Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Iglika Ivanova discusses how British Columbia can move toward eliminating poverty in its next budget.

- Patrick Maze points out the need for Saskatchewan's education system to be able to rely on stable and sufficient funding. But Alex MacPherson notes that Scott Moe has refused to benefit people even when there's federal money available to provide such basic necessities as public transportation.

- Kelvin Gawley reports on the massive public benefits from the NDP's comprehensive and universal pharmacare plan (in contrast to the Libs' watered-down attempt at corporate appeasement). 

- The Star's editorial board calls out Doug Ford's bait-and-switch which will result in funding being pulled away from the children with autism who most need it.

- Finally, Christo Aivalis reminds us of Tommy Douglas' genuine socialism - and the continued importance of holding and conveying strong social values even when they're not seen as politicall convenient:

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.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Annette Alstadsæter, Niels Johannesen and Gabriel Zucman examine (PDF) the size and distribution of tax evasion and (not surprisingly) find it clustered at the top - with the wealthiest .01% dodging 30% of its obligation to society at large. And Marco Chown Oved reports that the Canada Revenue Agency is finally pursuing criminal investigations into offshore tax evasion.

- Meanwhile, Paul Buchheit rightly questions why any government would want to hand tax cuts to businesses who are already refusing to pay their fair share.

- Angela Rayner writes about UK Labour's plan for a truly universal child care system. And Max Shanly and Ronan Burtenshaw highlight the drastic change for the better on offer from Labour's policy platform - along with the strong public support for improved redistribution of wealth:

But it wasn’t just the manifesto that was popular, it was also the kind of politics that has been used to communicate its ideas. For months, Corbynism has tried to build a radical politics from the halls of Westminster, playing a game of high politics at which its enemies are more adept. In this campaign, Corbyn’s team have thrown off the shackles of that environment — holding large rallies around the country, sharing the stage with campaigners from a wide range of social causes, taking socialist politics to the people who are its concern. This dynamic, grassroots campaign has helped to transform public opinion of Corbyn and engage thousands in his project of social transformation.
...
None of this could have happened if the battle had remained confined to the stage-managed theater of Westminster, with scripts written by the mainstream press and an ill-fitting costume of respectability draped around Corbyn’s shoulders. It is with mass politics that the Left can win — and the same will be true for this manifesto.

No significant program of redistributing wealth and power can be achieved through parliament alone. Even if Labour was to win on June 8, its manifesto would face significant opposition — from the right-wing of the Labour Party, the press empires, elite civil servants, and the business class. The only way to see it implemented would be to organize for it outside of parliament, through social movements that demand its proposals, trade unions that fight for them in the workplace, and a revitalized Labour Party that becomes a vehicle for popular power at a local as well as national level.

In the more likely circumstance that Labour is defeated in the election, the party’s right will immediately argue that it was because its leadership was too left wing. But we now know this is not true. The vast majority of the country supports left-wing policies — it is the Labour right and their allies in the political, business, and media elite who are in the minority. The next battle will be to defend the manifesto from their attacks.

- CBC reports on the progress made as a result of Ontario's workplace review (and the public pressure which caused it to happen), with a $15 minimum wage and improved protections for part-time and precarious workers among the gains.

- Finally, the Star's editorial board asks what it will take for the federal government to live up to its obligation not to discriminate against Indigenous children - though the obvious answer is a party in power which actually cares about substantive change enough to dedicate resources to it, rather than seeing photo ops and empty announcements as accomplishments.