Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Julia Steinberger writes about the necropolitics surrounding the climate breakdown - as fossil fuel interests have declared our lives forfeit, and our scope for decision-making is limited to trying to salvage what we can around that assumption. Ellen Ormesher and Rebecca John discuss the UK's parliamentary debate on fossil fuel ads with reference to the increasingly sophisticated and manipulative techniques used to keep people addicted to dirty energy. Michael Bloomberg notes that the recent Texas floods are just the latest example of disasters made worse by climate denial. And Erin Sagen highlights how the childhood experience of gaining independence and bolstering health through cycling is being taken away by car-centric transportation choices. 

- Ezra Levin notes that the firehose of money being spewed at ICE will represent the most obvious direct effect of the Trump budget. And Greg Sargent talks to Garrett Graff about the reasons to anticipate that an immense flow of money into a secret police apparatus will lead to massive corruption. 

- Alexander Hill and Paul Robinson each highlight why Canada shouldn't accept sleepwalking into its own wasteful funding of a militarized state. And Kate McKenna reports on a new procurement process set up to favour an American supplier rather than doing anything to support Canadian sovereignty and independence from the would-be conqueror to our south. . 

- Meanwhile, Christo Aivalis discusses how Mark Carney's promise of resistance has generally given way to absolute capitulation to Trump - making the latest round of calls for "strategic voting" the most destructive one yet. 

- Finally, Hamilton Nolan writes about the blinkered vision of billionaires who can't imagine politics or social structures serving any goal other than to shower them with still more unnecessary wealth. 

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Adrienne Lafrance discusses how the clock is ticking - but not quite yet run out - to check Donald Trump's assertion of absolute power before the U.S. falls into authoritarianism. Will Stone reports on the Trump regime's gutting of the Department of Health and Human Services' injury prevention team, while Hiroko Tabuchi reports on the cancellation of research grants to address the effects of pollution and toxic chemicals on children. And Laurie Udesky and Jack Leeming write about the beginning of a massive scientific brain drain. 

- Stephen Magusiak talks to Geoff Dembicki about the close connections between Pierre Poilievre's Cons and the corporate forces responsible for Trump's entrenchment in power. Christopher Holcroft examines a half-dozen of the crucial policy areas where Poilievre is consistently parroting Trump. And Washim Ahmed warns that Poilievre's determination to mimic Trump's deportation of people for the exercise of free speech and assembly is particularly dangerous. 

- Ximena Gonzalez rightly questions why neither of the main parties is showing any interest in tackling poverty or inequality. And Danyaal Raza writes about the crisis in primary health care which is likewise receiving short shrift from the Libs and Cons alike. 

- Finally, Christo Aivalis writes about a principled approach to strategic voting for left-wing Canadian voters (in stark contrast to the "Dear Leader requires a crushing majority!" message coming from the Lib camp). And Tom Parkin offers a data-driven approach to electing the most progressive Parliament possible. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Matthew Yglesias implores the business sector which is increasingly recognizing the danger of Donald Trump's trade policy to notice that the balance of his plans are equally ill-founded. Will Saletan discusses the Trump regime's selection of cabinet officials based entirely on their willingness to propagandize and flatter, rather than the possession of any knowledge or competence. Charlie Angus highlights how book burning and information suppression fits into the fascist playbook. And Greg Sargent talks to Jonathan Friedman about the weakness in strongarm tactics which depend entirely on a lack of coordinated resistance.

- Bryan Tau, Joshua Goodman, Garance Burke and Brian Slodysko report on the DOGE takeover of the U.S.' General Services Administration which has resulted in effectively all public property and information being turned into playthings for Elon Musk. And Corbin Trent worries that most resistance so far has been based on inspiration in the absence of infrastructure, even as a fascist regime entrenches itself in power based on the groundwork laid by external structures. 

- Paul Wells highlights Pierre Poilievre's bragging about never changing his mind, whileLinda McQuaig writes that Poilievre's attempt to rebrand and partially reorient the Cons' campaign is likely doomed because of his inability to do anything of the sort. 

- Emma Paling and Alex Cosh examine how Poilievre has been treated with kid gloves by the media even while treating them with nothing but hatred and contempt. And Luke LeBrun reports on the Cons' laughable attempt to treat their own astroturfed attempt at polling denialism as being the result of a conspiracy involving both the Libs and Doug Ford (along with presumably various Freemasons, Roswell aliens and fake birds). 

- Finally, David Coletto examines the factors which have resulted in a shift among left-wing voters - with the main reason for any shift from the NDP to the Libs being a matter of transactional politics rather than changes in underlying beliefs. And Will Shelling discusses the importance of identifying and supporting strong NDP candidates, rather than complying with Lib partisans' demands for a crushing majority which would enable Mark Carney to sideline progressives inside and outside his party.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Nesrine Malik writes about the need for the rest of the world to imagine - and then build - an international order which routes around the U.S. as an entirely unreliable partner. And the Economist discusses how the U.S. itself will lose out immensely by ending the use of the dollar as an international default currency. 

- Anne Applebaum writes about the systematic kleptocracy being installed at breakneck speed. Paul Krugman and Dan Moynihan each note that Trump has turned the IRS into a tool to allow the wealthy to avoid taxes, while punishing the working class in any way possible. And Jenna McLaughlin reports that the confidential information raided by DOGE for Elon Musk's personal enrichment includes sensitive labor data held by the National Labor Relations Board.  

- Chris Hatch rightly notes that the climate breakdown is in progress - and will continue absent a drastic change in course - whether Trump and his ilk govern in denial of it or not. Hannah Ritchie and Pablo Rosado discuss the scourge of air pollution which kills millions of people every year. And Helena Horton reports on a study finding hundreds of dangerous pesticides in European homes, while Bartosz Brzezinski discusses Bas Bloem's research into the connection between glyphosate and Parkinson's disease. 

- Sumathi Reddy reports on the growing awareness among doctors that COVID-19 can produce cognitive difficulties which last for years. And Baran Erdik studies the effect of COVID on driving in particular, finding a significant association between infections and subsequent car crashes. 

- Finally, Schmutzie offers a survey of the Cons' most recent policy declaration - and notes in particular the similarities to Project 2025 which Donald Trump falsely disclaimed before making it the basis for his regime. Dougald Lamont writes that no government in Canada should be pushing austerity in the face of a teade war which makes it all the more laughable to preach a doctrine of self-sufficiency. And Seth Klein offers his take as to what a genuinely strategic vote would look like. 

On strategic considerations

Ontario's snap election is reaching its final day of voting following abysmal early turnout. And the campaign has seen a familiar range of attempts to get various configurations of parties, candidates and voters to engage in strategic voting schemes. 

Having written about more than a few of those in the past, I'll thus take the opportunity to provide a quick refresher.

At the level of parties and candidates, I've discussed the principles we should look for in a pre-election pact worth pursuing. And nothing of the sort is in place in the current campaign on a province-wide level - though the few candidates who have elected to step aside have done so in ridings where there's some reasonable hope of making a difference.

And at the level of individual voters, I've also written about how strategic voting plans can range from futile to downright counterproductive depending on the assumptions being used to determine which ridings to target and which candidates to support. And I don't see much reason for confidence that sites whose methodology ranges from "apply a province-wide swing to 2022 results with no regard for local or current conditions" to "back the Libs with virtually exceptions" will provide better guidance than the past failures.

None of the above is to take away from the importance of electing a far better government than the one Doug Ford wants to impose in perpetuity. But the message with the best chance of achieving that end is to mobilize as many voters seeking change as possible - not telling already-disaffected citizens that their votes are wasted if they're not funnelled into a strategic voting scheme. 

#Elxn44 Roundup

News and notes from Canada's federal election campaign.

- Cam Fenton discusses how "strategic" votes for the Libs in the name of climate change figure to be anything but, while David Gray-Donald bluntly describes the Libs' offering as "denialist trash". Maya Menezes examines what we should be looking for in a climate platform, while Simon Donner discusses the need for any climate policy to fit with long-term goals. And Ben Simoni and Melissa Lavery discuss how Canada (and indeed the world) would benefit from a youth climate corps.

- Robert Hiltz writes that Erin O'Toole's mask has come off in the course of the election campaign, while Paul Willcocks discusses how O'Toole has campaigned as a trickster for lack of any ability to appeal to both his party's base and any expanded voter universe. Marieke Walsh reports on the refusal of the vast majority of Con candidates to say whether they've been vaccinated in the midst of a pandemic. And PressProgress exposes Con candidate Les Jickling's support for making health care about profit rather than patient needs. 

- Morna Ballantyne highlights how the Cons' tax baubles can't be equated with a plan to actually make child care available. And Paul Dechene similarly notes that the Cons plan to starve municipalities of desperately-needed infrastructure funding.

- On that front, Natasha Bulowski reports on the priority placed on housing by Canada's municipalities. And Erica Ifill discusses how the Libs' housing schemes have been gimmicky political diversions rather than effective plans to ensure people have the homes they need.

- Finally, Charlie Smith writes about the Robin Hood themes being presented by Jagmeet Singh in contrasting the NDP against the protectors of the wealthy.

#Elxn44 Roundup

The latest from Canada's federal election campaign.

- PressProgress takes a look at the housing plans on offer - finding the NDP's plan to be the best of the major parties, but still falling short of ensuring the right to housing is met. Jonas Goldman, Anna Jessop and Aline Coutinho examine the climate change and environmental policies of the three main contenders. And John McNally and Mohsina Atiq connect the two issues by highlighting how housing affordability is vital to an effective climate plan. 

- Meanwhile, Ian Young reveals how the extreme rise in housing prices in Vancouver can be traced substantially to foreign capital. 

- Rosa Saba examines the weaknesses in Canada's Employment Insurance system - along with the need for stronger action to protect unemployed workers than is currently on the table. 

- Larry Savage offers a needed reality check for people pitching strategic voting, concluding that it fails miserably in its stated purpose of defeating Conservatives while often diverting votes toward undeserving Liberals. 

- Paul Wells theorizes that successful federal election campaigns have tended to focus on benefits for voters, rather than appeals to values. 

- Finally, Enzo DiMatteo reflects on Jack Layton's determined optimism, and its continued relevance in an election where so much bandwidth is being used trying to persuade people to accept less than what's possible. 

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Jim Coyle lists a few of the lies voters tell themselves around election time. And the Angus Reid Institute counts the large number of voters who cast a ballot for a party they don't actually support - with the Trudeau Libs as the main beneficiary of begrudged ballots. 

- Luke Savage discusses how the NDP can build off a campaign in which substantial progress on policy discussions and leadership approval led to disappointing vote and seat totals. And Ed Broadbent offers his suggestions as to how the NDP can exert influence in a minority Parliament, while Stefan Avlijas writes that an essential element of the balance of power is strengthening left-wing parties so they're in a position to fight another election campaign at any time.

- Meanwhile, Roberto Rocha points out how a financing system requiring parties to fund-raise through a large number of relatively small donors has affected Canadian politics.

- Emma Gilchrist discusses what we can expect on environmental issues from the new Parliament. And Chris Hall writes about the regional fault lines within Canada's new group of MPs.

- Finally, Greta Moran discusses the value of public ownership of utilities such as power grids. And an even more widespread planned blackout which will leave millions of Californians without power only confirms how poorly people are served when profit motives conflict with essential needs.

Canada 2019 - Election Notes

With Canadians going to the polls tomorrow, I'll offer a few thoughts on what to watch for on election day and beyond in a campaign whose early stability seems to have given way to some late shifts. 

First, a minority Parliament seems likely. But of all the predictions and expectations which can go awry based on unexpected late-campaign movement, few are more precarious than the balancing act required to create a minority situation. And 2015 offers a recent precedent where a seemingly close race turned into an unexpected majority.

By the same token, the seat projections which have shown effective ties for first and third place based on median expectations shouldn't be seen to make those into particularly likely outcomes in any event. The end of the campaign matters in ways which won't have been caught by earlier polling, and the default expectation should be that they'll be off somewhat (even if we can only make the most educated guesses possible as to how, with Frank Graves for one already reporting that a Lib majority might be in sight).

Second, if a minority does result from the vote, the next crucial question will be which party or parties hold the balance of power - or which might instead be dismissed as unworthy of any say due to being just short of the mark. (See Paul Martin, 2004.)

There, the most important swing factor is one which has received relatively little attention in mainstream coverage, even if it seems to be the subject of plenty of individual-level interest.

The Bloc has undoubtedly regained strength in Quebec compared to the previous two election cycles, with some models hinting at prospects of winning half the province's seats or more. But the NDP has pushed its way upward in the polls at the end of the campaign as it challenges the Bloc directly for the support of progressive voters.

That matters in two key ways: a relatively small shift may be decisive in Quebec seats with multi-party splits (as can be seen from the sharp turns at the end of both the 2011 and 2015 campaigns), while also determining who emerges with the larger caucus and the balance of power in Parliament as a whole. And for voters who want to see the Libs forced to act on the national progressive promises they're again trumpeting on the campaign trail after neglecting them in office, it's crucial for the NDP to be in a position to set the terms of any governing arrangement.

Plenty of other battleground regions could also substantially change the balance of power with relatively subtle swings. And most importantly, a strategic vote against another neoliberal majority now looks to involve ensuring that other, more progressive parties get the upper hand on the Libs wherever possible.

But particularly given the lack of much organization on that front, it doesn't appear likely that any attempt to be strategic will overcome the two main forces in the campaign, being the NDP's surge and the Cons' collapse relative to the Libs. And so the main questions for tomorrow seems to be which of those factors will have a greater impact in electing MPs.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Andrew Jackson calls out the Cons for their platform of taking from the many to further enrich the most privileged few. David Macdonald studies what the unspecified cuts promised by the Cons could mean in terms of losses to public services. And Mike Moffatt points out the absurdity of obsessing over nominal deficits - rather than value for public investment - as the sole measure of fiscal responsibility.

- Meanwhile, Canadians for Tax Fairness offers (PDF) a report card for voters looking at tax fairness as a key issue. And Toby Sanger looks in detail at the parties' plans for taxing digital giants.

- Meghan Bell joins the ranks of wealthy people who recognize the need to pay more taxes to support a functional society, while Jon McPhedran Waitzer, Claire Trottier, David Gray-Donald, Daniel Hoyer, Bronwyn Oatley and Sylvie Trottier propose to pay more to address the climate crisis in particular. Henry Aaron makes the case for an inheritance tax to reduce inequality both within and across generations. And Alex Williams writes about the bizarre motivations behind the accumulation of extreme wealth.

- Anne Gaviola laments the lack of discussion of housing as a major election issue - though of course it's not for lack of ambition and commitment in the NDP's platform.

- Finally, Amara Posslan argues that Canadian voters need to take collective action toward meaningful change rather than settling for a mediocre "strategic" option. Toula Drimolis hopes that the current campaign will be a first step toward being able to vote generally for what we believe in, rather than against what we're told to fear. Farzana Hassan writes that it's past time for our government to reflect the voters responsible for electing it. And Gloria Galloway weighs in on the unfairness of facing another first-past-the-post election after we'd been promised better.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign.

- Jagmeet Singh offered a must-read Multiculturalism Day take on the extra challenges faced by people fighting negative stereotypes, while also announcing his first caucus endorsement from Randall Garrison.

- However, Andrew Jackson chimed in with a note of caution about Singh's plan to fold Old Age Security into an income-tested benefit for seniors. 

- Guy Caron stepped forward to critique Phillipe Couillard's attempt to conflate Muslim faith with terrorism. And Niki Ashton proposed a health care plan which includes adding dental care and other preventative care (along with a focus on the social determinations of health) to Canada's national medicare system.

- Jeremy Nuttall's report on the latest debate (hosted by the United Steelworkers and addressing labour issues in particular) focused on the strategic voting issue. Meagan Gilmore highlighted the candidates' support for labour while noting a few areas of developing disagreement. And Christo Aivilis reviewed the candidates' performances while emphasizing the importance of winning support for the NDP in particular, not merely running against pone or more right-wing competitors.

- Campaign Research's latest polling shows Singh slightly ahead in the general public, and Charlie Angus with a narrow lead among NDP supporters and self-declared members - though the most important finding is the modest public awareness of the candidates.

- Finally, Adam Radwanski points out both the rewards and the risks in front of NDP members due to the diversity of plausible winners in the race. Tim Harper notes that all of the leadership candidates are staking out distinctly progressive positions to at least some extent, rather than limiting themselves to centrist platitudes. Tom Parkin argues that instead of making a concerted push in any particular direction for strategic purposes, the leadership candidates (and NDP members choosing between them) should place a priority on authenticity and trust. And Duncan Cameron highlights the importance of presenting a positive vision for change.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Andrew Coyne and Rob Mason each discuss Justin Trudeau's broken promise of a fairer electoral system. Chantal Hebert observes that the commitment itself - however frequently and fervently repeated - looks to have been little more than a cheap campaign prop. And Karl Nerenberg highlights how the Libs sucked in "strategic" voters with a promise they've done nothing but try to avoid keeping, while Ethan Cox places the false hope of electoral reform within a pattern of Lib lies.

- Andre Picard comments on the key issues which need to be addressed in Canadian health care - and particularly the importance of properly defining and funding medically necessary services, rather than letting user fees serve as a barrier to access.

- Carmen Lawrence asks who's really running Australia at a time when government choices seem to be oriented solely toward enriching corporate supporters:

It’s clear Australians are increasingly wary of the power of big business; in the latest post-election survey by researchers at the Australian National University, 74% responded “yes” to the proposition that “big business has too much power”, with 56% (up from the last survey) agreeing that “government is run for a few big interests”.
...
In the face of frequent revelations about corporate wrongdoing and corruption – including participation in foreign bribery, accelerating levels of tax avoidance and evasion, fraudulent misrepresentation of financial products, systematic underpayment of wages, and environmental vandalism – governments, state and federal, have not responded with robust measures to deter such practices. Nor have they made good use of the powers they already have to take effective action, despite evidence of clear abuses of corporate power.  

- And Sarah Cox raises similar concerns in British Columbia, where the Clark Libs are engaged in a scorched-earth campaign to stifle critics while pushing the controversial (but business-friendly) Site C project to the point where the public can't vote to stop it.

- Finally, Elise Stolte reports on a positive development out of Edmonton's City Council, which has voted to apply a subset clause to private reports to make sure they can be publicly reviewed once information is no longer sensitive.

#elxn42 - Election Day Resources

For all the time spent on Canada's federal election, it's now time for voters to have their say. And anybody looking for basic information on where and how to vote should start with Elections Canada or a trusted local campaign.

For anybody wanting to read up on the factors which may help determine how to vote...
- As always, I'll strongly recommend that people vote for what they want, not merely against what they don't. To see which party best matches your vision for Canada, you can find the major parties' platforms at the following links: Conservative - NDP - Liberal - Green. I've reviewed the first three here, here and here respectively. And for a look at how third parties have assessed the platforms, see again my compilation here.
- Meanwhile, those inclined to vote strategically (in the face of the usual warnings) can see among other sources Pacific Gazette, Rabble, Strategic Voting or Vote Together - or look to the projections and predictions from Too Close to Call, Three Hundred Eight, the Globe and Mail's Election Forecast and David Akin's Predictionator with appropriate adjustments for what's happening in your community.  
- And if you want to see everything I've written and linked to about the campaign, feel free to peruse this tag. 

But most importantly, be sure to get out and vote, and encourage those around you to do the same. And hopefully Canada will be on a course for change for the better by this time tomorrow.

On ill-advised pledges

Shorter David Beers:

We should start demanding that candidates drop out if a single poll shows them running behind because there's absolutely no history of voters' minds changing in the month before election day.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Exchange highlights the World Economic Forum's observation that countries can do far more to combat inequality. And Angus Reid finds that Canadian voters are far more receptive to Tom Mulcair's progressive economic plan than to more of the same from either of the major competing leaders.

- Meanwhile, the Leap Manifesto offers an important target as to the more fair and sustainable society we should be aiming for in the long run. And Bruce Campbell, Seth Klein and Marc Lee discuss how it's well within our means.

- Aaron Wherry takes a look at the latest attempts at large-scale strategic voting for this year's election (which have at least progressed to actually trying to persuade voters) while rightly recognizing the utter failure of similar schemes in the past. But Antonia Maioni reminds us why our votes should be based on what we want out of our government, not merely based on defeating a single opponent.

- Bill Tieleman offers just a brief survey of the reasons to doubt whether the Libs' already-tepid campaign promises will lead to anything. And L. Ian MacDonald argues that it's long past time for the Libs to stop lecturing us on sovereignty.

- Finally, Michael Harris examines the Cons' willingness to look the other way on rime when it comes from within Stephen Harper's inner circle.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jordan Brennan details (and expands on) how corporate tax cuts have served solely to further enrich the people and businesses who already had the most:

(F)ar from improving economic outcomes, there is evidence to suggest that corporate income tax reductions depressed Canadian GDP growth. I present a detailed explanation of why that's the case in a forthcoming study to be published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Given the election debate around raising the CIT rate, I thought it worthwhile to summarize my findings.

In my study I contrast three Canadian corporate income tax rates -- the effective federal CIT rate, the combined Canadian statutory CIT rate, and the weighted average effective rate on the top 60 Canadian-based firms -- with five growth variables: investment in fixed assets, employment, GDP per capita, labour compensation and productivity. Based on the findings, I conclude that there is no empirical or statistically significant relationship between CIT regime and growth. Business investment is a key determinant of GDP growth, employment and labour compensation, but over the long-term it is unresponsive to changes in the statutory or effective CIT rate.
...
Canadian CIT rate reductions not only failed to lead to faster growth, there is evidence to suggest that CIT rate reductions contributed to slower growth. By reducing CIT rates, Canadian governments contributed to the increased income position of large firms. Instead of investing their enlarged earnings into growth-expanding industrial projects, Canada's corporate sector -- especially its largest firms -- have increasingly stockpiled cash on their balance sheet. This "dead money," as former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney called it, is one ingredient in the heightened stagnation of recent times.

As the leading firms claim a larger share of national income through enhanced size and market power, their capacity to stockpile cash increases. By hoarding cash these firms stabilize dividend payments, thus reducing risk, and this leaves them with more liquidity for acquisition activities and to hedge against market downturn. One consequence of the stockpiling of cash, then, is that a smaller share of national income is deployed to expand employment and industrial capacity.

- Andrew Perez wonders whether Canadians will wind up voting strategically, while noting that it would be for the best if we can move past it (which, fortunately, is an option). And it's worth noting that the seemingly large pool of Canadians inclined mostly to vote for change in the identity of the Prime Minister should improve the chances of bringing at least that much about due to likelihood that late deciders will reach relatively similar conclusions as to the best option based on their observations of the same campaign.

- But then, as Jamey Heath points out, we should be demanding more than the same policies with different branding - making the NDP the better choice as a matter of principle as well as strategy.

- Jorge Barrera reports on the revelation (pointed out by Robert Jago) that the Cons saw the federal government's apology for residential schools as an "attempt to kill the story" rather than a means of rather than an actual expression of contrition. And Faisal Kutty calls out the Cons' Muslim-bashing.

- Finally, Michael Harris writes that the Cons have finally and permanently lost any benefit of the doubt from the Canadian public. And Antonio Zerbisias concludes that the refugee crisis has exposed the compassion gap between the Cons and Canadians, while Tim Harper is the latest to weigh in on Stephen Harper's crumbling campaign.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Elias Isquith talks to David Madland about the connection between increasing inequality and the breakdown of trust in the U.S. political system. CBC and Larry Elliott follow up on the IMF's findings about the economic damage done by income and wealth disparities. And Philip Longman thoroughly examines the cross-generational inequality which is putting every generation after the Baby Boomers at a severe disadvantage:

Start, for example, with the twentysomethings of 1979. They had a lower real income in 1979 than twentysomethings did in 1969. And as fiftysomethings now, they not only make less money than they did when they were fortysomething, they are also far worse off as a whole than were the fiftysomethings of 2005. This generalization applies to white members of this cohort and even more so to those who are African American or Hispanic.

Today’s fiftysomethings may be part of the first generation in American history to experience this kind of lifetime downward mobility, in which at every stage of adult life, they have had less income and less net wealth than did people who were their age ten years before. Yet these mid-wave Baby Boomers shouldn’t feel too sorry for themselves. That’s because, as we shall see, they were far better off as twentysomethings than were subsequent cohorts of Generation X twentysomethings, and especially better off than today’s Millennials.

These vastly different economic trajectories experienced by today’s living generations are basically unprecedented. Throughout most of our history, inequality between generations was large and usually increasing, to be sure, but for the happy reason that most members of each new generation far surpassed their parents’ material standard of living. Today, inequality between generations is increasing for the opposite reason. Though much more productive and generally better educated, most of today’s workers are falling farther and farther behind their parents’ generation in most measures of economic well-being.

If it were just a matter of the old getting richer while the young get poorer, it would not necessarily be so bad. Under that scenario, most of us might struggle financially until we grew old, but we could at least look forward to realizing a variant of the American Dream in retirement. But that’s not how these trends are playing out. The downward mobility of today’s younger Americans leads to the downward mobility of tomorrow’s older Americans, making the problem of growing generational inequality truly dire. It’s time to get clear about just what’s been going on and what we can do about it.

- Meanwhile, Adnan Al-Daini comments on the futility of pretending that government budgeting is comparable to that of a household.

- Ryan Meili interviews Harry Leslie Smith about the realities of life without a universal health care system, and the importance of preserving and improving the one we now enjoy.

- Katie Valentine looks at research showing a connection between environmental consciousness by legislators and cleaner air. And Geoff Dembicki notes that the Cons' environmental negligence is leading Canadian civil society to start taking action.

- Finally, Frances Russell writes that the Cons are looking to block Canadians' votes in the upcoming federal election. And Evan Leeson makes the case for voting for what we want, rather than allowing "strategic" arguments to push us toward the world of all possible worlds:

In the Canadian context strategic voting is anachronistic because it seeks to STOP HARPER. Again, we didn’t. You can’t stop a train after it has left the station and arrived at the destination. The opportunity is gone and strategic voting in this sense is living in the past and refusing to come to terms with where we have arrived.

Strategic voting creates a negative frame because it takes the seed of positive creative energy in people who want change and plants it in negativity and fear. It says: “If we don’t vote together to stop Harper he will do bad stuff”. That’s negative and fearful. Plus, he already did.

In fact, the Unstoppable One has now turned his attention to making sure that he can stop us. He wants to ensure the things he did cannot be undone aka retroactively stopped. Bill C-51 is a big part of that. C-51 is about locking it in.

...

Here’s the thing about strategic voting. Things are different now. We can’t stop Harper. We can’t stop him because he’s accomplished his goals. Stick a fork in us. He’s done.

So, enough with defining our future in the negative. What we need now is a new Prime Minister and new governing party with a plan and a mandate to build Canada anew.

So what is the new approach?

It’s simple, really. I believe hope is better than fear. I’m voting from the heart. I’m voting for what I believe in. I’m voting for the Canada I want. I hope you will too.

Saturday Evening Links

This and that for your Saturday reading.

- Keith Banting and John Myles note that income inequality should be a major theme in Canada's federal election. And Karl Nerenberg points out that voters will have every reason to vote for their values, rather than having any reason to buy failed strategic voting arguments.

- PressProgress charts the devastating effect of precarious employment in Canada. And Wayne Lewchuk writes about the precarity penalty, and the need for public policy to catch up to the reality facing workers:

Uncertain future employment prospects can increase anxiety at home.  Lack of benefits can make even small unexpected medical costs a crisis.  Unpredictable work schedules can make finding suitable childcare very difficult.  The short-term nature of the employment relationship can limit a worker’s access to the training needed to get ahead. Together, the added challenges associated with insecure employment represent The Precarity Penalty.

In short, precarious employment not only creates significant stress on individuals and families today, it also creates conditions that can trap those who are in precarious employment from opportunities to get ahead.

Given that insecure employment is the fastest growing form of employment, we should all be concerned about what this means for our families, our children and our communities.

A new body of research (see references below), much of it focused on the troubles in the U.S. economy, suggests that public policy has fallen short, and at times exacerbated the challenges facing precarious workers. These policies have exposed workers to more economic uncertainty, reduced supports that help build healthy families and made it more difficult than in the past for workers to negotiate improved working conditions. There is evidence that Canada’s own public policy environment has not fared much better in terms of protecting vulnerable workers.

What policy has enabled, policy can change.  It is not inevitable that a growing number of Canadian workers find themselves in relationships that make it difficult to get ahead. The mechanisms we use to regulate labour markets, including how contracts are negotiated, how we set and enforce employment standards, how we support workers between jobs, how quality training is provided, and how workers can finance unexpected health costs and old age were all formed when permanent full-time employment was the norm.

- Meanwhile, Elise Gould offers a reminder that a job - even with full-time hours - is no guarantee of escaping poverty. Craig Lambert discusses how citizens are being directed toward unpaid work - which can both take jobs away from people who need them, and serve as a threat to anybody seeking improved pay and working conditions for jobs which might be turn into shadow work. And Jim Dwyer reports on the wide-scale wage fraud being perpetrated against workers.

- Catherine Porter writes about Dr. Gary Bloch's prescription to combat poverty as a means of improving health generally.

- Erin Anderssen discusses the glaring need to improve access to mental health services as part of our health care system. And Steve Morgan highlights how a lack of a national pharmacare program makes health care less effective for everybody.

- Finally, Jesse McLaren argues that we shouldn't be surprised by the Libs' weakness on Bill C-51 in light of their historic willingness to trample civil rights in the name of political convenience. But Shannon Reardon nonetheless points out that anybody hoping for better from Justin Trudeau than support for the Cons' terror tactics has reason to be disappointed.

Support and illumination

David Moscrop laments the role of opinion polls in shaping political events - and there's certainly reason for caution in presuming that immediate polls will have a lasting effect. But I'll argue that at least as politics are now covered, polls in fact serve as an important check on the tendency of campaign coverage to become completely detached from the views of the public.

After all, the same citizens whose votes determine the outcome of a campaign are generally expected to follow that campaign with varying levels of care through media intermediaries. And I discussed the problem with the direct impact of media here, as the most subtle of campaign narratives - whether or not they're generated deliberately or based on facts - can swing enough votes to change the outcome of an election.

It's certainly fair to point out that polls can help to shape those narratives. And the effect can run in both directions: just as they can offer a signal as to which parties are viably positioned to offer an alternative government (as happened for the Alberta NDP in this month's election), they can also offer a warning that the public may wish to reconsider a trend (as arguably happened for the Wildrose Party in 2012).

But that serves only as a side effect of polling rather than a primary purpose. At their core, polls are the basic evidence-based means of measuring public opinion - which seems like rather an important factor in talking about how the public will choose to be governed.

With that in mind, let's ask this question: what's the alternative to paying attention to polls as a means of assessing where parties stand, for the purpose of both strategic voting (as identified by Moscrop) and merely talking about the progress of a campaign?

While it's easy to find elections where polls have come under fire for failing to reflect outcomes (see the UK's recent vote or Alberta's 2012 election), omitting them from election coverage won't stop pundits from offering their own prognostications - which at best reflect an unstated set of personal biases and assumptions, and at worst are downright intended to shape the campaign narrative to favour one party. And this month's Alberta vote reflects an obvious example where the polls told a far more accurate story than the insiders.

Which leads to this question: would Alberta have been better served by not knowing that enough voters were receptive to an NDP government to create the potential for change?

Before answering "yes", it's well worth questioning the alternative of having campaign narratives shaped entirely by the people who are able to spin stories in the absence of evidence - and not at all by the public whose interest is intended to be served by the election.

Of course, one might validly point out that we'd be better off with a radically different form of campaign coverage which focuses far more party platforms and values, and far less on spin from all directions. But until we've taken some giant leaps in that direction, we're best off treating polling as a check to test whether narratives match public opinion - not as a problem to be eradicated in favour of even more air time for evidence-free speculation.

The democratic alternative

Some time ago, I put together this list of principles worth considering when talking about structured cooperation between political parties. And consistent with Ian Gill's own warning about his lack of connection to party structures, his proposal for a secret pre-election pact manages to fail on nearly every front.

But while there's some reason for question about Gill's intended direction, the bigger issue is his presumption that we need our political parties to drag us there. So let's clarify the options available to Canadians who want to further an "ABC" agenda in the lead up to this fall's election.

While our votes are necessarily limited to choosing from among the options available to us in our home riding, every other form of political involvement can be done wherever and for whichever party an individual sees fit.

Is your priority to donate to and volunteer for the candidate with the strongest perceived likelihood of defeating a Con in your home riding? You're welcome to do so and organize others to join you. And you can be pretty well assured that whichever candidate you ask to support won't turn you away.

Are you enough of a party loyalist to want to make sure your efforts elect a candidate of your partisan stripe? You can choose which candidate and riding you help out with - whether local or not.

Or are you enough of an anti-Harper activist that you don't care who you're helping or where, so long as you maximize your marginal contribution to defeating Con MPs? Again, you don't need a party operative's approval (or worse yet, a backroom deal) to determine where your efforts are best applied.

And with all of those options available to every Canadian, there's absolutely no need for parties to strike hidden deals, declare candidates to be sacrificial lambs, or alienate core supporters by telling them they're supposed to direct their efforts toward electing adverse parties.

If enough people share the viewpoint that defeating as many Cons as possible is the top priority, they have the capacity to seek out what appear to be the most important ridings and systematically tilt the balance in favour of opposition parties. (And while the same option may not be available for actual voting purposes, a strategy based on working to persuade people now will have far more impact than yet another hastily-assembled vote-swapping scheme.)

So the message shouldn't be to hold your nose and do as you're told based on a backroom deal to divide up volunteer efforts. Instead, everybody has the opportunity to influence the election in a way that allows them to hold their head up high. And we should be encouraging progressives to get in the habit of doing just that.