Sunday Morning Links

 This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Patricia Treble discusses how the rise of the Delta COVID-19 variant is making it vital to hit higher vaccine targets than previously set. And the Star's editorial board argues that any responsible government should be laying out a plan to get children back to school safely this fall - rather than offering vague assurances coupled with no planning. 

- Robin Sears makes the case to build back better once the pandemic actually is done with rather than merely settling back into the same conditions that created so much insecurity.   

- Cathy Crowe notes that Toronto's violent eviction of homeless people and their tents from Trinity Bellwoods Park represents little more than history repeating. And Rick Salutin discusses how the goal of the eviction was to place a continuing crisis beyond the perception of most people, rather than to do anything to actually resolve it.  

- Kenny Stancil writes about the growing U.S. support for socialism relative to capitalism - and the supermajority in favour of closing the gap between the rich and the poor. 

- Finally, Tiffany Crawford reports on the scientific confirmation that unprecedented heat waves (including the one now hitting B.C.) are linked to the climate crisis. But while the European Union is set to make emissions reduction targets legally binding, John Woodside writes that Newfoundland and Labrador - like far too many other jurisdictions - has chosen to prioritize a last trickle of oil industry profits over massive public demand to transition to a clean economy to help avert a total breakdown. 

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Anya Zoledziowski discusses how we're only facing a third wave of COVID-19 due to avoidable political choices, while the Globe and Mail's editorial board laments the epidemic of political negligence which has resulted in severe consequences for public health and welfare. Elizabeth Payne reports on the painful choices facing health professionals as serious coronavirus cases swamp an already-stressed health care system. Adam Miller points out that we need to revise our assumptions as to what's safe based on the spread of more easily transmissible and more dangerous variants, while Bhinder Sajan reports on the reduced room for error. And a group of experts, doctors and citizens is circulating a petition to finally shift to a COVID-zero strategy to keep people healthy and safe, while Ian Welsh recognizes that it's been obvious from the beginning how that was the only viable choice if we value people's lives. 

- Meanwhile, Tonda MacCharles writes about the reality that individual vaccination doesn't mean that anybody can go back to living as if the pandemic didn't exist.

- BBC News reports on the WHO's desperate plea for wealthy countries to prioritize vaccine availability around the globe over profits for manufacturers. And Linda McQuaig offers a reminder that the only way to ensure a secure supply of medicine is to maintain our own, rather than hoping we can throw enough money and privileges at big pharma to bump us ahead of other countries.

- Finally, Carlito Pablo discusses how work from home during the course of the COVID pandemic has affected productivity - concluding that the result has included both more production, and longer hours. And Rick Salutin writes about the continued refusal of Doug Ford (and other politicians) to put sick leave in place to allow workers to stay home and keep people healthy.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Owen Jones points out how attempts to primarily blame the public for the spread of COVID serve primarily to distract from unsafe workplace and other systemic risks which have been left in place to serve corporate interests. And Jolson Lim reports on the increasing push for provincial sick leave policies - which are particularly necessary due to the federal Libs' decision that it was more important to cut off the CERB program than to ensure people have the support they need to survive the pandemic.

- Randy Robinson discusses how the pandemic has made it all the more painfully obvious how Doug Ford's hatred of government makes him unable to lead one. Sarmishta Subramanian rightly notes that empty "stay at home" messaging was doomed to fail when it was accompanied by an insistence that business be able to carry on as usual. And Rick Salutin calls out the Ford PCs' choice to claim that the only form of COVID control they'll ultimately accept is a vaccine - no matter how much avoidable sickness and death results from a lack of responsible action in the meantime. 

- Murray Mandryk offers a periodic reminder that more of the same shouldn't be acceptable for Saskatchewan - which of course doesn't mean we can expect anything different from Scott Moe. And Laura Woodward interviews Kyle Anderson about the prospect that nothing short of a full lockdown will be enough to get the virus under something resembling control.

- Meanwhile, Brian Platt highlights how Nova Scotia has succeeded in using rapid testing to get a handle on community spread.

- Finally, Linda McQuaig discusses how the trend toward privatized long-term care has exacerbated the crisis for residents in Ontario. And Amy Dempsey reports on the for-profit care nursing home operators who have pocketed money explicitly targeted for personal care workers.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your year.

- Armine Yalnizyan writes about the ongoing struggle for workers' rights a century after the Winnipeg General Strike:

Most workers have no channels for acting, or even talking, collectively. That may be changing. Here in Canada, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers launched a campaign in May to organize Foodora’s bicycle and car couriers in Toronto, in hopes of providing access to basic workers’ rights. In June, 300 Uber drivers in the Greater Toronto Area formed a union with the United Food and Commercial Workers to push back against unfair labour practices. 

Workers are starting to rediscover the role of collective action and unions because there seems to be no bottom to how some employers will exploit them. 

...

One hundred years ago, people rose up against the status quo. Today, people are rising up against attempts to dismantle the status quo, turning back the clock on hard-won rights and freedoms.

- The Economic Policy Institute charts what should be some of the U.S.' top economic priorities for the year to come.

- Don Pittis offers some suggestions as to how to turn the tide to fight the climate crisis in 2020. Doug Cuthand muses as to how we'll remember the coming decade. And Rick Salutin writes that we're out of time to merely hope for the best rather than engaging in immediate action.

- The Victoria Times-Colonist's editorial board recognizes the problems in leaving long-term senior care in the hands of the private sector. And R E Klaber and S Bailey study the importance of including kindness as a governing principle in health care, rather than focusing solely on immediate dollars and cents.

- Finally, Jane Philpott makes the case for the decriminalization of drug possession as the solution to the opioid crisis.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The Canadian Press reports on the Libs' desire to approve massive tar sands expansions no matter how the resulting production - to say nothing of the consumption left uncounted - would affect Canada's role in exacerbating a climate breakdown. And Janyce McGregor reports on the Libs' latest stalling tactics in applying fair tax obligations to stock options.

- Blair Fix studies how hierarchy dominates over education as a determinant of income in the U.S.' military.

- Alia Youssef examines how Muslim women have been affected by Quebec's discriminatory Bill 21.

- Stephanie Taylor reports on the difficulties Saskatchewan residents are facing in getting addictions treated. And Omar Mosleh tells the story of Randy Legarde's death - whose immediate causes remain unknown, but whose systemic roots in a lack of housing and social supports are only being exacerbated by the UCP. 

- Finally, Rick Salutin notes that populism - in one form or another - stands to exert significant influence within our political system, while Karolina Wigura and Jarosław Kuisz write about the importance of connecting to voters on an emotional level. And Adam Ramsey discusses how the UK Cons' majority can be traced largely to their promising to banish the political chaos they themselves caused.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- George Monbiot makes the case for popular sovereignty mechanisms to supplement systems of representative government which fail to reflect the will of the people. And Ian Bremmer reports on Chile's mass protest seeking a public voice to end economic unfairness.  

- Katrina Miller notes that Canadian voters looking to solve affordability concerns prefer progressive solutions. Ilya Banares reports on new polling showing that a strong majority of voters who would rather see cooperation between the Libs and NDP than watch Justin Trudeau implement Conservative policies, while Rick Salutin points out the agreement on broad principles among two-third of voters. And Andrew Nikiforuk writes about the need for more cooperative politics if we're to have any hope of transitioning toward a sustainable society.

- Zane Schwartz reports on one interesting bit of discussion about worthwhile public investments, as the Canada Infrastructure Bank (flawed though it is) has been examining the possibility of a national public utility for telecommunications.

- Lisa Johnson examines the utter implausibility of the UCP's claim that its giveaways to big corporations will result in anything but the further accumulation of wealth by people who already have more than they need. And Hannah Kost reports on Naheed Nenshi's reply to an Alberta budget positively calculated to maximize the pain caused to people and public institutions alike.

- Finally, Taylor Kubota points out new research confirming the problems with carbon capture as anything but an excuse to avoid transitioning away from fossil fuels. Fatima Syed reports on Saskatchewan's indoctrination of students with oil industry propaganda while ostensibly teaching about climate change. And Dennis Gruending highlights how Scott Moe and Jason Kenney are speaking only for the oil sector - rather than for their constituents or the public good - in their climate denialism and gaslighting.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Rick Salutin writes that Canada's lack of accessible housing arises primarily as the result of general inequality. Derek Thompson notes that youth athletics are just one more sphere of activity in which concentrated wealth is driving out participation by people who don't have that advantage. And Michael Mendelson reports on Doug Ford's latest plan to remove what little support already exists for the people who need it most.

- Kevin Carmichael asks why our government isn't ensuring that digital giants pay their fair share to support a society which offers a source of massive profits. And David MacDonald and Chris Roberts examine how large corporations have stolen from their workers by deliberately underfunding pension plans while finding enough spare cash to pay out massive dividends.

- Gamechangers examines how Justin Trudeau's attempt to turn public works into a private profit centre included appeals to Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund.

- Finally, Chris Selley comments on the latest revelations about Trudeau's betrayal of progressive voters on electoral reform:

(W)e are asked to believe that this scholar of electoral reform, who felt quite strongly that proportional representation was “bad for Canada,” was convinced by his caucus to “leave the door open at least a crack for proportional representation” because he thought (per Wherry’s interviews) that he might be “willing to be convinced that (he was) wrong.”

There is no evidence he was, in fact, willing. Instead we are to believe that the committee of Trudeau’s MPs and those of other parties that Trudeau tasked to study and consult on this matter at great expense, and that ended up recommending PR, only to have then-democratic institutions minister Maryam Monsef dismiss their work as not what she asked for, only steeled his resolve against PR. We are to believe that Trudeau forgot to stump for ranked ballots even occasionally, once he became prime minister, because — per Katie Telford, now Trudeau’s chief of staff, to Wherry — “then we wouldn’t have been doing a lot of other things.”
...
Truly, the mind boggles. A keen student of electoral reform would have known the New Democrats would never accept ranked ballots because PR is party gospel, and ranked ballots are beside the point to PR and not in their electoral best interests. A keen student of electoral reform would have known the Conservatives would never accept ranked ballots because they believe quite strongly in the status quo, and because they are also not in their electoral best interests.

The honest person Justin Trudeau purports to be cannot claim good intentions in this situation and expect to get away with it. I cannot ever recall seeing such an implausibly ambitious plea for clemency for such a transparently cynical record. It says a lot that he would even attempt it.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Aditya Chakrabortty writes about the consequences of the UK's choice not to fund its or social infrastructure:

We are right in the middle of an infrastructure breakdown – we just haven’t named it yet. You’ll know what I mean when we list the component parts. More than 760 youth clubs have shut across the UK since 2012. A pub closes every 12 hours. Nearly 130 libraries were scrapped last year, and those that survive in England have lopped off 230,000 opening hours.

Each of the above is a news story. Each stings a different group: the books trade, the real-ale aficionados, the trade unions. But knit them together and a far darker picture emerges. Britain is being stripped of its social infrastructure: the institutions that make up its daily life, the buildings and spaces that host friends and gently push strangers together. Public parks are disappearing. Playgrounds are being sold off. High streets are fast turning to desert. These trends are national, but their greatest force is felt in the poorest towns and suburbs, the most remote parts of the countryside, where there isn’t the footfall to lure in the businesses or household wealth to save the local boozer.
...
When it comes to transport or energy or sewage, Britain has a National Infrastructure Commission that monitors the country’s needs and guides parliament on where to direct spending. After all, the quality of such hard infrastructure influences where multinationals set up shop: it is money-making. But parks and libraries don’t generate cash. Social infrastructure has no lobby, no registry of assets and certainly no government agency. No Whitehall official monitors how much of it has closed or withered away – that relies on civil society groups to file freedom of information requests or badger town halls with survey. Everyone knows we need it, yet just as our economic model prizes shareholder returns over investment in the National Grid, so our politics relies on drawing in the voters with unfeasibly low taxes. Until one day, something breaks and all hell breaks loose.

So here is a suggestion for Jeremy Corbyn or Nicola Sturgeon or Adam Price or whoever else fancies it. Talk about the importance of social infrastructure. Promise to set up a commission explicitly to audit what we have and help protect it. Commit public money to it, alongside gentle pressure on the private sector to do its bit. That way, we can publicly mark the public institutions we all know we need – and show the esteem due to the people who keep them going and use them. The spirit we need is that summed up by the librarian who rhapsodises to Klinenberg about his branch: “The library really is a palace. It bestows nobility on people who can’t otherwise afford a shred of it. People need to have nobility and dignity in their lives. And, you know, they need other people to recognise it in them too.”

- Chris Varcoe reports that the UCP's corporate tax giveaways are predictably leading to no economic benefit to anybody other than shareholders and executives. And Jessica Elgot reports on UK Labour's plans to give municipalities the power to restore abandoned shops to public use.

- Andrew Mitrovica highlights the significance of Justin Trudeau's ethical violations. The Globe and Mail's editorial board lists the many failings which went into the Libs' attempt to twist laws and constitutional principles to serve SNC-Lavalin. And Andrew Coyne zeroes in on the deception involved in Trudeau's interventions - including toward the Attorney General he'd appointed to uphold the rule of law.

- Ben Smee reports on a prime example on the contempt fossil fuel spokesflacks have for the lives of people affected by a climate breakdown. And Rick Salutin calls attention to Canada's appalling support for anti-democratic corporate repression in Honduras.

- Finally, Oliver Franklin-Wallis discusses the limited effectiveness of plastic recycling.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Erika Beauchesne discusses the benefits of a wealth tax as both a means of reducing inequality, and a source of revenue for public priorities:

Canada’s NDP has proposed a one per cent tax on wealth over $20 million as part of its election platform. The party doesn’t include much detail yet but estimates it could generate several billion dollars a year.

Pundits have been quick to pounce on a wealth tax as too extreme, difficult or costly. A National Post column last month asked: “What is the problem to which creating a wealth tax is a solution?”

Growing inequality is the problem.

The richest families in Canada are now more than 4,400 times wealthier than the average family, according to a study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).

This widening gap has gone hand-in-hand with declining social and economic mobility. The CCPA found that family dynasties are more likely to keep their money in the family than they were two decades ago thanks to light taxes and loopholes that primarily benefit the wealthy, while Statistics Canada recently reported that family income mobility has declined since the 1980s.
...
There’s debate among economists about the pros and cons of annual wealth taxes, and whether inheritance taxes and other taxes on capital and wealth would work better. Canadians for Tax Fairness, an organization that advocates for fair and progressive taxation, has called for restoring an inheritance tax on high-wealth estates to narrow Canada’s widening wealth gap, make our tax system fairer and generate funds to pay for public services. Democratic leadership contender and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed a similar plan to expand the estate tax for inheritances over US$3.5 million.

The question and debate should no longer be whether we have increased taxes on wealth and capital, but what form they should take. We should thank the NDP for getting this debate going in Canada, and look forward to seeing what other federal political parties propose.

- And Douglas Todd notes that a failure to adequately tax wealth as opposed to income has left British Columbia in the position of subsidizing foreign ownership of desperately scarce housing.

- Melanie Green offers some important background information as a British Columbia inquiry begins analyzing the cause of soaring gas prices being used by right-wing politicians to attach carbon pricing. Paul Cowley reports on another estimate showing that Alberta faces tens of billions of dollars in well reclamation liabilities left unfunded by the corporations who have extracted oil and gas. And Andrea Palframan reports on the work of the Heiltsuk Nation in documenting the lack of any effective oil spill response along B.C.'s coastline.

- Paul Wells writes that Andrew Scheer's anti-Canada Food Guide bombast can only be the product of a politician taking voters for idiots. And the Star's editorial board argues that we shouldn't allow anybody to play political with health and nutrition.

- Finally, Rick Salutin points out the sheer folly of Doug Ford's insistence that Ontario students earn online credits rather than receiving a full education at school.

Wednesday Morning Links

This and that for your mid-week reading.

- Rick Salutin discusses the needed rise of left-wing populism in the U.S.' presidential campaign (and elsewhere).

- Ed Finn highlights how policies designed around austerity and competition are designed to prevent people from cooperating toward the common good. And Erlend Kvitrud points out how direct public control over corporations serves as a crucial aspect of Scandinavia's economic and social successes.

- Tracey Lindeman notes that the airline industry represents just another example of how corporate consolidation is producing windfall profits and higher prices. And Katie Nicholson reports on Boeing's falsification of safety records.

- Rebecca Willis writes that more democracy is a crucial aspect of a successful effort to combat our climate crisis, while Avi Lewis and David Suzuki are hopeful that Canada is on the right track. Bloomberg News calls out the fossil fuel industry's continued sabotage of any attempt to develop workable plans to avert a climate breakdown, while Alastair Jamieson reports on Saudi Arabia's interference in UN discussions. Ben Jervey notes that the Koch brothers are among the oil barons trying to prevent the emergence of the electric vehicle industry. And James Temple discusses the need to reduce out anticipated fossil fuel use rather than trying to justify continued expansion in the name of "transition", while David Roberts writes about Jay Inslee's detailed plans to actually phase out our dependence on carbon pollution. 

- Finally, Tom Koch writes that a national pharmacare system would both benefit from, and contribute to, the principle that big pharma shouldn't be able to capture public research dollars as a source of private profits.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Eric Holthaus writes that the Green New Deal which looks to be at the centre of Democratic policy development offers an important opportunity for the U.S. to make amends with a world bearing the brunt of its past pollution. But Rick Salutin discusses how the coup on behalf of the resource sector in Venezuela (with the U.S. and Canada playing major roles) is all about inflating corporate profits, rather than protecting human rights or democracy.

- Fatima Syed reports on Doug Ford's plan to stop tracking carbon pollution to paper over the inevitable effects of his elimination of any climate change plan. And the Globe and Mail's editorial board calls Ford out - albeit too late - for promising that slashing services will do anything but harm the public.

- Luke Savage highlights why any plan for vital public services needs to be aimed toward universal access, rather than stopping at "affordability":

The word “affordable” appeared some thirty-one times in the 2016 Democratic Party platform, in reference to policy areas ranging from housing and college tuition to childcare and finance (for comparison, “middle class,” that hallowed floating signifier, appeared only sixteen times).

Its omnipresence in political language makes a certain intuitive sense. Life for many Americans is, after all, dominated by institutions that make things more expensive by design: health insurers offering pricey packages for even the most basic coverage; telecom and energy giants imposing inscrutable new rates and fees on customers trying to maintain their cell service, keep the lights on, or not freeze to death in the winter; schools making themselves ever more exclusive through higher tuition; landlords raising the rents at each and every opportunity.
...
Pushes to make vital public goods such as health care or education “affordable” — whether well-intentioned or deliberately misleading — still invariably imply a transaction taking place between a seller and a consumer: the dynamic of the market in its most elemental form. Even if the good in question does become cheaper (and therefore easier for more people to access), the basic dynamic is maintained and the good remains a commodity to be bought and sold rather than a universal right to be guaranteed and enjoyed.

This is what makes the incrementalist attitude to health care (and innumerable other policy areas) favored by some Democrats so flawed: the Left’s push for universality isn’t just a more holistic version of liberal efforts that aspire to make things more “affordable.” Its ultimate goal is to democratize social goods, removing the market altogether and extinguishing the need for anyone to worry about whether they have the requisite funds to see a doctor, acquire education, put their children in a safe and caring environment during working hours, or sleep with a roof over their heads.

- Finally, Paul Wells discusses the need for a public inquiry into Justin Trudeau's interference in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and its executives for illegal donations largely directed toward the Libs' own coffers.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Martha Friendly, Susan Prentice and Morna Ballantyne discuss how universal child care is a necessary element of any serious push toward equality for women. Dennis Grunding notes that it will take a concerted public effort to secure the universal pharmacare program Canadians want and deserve - even though the blueprint was set out over half a century ago. And the Star's editorial board calls out the Libs for their stubborn and counterproductive refusal to consider universal social programs of any kind:

The research of Rothstein and others, drawing on numerous international examples, suggests universal programs have a number of advantages that should not be glibly dismissed by governments, especially ones concerned about the middle class and those aspiring to join it.

For instance, because everyone benefits from them and is therefore invested, universal programs have been shown to be more durable, less vulnerable to market fluctuations or political lurches. Commitment to medicare, for example, has not seriously wavered, even through major recessions and long stretches of austerity government.

Moreover, while the initial costs can seem politically prohibitive, universal programs often create significant long-term savings. A universal pharmacare program, for instance, would allow for the bulk-purchasing of drugs and the elimination of administrative bureaucracy, yielding billions of dollars in savings forgone by a more targeted approach.

Finally, and crucially for a government concerned about inequality, universal programs have been shown to promote solidarity and trust. Targeted or means-tested programs may stigmatize recipients, contributing to a sense that low-income people are apart from the rest of the community. “A welfare state built mainly on means-tested programs,” Rothstein writes, can actually “perpetuate feelings of inequality among both the poor and the more affluent.”

Such feelings should worry Trudeau. After all, the prime minister rightly observed that Donald Trump won the U.S. election in part because too many Americans felt they were not sharing in the country’s prosperity and that this was something Ottawa must also address. The evidence suggests universal programs, design depending, can be a powerful tool for doing just that.

- Meanwhile, Patrick DeRochie lists a few of the crucial social supports which are receiving substantially less federal money than the Libs are paying out in subsidies to oil and gas companies.

- Andrew Jackson points out the importance of measuring different types of poverty (including absolute and relative measures), and ensuring that public policy responds to all of them.

- Finally, Rick Salutin discusses the potentially valuable side of populism which genuinely reflects the interests of people excluded from decision-making. And commenting on the Ontario PCs' leadership campaign, Martin Regg Cohn recognizes the risks that arise when only anti-social candidates present populist messages.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Rick Salutin writes that Ontario's provincial election shows that nobody is prepared to defend neoliberal ideas on their merits - which should provide an opening to start challenging them in practice. And Alice Ollstein examines how Donald Trump's corporate giveaway looks like an unmitigated economic disaster in the making.

- Phillip Inman notes that financial markets are in a similar position to where they were before the 2008 meltdown. And Robert Booth notes that the less-privileged in the UK are already facing as much homelessness and housing insecurity as they did during the most recent crash.

- Meanwhile, Jordan Press reports on a much-needed effort to ensure that lower-income Canadians receive the benefits available to them.

- Kristen Sze reports on California's dramatically-increased wildfire risks arising out of climate change, while Sarah Boseley notes that pollution is undermining the health value of outdoor exercise for people over 60. And Andrea Harden Donohue warns against accepting the premise that we're stuck with pipelines and/or coal.

- Finally, Anne Karpf points out how the most privileged people have managed to silence the real victims of entrenched power structures by feigning victimhood for themselves.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- George Lakey describes how Denmark has built the world's happiest society by building a political movement and an economic model centred around providing for everybody:

Using the crisis as an opportunity, the Social Democrats secured the foundation of the Nordic model, the most successful economic national model yet invented for the common good. The Danish majority loved it, and the unions and family farmers retained political control of the country for the rest of the century. The model became so hegemonic that all the parties were forced to embrace it to remain relevant at all, even the new “right-wing” party that hates immigration while still promoting a robust version of the Nordic model.

What shall we call that model? Describing Denmark as a “welfare state” is, I think, seriously misleading. The Nordic design isn’t welfare for the needy—that’s the old approach that has not worked for any nation in the world, ever. Instead, the Nordic model provides universal services given to all, whatever their income, as a matter or right, supported by progressive taxation that re-distributes income and wealth.
...
The Danish people did not produce utopia, nor are they first in every measure. Norway has more social ownership of the means of production than Denmark does, and Sweden generates more innovation as measured by patents. The Danes did not end the push-back from the economic elite. Class struggle remains a reality in Denmark, as it does everywhere.

The Danes did, however, end centuries of domination by their 1 percent and empowered the democratic majority to make decisions about the future direction of the economy. They designed a different economy, one that centers labor instead of capital, correctly understanding this shift to be the pre-condition for the abolition of poverty. They also turn to nonviolent direct action to do the heavy lifting when they see it is needed, rather than putting all their eggs in the parliamentary basket.

- Meanwhile, Chris McGreal comments on the promise of democratic socialism as a needed hope for a growing movement of young Americans. Aditya Chakrabortty points out the deprivation and inequality that's leading to a first-ever strike among workers at UK McDonald's. And Rachelle Younglai discusses the Canadian workers who are being left without any hope of stable employment.

- Christopher Cheung interviews Geoff Dembicki about the trend of young voters making their decisions based on climate change - and the prospect that a cohort suckered once by the Trudeau Libs won't be fooled again.

- Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan call out climate change denialists when numerous ongoing disasters are demonstrating the human costs of inaction. And Rick Salutin criticizes much of the coverage of Hurricane Harvey as "rescue porn" which neglects needed analysis as to how damage happened and could be prevented.

- Finally, Alheli Picazo offers some suggestions in dealing with prejudice among people who are willing to listen and reconsider their assumptions.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Leo Gerard calls for an end to trade deals designed to favour the wealthy at the expense of everybody else. And Rick Salutin writes that NAFTA can't reasonably be seen as anything but:

(N)o matter how many numbers Freeland plucks to show the economy’s mighty growth in the free trade years, in those same years, most people’s lives have hardened: income stagnated; infrastructure declined; universities became debt traps — the growth was distributed entirely upward. This is politically toxic.

She said Monday, “Too many working people feel abandoned by the 21st century global economy, and have voted accordingly.” So, “We must share the fruits of trade ...” It’s “the all-important, connecting piece, the tie between free trade and equitable domestic policy … They need to advance together.”

This is not irrational, it’s just impossible. Why? Because the whole purpose of the deals was to undercut the gains of the majority, who’d benefitted since the Second World War, by shifting jobs to poorer places (like Mexico) so as to extract concessions and raise profits. Why would those who backed the deals for those reasons, give that up? Using trade deals to benefit everyone is a nice idea but, like that spider, it’s not their nature. You’re trying to reengineer their souls.

- Jeremy Nuttall explores how younger workers have been left out of any economic growth. And Angella MacEwen points out that businesses have plenty of room to offer higher wages rather than focusing solely on short-term shareholder payouts.

- Noah Smith offers a thorough set of suggestions to build a stronger and more equitable U.S. economy - with more progressive taxes and stronger social programs playing vital roles.

- But Robin Shaban highlights how the Saskatchewan Party's budget will result in a windfall for high-income residents and corporations, while forcing most workers to pay more. And Charles Hamilton reports that an emergency mental health unit funded by donations is on hold for lack of staff, forcing people with urgent mental health needs into the general emergency care system.

- Finally, Sarah Berman examines how the most basic of housing is becoming unaffordable in a large number of Canadian cities (including Regina).

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Martin Lukacs writes that the world should able to draw plenty of positive examples from Canada's politics - though not from the corporate-focused federal Libs:

As Donald Trump rips up the Paris climate accords, it may seem easy to despair. But these provincial victories show us there is a reason to hope: the huge potential in uniting urgent environmental action with an unapologetically left-wing agenda.

The agreement signed by the B.C. Greens and NDP — the boldest declaration of an incoming government in recent Canadian history — gives a taste of what this might look like.

Consider just a few of their plans. A ban on big money donations and the introduction of proportional voting: this alone would transform an enclave of corporate power into a more functional democracy. Honouring the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: this would start to heal the colonial wounds that tear apart the province. And “employing every tool” to block the Kinder Morgan tar sands pipeline: this would be a message that economic development need not torch our climate commitments, which would reverberate across the country.

It’s not quite a left-wing agenda: after all, the NDP has pledged only the most modest tax hikes to redistribute the obscene hoarded wealth in Canada’s most unequal province. But in its fusion of environmental and economic action, it is historic. In coalition, the fiscally-conservative Greens and environmentally-timid NDP have expressed the best of their platforms, and canceled out the worst.
...
For those who believe such ambition is impossible, look to those who fought for a $15 minimum wage in Ontario. They too were scoffed at for being “unrealistic.” They were ignored at first by major labour unions and the Ontario NDP. But grassroots campaigners, led by women of colour, built a campaign that forced the hand of a weakened Liberal government. They showed that, now more than ever, people are right to nurture higher expectations.
...
Quebec Solidaire comes closest to expressing this transformative vision. Its prospects in Quebec – a significant jump in the polls, an influx of thousands of new members — have now been boosted by Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois. Before he won a by-election this week by a record margin, he made his name working alongside movements forging common cause: by fighting for free university tuition and strengthened public services, as well as against the Energy East tar sands pipeline, he has helped to articulate the holistic core of a new progressive politics. With the Parti Quebecois faltering, there is every reason to believe that such politics can win a much greater share of Quebec’s electorate — and even to hold the balance of power.

- Meanwhile, Rick Salutin argues that we should draw our national identity from genuine achievements such as our national medicare system, rather than worrying unduly about symbols for their own sake. But Tom Parkin laments the fact that far too much of our political media is easily distracted by shiny baubles such as Justin Trudeau's socks, rather than paying any meaningful attention to the choices which affect Canadians' lives.

- Campbell Clark discusses the elitism behind the Libs' push for a corporate trade agreement with China. And Robert Fife and Steven Chase report that the public doesn't share the Libs' blithe disregard for the security implications of handing technology firms to Chinese capital.  

- Carl Meyer exposes how the Libs reversed an evidence-based decision to ban
dangerous cosmetics based on corporate lobbying.

- Finally, Dean Baker examines the possible effects of a financial transactions tax - and notes that the elimination of extreme inequality based on top-end incomes linked to financial-sector rent-seeking is one of the major benefits.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign...

- Charlie Angus has made his pitch for a national pharmacare program as one way of reducing health care inequality.

- Guy Caron's proposal for tax reform features plenty of progressive ideas to bring in more public revenue, including through inheritance and wealth taxes. And his subsequent announcement that electoral reform will be his top priority in the next Parliament offers some needed hope for progressives who have seen the Libs break their promise yet again.

- Niki Ashton's announcement that she's expecting has attracted plenty of attention - but it's particularly worth noting (as Monique Scotti does) how it highlights the need for more parent-friendly systems both in our political system and in general.

- Jagmeet Singh's first policy proposal focuses on more fair treatment for workers under federal jurisdiction. (And yes, Kevin Milligan, they exist.)

- Jeremy Nuttall interviews Ibrahim Bruno El-Khoury about his campaign so far.

- Finally, Murray Dobbin characterizes the difference between Singh and Niki Ashton as being a clash between style and substance - though Singh seems to be working on eliminating any gap on the latter point. Rick Salutin suggests that the NDP should be looking to Bernie Sanders as an example of left populism, while seeing Angus as the best candidate on that front. And Tom Parkin examines some of the challenges and opportunities the NDP faces in Quebec.

New column day

Here, a rare Saturday column on the lessons we should draw from the election of Donald Trump in how we organize and work within our political system.

For further reading (beyond the writing already linked here)...
- Others offering similar thoughts include Murray Dobbin, Rick Salutin, Kai Nagata and Robert Reich.
- Tabatha Southey highlights how racism fed into Trump's win, and argues that we shouldn't minimize its effect simply because of the election's result. Ari Berman comments on the desperately under-reported role of Republican vote suppression in electing Trump. And Gary Younge offers a thorough (and thoroughly disturbing) summary of the forces behind the election results.
- Joseph Heath offers his take on what we can expect from Trump's election - with the strengthening of anti-democratic sentiment around the globe rivaling any of the other types of damage.
- Finally, Paul Waldman describes the blatant con behind Trump's claim to the mantle of populism - and it's taken only days for Trump to make clear that anybody hoping for a break from a culture of insider self-dealing is in for a major disappointment.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Andrew Jackson makes the case for a review of Canada's tax system focused on boosting revenue from the wealthy people and corporations who can readily afford it:

These tax loopholes are costly. Partial inclusion of capital gains in taxable income costs the federal government alone $3.6 billion per year; partial inclusion of stock options costs $725 million per year; and special tax treatment of dividends costs $3.7 billion per year.

Realistic reform of these three tax preferences would likely limit them rather than eliminate them entirely. For example, the stock options deduction might continue, with a capped value and some exemption for employees in start-up companies. One might contemplate an increase in the capital gains inclusion rate to, say, 75% where it stood before 2000, with some protection for inflation, or a cap on the total amount of capital gains accrued.

Nonetheless, it is clear that significant additional tax revenues could be gained by limiting federal tax loopholes on capital income, and that this could lower the proportion of after-tax income received by the most affluent Canadians and promote greater income equality.

- Will Denayer highlights how concentrated wealth can result in centuries of inequality. And Josh Boak discusses the issue of income inequality as it's been addressed in the U.S.' election campaign.

- Eric Holthaus weighs in on the need for immediate action to rein in climate change - along with the danger that we've already caused more damage than our planet can handle.

- Meanwhile, Ben Parfitt exposes BC Hydro's recognition that fracking and its resulting earthquakes could cause severe damage to hydro dams and other existing power infrastructure. And Derrick O'Keefe suggests that if fracking can't withstand a factual debate about its impacts, we should be hesitant to allow it at all.

- Finally, while some try to argue as to the main label to be affixed to the NDP, Don Braid nicely sums up what the party stands for at all levels:

The NDP always sees Alberta from the bottom up: from the street rather than the executive suite.

That simple fact explains how Premier Rachel Notley’s government behaves. It’s a useful lens for those still deeply disoriented by the first non-conservative government since, oh, early 1935.
...
The PPA dispute is just the most dramatic example of this instinctive sympathy for the underdog. More than a dozen policies reflect this, in every area from the workplace to the marketplace, from worker safety and consumer ripoffs to relations with First Nations.

The list includes minimum wage hikes; strict new controls on predatory payday loans; child tax benefits; investigating the Alberta Motor Vehicle Industry Council; the controversial farm safety bill; a review of condo deals; allowing victims of family violence to break residential leases; an apology to victims of mistreatment in residential schools; recognizing gender identity and expression; and a post-secondary tuition freeze.
...
That’s how the NDP sees the world — from down below. After decades with a government that was more comfortable with a corporate view, it takes getting used to.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Rick Salutin argues that we need to say no to any more trade agreements designed to privilege corporations at the expense of the public. Will Martin reports on the IMF's long-overdue recognition of the failures of neoliberalism, while pointing out that there's still a long way to go in ensuring that recognition is reflected in its wider policy. And Benjamin Dangl notes that we shouldn't ignore the fact that the economic violence of neoliberalism has often been accompanied by political violence needed to force unwanted policies on citizens.

- Meanwhile, Barb Pacholik discusses the Saskatchewan Party's choice to single out Saskatchewan's less wealthy residents for punishment, while doing nothing to increase public revenues or otherwise bring in more money from people who can afford it.

- Andrew Jackson explains why employers would be far better off supporting a stronger Canada Pension Plan, rather than facing the double whammy of future retirees both requiring alternative social supports and having limited spending power.

- David Hughes studies the effects of new pipelines and finds that they figure to be both needless at current or foreseeable oil production levels, and useless in influencing the return on oil actually produced. And Joe Romm argues that while peak oil supply may not be an imminent issue, peak oil demand may not be far away due to the growth of renewable alternatives.

- Finally, Karl Nerenberg discusses the Libs' belated acknowledgment that the NDP had the right idea in ensuring that any electoral reform has multi-party support while limiting the ability of one obstructionist opposition party to refuse any fairer system. And Democratic Audit explores how majoritarian systems are far more prone to gerrymandering and other abuse than proportional ones.