On historical echoes

Ontario's ongoing provincial election is presenting some interesting echoes from previous campaigns - particularly the 2015 federal election which similarly involved a seemingly vulnerable Conservative majority, an NDP official opposition and a Lib attempt to jump back into default-government status. 

At the outset, I'll reiterate my longtime view that contrary to conventional wisdom, the 2015 NDP strategy - which involved focusing largely on making the case to defeat the Harper Cons, and positioning Thomas Mulcair as a broadly acceptable option in the event voters reached the judgment Justin Trudeau wasn't ready for the job of prime minister - was neither entirely unreasonable nor unsuccessful. 

The first necessary step to achieve anything was to make the case for a change in government, and Mulcair's work prosecuting Harper and his record played a huge role in achieving that. And while Trudeau's performance was beyond the NDP's control, there was a plausible path to government if he'd failed to live up to expectations. (Of course, it ultimately helped Trudeau that dismissive messaging about him lowered the bar considerably.) 

To the extent that calculation failed to achieve all of the desired outcome, it's one that Andrea Horwath's Ontario NDP seems determined not to repeat: it's rightly keeping a focus on the continuity between PC and Lib policies as representing a series of failures that need fixing. But there are also a couple of other distinguishing factors which offer the prospect of a better outcome in Ontario. 

The first is the one which was entirely outside of the federal NDP's control: following Jack Layton's death, the leader whose popularity helped boost the party into Official Opposition status was no longer around to help it take the next step into government.

It's bizarre in that context to see commentary (mostly from Lib spinners, but somewhat from others as well) suggesting that Ontario's NDP should have jettisoned its leader voluntarily after achieving its best result in a generation. But for now, the party enjoys the advantage of Andrea Horwath's relatively strong approval ratings and consistent ability to boost the NDP's standing, while the Libs have a comparatively unknown leader who remains ripe for a campaign collapse.  

Of course, that leaves the major avoidable failing of Mulcair's federal campaign, being the lack of a strong pushback against the Libs' messages about the relative progressive positioning of the two parties. That allowed Trudeau to win over far too many voters with a claim to progressivity which was entirely unwarranted based on the parties' actual platforms. 

But while the Ontario Libs are trying to similarly claim to be challenging the NDP from the left, Horwath's team has done plenty to ensure that type of attack is neither plausible nor successful.

Indeed, if there's anything that's gone glaringly unmentioned in most coverage of the Ontario election, it's the deep policy work already done (and yes, promoted) by the NDP in areas where the Libs have spent the campaign hastily cribbing a platform for themselves. 

Want to see Canada's most populous province actually be a leader in implementing a Green New Democratic Deal? The NDP has worked out how to get there (PDF). 

Think a party's commitment to increasing housing supply should be backed by a meaningful analysis of how to get there, as well as specific plans to ensure homes are available for vulnerable groups? The NDP has it covered (PDF). 

A detailed plan to bring long-term care under public control and protect residents from the neglect set up by decades of Lib and PC privatization? That's been developed (PDF) as well.

Want to see a promise to provide universal mental health care which is actually supported by a road map to get there? That's been done too (PDF). 

In each case, the NDP's detailed plans - supported by significant research and analysis - have been copied in part by the Libs in two- to four-page platform entries. But there's little room for dispute both as to which party has the more progressive policies, and which has put meaningful thought and analysis into how to implement them. 

Unfortunately, those plans won't amount to much if the broader electorate isn't convinced to vote the PCs out and the NDP in. But that's where it's essential to let people know that there is a viable alternative - and that it's ready to fix the most important issues facing Ontario if given the chance.  

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- George Monbiot writes that rhetoric about "learning to live with it" has become the go-to excuse to allow preventable tragedies - including the COVID pandemic and the deepening climate crisis - to go unaddressed. Joe Vipond, Kashif Perzada and Malgorzata Gasperowicz argue that Albertans (like citizens elsewhere) have never given informed consent to the mass infection strategy apparently being substituted for any reasonable public health policy. And Linda Geddes reports on new research adding a massively increased risk of deep vein thrombosis and blood clots to the list of effects of infection. 

- The CCPA offers its review of Saskatchewan's provincial budget, highlighting Scott Moe's attempt to use it as to stop talking about the ongoing pandemic even as the damage wrought by COVID-19 reaches new heights. Phil Tank points out how a continued focus on (misleading nominal-dollar) comparisons to a decade and a half ago shows that the Saskatchewan Party has never grown up. And Jessie Anton reports on the students taking direct action to push for adequate education funding - rather than cuts for an already-starved public system while new money is funneled to private operators. 

- Meanwhile, the CCPA's federal budget review recognizes that some important steps toward improving people's lives are ultimately being treated as secondary to keeping the corporate sector comfortable. Mike Moffatt notes that a belated federal return to the world of making housing policy falls far short of what people need to fulfil their right to a home. And Alex Ballingall reports on the rightly frustrated response of environmental groups to a budget whose main investment in climate change is a handout to oil companies for carbon capture and storage schemes which do little to reduce emissions while locking in fossil fuel infrastructre. 

- Fatima Syed writes about the Ontario NDP's complete and ambitious climate plan in an election where the other main parties are looking to downplay the future of the planet. And Paige Bennett reports on new research from the White House Office of Management and Budget showing a multi-trillion-dollar price tag attached to climate inaction.  

- Jacob Lorinc discusses the growing recognition that corporate greed is the main driver in life becoming perpetually less affordable. 

- Finally, Lauren Pelley explains why a national pharmacare program hasn't yet been implemented despite a myriad of promises and studies - with furious lobbying by profiteers of course ranking at the top of the list. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Eric Topol writes that we have the public health tools at our disposal to overcome the Omicron COVID variant if our leaders are responsible enough to use them, though Susan Delacourt notes that repeated messages about the pandemic being over have created avoidable fatigue about the need for more. John Michael McGrath writes that our health care system can't bear another mismanaged COVID wave. And Tara Deschamps reports on a new survey showing a massive supermajority of Canadian workers facing burnout over the past two years. 

- Luke Savage highlights how the pharmaceutical companies peddling COVID vaccines developed through public research now stand to profit by denying inoculations to large swaths of the planet and extending the pandemic. And the Strategic Organizing Centre exposes how Amazon concealed tens of thousands of COVID cases among its workers from occupational health and safety authorities. 

- John Clarke writes that British Columbia's recent floods offer an indication both of the consequences of a climate breakdown, and our lack of preparation to meet them. Gerald Kutney observes that "natural" disasters are increasingly the result of human intervention and neglect. And Alex Cosh discusses how migrant workers have been put at particular risk. 

- Max Fawcett examines the actual causes of inflation in Canada - in contrast to the Cons' attempt to blame the existence of any social benefits whatsoever. And Justin Chandler asks why social assistance rates aren't keeping pace with any level of inflation, while Kristin Rushowy reports on the Ontario NDP's plan to at least ensure the province's minimum wage increases to something closer to the cost of living. 

- Finally, Armine Yalnizyan discusses the new fiscal federalism which is seeing at least some federal investments tied to policy improvements rather than being dumped into a black hole (as requested by far too many premiers).

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Eric Cadesky writes about the psychology behind adherence to - and deviation from - the social distancing rules needed to keep us all safe.

- Nora Loreto discusses how COVID-19 has exposed the lethal problems with Canada's long-term care system. Karl Belanger points out that among the other warnings, Howard Hampton tried to highlight the neglect of residents in 2007 - only to see austerian governments continue to hold power. And Susan Delacourt discusses the role the federal government can play in ensuring that seniors are treated with care, while Scott Schmidt calls out Jason Kenney's UCP for declaring it's willing to sacrifice residents' lives if it means profits keep flowing.

- Kelly Grant and Carly Weeks examine Ontario's hot spots for community transmission of the coronavirus - as well as the social inequalities they reflect. And Jennifer Yang discusses the prospect that workplaces will be the new danger zones.

- Fair Vote Canada makes the case to restore democratically-determined per-vote funding to our federal political parties.

- Finally, Sandy Garossino discusses how Stephen Harper has cemented his place as an embarrassment since being voted out of office.

New column day

Here, on the parallels between the presidency of Donald Trump and the danger of a Doug Ford-led government in Ontario.

For further reading...
- Hugh Mackenzie has done the math on the PCs' non-platform, finding a fiscal hole of $13.75 billion every year.
- Graeme Gordon reports on Ontario Proud's voter spam and other intervention in Ontario's election.
- Christopher Guly comments on the rise of Andrea Horwath, and I've previously discussed the parallels between this campaign and other NDP successes. But Marieke Walsh notes the risk that the NDP might win the popular vote but fall short in the seat count.
- Martin Regg Cohn questions Ford's treatment of his own family - raising obvious questions about how cavalier he'd be with a provincial treasury at his disposal.
- Finally, for some of the better commentary on what to expect, see Bryan Breguet and tcnorris. And Ryan McGreal has assembled Breguet's data into a riding-by-riding guide.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Cherise Seucharan interviews Andrew MacLeod about his new book on the health benefits of investing in income, housing and education. And Kyle Edwards discusses the unconscionable number of Indigenous children being put in foster care.

- Ben Smee reports on the UK's parliamentary inquiry into franchising - including evidence that franchisees have been advised to use wage theft and exploitation of vulnerable workers as regular business strategies. And Jeffry Bartash examines new U.S. data showing that an unusually high number of employees are seeing no raises despite a supposedly tight job market.

- Meanwhile, Jude Kirton-Darling and Agnes Jongerius report on a new EU law - fought tooth and nail by the UK's Cons - intended to ensure that the free movement of workers doesn't serve to undercut wages and employment standards.

- Robert Benzie reports on the Ontario NDP's plan for a rent registry for transparency in housing pricing (and as a safeguard against "renovictions").

- Finally, Kevin Taft comments that the Trans Mountain buyoff and expansion look to be symptoms of a continued addiction to fossil fuels. And James Wilt interviews Peter Erickson about the long-term ramifications of those choices today.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Sunil Johal and Armine Yalnizyan discuss the importance of building an economy based on a race to the top in labour and environmental standards, rather than the pursuit of the lowest common denominator.

- Kevin Corinth and Claire Rossi-de Vries examine the importance of social ties as a buffer against homelessness. Suzanne Fitzpatrick reports that even social housing is becoming unaffordable in the UK. And Brakkton Booker reports on the Republicans' plans to ensure the same result in the U.S.

- Meanwhile, Heather Timmons comments on Mick Mulvaney's determination to turn a consumer protection bureau into a servant of the financial sector. And Kate Aronoff notes that the most scandalous part of Scott Pruitt's role in Donald Trump's cabinet is his determination to turn the U.S. into a full-on petro state.

- The Star weighs in on the Ontario NDP's ambitious yet responsible election platform. And Duncan Cameron offers a preview of the federal Libs' plan to once again use progressive language to paper over a fundamentally conservative agenda. 

- Finally, Andrew Jackson maps out the road toward a needed national pharmacare program.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Spencer Piston argues that it's unreasonable to blame people living in poverty for not participating in political structures designed to exclude them - while noting that many Americans want to see a far more progressive tax system which politicians have made no effort to pursue.

- And Sean Murphy notes that Oklahoma has joined Kansas as cautionary tales about the dangers of  regressive fiscal and economic policy.

- Peter Gowan discusses Rudolf Meidner's model of public ownership as a needed step to ensure people can chart their own future rather than being constrained by capital interests. And Lex highlights the importance of public equity as a check against corporate takeovers.

- Richard Wiles writes that time is running out to start taking meaningful action after 50 years of procrastination in addressing greenhouse gas emissions. But Carol Linnitt points out that a British Columbia inquiry into fracking will deliberately avoid addressing public health risks and climate change. 

- Finally, Tabatha Southey offers a reminder as to what Doug Ford's brand of governance looks like - featuring a complete lack of coherent planning, and a distaste for the public interest. And Kristin Rushowy reports on the better alternative on offer from Andrea Horwath and the NDP, including universal pharmacare, expanded dental coverage, and a needed prioritization of public investments over private profits.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Rochelle Toplensky reports that ten years after a financial meltdown based on the instability of top-down economic structures, multinational corporations are paying substantially lower effective tax rates than they did before. And Jim Tankersley and Alan Rappaport follow up on how the Trump tax giveaway to the wealthy is riddled with mistakes and unintended consequences even on its own terms due to the Republicans' desperation to further enrich those who already have the most.

- Thomas Walkom writes that Donald Trump's blackmail shows just how illusory any asserted economic benefits from NAFTA always were for Canada.

- Joe Romm discusses Rick Perry's position that any attempt to move toward cheaper and clean energy is "immoral" for failing to sacrifice the public interest to the oil industry. And Jeff Sparrow compares the slow-motion disaster of climate change to the First World War, as the failures of governments are resulting in the public failing to appreciate the consequences of its actions (and inaction).

- Meanwhile, Chelsea Gohd points out that air pollution is the greatest environmental threat to our health and well-being - whether or not the dangers are visible.

- Finally, Mike Moffatt highlights how the Ontario PCs' insistence on refusing to cut greenhouse gas emissions could cost tens of thousands of jobs directly in the public service - which is well worth keeping in mind as Scott Moe matches Doug Ford's priorities of slashing jobs while obstructing action on climate change which could also help balance the books. And Tom Parkin notes that the PCs' meltdown and elevation of Ford gives Andrea Horwath's NDP an ideal chance to offer the prospect of change for the better.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Thomas Walkom and Andre Picard took the time to wonder whether the Libs actually planned to deliver on pharmacare before Bill Morneau confirmed otherwise.

- Joe Fries examines the history of P3s in British Columbia. And Alex MacPherson breaks the news that the Saskatchewan Party is planning on trying to distort the province's fiscal picture by selling off campus properties to the same universities which are already facing a several budget squeeze.

- Miranda Green reports on the Trump administration's destruction of environmental protection, including its plan to terminate the office which researches the harmful effects of chemical exposure on children. And Joan Lowy and Tom Kishner report on Trump's choice to echo the lax transportation safety rules which contributed to the Lac-Megantic explosion.

- Meanwhile, Annie Nova points out that while Republicans try to wring every possible cent out of ordinary people for the benefit of the wealthy, a plurality of Americans now support a basic income for everybody.

- Finally, David Climenhaga offers his take on why the Andrea Horwath-led NDP will win Ontario's upcoming provincial election by analogyo to Rachel Notley's Alberta victory.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Bill Kerry discusses the role of inequality in causing a global financial meltdown

Leaving aside the greed and stupidity of so many of the world's financial institutions and, particularly, their leaders, it is easy to see why poor Americans jumped at what they saw as their chance of the American Dream and why under pressure sales forces, with targets to meet and commissions to earn, pushed unsuitable products on to them. The US is the most unequal, major, developed world economy and, as a result, it is racked with status anxiety from top to bottom. Inequality forces people to compete with each other to try and scramble up the greasy pole, or at least stay where they are in the pecking order. Buying your own house rather than renting is a massive step up the social ladder as is being a success in business, even if that business is saddling poor people with crushing debt that they can never hope to repay. But inequality helps out here too. Great inequality encourages us to think of poorer people as somehow having failed anyway, so maybe it matters less what is done to them. Out of sight, out of mind.

In a wider sense the 2007 crash was the result of deep-seated changes in the world economy, not least the massive expansion of private debt that had built up in the system over recent decades. But again, inequality and status anxiety had key roles here. Real wages have not allowed us or our families to live the lives we want, the lives that advertisers sell us every day. So in order to get these lives and to preserve our status and sense of self-worth in the world around us, we borrowed to bridge the gap. A massive bubble was created and this burst in 2007, all it took was the big American sub-prime needle to do it.

- And Sahil Dutta and Paul Gilbert point out that a meaningful left response to trickle-down economics needs to address management, not only ownership.

- Jake Johnson examines how U.S. corporations already avoid most of their nominal tax obligations - and how they (assisted by the Trump administration) are pushing to contribute even less. And David Dayen and Ryan Grim report on extra fees which have been added to consumers' monthly mortgage payments through opt-out junk mail.

- Michael Coren highlights the hypocrisy of executives who never hesitate to extract every possible nickel from businesses for themselves, but cry poor over any talk of a living wage for employees. And Daniel Gross calls out employers who are complaining about a lack of workers for refusing to offer wages which would make it worth working for them.

- Finally, the Ontario NDP has unveiled a new plan for worker-friendly labour and employment law reform. And Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon reports on Jennifer McKenzie's ascent to the leadership of the New Brunswick NDP - and the expectation that it will join other provincial wings in leading the way toward progressive policy choices.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Gillian White highlights Peter Temin's work on poverty and inequality - including the standard which a person trapped in poverty needs to meet in order to have any meaningful hope of escaping:

Temin then divides workers into groups that can trace their family line in the U.S. back to before 1970 (when productivity growth began to outpace wage growth) and groups that immigrated later, and notes that race plays a pretty big role in how both groups fare in the American economy. “In the group that has been here longer, white Americans dominate both the FTE sector and the low-wage sector, while African Americans are located almost entirely in the low-wage sector,” he writes. “In the group of recent immigrants, Asians predominantly entered the FTE sector, while Latino immigrants joined African Americans in the low-wage sector.”

After divvying up workers like this (and perhaps he does so with too broad of strokes), Temin explains why there are such stark divisions between them. He focuses on how the construction of class and race, and racial prejudice, have created a system that keeps members of the lower classes precisely where they are. He writes that the upper class of FTE workers, who make up just one-fifth of the population, has strategically pushed for policies—such as relatively low minimum wages and business-friendly deregulation—to bolster the economic success of some groups and not others, largely along racial lines. “The choices made in the United States include keeping the low-wage sector quiet by mass incarceration, housing segregation and disenfranchisement,” Temin writes.

And how is one to move up from the lower group to the higher one? Education is key, Temin writes, but notes that this means plotting, starting in early childhood, a successful path to, and through, college. That’s a 16-year (or longer) plan that, as Temin compellingly observes, can be easily upended. For minorities especially, this means contending with the racially fraught trends Temin identifies earlier in his book, such as mass incarceration and institutional disinvestment in students, for example. Many cities, which house a disproportionate portion of the black (and increasingly, Latino) population, lack adequate funding for schools. And decrepit infrastructure and lackluster public transit can make it difficult for residents to get out of their communities to places with better educational or work opportunities. Temin argues that these impediments exist by design. 

- Vickiie Oliphant writes that inequality is looming as a major issue in Germany's upcoming election. And Justine Hunter notes that the growing gap between the privileged few and the general public is shaping British Columbia's provincial campaign.

- Meanwhile, the Tyee introduces readers to Christy Clark's club of lobbyists. And Emma Gilchrist points out how the fossil fuel sector has turned substantial donations to the B.C. Libs into massive public subsidies and policy favours.

- Mike Crawley writes about Ontario's limited introduction of pharmacare for young people, while Thomas Walkom points out the limitations of the Libs' hastily-assembled scheme. And Meagan Fitzpatrick discusses the hope that Ontario's first step will lead to a national pharmacare plan - though the more important analogy seems to be that just like Kathleen Wynne, Justin Trudeau will start implementing progressive policy if and only if he recognizes that it's his only hope of avoiding being overtaken by the NDP.

- Finally, Tammy Robert highlights the fact that the Saskatchewan Party's indignity being forced on people who die while on social assistance bears no resemblance to how governments across Canada handle the issue. And Scott Stelmaschuk reminds us about the federal tax implications of Brad Wall's plans to sell off chunks of Saskatchewan's Crown Corporations.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Andre Picard talks to the Current about the need to start demanding more from our universal health care system, rather than being persuaded to put up with less. And Canadian Doctors for Medicare offers its support to the Ontario NDP's pharmacare plan, while Chris Selley writes that it looks to be a winner both in terms of policy and politics.

- Richard Lewontin points out that inequality is far from natural or inevitable - no matter how much pseudoscience is assembled to pretend otherwise.

- Meanwhile, Tara Garcia Mathewson reminds us that poverty results in entirely unnatural changes to the developing brain, while Dawn Foster recognizes its link to mental health issues. And in the wake of British Columbia's election campaign, Katie Hyslop rightly asks how anybody can trust a government to deal with poverty if it remains idle when it has money to burn.

- Kevin Carmichael discusses the risk of a Canadian financial crisis, most recently due to the lack of any meaningful policy response to real estate bubbles in Vancouver and Toronto. And Richard Florida highlights how progressive city planning is needed to avoid segregation by income.

- Finally, the Star calls for the federal government to reverse the Harper Cons' punitive policy on criminal pardons. 

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Lana Payne questions whether Justin Trudeau's brief nod to precarious work and burgeoning inequality will be reflected in any action. But Sheila Malcolmson notes that Trudeau's say-anything approach includes turning himself into a human shield for Donald Trump, while PressProgress reports on the record-breaking petition to push Trudeau to keep his promise of electoral reform after he's tried to weasel his way out of it.

- Meanwhile, Mike Seccombe highlights how Australian labour policy is effectively designed to make it difficult for younger workers to find secure employment. And Marc Montgomery writes about the many existing jobs which are in danger of being automated out of existence in the near future. 

- Steve Roth points out how shared wealth is an essential part of economic development:

There’s a curious fact about the wealth and growth of nations that you rarely see mentioned: No country has ever joined the modern, high-productivity, rich-country club without massive doses of redistribution, and universal government programs for social support and financial security. Not one. Ever.

...
An explanation is perhaps not far to find. Market capitalism — especially modern “holding-company capitalism,” in which corporations own corporations which own corporations, ad infinitum — inevitably concentrates wealth and income into fewer and fewer hands. It’s just the nature of the beast. Along with its immense, world-changing, manifest benefits, market capitalism labors under that inescapable burden.

Then add an Econ 101 notion that is pretty much universally accepted, because it’s strongly supported by theory, empirics, and just plain sensible intuition: decreasing marginal propensity to spend. A poorer person is more likely to spend an extra dollar (in wealth or income) than a richer person. Because: the “utility” (or just benefit) purchased by that extra dollar is so much higher for the poorer person. The fourth ice cream cone, iPhone, or Lamborghini just isn’t as enjoyable as the first. So greater concentration into a few hands means less spending — in economic terms, lower “velocity,” or turnover, of wealth.
...
“Share the wealth” is a phrase that is very anathema to libertarians and free-market conservatives. But sharing — pretty much the defining act of of altruism and cooperation — lies at the very heart of humanity’s success as a species. Cooperation, altruism, and sharing are what got us to the top of the food chain. (We’re not talking here about the techno-utopians’ faux-“sharing economy,” in which you “share” your car and driving services — in return for money. We have another word for that: we call it trade.)
...
To put it simply: Yes. Prosperity requires a welfare state.

Or to put it another way: Widespread prosperity both causes and is greater prosperity.

- Finally, Laurie Monsebraaten reports on the Ontario NDP's effort to ensure that child care funding is about more than corporate profit centres - along with the Libs' refusal to consider the possibility.

Thursday Evening Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Olivia Loveridge-Greene comments on new research showing how many workers may be forced to keep working into their 70s or beyond in order to be able to stay afloat. And Don Pittis explains why tax-free savings accounts and other giveaways to the wealthy won't do anything to help the people who most need an opportunity to save for retirement:

(S)ince the late Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty adopted Kesselman's idea and introduced the tax-free savings account in 2009, research shows that neither it nor RRSPs are doing what economists had hoped and expected.

"Is the effect more saving or less saving?" Kesselman asks. Once all the studies are done, the results are "pretty mixed," he says.

Kesselman, who now holds the Canada Research Chair in Public Finance at Simon Fraser University, says the tax-free accounts aren't having their intended effect, with the danger they will once again be perceived, as the RRSP once was, as "tax relief for high earners."
...
Despite championing tax-free savings accounts more than a decade ago, Kesselman has changed his tune.

Since tax breaks have failed to motivate people to save for retirement, he has now reluctantly begun advocating a compulsory savings plan, under which savers are forced to contribute to a pension big enough to support themselves through their retirement.

- Meanwhile, Kate McGillivray reports on how exorbitant housing prices are driving an entire generation away from Toronto's core.

- Jubilee Debt Campaign highlights how the UK's disastrous experience with high-priced P3s should serve as a warning to the rest of the world. And Thomas Walkom notes that Ontario's NDP is rightly looking to reverse any push toward privatization - unlike the Libs who prefer to lock in more corporate payoffs.

- Martin Kenney discusses Canada's shameful role in facilitating global tax evasion. And Harvey Cashore, Kimberly Ivany, Frederic Zalac and Gillian Findlay report on KPMG's tax dodges in particular.

- Finally, Katie Hyslop points out that even in an election-year budget, Christy Clark's B.C. Libs couldn't be bothered to lift a finger to deal with child poverty. CBC offers a reminder as to how poverty affects a child's ability to learn in school. And Patrick Butler examines the close link between child poverty and family disruption as children are taken into state care.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- David Boyle discusses how the principle of free trade - once intended to empower consumers against monopolies - is instead being used to lock in corporate control:

(T)he original idea of free trade was not a simple licence to do whatever you wanted, if you were rich and powerful enough. It was designed as a means of liberation – so that the small could challenge the big, the poor could challenge the rich with the power of a new approach, an alternative provider, an imaginative, liberating shift. It was an antidote to the old pattern that employers could control not just what you were paid, but also what you paid for the things you needed to live.

But recent decades have seen this central liberal economic doctrine become its own opposite – permission for the rich to ride roughshod over the poor, an apologia for monopoly and an extractive discipline that prevents the all-important challenge from below. It became instead a potential tool of enslavement.
...
Friedman argued that intellectual property was a kind of property, and must be defended as such, rather than – as it actually is – a temporary suspension of free trade to encourage innovation. That is why draft agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which purport to be about free trade, are actually about defending investments and trademarks.

Even more seriously, Friedman argued that monopoly didn’t matter, and – if it did happen – it was the fault of the government for over-regulating.

The first error led to the great heresy of neoliberalism, that corporations should be treated like human beings in legal terms. The second was a rejection of the most fundamental element in liberal economics, a defence against the over-concentration of market power. It was the very opposite of liberal free trade.

It explains why the dead hand of neoliberal orthodoxy has ignored monopolies as a problem as they grow in power over our lives, as we fall into the tyrannical clutches of companies we are virtually forced to buy from...

- Dylan Matthews writes about the state of poverty around the world - including the observation that poverty levels are essentially a matter of choice in the developed world where it can readily be ended through redistribution. Owen Jones highlights why the UK has every reason to be embarrassed about the needless obstacles it's putting in the way of children, while David Tran comments on the difficulties of trying to build a life in the absence of any margin for error. And Gil McGowan points out how an increased minimum wage results in real benefits for people getting by on low incomes.

- Meanwhile, Kristy Kirkup reports that the Libs' idea of complying with an order to stop discriminating against First Nations children has been to add precisely nothing to a budgeting process started when the Cons were still in power.

- Wendy Levinson comments on the growing recognition that parts of our health care system are biased toward unnecessary testing and treatment.

- Michael Vonn points out that C-51's draconian anti-speech provisions may make it far more difficult to carry out any meaningful work against radicalization. And Andrew Mitrovica talks to Paul Cavalluzzo about the glaring flaws in both C-51 and C-22.

- Finally, Gerry Caplan recognizes that Justin Trudeau's media honeymoon is coming to an end. And Steve Paikin points out that Ontario's NDP may soon have its best opportunity in ages in a provincial election campaign.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Labour Day reading.

- Jared Bernstein comments on the prospect of a labour revival which can boost the prospects of unionized and non-unionized workers alike. And Thomas Walkom makes the case for closer identification between the NDP and Canada's labour movement:

Labour needs a political party because unions, on their own, are a declining force. Only 29 per cent of the Canadian workforce is unionized. The number continues to fall.

This has happened because the economy, once characterized by large manufacturing plants, is now dominated by smaller service firms that, under current labour laws, are more difficult to unionize.

The decline of well-paying union jobs is one of the key factors behind the rise in income inequality that politicians routinely fret about.

Yet to reverse this trend would require a total rethinking of employment and labour laws, most of which were designed in the 1940s and ‘50s.

Among other things, the laws must be amended to eliminate the loophole that allows so many employers to pretend their workers are independent contractors who do not qualify for benefits or statutory protection.

As well, labour relations laws would have to be changed to allow unions organizing, say, fast-food franchise outlets, to take on the ultimate employer.

These are just a couple of examples. The point is that, if unions are to survive, labour laws must be rethought.

That in turn requires a political party willing to do the rethinking.

- And CBC reports that Ontario's NDP looks to be taking that advice by looking to facilitate both certification and collective bargaining - though there's still more to be done in examining the broader trends affecting unionization rates.

- Mark Dearn discusses how the CETA figures to undermine democratic governance in Canada and Europe alike. And the CP reports on Justin Trudeau's attempt to stifle discussion of the actual terms of corporate control agreements by indiscriminately bashing anybody who raises reasonable questions about business-oriented trade deals.

- Michael Winship points out how profiteering around the EpiPen the fits into a wider pattern of pharmaceutical price gouging and other anti-social behaviour.

- Finally, Lyndal Rowlands writes that developed countries have a strong stake in working toward meeting global development goals - and suggests it's long past time that we started acting like it.

On redemocratization

Adrian Morrow reports on Andrea Horwath's speech to the Ontario NDP's provincial council. And there's certainly plenty of reason for relative optimism about a message which both reflects a clear argument for big-picture progressive thinking, and recognizes at least part of the importance of the NDP's base. That said, I'll note that there's still one area which leaves something to be desired in Horwath's message:

Party sources say the election campaign was too undemocratic, run by a handful of people close to Ms. Horwath who decreed there would be no big picture pledges. The campaign also focused too strongly on winning Southwest Ontario – a region hard-hit with the decline of the manufacturing sector – at the expense of Toronto and the GTA, the sources said. The populist approach, they contend, made it harder for some in the party to feel they were fighting for anything important and consequently led to a lack of motivation.

Ms. Horwath made a bid to correct both problems Saturday.

In a speech that bordered on liturgy, she rhymed off example after example of progressive values – from universal health care to fighting poverty to better pensions to public transit – that she would embrace over the next four years. And she tugged at NDP heartstrings, at one point referencing the party’s revered late federal leader, Jack Layton.

“Love is better than anger, as a good friend reminded us a few years ago. We are the party of hope. We are the party of optimism,” she said. “In a time when the very, very few continue to amass so much for themselves while everyone else is falling behind, we have never been more relevant.”

She also promised to make the party more internally democratic.

“Every single New Democrat should be able to see themselves in our campaigns,” Ms. Horwath said. “We must reach out as broadly as possible, both within our party and to our allies in our movement, when crafting both our commitments and our campaigns.”

So what's wrong with that past passage in particular?

It's surely a must for any leader to be willing to speak to the values favoured by party supporters, and to design policy consistent with those values. But Horwath still appears to be taking the position that the crucial actor is "we" in the sense of the party leader and her (or his) closest advisers - reflecting a commitment to an increased baseline for consultation, but not necessarily an interest in true democratic decision-making at the party level.

Put another way, while we should be able to expect at least future campaigns and policy proposals (and hopefully general decision-making) from the Ontario NDP to better reflect members' values with Horwath as leader, her intention is still to decide personally where that commitment begins and ends.

That view of the relationship between a commanding leader and a subservient party is of course entirely consistent with the practices of the NDP's competitors. But unlike the Libs (who will generally follow their leader anywhere for lack of any coherent value structure) and the PCs/Cons (who count deference to authority as a key component of their actual value structure), the NDP actually has something to lose in settling for a top-down model.

In effect, the concession that politics must be practiced along the lines preferred by the other parties only helps the Libs and Cons to argue that the NDP doesn't live up to its own values, and thus doesn't offer an improvement on what we're stuck with now. And to avoid validating that line of attack, we should expect the NDP at all levels to advocate for - and offer - decision-making mechanisms which allow for grassroots debates and decision-making, rather than treating party members as just one more focus group to be taken into account by a leader who exercises sole control.

In making that observation about the need for the NDP's leadership to value something more than their own power, however, I'll also note that far too many political activists have been willing to reinforce the same dichotomy from the opposite side.

I've yet to hear anybody offer a reasonable explanation as to how frustration with a single leader justifies abandoning exactly the party system which should provide an alternate and more democratic source of policy ideas and strategic direction. In fact, a trigger-happy view of one's own membership based on dissatisfaction with a leader both diminishes the stability of a party's general value system, and further entrenches the view that the leader is solely responsible for defining the party.

And that's especially counterproductive within a party whose extensive (and growing) progressive network still offers by far the strongest opportunity for activists to shape both electoral results and governing priorities.

In sum, while Horwath has taken some important steps in speaking to core New Democratic values, there's still plenty of work to be done in better putting them into effect. And we'll only see the best possible results at all levels if both the leaders who have centralized power and the critics who have responded by turning their back on party involvement are willing to work toward that end.

Saturday Morning Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- James Meek observes that decades of privatization in the UK have eliminated public control over housing and other essential services - and that privatization takes far more forms than we're accustomed to taking into consideration. And Rick Salutin offers his take on the latter point:

Economist Mariana Mazzucato's new book, The Entrepreneurial State, takes a bold step in "debunking" this fake construct. (Steve Paikin interviewed her on TVO this week.) She doesn't just argue that public spending (on defence) was crucial in basic advances like computers and the Internet. That's well-known. She also shows how U.S. public money funded product innovation way down the line, including some of the smallest details of the iPhone! She says the necessity of venture capital is highly exaggerated. Private investors are now far too focused on short-term profit to take real risks. It's governments that do it. The private sector then steps in when results are assured, to take the credit and the profits.

You could read her book as a blow on behalf of the public sector in the debate. But it works even better as a rejection of the debate's terms. There's no neat private-public division, that's just spin. There's actually society, a complex hybrid. Take the process of fixing potholes. Is that public or private? Or busing students to public schools. Even at those levels, it's all entwined. You cannot unscramble this omelet or neatly separate its ingredients back out.

- Meanwhile, Robert Benzie examines the Ontario Libs' plan to hand over the province's public resources based on marching orders from Bay Street, while Rob Ferguson reports on Andrea Horwath's anti-privatization push.

- Daniel Tencer examines expert reactions to the Cons' latest plan to suppress jobs and wages, and finds precisely nobody other than the CFIB with anything positive to say about it.

- Sharon Murphy writes that directing our attention toward poverty and other social determinants of health is both more humane then funding merely reactive systems, and more likely to result in an improved return on our public investments. And Andre Picard discusses the health consequences of insufficient access to dental care (particularly among Canadians with low incomes).

- Dene Moore reports on the obscene amount of political intervention the Cons are imposing in scientific discussions, finding that 16 separate communications operatives interfered in a single request to interview a single scientist about his work. And the Star calls for Health Canada to stop suppressing its findings about defective and dangerous prescription drugs.

- Finally, Jeremy Nuttall notes that the Cons' backroom dealings on the FIPA trade and investment agreement with China resulted in their completely caving when it came to Canadian interests, while the NDP is leading the charge to stop the sell-out. And Katie Valentine reports that while Stephen Harper can't rush through giveaways to Chinese business fast enough, he also can't be bothered to show up for the U.N.'s climate summit.

Thursday Morning Links - #VoteOn Edition

This and that for your Thursday (and Ontario election day) reading...

- Joseph Heath makes the case against Tim Hudak's PCs in particular, and the shift from public to private goods in general:

(I)t’s fairly clear what the PCs are planning. They are proposing a general shift in Ontario away from consumption of public goods towards increased consumption of private goods. For example, they aren’t making any noises about privatizing things, shifting production out of the public sector into the private, but where the general profile of consumption would be the same. They are proposing that we actually produce and consume less of the sort of goods that are best produced by government: in particular, less primary education, less environment protection, less public transit, and no provincial pensions. This will be done in order to lower taxes, so that people will have more disposable income, to buy various private goods.

Now I guess it’s worth noting that the PCs have not even tried to make the case for this (nor has Coyne, really, although we did get into it a bit once). In other words, they haven’t said one thing about why they think that it would be good for us, as a society, to shift consumption away from public (or quasi-public, you know what I mean) toward private goods. And at first glance, I’m not sure what that case would be. I’ve spent a fair bit of time in middle-class suburban homes in Ontario, and when I look around there, I don’t usually say to myself “you know what these people really need?… more shit from Costco.”

So if you were to put it in the form of a debating club proposition: “be it resolved, that what the people of Ontario need is more private goods and fewer public goods” I would be more than happy to take the negative. In fact, when I hear people complaining about their various work-life/financial woes, I find that a large fraction of them can be traced back to a chronic undersupply of public goods.

...

(O)ne of the central characteristics of the public goods whose level of supply is being debated (primary education, reduced congestion, better air quality & other environmental goods) is that they are not subject to competitive consumption. As a result, increasing the supply of these goods stands poised to generate real, sustained increases in individual welfare. This is a point that has been made most persuasively by Robert Frank (in various place, including here, here and here). The pervasive tendency in our society will be to underestimate the severity of negative externalities (precisely because they are not priced) and to overestimate the value of market goods (because we ignore positional effects). This is sufficient to license a general presumption that, whatever the politically achievable level of government spending, it is probably too low, relative to the actual consumption preferences of citizens. Further reducing it will do absolutely nothing to solve the problems that people hope to solve with it, and is likely to produce nothing but unnecessary suffering.

So that is why a Conservative government would be bad for Ontario — because their basic plan, if implemented, would make life worse for pretty much everyone.

- And Linda McQuaig points out that Hudak's obviously-flawed math is far from the only problem with his party's plans to crush Ontario's wages and working conditions:

This folksy persona has tended to obscure two key things about Hudak that have become evident in the current campaign: He remains committed to anti-union legislation aimed at making Ontario more like Arkansas, and he’s capable of a breathtaking level of cynical dishonesty.

His claim that he will create one million jobs isn’t just based on faulty arithmetic — it’s based on nothing, really.

And yet, even after his numbers were exposed as grossly inflated (multiplied erroneously by eight), Hudak simply shrugged, trotted out platitudes (“economists never agree”) and refused to acknowledge the fraudulent nature of his jobs claim.

Hudak is extremely anti-union. He used to be up-front about this, openly advocating that Ontario adopt so-called ‘right to work’ legislation — laws found primarily in the U.S. south which are aimed at curbing unions.

By preventing companies and unions from signing contracts with an automatic dues check-off, such laws make it difficult for unions to survive, leaving workers with little clout to push wages much above the U.S. federal minimum of $7.25 an hour. (In Arkansas, the state allows a lower minimum wage of $6.25 an hour.)
...
It is this preposterous decision to multiple by eight which has captured most attention and caused Hudak to be ridiculed about his math.
But the whole package is riddled with ludicrous assumptions based on Zycher’s (and presumably Hudak’s) belief that by increasing “economic freedom” to the level of Arkansas and Mississippi, Ontario’s GDP per capita will grow — even though our GDP per capita is already higher than these economically “freer” states and Hudak has said he won’t introduce the anti-union laws that allegedly increase “economic freedom” anyway.

- David Reevely looks behind the surface of a "decline your vote" astroturf site, and predictably finds a right-winger trying to convince marginal voters they shouldn't bother with democracy. And Alison makes clear that it's the politicians least interested in serving the public - Hudak's PCs - who would benefit if citizens give up in the ridings targeted for voter demobilization.

- Which is naturally just fine with some of our corporate media overlords, as Jesse Brown offers an inside scoop on the owner-mandated orders to override the Globe and Mail's editorial board to hand Tim Hudak an endorsement - followed by a sad attempt to claim the endorsement actually reflected editorial judgment rather than orders from on high. But of course the real controversy is that a union representing media workers had the nerve to express its own opinion.

- In what's surely unrelated news, Canada's corporate class is corrupt even by its own account. 

- Finally, Johannes Wheeldon sets out the options available to Ontario's political parties after today's election - with a particular focus on the (seemingly likely) event that no party holds a majority. Bill Tieleman observes that strategic voting tends to benefit precisely the party one wants to stop. And for those looking for more reading material on the Ontario election, Ron Waller's blog is a great place to start - particularly in reminding us just which party actually offers an alternative to Hudak's corporatism.