Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Rob Gillezeau discusses how public health measures offer better results even in sheer economic terms than allowing an excess of activity which causes community spread. Joan Greve reports on the CDC's warning of another COVID wave if the U.S. gets careless while vaccines are still rolling out, while Moira Wyton also notes that the ultimate success of a vaccine still relies on people continuing to comply with public health requirements. And Les Perreaux and Ivan Semeniuk make the case for people to take a COVID-19 vaccine when it's offered, rather than shopping around based on minimal differences in effect.  

- Meanwhile, Ilari Kaila and Joona-Hermanni Makinen discuss how Finland chose to pass on a patent-free vaccine in favour of allowing the pharmaceutical industry to profit from its vaccination program. 

- Chuck Collins argues for a wealth tax based on how the pandemic has resulted in the further polarization of income and wealth. Randy Robinson writes about the differing effects of COVID-19 based on income - with higher-income individuals seeing few employment effects past last summer while other workers continue to see a significant impact. And Amanda Follett Hosgood points out the unfairness in the pattern of injunctions being granted to prohibit protests but not religious services and other gatherings which raise the risk of COVID transmission. 

- Brian Carney reports on e-mails confirming that the exchange of newspapers between Torstar and Postmedia was carried out with full knowledge that both planned to slash jobs and papers. And David Climenhaga juxtaposes that story with Torstar's new plan to operate an online casino. 

- Brett Dolter analyzes the results of a deliberative modelling process showing how Saskatchewan can transition toward a cleaner electricity grid. Max Fawcett notes that any argument for expanding fossil fuel infrastructure depends on wrongly assuming that technological progress will only happen in the dirty energy industry. David Fickling highlights the impact that China's anticipated climate plan figures to have on the global shift toward decarbonization. And Jasper Jolly reports that Volvo is the latest major automaker to confirm a shift to an all-electric fleet. 

- Finally, Sara Birrell discusses the success progressive organizers and candidates had in Saskatchewan's municipal elections. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Owen Jones discusses how an ideology of individualism has undermined both freedom and security for most of the UK's citizens:

There are several reasons why rampant individualism sits at the core of the Tory project. Individualism promotes the idea that our successes in life are purely down to our own efforts. That rationalises inequality, because it perpetuates the myth that the wealthiest are the brightest and hardest working while the poorest are the stupidest and the laziest. Inequality simply becomes just deserts, rather than the sign of a society rigged in favour of a lucky minority. Tax becomes a punishment for success rather than a contribution to the collective kitty.

Individualism transforms social problems such as poverty and unemployment into personality defects, rather than the ills of a poorly constructed society – to be cured by a change in an individual’s attitude rather than by collective solutions, such as a welfare state. It erodes a sense that the majority have shared interests and aspirations, which are not only different from those of the elite, but on a collision course with them. It is fatal to the logical conclusion of this sentiment: that the majority should deploy their collective strength to challenge the concentrated wealth and power of the few.

As a dogma, this form of individualism is a formidable obstacle to socialism. But in practice it has increasingly resulted in insecurity: no wonder, then, that solidarity is so hankered after by so many. Labour has an opportunity to fashion a new individualism, with the promise that only socialism can liberate the individual.

- The Guardian's editorial board weighs in on the choice between democracy and oligarchy - and the dangers of letting the latter triumph. And Lyle Jeremy Rubin writes that conservatives' affinity for unrestrained capitalism can be traced to its entrenchment of social hierarchy.

- Meanwhile, Ann Pettifor offers a reminder as to how citizens can use our power to rein in the excesses of the corporate sector and the privileged few:

It is time for the financial sector to serve the real economy, where people live, innovate and work. It is time for the sector to be dislodged from its position as master of the global economy. For if, in future, we want to tax the rich, to dismantle tax havens, to avoid another global financial crisis, to tackle criminality and inequality, it’s vital that we start to think differently about the global financial system. If we want a system that makes it possible for us to finance the shift of our economy away from fossil fuels, if we want to thwart the rise of nationalism and authoritarianism… we must begin to think differently about the system.

Above all, we, as taxpaying citizens, must begin to think differently about our own power to bring about change. We must think about how to use – or leverage, to use financial terminology – the powers we have. We must remind ourselves of how the private financial system depends on taxpayer-financed institutions. We need this understanding of our potential power to influence and make demands of the finance sector if we are to begin to manage offshore capitalism, to bring offshore capital back onshore.

...
It’s not enough to be shocked and awed by the publication of revelations such as those in the Paradise Papers. We have to learn that we are not powerless. We have to start thinking differently about tax-paying citizens’ relationships to these global corporations and incredibly wealthy individuals. We have to start understanding that we have power and political leverage over these tax evaders. That as taxpayers we prop up the systems – including the great public good that is our monetary system – without which these private capital gains would not be made. And that as taxpayers propping up the institutions from which the 1% derive huge wealth, we must insist on terms and conditions, regulations and controls over cross-border flows. 

- Finally, Tom Parkin discusses the detrimental effects on democracy arising out of a pattern of shoddy reporting - including this week's series of false reports about Jagmeet Singh's events in Scarborough. But in more accurate reporting on Singh, Ashifa Kassam takes note of his unifying progressive vision.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Gerald Caplan rightly asks what media outlets think they have to gain by promoting anti-Muslim bigotry:

The goal of the Muslim-haters is surely clear enough. By lumping all Muslims together as terrorists, by equating a violence-prone Muslim lunatic fringe with all Muslims, by insulting the hundreds of millions of moderate Muslims everywhere, they alienate all Muslims and create among non-Muslims an irrational fear of and hostility to all Muslims. What purpose can this serve other than to provoke a clash, possibly a violent one, between Muslims and the rest? Anders Breivik didn’t come from nowhere, nor will the next Breivik.

But what’s the interest of certain media in enabling these haters to spread their gospel, to fan the flames of intolerance? What audience are they after? What do they expect their audiences to make of all this sympathetic exposure to rabid anti-Muslim feelings? Why are they inciting ordinary people to hate other ordinary people? Why?

- Though in fairness at least a couple of outlets are instead looking for other ways to divide Canadians as well - with Postmedia looking particularly unsubtle in having the nerve to criticize NDP MPs for not participating in what it explicitly describes as a hunt for "political skeletons".

- Chantal Hebert is right to note that this fall's provincial elections figure to have massive implications when it comes to other levels of government as well. But I'll reiterate that the issue isn't Ontario alone: instead, it's the real danger of a Con-friendly sweep in all of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario that could open the door for Stephen Harper to ram through constitutional changes on an ideological basis.

- Finally, Karim Bardeesy profiles Rathika Sitsabaiesan as the new face of the NDP. And those interested in joining in the festivities from her busy Regina trip (including a Q & A at the U of R this morning, a barbecue at noon and a wine and cheese social this evening) can get the details here and here.

Unclear on the concept

Quick, try to make sense of this passage from Postmedia's coverage of the Cons' plans to reintroduce gun registry legislation this fall:

In October 2010, the bill was killed by an opposition motion, which passed by a slim margin of 153-151. The motion was supported by 75 Liberals, 48 Bloc Quebecois and 30 New Democrats. Two Independent MPs sided with the 143 Conservatives.

Six NDP MPs broke with their party and voted with the government to scrap the registry. This occurred because NDP leader Jack Layton allowed his caucus to vote their conscience by not "whipping" the vote, or compelling them to vote according to the party line.

So never mind the explicit recognition that NDP MP's weren't compelled to vote according to a party line at all. If the story demands that one be made up in order to declare that some MPs "broke" it, then so be it.

But have no fear. This mixup will be corrected by...outsiders decreeing that independent MP thought will not be tolerated in the future:

Hicks said Layton can't afford to allow much internal disagreement on the issue because he must demonstrate to Canadians he can control his caucus.

"When you're leader of the Opposition, your ability to control your caucus becomes a test of your competence as leader," he said. "Now that Jack Layton lives at Stornoway, this is something he has to tackle in a way he didn't before."

Of course, the Libs were able to allow free votes on the gun registry not only in opposition, but also while in power. But now that the NDP has improved its place in Canada's political party standings, the rules have changed - apparently based on little more than spin from the parties who have been left behind.

And all this while the Cons have the votes to push through their legislation without any opposition party support. Suffice it to say that once they've rendered the issue moot by doing so, this kind of hackery won't be missed.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Rhys Kesselman rightly points out how the populist message that propelled the Cons to power has given way to elitist policy-making:

Once the federal budget is balanced, the Conservatives plan to double the TFSA’s annual allowance to $10,000 and to permit income splitting for couples with children under 18. These are costly schemes, each running ultimately to billions a year.

While these proposals may appear to have wide appeal, most Canadians would gain nothing from them. The tax savings would flow disproportionately to the highest earners. Moreover, the ostensible goals of these proposals would be much better achieved by major changes to their structures.

Consider the proposed doubling of the TFSA annual limit from its current $5,000 level. Low and moderate earners typically can’t save even this amount, so any increase is worthless to them. For most middle-income earners, the tax savings from contributing to RRSPs trump those of the TFSA, and very few are using all of their allowable RRSP limits. Thus, few middle earners will gain from expanding the TFSA.

Only among the highest earners, above $125,000, are the full RRSP limits often used, so this group would be the primary beneficiaries from expanded TFSA access. And for this group, most of the additional TFSA room would be used simply to shield existing taxable assets with little inducement for new saving.
...
Now consider the proposal to allow income splitting by couples with children. One motivation might be the view that couples with the same total earnings should pay the same total tax. But this ignores the fact that a one-earner couple has more effective income (in the form of home-produced, untaxed services) than a two-earner couple with the same earnings. Moreover, this reason would not justify confining splitting to couples with kids.

A more plausible motivation for allowing income splitting but restricting it to couples with children is the desire to give parents the option to spend more time rearing their children. High-earning parents already have this opportunity. Yet, the government’s proposal for income splitting would be of no benefit to couples where neither spouse earns above the bottom tax bracket of $41,500, partners with higher earnings but in the same tax bracket, and single parents. In fact, the largest beneficiaries would be couples with one very high earner – those in least need of aid.

- Which raises the question of how best to counter the Cons' plans. And while I don't agree entirely with Bruce Anderson's take on the state of Canadian politics, there's some reason for hope to the extent his message about the new Parliament takes hold:

(S)o far at least, the tone of this Parliament has changed. It feels like Question Period has gone off caffeine, taken up yoga, become almost Zen.

Questions are still pointed, but not as poison tipped. Response patterns from the government side have been re-engineered, letting ministers come off as smart, decent people. There’s no spiking the ball in the end zone, or other “excessive celebrations” as they say in football.

Watching Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird respond genially to a pertinent and precise question from NDP finance Critic Peggy Nash last week reminded me of how I felt when I was watching the courtly but very effective Liberal minister Allan MacEachen practice his craft in the House some 30 years ago. Any voter watching last week's Baird-Nash exchange would have come away feeling good about both politicians, I suspect.
...
Strong leaders, with clear ideas for the future, passionately argued: This is the recipe for the success enjoyed in the last election by Stephen Harper and Jack Layton, and on these criteria Michael Ignatieff and Gilles Duceppe fell short. In this Parliament, with Mr. Harper, Mr. Layton and Bob Rae, Canadian voters may see a pretty good contest of will, brainpower and communications talent – one of the best we’ve experienced in years. Based on the Prime Minister's speech to the Conservative Party convention in Ottawa this week, the policy choices of the Tories will provide plenty of room for other parties to differentiate themselves. While a competition on this level may seem less scintillating on a daily basis, it has a far better chance of reversing declining engagement than what has been tried for the past couple of decades.

- It took awhile after the initial report was released, but Postmedia's Doug Schmidt is catching up on the realities of wage theft.

- Finally, I'd consider it a general plus if the Regina Public Library and Globe Theatre end up joining forces in the development of a downtown Regina cultural centre. But to the list of follow-up concerns raised by Carle Steel about the RPL Film Theatre and Dunlop Art Gallery, I'd add a more fundamental concern: surely we'll want to make sure that any project is actually driven by the needs and best interests of the RPL and the Globe, rather than merely serving as an excuse to turn them into cash cows for a private building owner. (And the leaked possibility of a building consisting mostly of commercial space doesn't offer much reason for confidence.)