Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Danny Westneat discusses Steven Taylor's work on the psychology of pandemics which has proven prescient as we've responded to COVID-19. And Umair Haque writes that people are understandably burned out on collapse - even as there's little prospect of some of the slow-motion catastrophes being resolved in the foreseeable future. 

- Murray Mandryk calls out Scott Moe for engaging in photo ops rather than pandemic management, while Adam Hunter reports on the Saskatchewan Party's failure to ask for available help from the federal government. And Phil Tank documents the change in the Sask Party's messaging toward grudgingly acknowledging the ongoing calamity, even as it's refused to move within shouting distance of even the measures which were used earlier in the pandemic. 

- Megan Cassella writes that some American lawmakers are drawing important lessons from the drop in poverty, hunger and bankruptcies when the U.S.' social safety net was bolstered in response to COVID-19. But Matt Lundy reports on the dwindling number of Canadians supported by Employment Insurance - and the cliff facing many workers as pandemic supports are scheduled to disappear next month. 

- Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on the first Ontario prosecution of an employer for failing to keep employees safe from COVID. And Peter Loewen and Blake Lee-Whiting discuss what gig workers generally want - which largely amounts to the types of stability and protection gig work has been designed to evade. 

- Matt McManus discusses how the promotion of capitalist "liberty" represents little other than the choice to facilitate private domination by the wealthy. 

- Finally, Jonathan Watts writes about the environmentally disastrous race to extract resources from deep sea. And John Woodside exposes how Canadian banks are funding the continued spread of fossil fuel infrastructure which endangers our living atmosphere. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Diane Peters discusses how everybody has a stake in the safe reopening of schools this fall. And Masks4Canada is tracking cases of school infection across Canada while Support our Students does the same for Alberta in particular - though Don Braid rightly questions why we need crowdsourcing to provide that information for want of open and effective public reporting.

- Meanwhile, Zak Vescera reports on the Moe government's appalling stinginess with essential care workers in Saskatchewan who received less than half of the money trumpeted as a wage supplement.

- Andrew MacLeod reports on both the corporate push into British Columbia's primary health care system, and the shift toward private health care generally with the goal of diverting comparatively easy work from an increasingly strained public system. And Jason Warick reports on the audit showing over 200 separate problems with the Sask Party's P3 hospital in North Battleford - even as the Moe government continues to insist there's nothing wrong with a brand-new facility being unsafe and unsanitary.

- Michelle McQuigge reports on UNICEF's rankings showing Canada ranking toward the bottom of the world's wealthier countries in caring for children.

- Amy Harder writes about the climate feedback loops which make it all the more urgent to stop adding to our ongoing carbon pollution. And Keith Stewart points out the positive developments in investors electing not to fund further climate damage. But Mia Rabson reports that the Libs are once again breaking a promise to reduce Canada's methane emissions.

- Finally, Matthew Rosza looks at the latest research showing the connection between wealth and an inability to empathize with others.

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Mariana Mazzucato and Robert Skidelsky propose a new economic framework in which our elected governments actually set priorities and ensure that development is carried out in the public interest.  Seema Jayachandran reminds us that social programs can more than pay for themselves, while also improving the well-being of people who would otherwise be left behind. And Seth Klein writes that the rapid and effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic should confirm that we can answer the climate crisis with a similarly positive transition to a law-carbon economy.

- Chris Varcoe highlights how Jason Kenney's large-scale bets on fossil fuels are already proving to be disastrous for Alberta. Mark Vandevelde discusses how much of our economy is built on an unsustainable foundation of corporate debt due to "financial engineering" designed to extract short-term value rather than create lasting prosperity. Richard Wolff writes about the dangers of obsessing over efficiency when it means failing to invest in preparation for foreseeable risks. And Ann Pettifor argues against Paul Wallace that our expectations in rebuilding from the coronavirus pandemic should involve a new and better system, not merely a return to business as usual.

- Alyse Kotyk reports on the effects of Vancouver's tax on empty homes - which has resulted in the construction of 269 affordable housing units for people who actually need them. 

- Jim Stanford calls out the corporate sector's laughable complaints about the availability of labour when any inability to hire is readily traceable to a refusal to offer reasonable wages and benefits.

- Finally, Jocelyn Solys-Moreira reports on new research showing how people mistake their own privilege for merit.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Ari Rabin-Havt argues that any available means of treating COVID-19 need to be viewed as public goods to be made available to all, rather than windfalls for big pharma based on its ability to control supplies and prices.

- The Guardian's editorial board sounds the alarm about the grossly disproportionate burdens COVID-19 is placing on women.

- Tess Wilkinson-Ryan writes about the psychology of decision-making in the face of reopening - and the difficulty individual will have making good choices when faced with confusion or contradictory messages from governments and businesses. And David Roberts identifies the risk that with COVID-19 - as with climate change - we may be shifting our baseline expectations to accept perpetually worse outcomes as a "new normal" rather than pushing for action to achieve better ones. 

- Andre Mayer highlights the possibility that our efforts at rebuilding could finally put us on a path to averting climate breakdown. And Lori Nikkel discusses how the coronavirus pandemic should spur us to ensure that Canadians no longer face hunger or food insecurity. 

- Finally, Doug Cuthand writes about the need for an overhaul of Saskatchewan's treatment of people who are currently ending up in remand. And Kelly Geraldine Malone reports that Manitoba has followed through on ending discriminatory "birth alerts", even while Scott Moe continues their use in Saskatchewan.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Josh Eidelson writes about the fleecing of American labour in general over the past five decades, while E. Tammy Kim discusses the systematic exploitation of workers in the U.S.' nursing homes in particular. And Robyn Urback writes that the Ford government is only repeating its failed response to long-term care homes in addressing the recent spread of COVID-19 among farm workers.

- Carolyn Kormann writes about the unprecedented ecological disasters surfacing throughout the Arctic region. And Sandra Laville and Niamh McIntyre report on the regular sewage dumps by the UK's privatized water operators.

- Robert Pollin makes the case for a Green New Deal which would see the fossil fuel sector nationalized to make way for a transition to renewable energy. And Adam Radwanski notes that a focus on vehicle electrification would at least help Canada catch up to Europe's progress while providing needed direction to our coronavirus recovery efforts. But William F. Lamb, Giulio Mattioli, Sebastian Levi and J. Timmons Roberts study the discourses of delay which have been used for decades to prevent us from pursuing cleaner options.

- Graham Thomson writes about the lack of any meaningful direction in Jason Kenney's excuse for a COVID-19 recovery plan. Mitchell Anderson highlights how Kenney - like Donald Trump - is operating from a place of cultivated antagonism that bears no resemblance to the economic realities facing any responsible government. And George Monbiot writes that while Trump and Boris Johnson aren't exactly repeating the playbook of 1930s fascists, there's no less reason to fear where they plan to take their countries.

- Finally, Seth Borenstein reports on new research showing how kindness (rather than competition) is the basis for the function of human society.

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.

Thursday Evening Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jonathan Aldred calls out the combination of handouts to the rich, cultivated attitudes of self-reliance and antisocial assumptions which have exacerbated inequality over the past few decades:

European countries have, on average, more redistributive tax systems and more welfare benefits for the poor than the US, and therefore less inequality, after taxes and benefits. Many people see this outcome as a reflection of the different values that shape US and European societies. But cause-and-effect may run the other way: you-deserve-what-you-get beliefs are strengthened by inequality.

Psychologists have shown that people have motivated beliefs: beliefs that they have chosen to hold because those beliefs meet a psychological need. Now, being poor in the US is extremely tough, given the meagre welfare benefits and high levels of post-tax inequality. So Americans have a greater need than Europeans to believe that you deserve what you get and you get what you deserve. These beliefs play a powerful role in motivating yourself and your children to work as hard as possible to avoid poverty. And these beliefs can help alleviate the guilt involved in ignoring a homeless person begging on your street.

This is not just a US issue. Britain is an outlier within Europe, with relatively high inequality and low economic and social mobility. Its recent history fits the cause-and-effect relationship here. Following the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979, inequality rose significantly. After inequality rose, British attitudes changed. More people became convinced that generous welfare benefits make poor people lazy and that high salaries are essential to motivate talented people. However, intergenerational mobility fell: your income in Britain today is closely correlated with your parents’ income.

If the American Dream and other narratives about everyone having a chance to be rich were true, we would expect the opposite relationship: high inequality (is fair because of) high intergenerational mobility. Instead, we see a very different narrative: people cope with high inequality by convincing themselves it is fair after all. We adopt narratives to justify inequality because society is highly unequal, not the other way round. So inequality may be self-perpetuating in a surprising way.

- David Climenhaga predicts that the UCP's review of health services - like so many before it - will cost more than it ever recoups in promised efficiencies. Brielle Morgan, Katie Hyslop, Cherise Seucharan and Tracy Sherlock highlight the absurdity of offering more money to foster families to house children after findings of poverty-based "neglect" than to the vulnerable families who only lack sufficient financial resources to be able to provide an adequate home. And Jesse Snyder reports on new research showing how blinkered fearmongering against carbon pricing stands to increase the cost of any climate progress.

- Brendan Kennedy discusses what the future will look like in New Brunswick as climate change continues to exacerbate the flooding which has become commonplace in recent years. And Charlie Smith looks at the effect of a movement away from air travel on cities such as Vancouver which currently rely on air traffic as a major part of their local economies.

- Finally, Simon Dyer offers six factors to look for in determining whether a climate policy is viable. And David Miller highlights how the NDP's climate plan measures up to the scope and urgency of our climate crisis.

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Gerard Di Trolio discusses the need for an active labour movement to respond to the contempt for collective action shared by the Libs and the Cons. And Nicole Goodkind reports on the Trump administration's plan to deprive workers of billions in wages by opening up new loopholes for joint employers.

- Andrew Jackson debunks the efforts of right-wing propaganda mills to try to provoke tax revolts at a time when the more serious issue is a lack of revenue to address obvious social needs.

- Michele Biss points out that the Libs' new measure of poverty falls short of recognizing the importance of needs such as child care and prescription drugs in defining an acceptable standard of living. And Jordan Press reports that the Libs disregarded their own expert report on poverty by refusing to recognize freedom from poverty as a fundamental right.

- Meanwhile, Claire Kelloway writes about the U.S.' growing reliance on dollar stores as source of (unhealthy) food as a source of ill health and inequality.

- Finally, Dan Gardner highlights how the need for universal action against a slow climate breakdown runs into our instincts to perceive threats only in the shorter term. But James Temple writes that the experience of climate-related natural disasters is beginning to bring the reality home to people who may not have fully appreciated the danger.

Friday Evening Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Wanda Wyporska discusses why we can't expect a group of cloistered elites to do anything to solve the changeable dimensions of inequality.

- Jonathan Ford and Gill Plimmer write that the UK is beginning to learn its lesson about the dangers of privatizing public services. And PressProgress offers three reasons why Canada shouldn't follow down the road toward outsourcing,

- Ian Hussey debunks a few of the more tired arguments against a fair minimum wage. And Meagan Day discusses the psychological consequences of accepting the neoliberal view of atomized and constantly-competing individuals:

When identifying the root cause of this growing appetite for excellence, Curran and Hill don’t mince words: it’s neoliberalism. Neoliberal ideology reveres competition, discourages cooperation, promotes ambition, and tethers personal worth to professional achievement. Unsurprisingly, societies governed by these values make people very judgmental, and very anxious about being judged.

Psychologists used to talk about perfectionism as though it were unidimensional — only directed from the self to the self. That’s still the colloquial usage, what we usually mean when we say someone’s a perfectionist. But in the last few decades, researchers have found it productive to broaden the concept. Curran and Hall rely on a multidimensional definition, encompassing three types of perfectionism: self-oriented, other-oriented, socially prescribed.
...
...(P)eople born in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada after 1989 scored much higher than previous generations for all three kinds of perfectionism, and that scores increased linearly over time. The dimension that saw the most dramatic change was socially prescribed perfectionism, which increased at twice the rate of the other two. In other words, young people’s feeling of being judged harshly by their peers and the broader culture is intensifying with each passing year.
...
One consequence of this rise in perfectionism, Curran and Hall argue, has been a series of epidemics of serious mental illness. Perfectionism is highly correlated with anxiety, eating disorders, depression, and suicidal thoughts. The constant compulsion to be perfect, and the inevitable impossibility of the task, exacerbate mental-illness symptoms in people who are already vulnerable. Even young people without diagnosable mental illnesses tend to feel bad more often, since heightened other-oriented perfectionism creates a group climate of hostility, suspicion, and dismissiveness — in which the jury is always out on everyone, pending group appraisal — and socially prescribed perfectionism involves an acute recognition of that alienation. In short, the repercussions of rising perfectionism range from emotionally painful to literally deadly.

And there’s one other repercussion of rising perfectionism: it makes it hard to build solidarity, which is the very thing we need in order to resist the onslaught of neoliberalism. Without healthy self-perceptions we can’t have robust relationships, and without robust relationships we can’t come together in the numbers it would take to rattle, much less upend, the whole political-economic order.

- Finally, the Canadian Labour Congress is taking a stand against Justin Trudeau's choice to lock Canada into the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Elizabeth Kolbert comments on the psychology of inequality, and particularly how the current trend in which a disproportionate share of gains goes to a small number of wealthy individuals produces no ultimate winners: 

As the relative-income model predicted, those who’d learned that they were earning less than their peers were ticked off. Compared with the control group, they reported being less satisfied with their jobs and more interested in finding new ones. But the relative-income model broke down when it came to those at the top. Workers who discovered that they were doing better than their colleagues evinced no pleasure. They were merely indifferent. As the economists put it in a paper that they eventually wrote about the study, access to the database had a “negative effect on workers paid below the median for their unit and occupation” but “no effect on workers paid above median.”

The message the economists took from their research was that employers “have a strong incentive” to keep salaries secret. Assuming that California workers are representative of the broader population, the experiment also suggests a larger, more disturbing conclusion. In a society where economic gains are concentrated at the top—a society, in other words, like our own—there are no real winners and a multitude of losers.
...
(Payne) has come to believe that what’s really damaging about being poor, at least in a country like the United States—where, as he notes, even most people living below the poverty line possess TVs, microwaves, and cell phones—is the subjective experience of feeling poor. This feeling is not limited to those in the bottom quintile; in a world where people measure themselves against their neighbors, it’s possible to earn good money and still feel deprived. “Unlike the rigid columns of numbers that make up a bank ledger, status is always a moving target, because it is defined by ongoing comparisons to others,” Payne writes.

Feeling poor, meanwhile, has consequences that go well beyond feeling. People who see themselves as poor make different decisions, and, generally, worse ones.
...
Preschoolers, brown capuchin monkeys, California state workers, college students recruited for psychological experiments—everyone, it seems, resents inequity. This is true even though what counts as being disadvantaged varies from place to place and from year to year...

Still, there are choices to be made. The tax bill recently approved by Congress directs, in ways both big and small, even more gains to the country’s plutocrats. Supporters insist that the measure will generate so much prosperity that the poor and the middle class will also end up benefitting. But even if this proves true—and all evidence suggests that it will not—the measure doesn’t address the real problem. It’s not greater wealth but greater equity that will make us all feel richer.

- Timothy Taylor charts the state of inequality in countries around the globe. And Branko Milanovic comments on the farce that is a discussion of inequality at Davos by the people who have put in place the policies most responsible for its spread.

-  David Olusoga discusses the return of Victorian-era slums to the UK, while Lucy Pasha-Robinson reports on declining life expectancies arising out of austerity.

- Rajeev Syal reports on a study from the UK's National Audit Office showing how privatization has resulted in the government paying more to get less. James Bloodworth notes that the Carillion privatization model amounted to little more than a Ponzi scheme which depended on a continually-increasing flow of public money to enrich its executives. Tom Pride observes that one of the prime culprits in (and profiteers from) Carillion's collapse has been rewarded by being put in charge of nuclear safety. David Climenhaga discusses the connection between Carillion, the Klein government and Alberta's privatized highways which rely on a now-failed corporation for their maintenance. And Will Hutton rightly questions why we'd ever trust the corporate sector to manage public services again.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom questions Justin Trudeau's determination to keep the NAFTA dispute resolution provisions which have been used primarily to tie the hands of Canadian governments.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Bloomberg View discusses how the U.S. is becoming a major tax haven. And the Economist reminds us of the role Canada's pitiful corporate disclosure requirements play in facilitating offshore tax evasion.

- Danny Vinik writes about the future of work - which includes plenty more "alternative" work arrangements designed to insulate businesses from both any responsibility for the well-being of workers, and any means of being held to account for their actions. And Stuart Trew notes that we should be eager to see and encourage genuine disruption of the trend toward precarious work and living.

- Ian Hussey examines the effect of Alberta's minimum wage increases, and finds that the service industries which have shrieked the loudest about paying fair wages have actually benefited the most from improved consumer spending power. Michael Coren discusses why Tim Hortons and other businesses trying to take benefits away from workers aren't deserving of sympathy, while the Star's editorial board points out how the move conflicts with supposed corporate values. 

- Andrew Coyne argues for a basic income as an alternative to an increased minimum wage, though there's no particular reason why the two can't coexist as means of raising the floor for lower-income workers.

- Finally, Johann Hari writes about the social and economic factors behind depression - and the implicit need to develop social structures which don't push people toward avoidable stressors.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Martin Kenney comments on Canada's continuing role in "snow washing" offshore tax evasion. The Conference Board of Canada examines the massive gap between what Canada should receive in public revenues, and what's actually taken in to keep our society functioning. And Kamal Ahmed highlights how employers are avoiding their responsibilities by relabeling work relationships.

- Joe Romm points out that Donald Trump's obsession with coal power - like that of other right-wing politicians - is doomed due to the ready availability of more efficient energy sources. Andrew Nikiforuk points out the $30 billion liability for inactive wells which may be absorbed by Alberta's citizens due to the lack of any requirement for the oil sector to clean up its own messes. Carol Linnitt notes that the Libs' promised tanker ban on British Columbia's north coast is anything but. Zoe Todd reports on still more research showing the connection between fracking and earthquake activity. And Melissa Davey discusses new research showing that the impact human activity on our changing climate far outweighs any natural effects.

- Nicholas Kristof reminds us how the trumped-up threat of terrorism pales in comparison to risks we think nothing about facing every day.

- Evan Dyer reports on the Libs' plans to sacrifice national sovereignty along with travellers' privacy and security in the interest of appeasing the U.S.' irrational fears. And Stuart Trew examines the lamentable track record of cross-border deregulation which has harmed the public in Canada and the U.S. alike. So suffice it to say that Michael Harris' hope that Justin Trudeau would doing anything besides go along with Donald Trump to get along is sadly misplaced.

- Finally, Sam Wong points out that even monkeys and dogs judge humans based on how well they treat others - making it all the more bizarre that so many voter pools seem to have decided to do otherwise.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- John O'Farrell argues that a basic income provides a needed starting point for innovation and entrepreneurship by people who don't enjoy the advantage of inherited wealth:

But in fact it is the current situation that prevents initiative and holds back entrepreneurs. Anyone who ever invented or created anything did so with a modicum of financial security behind them. That’s why so many of our statues are to upper-class white men; that’s why Virginia Woolf needed “a room of her own and £500 a year” (slashed to £27.85 after that spare room fell under the bedroom tax). For centuries we have tapped the potential of only a small proportion of the British people; the rest have been powerless to initiate or discover where their true talents lay. With the UBI, innovators would be given the room to experiment knowing they would still have something to fall back on; it would see more small businesses and less grovelling on Dragons’ Den.

Vitally, it would begin to redress the chronic imbalance in today’s labour market. There’s a reason why call centre workers sound so miserable when they claim to be sharing really exciting news about your phone tariff. Since the decline of the unions, workers have been increasingly powerless to refuse longer hours and less money, with only the food bank to fall back on if they walk away from an exploitative job. With a guaranteed state income to keep the wolf (or Wonga) from the door, employees would regain the bargaining power to demand civilised working conditions and reasonable rates of pay...
...
For all the apparent expense of the UBI, we would save the small fortune that the state currently spends mopping up the mess of social problems caused overwhelmingly by chronic poverty.

Of course, there are complex reasons for increasing homelessness, for bulging prisons, for growing mental health problems – but desperate financial pressure is a major factor in all of them. Every decade sees us spending increasing billions trying to tighten the lid of the boiling cauldron. It might be so much cheaper just to turn down the temperature a bit.

- Meanwhile, Maria Konnikova discusses how we learn about fairness - as we naturally notice and complain about being on the wrong side of unfair circumstances, while learning to identify our own privilege takes significant work.

- Claire McIlveen comments on the need for a far more secure system of retirement income than we can currently claim.

- Pamela Cowan talks to Ryan Meili and Tom McIntosh about the importance of a national pharmacare program as part of a fully functional public health care system. And Moira Donovan weighs in on the dangers of ambulance fees in discouraging people from calling an ambulance even when needed. 

- Finally, Lee Berthiaume writes that a Saudi arms deal seen as an unqualified plus for a cynical, militaristic Con government is something else entirely for anybody who even pretends to care about human rights. But Steven Chase and Daniel Leblanc report that the Libs may not bother keeping up the charade much longer, as they're not only pushing through the sale but suppressing human rights assessments to do it.

New column day

Here, on how people generally have a better idea about the facts underlying our political choices than they suggest in response to an ordinary poll - and how we can make better decisions by looking to the root causes of that distinction.

For further reading...
- The studies referred to in the article are here (pdf) and here. And as previously linked, Neil Irwin discussed them here.
- And while I didn't work it into the column, I'll wonder whether something akin to the dual process theory might play a role in the different findings - with the objective reward of even a small payoff leading people to use more rigorous analysis in response to a question.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Paul Krugman discusses the connection between concentrated wealth and extreme anti-social political behaviour:

Wealth can be bad for your soul. That’s not just a hoary piece of folk wisdom; it’s a conclusion from serious social science, confirmed by statistical analysis and experiment. The affluent are, on average, less likely to exhibit empathy, less likely to respect norms and even laws, more likely to cheat, than those occupying lower rungs on the economic ladder.

And it’s obvious, even if we don’t have statistical confirmation, that extreme wealth can do extreme spiritual damage. Take someone whose personality might have been merely disagreeable under normal circumstances, and give him the kind of wealth that lets him surround himself with sycophants and usually get whatever he wants. It’s not hard to see how he could become almost pathologically self-regarding and unconcerned with others.

So what happens to a nation that gives ever-growing political power to the superrich?

...

(T)he biggest reason to oppose the power of money in politics is the way it lets the wealthy rig the system and distort policy priorities. And the biggest reason billionaires hate Mr. Obama is what he did to their taxes, not their feelings. The fact that some of those buying influence are also horrible people is secondary.

But it’s not trivial. Oligarchy, rule by the few, also tends to become rule by the monstrously self-centered. Narcisstocracy? Jerkigarchy? Anyway, it’s an ugly spectacle, and it’s probably going to get even uglier over the course of the year ahead.

- Meanwhile, Michael Snyder weighs in on how precarious workers are being treated as things rather than people by employers - and how the resulting lack of security is affecting them. And Frances O'Grady makes the case for a meaningful industrial policy to make sure that everybody benefits from economic development.

- Neil Irwin comments on new research showing that an individual's view of the economy is based on partisan preference - but that most people in fact know the underlying facts when they're given even a tiny incentive to get it right.

- Gordon Pape examines the real impact of the Libs' upper-class tax cut - with an individual making $216,000 getting a handout, while somebody making a tenth as much gets nothing.

- Finally, Margaret Wente confirms that her preference for a first-past-the-post electoral system is based on a desire to limit voters' input to a periodic referendum on the incumbent. And Erich Jacoby-Hawkins makes a noteworthy point about the first-past-the-post apologists bleating about refusing to accept a new electoral system without a a referendum:

(W)hat's funny about this likely change are the demands, mainly from supporters of the status quo, that any electoral system reform come only after a successful referendum vote where more than 50% vote for the change. This flies completely in the face of the underlying value of our current electoral system, the one they would have us retain, where decisions aren't made by a 50%+ majority, but by the "majority" of MPs elected with a mere 39% of votes.
...
The basic principle behind first-past-the-post is that whichever party forms a "majority" based on enough local riding pluralities gets to make (and change) the laws. Anyone who argues that such changes should instead require support of 50%+ of voters in a referendum is, in effect, arguing for proportional representation, because under PR, only laws that have more than 50% voter support will pass. So which do you want, the "powerful, stable" false majority governments that FPP elects, or a proportional system that actually reflects voter desires? Because you can't use the latter principle to argue against the former.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- George Monbiot discusses the inherent conflict between consumption and conservation:

We can persuade ourselves that we are living on thin air, floating through a weightless economy, as gullible futurologists predicted in the 1990s. But it’s an illusion, created by the irrational accounting of our environmental impacts. This illusion permits an apparent reconciliation of incompatible policies.

Governments urge us both to consume more and to conserve more. We must extract more fossil fuel from the ground, but burn less of it. We should reduce, reuse and recycle the stuff that enters our homes, and at the same time increase, discard and replace it. How else can the consumer economy grow? We should eat less meat to protect the living planet, and eat more meat to boost the farming industry. These policies are irreconcilable. The new analyses suggest that economic growth is the problem, regardless of whether the word sustainable is bolted to the front of it.

- And David Roberts argues that Alberta's new climate change plan is well-designed precisely because it includes measures to cut down on consumption rather than aspiring to right-wing notions of revenue neutrality.

- Adrienne Montani makes the case for a plan to reduce child poverty in British Columbia. And Leilani Farha writes that the anticipated arrival of a new group of refugees should serve as an opportunity to evaluate and improve the plight of people already living in poverty.

- Meanwhile, Thomas Walkom points out that the Libs' pattern of walking back their most immediate post-election promise to help Syrian refugees bodes poorly for the rest of their campaign commitments.

- Finally, Don Lenihan comments on the psychology of the politics of fear:

Terrorism is effective not because groups like ISIS are so powerful, but because they are so good at turning our own psychology against us. Suicide bombings fool the brain into believing an evil empire is invading our shores.
...
There is a vicious circle here that, ironically, turns us all into ISIS recruits, first, by getting us to agree to play the game by their rules; and then by drawing us deeper and deeper into its clutches. At the same time, talk of the need for ever-greater security and surveillance invades our public discourse. The politics of fear starts creeping in.

The moral is that the terrorist threat to our freedom and safety comes less from the thugs at ISIS than from ourselves. We hold ourselves hostage to a discourse of fear, then use it to sideline democracy in order to protect ourselves from the very threat we have manufactured.

On messaging tests

Following up on yesterday's post, I'll make clear that nobody should hold any illusions that the NDP's opponents will abandon their own efforts to pursue seats simply because the NDP holds a strong position for the moment. And on that front, Bob Hepburn floats a few trial balloons as to messages which the NDP's opponents may try to use against it.

It's certainly worth discussing and being prepared for the attacks we're most likely to see. But while Hepburn merely labels a laundry list of possible messages as "weak spots" without any critical evaluation of their effectiveness, the likelihood that somebody will try to use a particular theme is a radically different question from whether they'll succeed.

For now, let's discuss some of the factors which we should take into account in making that assessment - to be followed in a later post by an evaluation of Hepburn's mooted messages.

Precedent: There's a reason why the Cons' attacks on Lib leaders have regularly started years before the next federal election campaign. People (and particularly those not making a concerted effort to follow a subject) tend to remember negative messages while eventually forgetting the identity of the messenger - meaning that a message will likely have a far greater effect if it can draw on some pre-existing theme. In addition, precedents can also tell us something else about the actual resonance of a particular message: if a message has managed or failed to achieve its intended purpose before, that offers an important indication as to whether it's likely to succeed if tried again.

Relationship to Salient Issues: Any new attack on the NDP will have to be made in the context of the political scene as it stands now. We have plenty of polling as to what voters are concerned with at the moment - and while a party can certainly try to shift the public's attention, it will face a more difficult task if it has to first change the subject before making its pitch.

Credibility: As I note above, over a longer time frame people tend to forget the source of negative messages. But that doesn't hold true in the short term - and in distributing a message widely for the first time during a campaign, a party would take a grave risk in ignoring the likelihood that its own credibility on an issue will be challenged. (To be clear, this category can include both accuracy and plausibility - it obviously includes the question of whether a statement is factually wrong, but also whether the message is likely to be believed in light of its source.)

Likely Responses: Just as we can't assume anybody will give the NDP a free pass, nor can anybody launching a new attack pretend that the NDP's experienced campaign team won't have some replies at the ready. And one can't assess the strength of one without taking the other into account.

Spillover Effects: Finally, a line of criticism may have radically different effects on different voter pools, and may also influence views of different parties beyond the intended target. While a message is likely to raise questions within a particular group, it surely can't be labeled a success if it does anywhere near as much to crystallize the NDP's support elsewhere or to help its ultimate strategic interests.

Obviously there are plenty of other factors which can be taken into account. But I'll apply this test to Hepburn's list of supposed weaknesses to start with - and it's worth keeping it in mind as new themes are introduced throughout the campaign.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Richard Nisbett comments on the situational determinants of behaviour which are far too often mistaken for merit or accomplishment. Libby Kane points out how increasing inequality and the predictable social segregation which follows makes it harder for the lucky few to see the deprivation that develops around them. And Peter Georgescu makes the case for the corporate elite to work on fighting inequality in its own interest.

- Meanwhile, David Kirp rightly notes that the best way to provide support to people living in poverty is to ask what they need, rather than scolding them or imposing one-size-fits-all decrees from on high. And Solomon Greene and Marjory Austin Turner observe that in housing in particular, there's a desperate need for more choices which may include a combination of direct investment in improving high-poverty neighbourhoods, and encouraging housing mobility.

- Susanna Kelley exposes the extreme measures the Cons are taking to harass journalists who dare to try to cover their campaign, including requiring searches by RCMP dogs. And Elizabeth Thompson writes that the Cons are trying to gag every single person who makes it through their process of exclusion to attend one of Stephen Harper's events.

- David Climenhaga discusses the dangers of the Cons' all-bluster, no-sense foreign policy. And Christopher Hume calls out the Cons' neglect of Canada's cities.

- Finally, John Robson offers an example of a small-C conservative who has reached the point of being unable to put up with the Harper Cons any longer. And Lana Payne describes how Stephen Harper's legacy will look to those of us who value a functional democracy.

[Edit: fixed typo, wording.]

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Chris Mooney takes a look at the positive side of social influences on behaviour, as new research shows a correlation between spending time with neighbours and an interest in the environmental issues which affect us all. But Adam Stoneman documents how another form of social interaction - that of wealth flaunting - promotes conspicuous consumption which benefits nobody.

- Tim Harper slams the Cons for looking to attack aboriginal Canadians rather than work with them - a particularly serious problem in the wake of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report. Don Martin writes that Stephen Harper's staged apology has proven to be entirely empty. And Stephen Maher reminds us that the past genocide by Canada's settlers against First Nations went far beyond culture alone.

- Justin Ling's notorious interview in which the Cons' Immigration Minister Chris Alexander equated wearing a niqab with terrorism is here. And Paul Wells follows up with a scathing counter to Alexander's wilful ignorance about his party's legacy of racism.

- Finally, Karl Nerenberg offers his own roundup of what we can expect now that the Cons' terror bill has been forced through Parliament. And CBC reports on one case of an individual being detained indefinitely without charges even before C-51 offers legislative cover for the disappearing of anybody who proves inconvenient.

[Update: fixed link.]

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Garfield Mahood and Brian Iler discuss the challenge facing charities as compared to the special treatment of businesses in trying to advocate as to public policy:

(T)he solutions to many of society’s problems do not need more research and the criticism-free public education that the CRA permits. They cry out for advocacy and changed law. Unfortunately, the CRA only allows NGOs to spend 10 per cent of their income on policy advocacy and law reform. Thus a charity has to be substantial in order to be large enough to fund meaningful advocacy.

In contrast, while the Harper government blocks charities from using tax credits to influence public opinion, it allows corporations to write off as a business expense 100 per cent of the money they spend to derail or support legislation that affects their interests.

Unfortunately, the situation is worse than the 10 per cent limit imposed by CRA guidelines. The chill created by the fear of the loss of charitable status inhibits many NGOs from working effectively. The self-censorship that is produced constrains even the allowable advocacy. Thus, there is a good reason to question whether charitable status is more of a burden than an asset for many non-profits.

- PressProgress exposes five of the Cons' most regressive policies. And Barrie McKenna points out the need for greater investment in young families, rather than allocating resources based solely on the goal of buying off wealthier and older voters.

- Meanwhile, Anuj Shah observes that people operating under a mindset of scarcity value resources far more consistently than those who have money to spare. But the most significant outcome of that finding looks to me to be that a focus on additional unnecessary resources at the top of the wealth scale only amplifies irrational decision-making.

- Robyn Benson argues that we should all be able to agree on the importance of safe workplaces - making it particularly striking that the Cons are spending so much time trying to force workers to impose the dangers of ill health or fatigue on themselves and the public. And Eric Atkins discusses the continued epidemic of oil derailments.

- Finally, Jim Harding slams the Cons' wedge politics, while asking whether we'll allow them to dominate the 2015 federal election. L. Ian MacDonald calls out Stephen Harper's step toward outright xenophobia. And both Lawrence Martin and the Globe and Mail's editorial board weigh in on the disastrous consequences of the Cons' terror bill, while Shawn McCarthy reports that "anti-petroleum" activity figures to be one of the main targets.