Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Kaitlin Tosh and Michelle Inez Simon examine how Elon Musk's takeover of X has led to the systematic pushing of right-wing propaganda on users whether they have any interest in receiving it or not. And Mickey Djuric discusses the farce of the Trump regime and its Canadian puppets becoming more interested in preventing the culling of ostriches being raised for meat than in people's well-being, while Angela Rasmussen notes that even the end of the matter in substance will do nothing to stop the concerted spread of anti-science crankery.

- Meanwhile, Samantha Hancox-Li discusses the need for a determined, war-time mindset in responding to the right's wanton attacks on reason. And Jael Holzman points out the potential to form alliances in pushing back against the tethering of social and economic development to corporate-controlled AI. 

- Stuart Braun comments on the fossil fuelk propaganda mill and its disinformation surrounding the COP30 climate talks, while Emily Atkin examines Bari Weiss' pattern of denialism now being imposed on CBS News. Joelle Gergis writes about the need to move past nebulous "net zero" promises and actually use affordable clean energy to cut down on carbon pollution. And the Economist discusses how China is doing just that by focusing on clean energy development while the U.S. pins its hopes on ever-more-implausible snake oil schemes. 

- Finally, Ricardo Tranjan writes that Ontario's fall economic statement is predictably loaded with freebies for the corporate class but devoid of supports for people. And Katherine Scott notes that Mark Carney's first federal budget follows a similar path (even after he was elected based largely on a margin of progressive votes). 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- William Hunter reports on a warning from scientists that the Arctic's sea ice may melt completely as soon as 2027. And David Spratt examines (PDF) the devastating implications if we continue along the path toward 3 degrees Celsius of global warming. But Robert Kopp et al. warn (PDF) of the dangers of oversimplifying complex climate effects into "tipping points" - particularly when they serve as an excuse for inaction. 

- Fieldnotes reports on the fossil fuel sector's role in installing Donald Trump back in power - as well as its plans once he retakes it. And Isaac Slevin et al. study the shadowy corporate forces at work trying to block offshore wind power projects - with "information subsidies" representing the most important pollution of the public discourse.  

- John Lorinc implores Ontario to learn from the ample evidence that public-private partnerships serve only to enrich the latter at the expense of the former - though of course for the Ford PCs, that's precisely the point. And Emma McIntosh reports on the first set of reports from Ontario's new Auditor General Shelley Spence, which include fully-anticipated findings that Ford is wasting billions of public dollars to enrich a few developer cronies. 

- Adam King discusses how the Trudeau Libs' failure to benefit the material conditions of workers has allowed the Cons' demagoguery to resonate far more than it should. 

- Finally, Alvin Finkel writes about the historical pattern of oppressors and popular revolt. Jason Sattler sets out a declaration of independence from the control of billionaires. And Nathan Robinson notes that the plutocrats in Trump's inner circle in particular are conspicuously unconstrained by reality and reason in seeking to seize ever more power for themselves. 

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Francesco Pierri et al. study the roots of COVID-19 vaccine denialism, with misinformation becoming more and more prevalent as the pandemic continues. And David Climenhaga discusses how Alberta (and many other Canadian provinces) are taking a new step in pandemic denialism by planning to limit citizens' access to vaccine boosters.

- Meanwhile, Crawford Kilian points out that we should be doing far more to reduce the death toll and health issues caused by air pollution. But Sharon Lerner reports that the oil industry is instead being permitted to label the burning of toxic plastics as a "biofuel".

- Philippe Fournier notes that a majority of Canadians want to see stronger climate action, and are thus being ill served by a Lib-Con debate between not doing enough and doing even less (if anything). And the Globe and Mail's editorial board weighs in on the complete lack of justification for Danielle Smith's plans to hand tens of billions of dollars to the oil industry to comply with its legal obligations.

- Mitchell Thompson reports on polling showing that even the Fraser Institute can't load the dice enough to find popular support for capitalism over socialism. But Judy Rebick points out the need for popular action to replace pay-for-play politics with government that's remotely representative of people's interests.

- Finally, Justin Ling discusses the connections between the Cons and the global alt-right - including Christine Anderson who has been feted by Con MPs and the Western petropolitical powers that be for her bigotry.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- George Monbiot writes about the COVID disinformation which is so dangerous as to need to be suppressed. Maggie Keresteci, Nili Kaplan-Myrth and Naheed Dosani highlight the need for equity to figure into our plans and messaging about vaccine distribution. And Dakshana Bascaramurty discusses the challenges in reaching racialized Canadians with the information needed to protect themselves and the public.

- Bruce Arthur points out the futility of blustering about borders when a province already has community outbreaks of highly dangerous variants. And Walker Bragman and David Sirota report on the factors which have had the most impact in suppressing the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. - with work from home and housing security at the top of the list. 

- The Star's editorial board joins the calls for paid sick leave to ensure workers don't put people at risk in order to pay their bills. And Omar Mosleh reports on the limited number of retail employers offering anything of the sort when not required to do so.

- Theresa Boyle reports that Ontario is among the provinces falling far short of using even the federal resources available to it - let alone contributing appropriately on its own - to offer COVID-19 relief and support. And Matt Elliott calls out Doug Ford's almost total lack of investment in social housing, even as he looks to destroy greenspace and heritage buildings alike to grease the skids for private developers.

- Grace Blakeley discusses how the coronavirus pandemic has exacerbated poverty and inequality. And Arwa Mahdawi makes the case for a greed tax to reverse that trend. 

- Finally, Dr. Jacelyn Hanson and Dr. Larissa Kiesman remind us of the existing public health emergencies of homelessness, opioids and HIV which have been worsened by COVID-19. 

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Yves Engler discusses how Canadian corporations have shown a consistent pattern of pursuing profit with no consideration of the public good.

- Marco Chown Oved, Kenyon Wallace and Brendan Kennedy analyze how corporate care homes have paid out massive executive compensation and brought in billions in profits while leaving their residents vulnerable to COVID-19. And Kevin Donovan reports that Ontario isn't bothering to track the spread of COVID-19 among personal care workers who are among the most likely to be exposed to it.

- Brittany Scott writes about the need to develop workers' power as part of the effort to make workplaces - and by implication, the public - more safe in the midst of a pandemic. And Steven Greenhouse notes that even in the U.S.' distorted media environment, the public is well aware that the deck is stacked against workers.

- Moira Wyton reports on the lack of any meaningful response to First Nations who have sought help in responding to the coronavirus.

- Karl Nerenberg highlights how the federal NDP has ensured that seniors, students and many others weren't left to fend without any coronavirus relief.

- Finally, Ashley Martin reports on the Regina activists finding new ways to reach people when physical protest is either impossible or less likely to be seen.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Kate Aronoff offers a reminder that the right's constant bleating about limiting government spending never applies to the cost of wars of choice.

- Laura Glowacki reports on how Doug Ford's choice to allow rent increases will only make matters worse for Ontario's poorest residents. And Andrea Horwath and Sol Mamakwa discuss the urgent need for a mental health strategy for Indigenous people facing high suicide rates.

- PressProgress highlights how Canadians have to make do with far fewer paid vacation days than people throughout most of the developed world. Robert MacDonald discusses how the gig economy fits into the broader deterioration of working conditions. And Paul Willcocks rightly argues that it's past time for Canadian jurisdictions to follow the lead of California and other governments which are legislating protections for gig workers.

- Finally, Lee Drutman makes the case for a proportional electoral system from the U.S.' perspective - with lessons which we'd do well to learn in Canada as well.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Matt Phillips and Karl Russell write that the next severe financial meltdown may not be far away, and that student and consumer debt (along with new derivatives from corporate debt) look to be at the centre of it. And Stephen Long points out that the suppression of information about deceptive lending practices is only ensuring that banks continue to face potential liability.

- Deborah de Lange notes that the building of housing in unsafe areas such as flood plains is one of the symptoms of an unequal society. And Kathleen Martens reports that the tearing down of tent cities in British Columbia isn't being paired with any plan to find housing for the residents who lack it. 

- Luisa D'Amato observes that if Ontario had taken up its opportunity for a proportional electoral system, it wouldn't have Doug Ford running roughshod over a province based on 40% of the popular vote.

- Doug Cuthand discusses the need based on the continued recognition of the Indigenous rights recognized both by nation-to-nation treaties and Canada's Constitution.

- Finally, Bernie Sanders makes the case for a progressive front across borders to counter the billionaire-funded nationalist international underlying the spread of right-wing populism:

We must understand that these authoritarians are part of a common front. They are in close contact with each other, share tactics and, as in the case of European and American rightwing movements, even share some of the same funders. The Mercer family, for example, supporters of the infamous Cambridge Analytica, have been key backers of Trump and of Breitbart News, which operates in Europe, the United States and Israel to advance the same anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim agenda. Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson gives generously to rightwing causes in both the United States and Israel, promoting a shared agenda of intolerance and illiberalism in both countries.
...
Together governments of the world must come together to end the absurdity of the rich and multinational corporations stashing over $21tn in offshore bank accounts to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and then demanding that their respective governments impose an austerity agenda on their working families.

It is not acceptable that the fossil fuel industry continues to make huge profits while their carbon emissions destroy the planet for our children and grandchildren.

It is not acceptable that a handful of multinational media giants, owned by a small number of billionaires, largely control the flow of information on the planet.

It is not acceptable that trade policies that benefit large multinational corporations and encourage a race to the bottom hurt working people throughout the world as they are written out of public view.

It is not acceptable that, with the cold war long behind us, countries around the world spend over $1tn a year on weapons of destruction, while millions of children die of easily treatable diseases.

In order to effectively combat the rise of the international authoritarian axis, we need an international progressive movement that mobilizes behind a vision of shared prosperity, security and dignity for all people, and that addresses the massive global inequality that exists, not only in wealth but in political power.

Such a movement must be willing to think creatively and boldly about the world that we would like to see. While the authoritarian axis is committed to tearing down a post-second world war global order that they see as limiting their access to power and wealth, it is not enough for us to simply defend that order as it exists now.

We must look honestly at how that order has failed to deliver on many of its promises, and how authoritarians have adeptly exploited those failures in order to build support for their agenda. We must take the opportunity to reconceptualize a genuinely progressive global order based on human solidarity, an order that recognizes that every person on this planet shares a common humanity, that we all want our children to grow up healthy, to have a good education, have decent jobs, drink clean water, breathe clean air and live in peace.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Oliver Moore reports on Greyhound's elimination of most of its Western Canadian bus service. Emily Riddle offers a reminder that the lack of transportation puts Indigenous women and other marginalized people at risk. And Simon Enoch highlights the obvious need for Saskatchewan to resume operating a public rural bus service.

- The Globe and Mail feigns shock at the revelation that Doug Ford is in fact Doug Ford, while Tom Parkin documents the fiscal crisis Ford is deliberately creating. And Andray Domise appropriately labels Ford's rule-by-antagonism - though it's worth noting that the under the typical right-wing faux-populist model, deliberate attacks on perceived enemies serve largely to distract from the greater goal of looting the public treasury for the benefit of cronies.

- Joel Lexchin examines the large amounts of money spent by big pharma to try to influence Canadian health care providers - and the lack of much means for the public to track the results of that investment.

- Scott Sinclair makes the case for Canada to protect its supply management system from the demands of U.S. agribusiness giants.

- Finally, Michelle Chen writes about a push for New York City to set up a public bank to ensure all of its residents have access to needed financial services. And Maddy Savage points out how Norway's responsible and socially-minded management of resource wealth has made it one of the few developed countries where younger workers are able to live comfortably.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Alex Himelfarb warns about the dangers of participating in Donald Trump's race to the bottom for public revenues - and the importance of highlighting the value of collective funding for social priorities:

Sure, our tax revenues as a share of the overall economy are lower than they’ve been in over five decades. Yes, government expenditures are lower than they have been since the days before we had public pensions, medicare and mass education. But more tax cuts are still offered up as the best—or even the only—option.

The failure of decades of tax-cutting to yield the promised increases in innovation and productivity has not constrained the willingness of some political parties and governments to treat ever-deeper cuts, especially for businesses and the rich, as indisputably good economic policy. If past cuts didn’t have quite the effect they were meant to, they say, perhaps the cuts just weren’t deep enough. Failed economic ideas don’t die easily.

Clearly, Canadian politicians cannot ignore the implications of tax cuts or other major economic policy changes in the United States. But they would be wise to ask what our neighbour may be giving up with these latest cuts, and where our comparative advantage might really lie. We oughtn’t to assume the benefits of tax cuts or to ignore their costs.
...
Tax cuts never pay for themselves. Invariably, they have real costs: public services are squeezed and opportunities to improve government programs lost, with the consequences falling most heavily on the most disadvantaged and vulnerable, and on future generations who of course don’t get to vote.

Ironically, as we weaken government and undermine public services, as wait times go up while access goes down and out-of-pocket costs rise, we increasingly question just what our taxes are buying. Austerity is self-perpetuating.
...
 Decades of austerity, during which we have been asked to view ourselves as primarily taxpayers and consumers rather than as citizens pursuing some common good, have no doubt reshaped our collective view of taxes. So long as taxes are viewed as a burden, or worse, a punishment, rather than as how we operationalize the common good, austerity will continue to blunt the political imagination and limit our sense of what’s possible.

Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, who died just over a year ago, spent the latter part of his career documenting the decline of the collective, the loss of trust in one another and in our governments, the loss of confidence that we can together shape the future. He worried that our collective action problems—those things we can solve only together—have never been more challenging, but that our collective toolkit has been severely weakened by decades of austerity. Rethinking taxes, which are, after all, how we pay for those things we do together because we could never do them at all or as well on our own, will be essential to rebuilding the collective.

We cannot hope even to begin to achieve a just transition to a green economy, or to provide a measure of economic security in an increasingly precarious world, or to reverse growing inequality and persistent poverty if we don’t reconnect taxes to the common good.

- Frances Coppola challenges the mindset that would sacrifice human well-being in the pursuit of balanced government budgets. And Mathew Snow writes about the problems with reliance on the charity of the obscenely wealthy rather than a fair system of social revenue.

- Sophie Hardach examines Thomas Piketty's latest work on the reversal in political orientation based on education. And Branko Milanovic discusses the ongoing (and indeed increasing) relevance of Karl Marx' analysis of capitalism.

- Andrew Nikiforuk observes that government revenues from fossil fuels and other natural resources have been drying up over a period of decades. Stephen Leahy estimates the climate costs of a Trans Mountain expansion at $8.7 billion - without factoring in the added emissions from the end use of any fuel shipped through the pipeline. And Tom Rand notes that the Trans Mountain debate is highlighting the need for everybody to contribute to emission reductions, rather than demanding special dispensations based on the ongoing choice to prioritize oil over other economic options.

- Finally, Edgardo Sepulveda studies the public costs of decades of privatization and politicization of Ontario's power system.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Rick Smith writes about the Filthy Five loopholes taking the most money out of Canada's public coffers for the least benefit to anybody but the wealthy. And Ed Finn reminds us to follow the money in figuring out who stands to gain from unconscionable policy choices.

- Douglas Quan reports on the justified outrage against Vancouver for trying to pitch itself as a low-wage jurisdiction in an attempt to cater to Amazon. And Raymond Wong discusses how youth have paid the price for out-of-control house prices - though yesterday's provincial budget offers some much-needed hope and help on that front.

- Meanwhile, the Maytree Foundation offers its recommendations for Ontario's forthcoming budget, while Fred Hahn points out how that province's citizens will be paying the price for the Libs' power privatization for decades to come. And ProgressAlberta traces the history of exorbitant public spending on high-priced private schools at the expense of accessible education under that province's Conservative governments.

- Brent Patterson comments on the Libs' contempt for the Canadian public surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as they plan to simultaneously hype "side letters" as their primary negotiating accomplishment while keeping them secret until it's too late.

- Finally, the Star's editorial board weighs in on the need to address child care at the national level. And Sarah Kliff examines the connection between child-rearing and long-term wage disadvantages.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Greg Leiseron discusses why the abject failure of Kansas' anti-social experiment with trickle-down economics shouldn't have come as a surprise to anybody:

Claims of supply-side growth from labor income tax cuts rely on the idea that people will be more willing to work when their after-tax wages are higher. This theory posits that labor income tax cuts result in growth because people who could increase their earnings choose not to because tax rates are too high, but it does not take much to see why cutting tax rates for middle- and higher-income families does not create jobs through this mechanism. Middle- and higher-income families already have jobs, even if they are not the jobs they necessarily want.

Claims of supply-side growth from tax cuts on business profits rely on the idea that those cuts will increase the level of investment and that, in turn, will increase productivity. Under this theory, a tax cut on business profits could increase employment by spurring investment, increasing wages, and attracting people into the labor force who are not willing to take a job at current wage rates. For this theory to work, however, it would need to be the case that cutting statutory business tax rates would meaningfully reduce the effective tax rate on an incremental investment such that the tax cut causes businesses to increase investment. Second, it would need to be the case that the reduced tax rate causes businesses to increase investment in a way that increases the wages they would be willing to pay to people who currently choose not to work because wages are too low. Third, it would need to be the case that this increase in wages would be large enough to spur people who currently choose not to work to enter the labor force and seek jobs. And finally, the deficits resulting from the tax cuts would need to be small enough that they increase businesses’ cost of capital by less than the reduction resulting from the lower tax rate, as a higher cost of capital would cause businesses to reduce investment rather than increase it.

These conditions are highly unlikely to hold in practice. Businesses already pay relatively little tax on the incremental return from investments in tangible capital due to tax benefits such as accelerated depreciation and interest deductibility, and they often pay no tax—or even receive a tax subsidy—on marginal investments in intangible capital. Moreover, reducing the statutory tax rate on business income actually increases the effective tax rate on debt-financed investment, which is a common source of financing for investments in tangible capital because businesses deduct interest payments from taxable income.

- Jonathan Rauch makes the case for conservatives to support collective bargaining to ensure that social stability is possible - rather than seeking to undermine labour at every turn as right-wing parties are currently wont to do. And Stephen Tweedale comments on the value of card check certification to give effect to workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively.

- CTV reports on the limits of capital's interest in a market with full information, as Montreal landlords are complaining about tenants sharing information about the rent they're paying. And Jonathan Garber examines how markets have been consistently - and systematically - off the mark in their estimates of something as basic as bond rates.

- Rob Ferguson reports on Ontario's long-overdue limitation on employer sick note requirements - which is actually meeting little objection even from employers themselves.

- Andrew Jackson examines the relationship between increasing rents and inequality in making cities unaffordable for all but the most privileged workers.

- Finally, Morna Ballantyne writes that Ontario's latest child care announcement represents a significant step forward compared to what the federal government has on offer.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Annette Alstadsæter, Niels Johannesen and Gabriel Zucman examine (PDF) the size and distribution of tax evasion and (not surprisingly) find it clustered at the top - with the wealthiest .01% dodging 30% of its obligation to society at large. And Marco Chown Oved reports that the Canada Revenue Agency is finally pursuing criminal investigations into offshore tax evasion.

- Meanwhile, Paul Buchheit rightly questions why any government would want to hand tax cuts to businesses who are already refusing to pay their fair share.

- Angela Rayner writes about UK Labour's plan for a truly universal child care system. And Max Shanly and Ronan Burtenshaw highlight the drastic change for the better on offer from Labour's policy platform - along with the strong public support for improved redistribution of wealth:

But it wasn’t just the manifesto that was popular, it was also the kind of politics that has been used to communicate its ideas. For months, Corbynism has tried to build a radical politics from the halls of Westminster, playing a game of high politics at which its enemies are more adept. In this campaign, Corbyn’s team have thrown off the shackles of that environment — holding large rallies around the country, sharing the stage with campaigners from a wide range of social causes, taking socialist politics to the people who are its concern. This dynamic, grassroots campaign has helped to transform public opinion of Corbyn and engage thousands in his project of social transformation.
...
None of this could have happened if the battle had remained confined to the stage-managed theater of Westminster, with scripts written by the mainstream press and an ill-fitting costume of respectability draped around Corbyn’s shoulders. It is with mass politics that the Left can win — and the same will be true for this manifesto.

No significant program of redistributing wealth and power can be achieved through parliament alone. Even if Labour was to win on June 8, its manifesto would face significant opposition — from the right-wing of the Labour Party, the press empires, elite civil servants, and the business class. The only way to see it implemented would be to organize for it outside of parliament, through social movements that demand its proposals, trade unions that fight for them in the workplace, and a revitalized Labour Party that becomes a vehicle for popular power at a local as well as national level.

In the more likely circumstance that Labour is defeated in the election, the party’s right will immediately argue that it was because its leadership was too left wing. But we now know this is not true. The vast majority of the country supports left-wing policies — it is the Labour right and their allies in the political, business, and media elite who are in the minority. The next battle will be to defend the manifesto from their attacks.

- CBC reports on the progress made as a result of Ontario's workplace review (and the public pressure which caused it to happen), with a $15 minimum wage and improved protections for part-time and precarious workers among the gains.

- Finally, the Star's editorial board asks what it will take for the federal government to live up to its obligation not to discriminate against Indigenous children - though the obvious answer is a party in power which actually cares about substantive change enough to dedicate resources to it, rather than seeing photo ops and empty announcements as accomplishments.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Claire Provost writes about the spread of the private security industry - which now exceeds the size of public police forces in Canada among other countries - as a means of privileging the protection of wealth over public interests.

- Meanwhile, Lana Payne comments on the importance of allowing civil servants to focus on what's best for the public, rather than serving as political tools for governing parties.

- Jamie Condiffe points out that automation is having less impact on employment relationships than is often assumed, while Bill Emmott laments how wage fearmongering has been used to divert more and more profits into corporate coffers. Martin Regg Cohn discusses what may be some positive steps toward improved wages and working conditions in Ontario - though the timing and motivation of Liberals in an election year offers reason to be wary. And Jill Petzinger reports on how unions have been able to protect the interests of employees of Tesla and other new manufacturers.

- Percy Downe writes that while it's helpful to see improved funding to combat offshore tax evasion, it remains to be seen whether that promise will lead to results. And Diana Swain and Jennifer Fowler report on how Russian criminal organizations are using Canada's secretive banking sector for money laundering purposes.

- Finally, in the wake of Brad Wall's declared intention to use the Charter's notwithstanding clause as part of the foundation of Saskatchewan's education system, Leonid Sirota discusses the danger of it serving as a tool for reactionary politicians:

The Saskatchewan government’s unwarranted and hypocritical behaviour illustrates the fundamental problem with the notwithstanding clause. In theory, it could be a means for elected representatives of the people to express reasonable disagreement with the courts on difficult philosophical issues regarding the extent of constitutional rights, as well as policy questions about what kinds of limits on these rights might be unavoidable in a free and democratic society. In practice, if Saskatchewan succeeds at normalizing the use of the clause, governments will not engage in any serious deliberation about these issues. At best, they will resort to the clause to avoid the costs of carrying out their constitutional obligations. At worst, they will do it simply in order to appear “tough,” enacting policies both unnecessary and iniquitous in a race to the constitutional bottom.

The recent proposal by Lisa Raitt, a candidate for the leadership of the federal Conservative Party, to use the notwithstanding clause to prevent protests against the building of pipelines exemplifies the latter dynamic. So do calls by nationalist politicians (and legal academics) in Quebec to dispense with the right to be tried within a reasonable time. [Allan] Blakeney thought that enlightened politicians might need to overrule courts in order to preserve social programs from encroachments by judicial reactionaries. Instead, his toxic constitutional legacy is in danger of being used by unscrupulous populists to satiate the reactionary tendencies of the electorate. Voters should keep in mind that poison tends not to be as nutritious is it might seem.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Abi Wilkinson writes about the importance of making social benefits universal in order to reflect a sense of shared interests and purpose:

Universal aspects of the welfare state tend to be thought of as the fruit of common endeavour. The NHS tops the list of things that make people in this country proud to be British, ahead of the royal family and armed forces. The suggestion that some patients should be charged for hospital visits is likely to make most shudder. Such a reform is widely understood as contrary to everything the NHS is about. Once you’ve introduced a universal provision, it is politically difficult to remove it. Voters are fiercely protective of the entitlements that come to be understood as basic rights.

Means-tested benefits, on the other hand, are seen more as a form of charity. As such, it’s frequently argued that they should go only to the “deserving poor”. The specific definition of “deserving” is a subject of constant public debate. Those further towards the left of the political spectrum are more likely to argue that income level is the only relevant factor. Those on the right tend to see welfare as a tool to control the behaviour of recipients and often insist on additional moral tests. This is the logic that drives the benefit sanctions regime, and the recent cut to child tax credits for families with more than two children.
...
It’s true that money spent on middle-class kids’ dinners could theoretically be directed at poorer pupils in more targeted ways, but that misses the point. Maximising cost-effectiveness isn’t what universality is about. Children who receive free school meals report being bullied and stigmatised, and many families who are entitled to claim them avoid doing so for this reason. Others earn just above the £16,190 income threshold but still struggle with the cost of food. Families with an income below the threshold are excluded if a parent works more than 16 hours per week. In some cases, children go hungry not for financial reasons but because of parental neglect. Providing a hot meal to every child ensures that nobody falls through the net.

There’s a solid, practical argument for Labour’s proposal, but focusing only on direct outcomes fails to capture the true challenge facing the party. The welfare reforms introduced under New Labour were largely means-tested. For this reason, the Conservatives have found it easy to roll back much of the progress that was made. The most resilient aspects of our welfare state are the universal provisions which were introduced decades ago.
...
Of course the problems with our education system won’t be solved with a single policy, but this could represent a symbolic turning point. Expanding universal provisions could be at the centre of a genuinely exciting vision for the future of the country. More radical options, such as a universal basic income, have also been discussed, but there are all kinds of possibilities. To convince disillusioned voters it has something to offer, Labour needs to be brave and think big. Fiddling with numbers on a spreadsheet won’t cut it.

- Meanwhile, Henry Mintzberg comments on the dangers of trying to run government like a business.

- Jordon Cooper discusses how important public institutions and vulnerable people are bearing the brunt of Brad Wall's cutbacks, even as corporations are handed goodies with no prospect of any public benefit. And Murray Mandryk highlights how this year's extreme austerity budget has made clear that the Saskatchewan Party's supposed concern for people with disabilities has proven illusory.

- CBC reports on new research showing the strong effect of rent subsidies on the well-being of lower-income citizens of Waterloo. But Shawn Jeffords notes that the Ontario Libs and Cons shot down an NDP attempt to ensure that rent is more affordable.

- Finally, Adnan Al-Daini writes that even the dirtiest government Donald Trump can think to administer won't stop the spread of clean energy around the globe. And on that front, Natasha Geiling reports on the imminent end of new coal power in Europe.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Jim Hightower argues that there's no reason the U.S. can't develop an economic model which leads to shared prosperity - and the ideas are no less relevant in Canada:

Take On Wall Street is both the name and the feisty attitude of a nationwide campaign that a coalition of grassroots groups has launched to do just that: take on Wall Street. The coalition, spearheaded by the Communication Workers of America, points out there is nothing natural or sacred about today’s money-grabbing financial complex. Far from sacrosanct, the system of finance that now rules over us has been designed by and for Wall Street speculators, money managers and big bank flimflammers. So, big surprise, rather than serving our common good, the system is corrupt, routinely serving their uncommon greed at everyone else’s expense.
...
The coalition’s structural reforms include:
1. Getting the corrupting cash of corporations and the superrich out of politics with an overturning of Citizens United v. FEC and providing a public system for financing America’s elections.

2. Stopping “too big to fail” banks from subsidizing their high-risk speculative gambling with the deposits of  ordinary customers. Make them choose to be a consumer bank or a casino, but not both.

3. Institute a tiny “Robin Hood tax” on Wall Street speculators to discourage their computerized gaming of the system, while also generating hundreds of billions of tax dollars to invest in America’s real economy.

4. Restore low-cost, convenient “postal banking” in our post offices to serve millions of Americans who’re now at the mercy of predatory payday lenders and check-cashing chains.

- Juliette Garside reports on the EU's efforts to get the U.S. to agree to basic reporting to rein in offshore tax evasion. And Heather Long points out Joseph Stiglitz' criticisms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership as enriching corporations at the expense of citizens.

- Amy Maxmen notes that a non-profit system can develop new drugs far more affordably than the current corporate model - and without creating the expectation of windfall profits that currently underlies the pharmaceutical industry.

- Jordan Press offers a preview of a federal strategy for homeless veterans featuring rental subsidies and the building of targeted housing units - which leads only to the question of why the same plan wouldn't be applied to address homelessness generally.

- Alan Shanoff comments on the many holes in Ontario's employment standards (which are generally matched elsewhere as well).

- Finally, Dougald Lamont highlights the many ways in which the Fraser Institute's anti-tax spin misleads the media about how citizens relate to Canadian governments.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Owen Jones discusses the UK's experience with privatized rail as yet another example of how vital services become more costly and worse-run when put in corporate hands.

- Sean McElwee highlights still more research showing that right-wing government tends to fail even on its own terms, with Republican governments producing less economic growth than Democratic ones. But PressProgress offers one answer to McElwee's question as to why people believe otherwise by pointing to the complete lack of media pushback against the Fraser Institute's usual pattern of anti-tax misdirection.

- Hardian Mertins-Kirkwood comments on a Russian oligarch's extraction of over a billion dollars from an impoverished Venezuela (with the help of a Canadian trade agreement) as just the latest example as to how "free trade" serves mostly to enrich the wealthy at everybody else's expense. Cory Doctorow notes that real-world experience strongly supports Thomas Piketty's argument that extreme wealth tends primarily to be self-perpetuating, rather than arising or growing out of personal merit. And Ben Popken writes about EpiPen price-gouging as the latest - and perhaps the most egregious - example of rent-seeking by the pharmaceutical sector at the expense of public health.

- Eric Holthaus observes that some of the feared long-term effects of climate change are already materializing. And Elizabeth McSheffrey points out that Husky's post-spill spin campaign looks to be just the latest example of the oil industry trying to cover up the direct consequences of its choices.

- Finally, Rank and File points out the need for Ontario to move past Harris-era attacks on workers.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Melisa Foster points out why millennials should be strongly interested in a national pharmacare program:

Today, young Canadians are searching for jobs in an economy with high levels of precarious employment, unemployment or underemployment. According to a recent Statistics Canada labour force survey, approximately 39% of workers 15 to 29 are precariously employed. That means that almost half of millennials between 15 and 29 are part-time, temporary or self-employed workers, and likely don’t have access to employer-run private health insurance plans. An estimated one out of every four Canadians who are uninsured cannot afford their prescriptions.

Canada’s patchwork pharmacare system compounds these obstacles further. Provinces, territories and the federal government each fund drug therapies for a distinct portion of the population. Your postal code and socioeconomic status continue to dictate your ability to access the medication you need, making drug coverage highly inequitable. Too many are forced to pay out of pocket for prescription drugs they can’t afford to go without.
...
Understandably, prescription drug coverage only becomes a concern for many individuals when high costs limit their access. But if you haven’t personally experienced problems with drug coverage or the consequent poor health outcomes that far too many Canadians have, there is a high probability that your friend or loved one has.

Millennials must begin to understand who is involved in the decision making process and how we can work together to close the gaps in access. Parents and children have a responsibility to voice their concerns and demonstrate the struggles that arise as a result of the patchwork system.

- Bruce Sherman examines the role the health care system can play in addressing the social determininants of health. Owen Davis highlights the importance of addressing inequality in order to improve mental health. And Araz Rawshani, Ann-Marie Svensson, Björn Zethelius, Björn Eliasson, Annika Rosengren, and Soffia Gudbjörnsdottir study the connection between low incomes and mortality from diseases including diabetes and cancer.

- Linda McQuaig argues that the Ontario Libs' privatization of Hydro One is indefensible - particularly based on the excuse of "broadening" ownership in a utility shared in by every citizen of the province. David Bush points out that Canada Post's bargaining strategy seems to be intended to allow it to sell itself off for parts before a government review of its future is complete. And Duncan Kinney discusses how Alberta is trying to remedy the damage from a power purchasing scheme which allowed corporations to take easy profits then leave the province holding the bag during lean times.

- Finally, Paul Dechene examines the state of pipeline regulation in Saskatchewan, featuring Emily Eaton's observation that "almost no oil and gas infrastructure in the province undergoes an environmental impact assessment". Julie Dermansky points out that Saskatchewan is far from the only jurisdiction with an epidemic of spills arising out of lax regulation, as a single Louisiana parish has been hit by three in ten days. Robyn Allan notes that British Columbia is picking up much of the tab for the cleanup from the Mount Polley mine disaster. And Mike De Souza reports on the National Energy Board's deception about its meeting with Jean Charest while he was under contract with TransCanada.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Robert Frank examines how market outcomes are shaped disproportionately by luck rather than significant differences in merit:

(W)ith each extension of the highway, rail, and canal systems, shipping costs fell sharply, and at each step production became more concentrated...It’s of course a good thing that their superior offerings are now available to more people. But an inevitable side effect has been that producers with even a slight edge over their rivals went on to capture most of the industry’s income.

Therein lies a hint about why chance events have grown more important even as markets have become more competitive. When shipping costs fell dramatically, producers who were once local monopolists serving geographically isolated markets found themselves battling one another for survival. In those battles, even a tiny cost advantage or quality edge could be decisive. Minor random events can easily tip the balance in such competitions— and in the process spell the difference between great wealth and economic failure. So luck is becoming more important in part because the stakes have increased sharply in contests whose outcomes have always hinged partly on chance events.
...

What’s also clear is that the economic forces that have been causing the spread and intensification of winner-take-all markets have by no means run their course. We can expect continued growth in the intensity of competition on the buyers’ side for the best talent, and on the sellers’ side for the top positions.

In his widely discussed 2013 book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty suggested yet another reason for rising inequality, which is the historical tendency for the rate of return on invested capital to exceed the overall growth rate for the economy. When that happens, he argues, wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of those who own the most capital. All things considered, then, it appears prudent to envision a future characterized by continued growth in income and wealth inequality—which is to say, a future in which chance events will become still more important.

Because the enormous prizes at stake in many arenas attract so many contestants, the winners will almost without exception be enormously talented and hardworking. But they will rarely be the most talented and hardworking people in the contestant pool. Even in contests in which luck plays only a minuscule role, winners will almost always be among the luckiest of all contestants.

- Patrick Wintour reports on a new statement from top economists that tax havens serve no useful economic purpose. And Heather Stewart examines James Henry's studying showing that more than $12 trillion in wealth has been extracted from developing countries who can least afford to see their economic production parked offshore.

-  Laurie Monsebraaten reports on Kaylie Tiessen's latest study, discussing the growth of Ontario's poverty gap for single people in particular.

- Anjum Soltana and Antu Hossain rightly argue for increased access to sick days and other means of fitting work into a more secure life. And Jared Bernstein comments on the spread of non-compete agreements as a means of suppressing wages.

- Eric Holthaus points out that weather-related crises such as the Fort McMurray fire represent exactly the time to talk about how we're damaging our planet - and what we need to be doing to change course.

- Finally, Nate Cohn examines how Bernie Sanders' campaign - even if it ultimately falls short of the presidential nomination - shows a path to victory in the U.S. for a progressive candidate who doesn't need an alliance with big-money interests.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- David Akin reports that MPs from multiple parties are rightly challenging offshore tax evasion - though it remains to be seen how many will actually demand a change to the practice. And Tanya Tagala notes that it won't be long before the people named in the Panama Papers will be identified publicly.

- Bob Kinnear points out the utter lack of a rational explanation for Ontario's giveaway of public assets and institutions - that is, other than to generate a source of unearned money for the financial sector. And Kasia Tarczynska highlights how U.S. funding for "job creation" tends to be biased toward large corporations which play jurisdictions against each other, rather than actually helping to develop small local businesses.

- John Vidal talks to Naomi Klein about the connections between climate change, austerity and the breakdown of social cohesion. 

- Elizabeth McSheffrey and Jenny Uechi find reason for concern that Christy Clark is actively punishing British Columbia's public education system. And Jon Woodward reports on the rationing of playground time within overcrowded Surrey schools as just another symptom of the underfunding of the public system.

- Finally, Owen Jones examines the backlash against the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership as a prime example as to how protest - particularly across borders - can result in important changes to policy.

Friday Evening Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Danny Dorling discusses the need for kindness among other attributes to bridge growing gaps in wealth and social status:

Gross inequality creates a lack of respect for the other group – people who are not like us. There is a lack of respect among the rich for the poor, and that will be the same among the poor for the rich. Lack of respect breeds cruelty and hate. Lack of respect is not new and has grown between groups many times before, over religion, race, nationality, social class, sex and sexuality. These older divisions all remain and can be easily reignited, resulting in cruelty and hate, fear, suffering and despair. However, nowadays it is financial inequality both globally and in the UK that is the greatest source of our separation from each other.

- Meanwhile, Yascha Mounk and Roberto Foa report on polling showing the U.S.' lack of trust in its democratic institutions - with an authoritarian streak developing particularly among the wealthy. Robert Reich traces the rise of Donald Trump's destructive politics to the insecurity of the hollowed-out middle class. And Jill Treanor points out how that gross income inequality is demotivating for workers.

- Joe Fantauzzi argues that Ontario should fund a desperately-needed infrastructure program with additional revenue from corporate taxes, rather than selling off public assets:

Given the potential counterproductive nature of privatizing public assets, as flagged by the Financial Accountability Officer of Ontario, the decision to go down that path by the current government is concerning. As well, the failure of past federal-provincial infrastructure funding schemes demands a change of the status quo. Put bluntly, those funding initiatives simply have not in the past and are not presently addressing Ontario’s infrastructure deficit in a meaningful way. That any increases to those federal-provincial programs are contingent on political will is also a drawback. New thinking is required to deal with Ontario’s infrastructure problem. I recommend that the federal government move to begin taxing Canadian overseas corporate assets currently held in tax shelters and share those confiscated revenues with the province of Ontario under the condition that the money be used exclusively for infrastructure spending. I also recommend that the joint provincial-federal rate of Ontario corporate taxation be increased to 2009 levels immediately. Further increases of the rate also need to be considered. Ultimately, a more aggressive tone is clearly needed by government with the Canadian corporate sector, which has demonstrably not fulfilled its end of the low tax bargain since the financial crisis began.

- Finally, Paul Schliesmann reports that Kingston's City Council has become the first elected body in Canada to formally endorse a basic income - and that it did so unanimously.