Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- If there's any lesson we should all be able to draw from the past decade in Canadian politics, it's that anything can happen. But it's still rather amazing to see Gerald Caplan get hopeful about the NDP's prospects of forming a social-democratic government:

Faithful readers will know that I’ve spent my adult life trying to get the NDP to be realistic about its modest status in Canadian life. Until last May I repeatedly pointed out that with a single exception, the party always got less than 20 per cent of the national vote, would not in the foreseeable future form a government, and had to learn to live with moral victories as the conscience of the nation.

This was not a status to be dismissed or minimized. The CCF/NDP played a central role, as opposition, in forcing the governing parties to introduce the welfare state, one of the great contributions to the well-being of Canadians, and now in serious jeopardy. As well, research showed that while most Canadians would not vote NDP, a majority were reassured to have the party around to keep the major players honest.

Then came May 2011, 30 per cent of the vote and Official Opposition. But how could it be sustained. Surely this was a fluke resting on the shoulders of one man, and he, tragically, was gone.
...
For months we had heard that the party in the House of Commons had disappeared, its interim leader submerged by the ubiquitous Bob Rae. Yet almost a year after their majority government victory, the Harperites had lost a quarter of their support and were now at 30 per cent, the Liberals had stayed put at a derisory 20 per cent, and the NDP was still at 30 per cent. The party was tied with the badly slumping Conservatives for first place!

Even more remarkably, and all but unprecedented, 49 per cent of all Canadians now believe the NDP can be trusted with government. In fact, that can be said more positively: Half of Canadians believe an NDP government would be good for Canada! Another 20 per cent are unsure, making them potential supporters. It seems the very fact of being Official Opposition means a party is taken more seriously as an alternative government. Now you can’t exactly say with a straight face the NDP is rushing headlong towards government with up to 70 per cent of the vote. But still, whoever anticipated such a breakthrough?
...
And to top it off, post-convention polling continues this groundbreaking trend. As one pollster summed it up this week, “It’s clear that the election of Tom Mulcair as NDP leader has considerably improved the party’s prospects.”
...
Clearly Stephen Harper’s enforcers believe their coming onslaught can undermine the new NDP leader in the same classy way they demolished Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff.

Who knows? Maybe they’re right. But the tides of March suggest this new NDP guy won’t be quite the pushover those Liberals were.

- Paul Moist sets out a road map to deal with inequality in Canada:

Corporations rely on our public services -- they drive our economy. So corporations need to pay their fair share to protect them.

Our current tax system is riddled with loopholes and ineffective tax credits -- along with easy access to tax havens -- that benefit the wealthy while robbing funds from public services that all Canadians need and want.

The most destructive loophole is the stock option deduction. It allows Canada's highest paid executives to have their employment income taxed at half the rate of others. Not only that, this loophole only encourages the reckless speculation that led to the global economic crisis.

The capital gains deduction costs Canada over $6 billion a year in revenues. Yet it doesn't lead to concrete, job-creating investments. It just fuels real estate speculation and corporate mergers and acquisitions.

Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have eliminated top tax rates for the wealthiest Canadians -- the only ones who have seen real income growth in the past 20 years. Today, the top rate is 29 per cent -- whether you make $130,000 a year or $130 million.
...
We need to move to a more progressive tax system. This means closing tax loopholes and cutting off tax havens.

We must also get rid of ineffective tax credits that only benefit the rich. Too many of these credits don't help the poor, and drain revenues from universally accessible services. We need to be directly funding public services that are available to everyone -- like public transit, child care, arts, and sports programs for our families.

And profitable corporations and the wealthiest Canadians need to pay their fair share.

- Meanwhile, Andrew Jackson points out the McGuinty Libs' similar insistence on ensuring that the wealthiest Ontarians don't pay a dime toward the deficits caused by decades of trickle-down tax slashing. And Erin notes that while the Cons have repeatedly imposed back-to-work legislation based on specious arguments that strikes could harm economic growth, it's a series of lockouts (fully embraced by the Harper Cons since they would serve to reduce the influence of workers) which have actually had that effect.

- Nick Fillmore's three-part series on what progressive Canadians can do to counter the Harper Cons' attacks on the idea of social benefits is well worth a read.

- Finally, Atrios points out another regular feature in '90s-era triangulation that desperately needs to be replaced - in Canada as well as in the U.S.:

For the past couple of decades we've all (by "we" I man all the Very Serious People in the chattering classes) bought into the fantasy that all we need to do is pursue Conservative Means to achieve Liberal Ends and everything will be awesome...Right now we have one political party that is very up front about and proud of their desire to mug everyone in the non-millionaire club, steal all their money, and give it to rich people. It's time for the other political party to recognize that the era of dumb compromises is over, and if they'd actually come up with a way to help people, instead of a plan to set up a program to provide the incentives to blahblahblahblahblahblah...

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Carol Goar notes that the Cons' decision to mess with retirement security may be just the type of issue to rouse voters who had been lulled to sleep by promises of stability - which seems more plausible than Chantal Hebert's theory that the Cons can reasonably expect to benefit politically by focusing attention on exactly the kind of cuts they can only get away with in relative silence. Meanwhile, Ellen Roseman points out that an increase in the eligibility age makes no sense at all and Trish Hennessy runs the numbers on how cuts to OAS might play out.

- Meanwhile, in the "accountability for thee but not for me" department, the Cons want to stoke outrage over CBC salaries while jealously hiding what we're paying Stephen Harper's PMO spinners. And the Cons are also making the stunning claim that e-mails sent in response to media questions can't be quoted.

- But in fairness, encounters with reality have had a tendency not to end well for the Cons.

- Finally, Paul Moist weighs in on the NDP's leadership campaign by pointing out the wider role the party needs to play in speaking for workers.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Rick Salutin nicely describes what's behind the "charity" model of top-end wish fulfillment that the Cons are pitching in place of actual social programs:

The Old Philanthropy, aside from a few big foundations that now look modest, was embodied in wealthy people who went on boards like the United Way. They led by their own contributions, and worked with the social agencies involved, while encouraging ordinary people to give in their workplaces, schools, churches etc. That model has faded as the social gap widened. Fewer people can afford to contribute. Only 23 per cent of Canadians now report donations on their tax returns. It’s a record low. The old model really built community; the United Way was once even called Community Chest, which you still see on Monopoly (the game) boards. Community scarcely figures in the new model. You get the rich, noble few and the wretched, competing recipients.

What was bad in the old version of charity was that it reinforced the sense of distance and difference between givers and givees. What was good about it is that it injected an element into public activity not tied to the dominant economic system through the profit motive; the old charity was predicated instead on fellow feeling, human solidarity and even, gulp, love. The New Philanthropy, which is basically even older than the old kind, reintroduces an appeal to narrow self-interest in the form of greed, a jacked-up component of control, and narcissism in the form of fawning media reflections. Whoopee.

- Kevin Libin discusses the cost of the Cons' dumb-on-crime policies (which is of course being downloaded to the provinces):

Yes, I know: Boo-effin'-hoo. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Canadians have been warned that there's a new sheriff in town, and if they can't play by the Tories' stern new rules, then it's their own fault if they end up destroying their own families, their health, their mental stability and their economic stability. Fair enough.

But even if that's how we want to look at things, it doesn't mean the rest of us won't also have to bear some of the direct and indirect costs of higher incarceration rates and longer prison terms, too. If the Prime Minister's tough-on-crime rules end up creating more ex-cons, and more hardened ex-cons, and they end up, as they have in the United States, increasing the portion of our population with mental illnesses, poorer health, chronic unemployment and homelessness problems and family break-ups, those are costs that are going to hit the provinces harder in their health-care budgets and social support program budgets - and for years longer than the actual incarcerations.

The provinces are right to worry about the added enforcement, court and prison costs the Conservatives' new crime bill will bring. They should be just as worried about the costs they'll face further down the road.

- Kady notes that Russ Hiebert's anti-union bill was struck from the House of Commons order paper - making for at least some delay in the Cons' attacks on workers. But it's worth noting the flip side of the ruling as well to the extent the ruling reflects a more strict application of the limitations on private members' bills may also significantly restrict what the opposition parties are able to present for debate (while the Cons can simply redirect their efforts toward government bills which won't face the same obstacles).

- Paul Moist points out how attacks on organized labour can affect workers in general:

Over the last few decades, the salaries of CEOs have been driven higher and higher, while the wages of their workers grow at an absurdly slower rate. Defined benefit pensions have become increasingly scarce. When once we strived to work hard, save, and build a better life for our families, corporations want us to believe we are lucky to have a job at all -- but don't let that stop you from raking up thousands and thousands in consumer debt.

The myth can't go on forever, and even the most fervent Conservative supporter is bound to ask -- we keep giving corporations every advantage, why isn't it getting any better for me and my family?

Lacking any rational answer, at least one that doesn't betray Bay Street, Harper Conservatives have a long list of ideological scapegoats at the ready.

Circumstance put postal workers and Air Canada employees at the head of the queue, but every other union member in Canada knows they are next. Someone has to take the fall for failing trade policies, corporate irresponsibility, and massive deficits caused by regressive tax schemes.

So ploy after ploy is being used to undermine Canadian labour. Union members, especially public-sector union members, are being offered up as the economic boogiemen, with tired stereotypes being trotted out to portray some Canadian workers as privileged just because they have some small measure of security.

These types of tactics are not fitting of our society. They speak to a reliance on divisive political games that play to the worst fears of Canadians to gain and maintain power. While unions are the present target, union members are far from the only one being harmed by this type of politics. It's lead to a tragic erosion in many's faith in our democratic process, and the mass disenfranchisement of far too many Canadian citizens.

- And finally, Paul Krugman highlights the oligarchy which seems to be controlling the political agenda no less thoroughly in Canada than the U.S.:

If anything, the protesters are setting the cutoff too low. The recent budget office report doesn’t look inside the top 1 percent, but an earlier report, which only went up to 2005, found that almost two-thirds of the rising share of the top percentile in income actually went to the top 0.1 percent — the richest thousandth of Americans, who saw their real incomes rise more than 400 percent over the period from 1979 to 2005.

Who’s in that top 0.1 percent? Are they heroic entrepreneurs creating jobs? No, for the most part, they’re corporate executives. Recent research shows that around 60 percent of the top 0.1 percent either are executives in nonfinancial companies or make their money in finance, i.e., Wall Street broadly defined. Add in lawyers and people in real estate, and we’re talking about more than 70 percent of the lucky one-thousandth.

But why does this growing concentration of income and wealth in a few hands matter? Part of the answer is that rising inequality has meant a nation in which most families don’t share fully in economic growth. Another part of the answer is that once you realize just how much richer the rich have become, the argument that higher taxes on high incomes should be part of any long-run budget deal becomes a lot more compelling.

The larger answer, however, is that extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy. Can anyone seriously deny that our political system is being warped by the influence of big money, and that the warping is getting worse as the wealth of a few grows ever larger?

Some pundits are still trying to dismiss concerns about rising inequality as somehow foolish. But the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake.

Leadership 2012: The Week In Quotes

A few quotes worth noting from both candidates and non-candidates alike - feel free to suggest more in comments.

Thomas Mulcair on his considerations in deciding whether to run:

There's an old saying that before you take the plunge, you have to make sure there's enough water in the pool, and it's filling up nicely. We've got a lot of support, of course, amongst our Quebec caucus. And now we're working very hard to get that type of support in the rest of Canada before coming to any final decision.

Brian Topp on what the NDP needs to plan for during the leadership race and beyond:

Mr. Topp said the party’s next leader must focus on “bulking up” the party to ensure it wins a majority of seats in the next election and building a plan for its first mandate.

“We must not repeat, for example, the mistakes of Bob Rae, who was elected in the early 1990s and it turned out with a distressingly vague notion of what he was going to do in office,” he said of the interim Liberal leader who served as Ontario’s first NDP premier.

“We have to carefully think through what we would do with our first mandate. We need to be seen to be doing so and once elected, we need to have an excellent first term if we want to continue to be contenders for office.”

Paul Dewar on the means of building the NDP over the next four years:

It's very simple. It's a lot of work but it's simple analysis. Keep what we have in Quebec and grow outside of Quebec. That requires being able to go and connect with people who are looking at us now very seriously. And say, 'Are you in line with the priorities of everyday people?,' and show that you are.

Paul Moist shutting down media speculation about whether a choice not to implement a weighted voting system would be seen as distancing the NDP from organized labour:

Moist then said that media commentators have gone beyond talking about the weighted voting system and framed the question as “whether a modern NDP can afford the relationship with labour” at all, a discussion he dismissed as “playing the ‘union bogeyman’ card”.

“The pundits, the editorial writers and indeed the candidates-in-waiting are all, quite simply put, wrong,” wrote Moist. “There is no issue over this question.”"

And finally, Charlie Angus commenting on his reasons for not running:

The process of choosing a replacement for Jack Layton will come during our first term as official opposition. Canadians are looking to us to continue our work of holding the Stephen Harper government to account. We are facing the most militant and divisive government in Canadian history. They have no intention of giving us time to grieve or rebuild. We will need experienced MPs willing to take the fight to the right wing agenda. This will free up other MPs to participate in the leadership race.

To this end, I have pledged my full support to interim leader Nycole Turmel and her team to play whatever role is needed to support the caucus through this upcoming session of Parliament.

[Edit: fixed typo.]

Election Day Links

Assorted content for your reading (and voting!).

- There are plenty of rumours going around about robo-calls trying to direct voters to the wrong place in a final, desperate attempt to stifle the vote. So if there's any doubt, go to the Elections Canada's website for definitive information as to where and how to vote.

- I'm surprised to see seat projections fitting into as narrow a range as seems to have happened, particularly in an election that's seen as many massive shifts in public opinion as this one. But most seem to agree that the NDP will double or even triple its seat count on its way to second place in the party standings, while a Con majority is a relatively unlikely outcome.

- After having been summarily removed from a Con event for the crime of having had her picture taken with Michael Ignatieff, Awish Aslam found out the hard way that Stephen Harper apologizes for nothing. Though I'm not sure anybody should have expected anything different.

- For all the NDP's rightful pride in doing more than other parties even while at a disadvantage in seat count, I'll have to acknowledge there's at least one area where NDP MPs don't rank at the top of the list:

Under the House of Commons rules, MPs are allowed to spend up to 3 per cent of their office budget on hospitality, which means the maximum ranges from $8,541 to $10,734.

The hospitality category includes meals when accompanied by guests, tickets for meals with non-partisan service groups or community events, food and beverages for meetings and non-partisan events, small token items such as buttons, pins and ribbons and gifts not exceeding $100 for people, events or organizations that have contributed positively to the MPs community.
...
The list of the top 50 highest spending MPs is dominated by the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. The analysis found the top 50 include 22 Bloc MPs, 21 Conservative MPs, six Liberals and one independent. Portneuf-Jacques Cartier MP André Arthur — who has often bragged about how little he spends as an MP — had the 42nd highest hospitality tab, $8,946.

No NDP MPs appeared among the top 50 spenders.

- Dwayne Winseck is justifiably concerned about the massive gap between popular opinion and newspaper endorsements:

The basic idea behind the free press is that it is suppose to reflect a plurality of a society’s voices and political forces. If that is true, shouldn’t the range of editorial opinion in the press come at least somewhat close to matching up with public opinion?
...
Counting just the endorsements of specific candidates for PM (Harper, Layton, Ignatieff, Duceppe, May), we find a stunning 21 out of 22 backing Harper. In other words, 95 percent of editorial opinion has solidified behind Harper. This is almost three times his standing in the public mind, and the last election.
...
In Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Toronto, Montreal (but not Halifax and much of the Maritimes) and other major cities right across the country where these groups have dailies, editors are stumping for Harper. Even single major newspapers such at the Globe and Mail and the Winnipeg Free Press have weighed in strongly on the CPC side of the scale in Canada’s biggest cities and nation-wide.

This is not a free press. This is bad for democracy. The fact that a shackled press now stands to an extraordinary degree singing their praises for Dear Leader S. Harper from the same hymn sheet should give us pause for thought and reflection.

- Finally, CUPE's Paul Moist offers a platform comparison on the economy, pensions and health care.

Update:
- One more must-read for election day is Aaron Wherry's final version of the Commons on Jack Layton's campaign.