that may be the ultimate measure as to whether the NDP can continue to build from its current position.

On ceasefires

Michael Byers' proposal for cooperation among the national opposition parties in the next federal election figures to be a major topic of conversation over the next little while. So let's take a closer look at what Byers suggests, as well as the impact it figures to have on the political scene.

To start off with, there seems to be little indication that Byers' suggestion is based on anything more than a personal idea. Significantly, he doesn't even begin to discuss the obvious practical hurdles associated with a plan - particularly the question of how (if it all) the plan could be approved within the NDP's existing structures which don't allow for the same degree of top-down control exercised by other parties' leaders. And aside from raising an issue as to how democratic such a proposal would be, that hints to me that Byers hasn't looked ahead as to whether the proposal could practically be implemented - nor discussed the idea in detail with anybody who has considered the question.

So what about the substance of his proposal? I've posted before about my take on what elements a deal for electoral cooperation would have to include for me to see it as a plus overall - and while Byers' plan comes somewhat closer to the mark than some others I've seen, it still seems to be lacking in a few key areas.

First and most fundamentally, there's little reason to think that an electoral ceasefire would actually hold much of a chance of success.

Byers bases his argument on the raw 2008 vote totals for the NDP and the Libs, without so much as recognizing the possibility that one party's votes wouldn't necessarily transfer en masse to the other. But even that would lead to a Parliament where the two parties' combined seats would fall short of a majority - leaving little prospect that a referendum on proportional representation would be allowed to take place without the Cons and Bloc voting down any new government.

And even that scenario is likely too generous an interpretation of the probable outcome. After all, the track record of multi-party deals suggests that any combined effort tends to add up to less than the sum of its parts - a problem which seems particularly obvious for NDP ridings under an agreement where a substantial number of Lib votes would bleed to the Cons. And there's equally some history of completely unforeseen consequences: see e.g. the B.C. effort by the two traditional parties to suppress the CCF, which instead led to the rise of Social Credit as it unraveled.

Meanwhile, there are also pitfalls in Byers' plan if it succeeds beyond anybody's expectations. Byers himself notes that there would be a chance of the Libs winning a majority government if a combined effort manages to turn the tide strongly enough against the Cons. But he doesn't note the obvious implication of that possibility: a Lib majority government would have absolutely no incentive to follow through on a promise to do anything about proportional representation, and the NDP would have no hammer at its disposal to force the issue. So Byers' plan falls short on the question of enforceability as well.

And as an added problem, the focus on 2008 results would lead to a complete lack of flexibility. To the extent both parties were to agree on a common goal of toppling the Cons, it would seem obvious that it's in nobody's interest for a party to be arbitrarily assigned a seat where it doesn't have the best chance of winning. But the allocation of seats based on past results combined with the elimination of any other opposition candidates would ensure that there would be no way to correct for any realization that a particular candidate or party actually doesn't have the better chance to defeat a Con opponent.

Finally, I'll note that there are serious questions to be raised about the timing of Byers' proposal. I could see a far better argument for the necessity of cooperation at what's seen to be a particularly crucial decision point in Canadian politics. But Ignatieff already broke an agreement with the NDP at the last one of those to leave the Con government in charge of dealing with Canada's recession. And the threat of a Harper majority isn't a particularly new one either, as it loomed as a distinct possibility through most of the 2008 campaign.

In sum, then, I'm not clear on what's changed since a year ago to justify a deal along the line of Byers' proposal. Which means that while he deserves credit for looking to spread a message of cooperation, there doesn't seem to be much prospect that his suggestion will find much traction.

Update: Pogge is much more succinct.

(Edit: fixed wording re: B.C. example.)

Rumours of the coalition's death have been greatly exaggerated

There's still a long way to go to make up for a month of the media parroting Con spin about the democratic coalition. But ironically, the consistent refrain that the coalition is dead may only have softened some of the possible opposition. And now that the case for the coalition is beginning to find its way into the public eye, could it be that the tide will turn just in time for the coalition to become a reality?

Nothing new

Barbara Yaffe's column on Michael Byers' inaugural campaign in Vancouver Centre makes for an interesting read. But it's somewhat disappointing to see just what Byers apparently learned the hard way over the course of the campaign:

In a chat about his campaign experience, Byers says he was a "neophyte" in a riding contested by a posse of political heavyweights -- Fry, Adrienne Carr for the Greens and Lorne Mayencourt for the Conservatives.

He cites his own naivete in not recognizing the "logical complexities of running campaigns." He didn't appreciate the importance of a campaign apparatus to identify and then pull the vote, nor did he have time to assemble one. He'll now concentrate on building his party's riding membership and fundraising capability.

In fairness, there's plenty that Byers did well to position himself for the 2008 campaign and beyond - from establishing himself as a big-name candidate initially, to staying public eye throughout the campaign (including by introducing a key policy plank for the New Democrats). And it's certainly for the best that Byers plans to keep up the fight despite a disappointing result this time out.

But it has to be considered surprising that one of the star New Democrat candidates wasn't aware of the importance of some fundamental parts of any successful campaign. And part of the NDP's effort to keep growing in the future should include ensuring that all of its candidates - whether or not they start with a national profile like Byers - are better aware of what needs to be done both to improve their chances of success and to build the party.

Anything is possible

Michael Byers' entire interview with the Tyee's Monte Paulsen is worth a read. But for now, let's highlight Byers' point about the opportunities in play in the ongoing federal election:

I disagree that there is very little chance the New Democrats will form a government. I think that Canadian politics is in a period of enormous flux and almost anything is possible. That's what makes it exciting.

"This is arguably the most important election in Canada for decades. And so much is changing so quickly that I don't think anyone should make any assumptions about what the outcome should be.

Indeed, it's worth noting that the situation may only have become more fluid over the past few days. Both the Cons and Libs are apparently running below their 2006 numbers, leaving a more obvious opening than there's been in a long time for some new ideas to make their way into one of the top two positions. And both obviously have room to drop further, particularly with the Cons' economic message falling apart and the Libs' perpetual infighting emerging once again.

With that background, and boosted by the best campaign of any federal party, the New Democrats are now within a plausible late-campaign surge of overtaking both. Which means that the main task now is to turn the obvious potential for real change into reality over the course of the next week - and it's not hard to understand why Byers is just one of many New Democrats excited about the possibilities.

A tale of two candidates

Not long ago, Michael Byers was the Libs' first choice as a candidate for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky. But given the opportunity to run instead for the NDP, he decided he could do better than the Libs.

Not long ago, Blair Wilson wanted desperately to run as the Libs' candidate for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky. But after the Libs rejected him for dishonesty, Elizabeth May was more than willing to overlook problems which even her own choice for Prime Minister saw as making him unfit for office - that is, as long as it would raise her party's profile.

Which would seem to nicely summarize the choice facing voters who are understandably frustrated with both the Cons and Libs. Do Canadians who want a change from politics as usual want to cast their votes for a party which can do better than the Libs, or a party which has no qualms about accepting even worse?

The long view

In addition to providing an interesting look at the impending battle for Vancouver Centre, Barbara Yaffe also offers a strong indication that Michael Byers looks to play a prominent role within the NDP and the Canadian political scene far into the future:

Michael Byers, 41-year old bilingual UBC political scientist, lawyer, author, human rights advocate, expert in international law, will be acclaimed as NDP candidate on Aug. 17. The riding -- which has never gone NDP -- "fits me like a glove. I intend to represent Vancouver Centre in Ottawa, whether it's this election or next."

Byers' plan to push forward even through multiple election campaigns should put the final nail in the coffin of the laughable Lib assertion that Byers' choice of parties was based on some sense of entitlement to an easy ride rather than a realistic evaluation of the parties' merits.

But it also offers NDP supporters all the more reason for optimism that Byers and other high-profile recruits are looking at far more than just the next election campaign. And with that multi-year focus contrasted against Cons who are in over their heads trying to information from week to week and Libs who can't even keep their focus long enough to hold a strategy meeting, the NDP looks to have a strong chance to position itself for some major long-term gains.

On points of distinction

In the wake of yesterday's discussion about what kinds of issues the NDP should be highlighting (however misguided it may have been), it's worth noting that the NDP is making a strong push on another issue where there's ample room for distinction from the Con/Lib corporate line. And Russell McOrmond looks to be taking the lead in highlighting the NDP's stance in defending Canadians at large when it comes at copyright issues, providing a brief history of how the NDP arrived at its current position, as well as Q&As with two of the party's star candidates on the subject.

It remains to be seen just how large a role the ongoing discussion about copyright will end up playing once an election campaign gets underway. But based on both the strength of existing movements such as Fair Copyright for Canada and the sheer number of Canadians who stand to be affected by draconian restrictions on their ability to access and share information, the issue looks to be one where the NDP can do plenty of good for the country as a whole and itself as a party by raising awareness. And there's plenty of reason for optimism based on the effort the NDP has put in so far.

For the long haul

I'll leave aside for now the merits of Michael Byers' proposal for an NDP name change, as well as the positive signs for the NDP pointed out in Lawrence Martin's column today. But it's definitely worth noting that just weeks after Byers chose the NDP over the Libs in the face of direct appeals from both, he's already publicly showing a strong interest in building the NDP in the long term - both in offering suggestions in how the NDP can brand itself, and in what sounds like a concerted effort to bring an increased activist base into the fold.

Of course, it remains to be seen both how Byers will fare in Vancouver Centre, and what role he'll end up playing in the longer term. But it does seem clear that the NDP's star candidates are focused on far more than merely getting into the House of Commons themselves - and that can only bode well for the prospects of building the party for the future.

A deepening pool

Scott Piatkowski adds one more name to the list of star NDP candidates named this week. But what may be more interesting than the addition of actor/writer/producer David Sparrow to the slate is the type of riding where Layton has been able to recruit the latest wave of additions.

In particular, Don Valley West looks to make for fairly difficult terrain for any NDP candidate. Not only did the NDP rank third in 2006 with under 10% of the vote, but the history of the riding shows nothing but distant third- and fourth-place finishes. But even with that, the NDP has managed to recruit a candidate whose resume looks to stack up nicely against his competitors.

And while Edmonton East is easily the NDP's second-best target in Alberta (and a riding where Ray Martin managed to triple the NDP's general Alberta support in his last run in 2000), it's still probably not a riding which figured to be much of a magnet for a top candidate absent a strong recruiting effort.

Of course, the bigger-name candidates like Michael Byers and Anne Lagacé-Dowson will be making their runs in ridings with obvious pickup opportunities. But it isn't only the NDP's main targets that appear to be enjoying an influx of new talent. And as a result, if the NDP is able to move its national numbers enough to start putting more ridings in play, its candidates should be more than up to the task of making the most of the opportunity.