Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Tinker Ready discusses how the decision to let COVID-19 spread unabated in the name of "business as usual" has lead to an entirely foreseeable spike in cases of long COVID. Accesswire notes that the carnage from COVID includes an increase in thyroid disorders. And new research from USC sheds some light on how delayed inflammation following infection can prove dangerous or even deadly, while Emma Partiot et al. study some of the molecular effects of COVID on the brain. 

- Brian Kateman argues that the ultimate effects of a climate breakdown are best depicted as involving massive suffering rather than a dead planet - though our experience with COVID should surely disabuse us of the notion that we'll be particularly motivated to avert that outcome. Steve Lorteau points out that the Canadian public is paying far more in subsidies to fossil fuel companies than in carbon taxes. And Natasha Bulowski looks at new polling confirming that the Canadian public is well aware of the need for a just transition to a clean economy - even as we're presented with a relentless stream of propaganda from petropoliticians and media outlets alike in the service of continued carbon pollution. 

- Liam O'Connor reports on Eric Cline's call for Saskatchewan to work on getting fair value for its potash, rather than windfall profits for multinational mining conglomerates as the highest and best use of natural resources. (And it's particularly remarkable to see even Jack Mintz recognize that corporate operators are set to take more than their fair share of the returns.) 

- Finally, John Hall's analysis of the false choice between corporatist parties in the UK has plenty of application to Canada's political scene as well. 

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Reuters reports on research showing that public health measures implemented in response to COVID-19 also saved hundreds of thousands of lives by limiting the spread of dengue fever. Nadia A. Sam-Agudu, Boghuma Kabisen Titanji, Fredros Okumu, and Madhukar Pai discuss how wealthier countries are "moving on" from COVID with no regard for people or countries who can't escape its effects, while the World Health Organization highlights how the harm from the ongoing pandemic is falling disproportionately on women. And Bartley Kives reports on the recognition by public health experts that the premature elimination of even basic protections like self-isolation is foolish in Manitoba and other Canadian provinces. 

- Gina Miller discusses how Russian money has corrupted the UK's political system - and the need for concerted action to re-empower citizens over oligarchs. And the International Energy Agency offers a ten-point plan to reduce Europe's reliance on Russian fossil fuels - with alternative sources of natural gas representing only a small part of the overall picture. 

- Markham Hislop writes about that based on its contribution to carbon pollution and environmental destruction, Alberta's oil is anything but ethical by any reasonable measure. And Natasha Bulowski reports on Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux' recognition that the Trans Mountain pipeline is a money loser for the federal government rather than an investment to fund any transition to clean energy. 

- Finally, Omayra Issa discusses how Saskatchewan's social support system falls far short of providing people with a reasonable standard of living - and is falling behind all the more as the Moe government refuses to index or update income levels. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- George Monbiot opines that the UK has ceased to be a functioning democracy as unelected people exercise unchecked power. And Bruce Livesey wonders whether the U.S. is tearing itself apart as the racial divisions used to undermine class cohesion become untenable, while Rebecca Solnit recognizes that the violence being inflicted on a peaceful protest movement is entirely top-down at the direction of Donald Trump and police forces following his lead. 

- Vanmala Subramium calls out Rex Murphy and anybody else seeking to perpetuate denial of Canada's ongoing racial injustice, while Andre Picard takes note of the public health effects of racism. Roshini Nair discusses the need for people in positions of privilege to put in the effort to identify systemic racism.

- Alicia Elliott rightly questions why there's been so little action three years after the release of the report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, while Chris Selley points out how the Trudeau Libs have fallen far short of their promises to fight racism. And Max FineDay writes about the need for Canada's rebuilding plan from COVID-19 to be rooted in reconciliation.

- Finally, Marieke Walsh reports on the NDP's push for race-based data collection to ensure Canada can identify and address racial inequality. And Tom Parkin discusses the successes of the NDP in pushing the Libs to help people otherwise left behind, particularly compared to the do-nothing anger of the Cons:

(O)ur Prime Minister announced his economic support plan—waiving the one week “waiting period” for Employment Insurance sickness benefits for workers quarantined or required to self-isolate. That plan collapsed to immediate criticism. “The vast majority of Canadians will not have access to his plan,” Jagmeet Singh warned from the Commons that day. “Sixty per cent of workers have no access to Employment Insurance.”

One week later the Liberals announced a new program—CERB, the $2,000 per month Canadian Emergency Response Benefit. But it continued to be a complicated program that cut people out. Singh and his caucus again pointed to gaps. And on April 15, the Trudeau government took what it called “decisive action,” expanding CERB eligibility to include seasonal workers and some others not eligible for EI.

On March 11, the Trudeau government also introduced a 10 per cent wage subsidy program for hard-hit businesses. Singh brought together a coalition of union leaders and small business owners to press for wage support of 75 per cent. And on March 27, the Trudeau government did that, too.

For weeks Singh and his caucus advocated for students, excluded from CERB, who face bleak summer job prospects. Finally on April 22, the Trudeau created the Canada Emergency Student Benefit.

Singh has ramped up his call for a national paid sick leave plan. And after a week of Trudeau saying that wasn’t his jurisdictional concern, on May 25, Singh got the PM on-side.

Conservatives pundits—for reasons perhaps as much psychological as ideological—seem miffed and perplexed at Singh’s string of wins for Canadians. Wrong, but self-convinced as ever, Conservatives’ big push was to cut CERB, which hit a wall of backlash. Can anyone recall any tangible win for Canadians engineered by Conservative leader Andrew Scheer?

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Marty Warren highlights why Tim Hortons workers - and other people facing precarious and low-paying work - need union representation to ensure their interests are respected. And Christo Aivalis writes that the current discussion of minimum wage pairs fairness issues about distribution of wealth with the economic importance of shared prosperity, while Alan Freeman notes that a liveable minimum wage improves matters on both counts.

- Dani Rodrik argues that while exclusionary political populism is dangerous, some economic populism may be entirely appropriate in response to the risk of institutions which only entrench the privileged position of the wealthy. And Ian Buruma theorizes that Japan's stronger collectivist culture may be playing a part in limiting the perceived need for populist demagogues.

- Nicholas Sowels takes a look at the current state of inequality in the UK. Rachael Burford reports on the unconscionable adoption of - and hasty retreat from - a plan to explicitly segregate playgrounds based on parents' ability to contribute to fund-raising campaigns. And Dawn Foster laments the strategy of trying to hide the people who live in poverty, rather than ameliorating their lives:

It should be obvious that banning begging or criminalising rough sleeping will do little to combat homelessness. In July Oxford council considered fining rough sleepers up to £2,500 and attached notices warning of the incoming fines to the bags and belongings of homeless people. Most people in work couldn’t afford a £2,500 spot fine without a considerable impact on their day-to-day finances: someone forced to sleep in a shop doorway because they can’t afford their rent cannot possibly have the cash to hand. The fine is thus about engendering fear, rather than anything one might regard as a workable solution. When homelessness and poverty is hidden from the high street, you can pretend it no longer exists.

It seems foolish and unfathomable, but it also lends us a vision of local and national government for the next few years. With town halls finding budgets whittled down to the bone and struggling to fund the most basic services, addressing the root causes of poverty becomes an impossibility.

Street homelessness has more than doubled since 2010, when the coalition government was formed, but so, too, has the number of people in temporary accommodation and people approaching councils for help due to eviction and losing their home. But councils have few options when it comes to rehousing. Predictably, many are ending funding for domestic violence and homelessness services and hostels. With no resources to combat the causes of poverty, some councils adopt this backwards approach of criminalisation.

Threatening people with fines or legal action may temporarily move the sight of rough sleeping away from British high streets, but those people don’t evaporate, they can’t be coerced into a more acceptable lifestyle; they won’t rise up and rent a house on a whim. Without the resources and support, they will remain homeless, but under the radar, in the shadows. We will not see them, but they will still exist.

- Finally, in the wake of a series of broken promises and scandals, Michael Harris rightly questions whether Justin Trudeau's words mean anything at all. And Stephen Tweedale offers some suggestions as to what Trudeau could do if he wants to genuinely strengthen democratic engagement, rather than substituting a traveling road show for public participation.

[Update: added link.]

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Gary Younge examines how Jeremy Corbyn and an unabashedly progressive campaign platform are making massive gains in a UK general election cynically called to exploit Labour's perceived weakness:

Seeing the response to Labour’s election manifesto last week was a clear illustration of just how powerful the amnesiac qualities of that system can be. For the past two decades, even as inequality grew to obscene levels, the notion that a government could tax the wealthy in order to fund public services had been all but banished from the public square. Similarly, the idea that we could take back into national ownership private companies delivering abysmal but essential public services, such as trains and utilities, was simply not discussed. These arguments were never lost; they were simply marginalised until we just stopped hearing them.
...
[Corbyn] was never going to succeed on the terms of the mainstream media and significant sections of the parliamentary party. For them, his failure was pre-scripted. Last Monday Corbyn was mobbed by enthusiastic crowds in Leeds while Theresa May was confronted by a woman with learning difficulties in Abingdon over the disability cuts. On Tuesday the Daily Mail front page headline was: “Corbyn’s tax war on the middle classes”. Meanwhile, those who abstained on the Tory welfare bill and ignored a million people marching against a war long ago abdicated the right to accuse anyone of failing to provide opposition.

The problem was that Corbyn was failing on his own terms. As such, the manifesto has had an almost therapeutic effect. Beyond reintroducing basic social democratic policies to the arena, it provides the clearest illustration yet of what the last two traumatic years within the Labour party have been about. This unexpected left turn in the party’s leadership was, it turns out, not about delivering the party to Hamas, but delivering decent public services and a programme for tackling inequality.

- Meanwhile, Abi Wilkinson sees Labour now having a substantial chance of winning an election where pre-election punditry focused on little more than a presumed wipeout. And Matt Zarb-Cousin notes that the requirement for fair coverage during a campaign is likely helping matters significantly.

- Dean Beeby reports on the real-time reaction of Canadians to the most recent federal budget - with higher taxes on the rich ranking as by far the most-appreciated message on offer. And Yves Engler suggests that the benefits of incorporation could be limited to businesses who act based on some recognition of social responsibility.

- Alex Hemingway discusses the social costs of poverty and austerity in British Columbia. Claire McIlveen highlights the social benefits of a $15 minimum wage. And George Crisp comments on the connection between inequality and poor health in Australia.

- Finally, Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood studies the gap between promises and actions when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Owen Jones writes that we should give credit for the failure of the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the popular opposition which will be need to push back against Donald Trump, rather than pretending it represents a win for Trump himself:

That Trump has any ownership over TPP is a travesty, and a damning indictment of the Democratic establishment. The new president’s rightwing populism combines xenophobia, protectionism and policies which directly enrich the Donald Trump class. Yes, American workers have suffered years of stagnating or falling wages and the decimation of industries, devastating the communities they sustained. Both Republicans and establishment Democrats are responsible, and never considered the possibility they were creating anger and resentment which one day a vulgar demagogue would exploit.
...
Progressives oppose trade deals like TPP because they cost jobs, shift wealth and power to large corporations, drag down workers’ terms and conditions in a race to the bottom and threaten democracy. TPP – like the hopefully fatally wounded Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership – gave multinationals the ability to sue elected governments in secret courts for policies that threaten their profits. Here is an example of capitalism on a collision course with democracy and sovereignty.
...
A programme of investing in US infrastructure may provide a much-needed short-term boost to the US economy, but combined with tax cuts for wealthy Americans and big business, Trumpism represents a grave economic danger. As is the style of rightwing populists, scrutiny – let alone dissent – will be portrayed as treachery. All the more reason for US progressives to stand firm.

Nothing that Trump does is motivated by the interests of the average American. A megalomaniac plutocrat like Trump scapegoats foreigners while promoting policies which directly enrich his associates. Don’t fall for a single thing he does. Resist, don’t normalise, isolate him, exploit divisions within the Republicans. Don’t fuel the impression that Trump is anything other than a charlatan who encourages working Americans to blame anyone but the men like him who are responsible for the multiple ills that define this wealthy but unjust society.

- John Christensen, Nick Shaxson and Duncan Wigan discuss (PDF) the "finance curse" facing countries which rely unduly on oversized financial sectors (with damaging consequences for neighbours as well). And Alex Cobham points out that even if Theresa May's first inclination is to barge ahead with a plan to make the UK even more of a tax haven, the EU has no incentive to play along in negotiating Brexit terms.

- Sally Weale writes that the gender pay gap which persists in today's workplaces starts as early as childhood, with girls receiving less allowance and on more strict conditions than boys.

- Lizanne Foster slams Christy Clark for looking out only for number one even as her government has ignored or actively exacerbated the needs of British Columbia's most vulnerable citizens.

- Finally, Tom Parkin takes a look at Guy Caron's campaign to lead the federal NDP - with a particular focus on his work to ensure public policy furthers the cause of equality, rather than being used to favour banks over people.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- John McDonnell outlines a progressive alternative to neoliberal economic policy:

The increasing automation of jobs, reduced dependence on carbon fuels, artificial intelligence and the so-called gig economy have provoked understandable anger among many workers whose jobs are under threat. More generally, concerns about the effect on the labour market are widespread: either threatening mass unemployment or a significant shift towards low-productivity, low-paid jobs.

This need not be the case. In a society where the benefits of technological advancement are shared, productivity gains can be made to work for the benefit of all. It requires original thinking – one possibility is a universal basic income – to suggest how we can make a society with less demand for medium-skilled labour become wealthier and less polarised.
...
(I)f we are to meet the needs of those who need health care, pensions and social security, we will need to find ways to tax wealth more effectively. Not just because it is fairer than taxing labour, but because our tax base has shrunk. And as more of the economy now goes to capital owners, taxing a fair share of this is essential to affording the public services that we want.

Finally, none of this is sustainable in the [long term] unless we change the ownership of this capital. Through new forms of democratic and small-scale ownership, such as employee-owned firms, and by sharing the ownership of society’s assets more broadly, we can reduce the need for redistributive intervention, while increasing society’s power to choose the future direction of our economy and address the urgent demands of climate change.

- Meanwhile, Amy Wood and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood highlight why the modification of CETA's dispute resolution provisions does little to address the fundamental flaws with the deal. 

- Laura Neidhart writes about the spread of precarity and poverty for younger workers. And Jessica Wynne Lockhart discusses the hidden poverty growing (with little public attention) in the suburbs of Toronto and other cities.

- Cory Collins comments on the regression in Atlantic Canada's labour legislation in recent decades - which, it should be noted, can't be seen as having had any economic effect other than to redistribute income and wealth upward. And Lynn Parramore compares our expectations for vacation time today to that of medieval peasants - concluding that despite centuries of productivity gains which were supposed to allow for increased leisure time, we're actually getting by with significantly less.

- Finally, Evan Balgord highlights new research from the Pembina Institute showing that the Saskatchewan Party's version of carbon capture and storage does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as any carbon captured is matched by what's released by resulting oil production and consumption. 

New column day

Here, following up on my earlier column on racism in Saskatchewan with a look at the lessons we can learn from responses to similar issues in Alberta and the U.S. (And no, "do nothing" still isn't an acceptable answer.)

For further reading...
- Jesse and Julia Lipscombe's #MakeItAwkward campaign site is here. And Jason Markusoff's interview with Jesse Lipscombe and Don Iveson offers some further background.
- Matthew Yglesias and FiveThirtyEight offer some background to Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment. And Charles Blow examines Donald Trump's double standard as to what's to be considered "deplorable" in the context of the general lack of anything resembling honesty or principle behind his campaign, while Aliyah Frumin reports on Mike Pence's refusal to describe even David Duke with that title.
- Finally, in another example in which there's a great deal of work to be done in undoing the normalization of prejudice, Owen Jones discusses the need for all parties in the UK to work on extinguishing the anti-immigrant hatred stoked by the Brexit campaign.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Owen Jones discusses the importance of the labour movement in ensuring that workers can get ahead in life, rather than drowning in debt:

Nights spent staring at the ceiling as worries dance manically around the brain. Taking a deep breath before opening the gas bill. Sacrificing a hot meal so your children don’t need to. Living with personal debt can be draining and emotionally exhausting, and it is the everyday experience of all too many Britons. According to a new TUC report, 3.2m British households face problem debt, meaning they spend more than a quarter of their overall income repaying unsecured borrowings (ie, excluding mortgages). For 1.6m households in extreme debt, the picture is even bleaker: more than 40% of their income goes to creditors.

This is the lived experience of Britain’s working poor, those who keep the country ticking with their hard graft and are rewarded with poverty and insecurity. British workers have suffered the longest fall in wages since Queen Victoria sat on the throne. Between 2007 and 2015, real wages fell by an astonishing 10.4% - the worst fall in any advanced nation other than Greece. Growing personal debt is the price many British workers have paid for the disastrous economic failure of George Osborne and his colleagues – one of whom is now the nation’s prime minister.
...
In Nordic countries, it is the norm for workers to be unionised. Better living standards and more equality than we have in Britain are two of the byproducts. Jeremy Corbyn – near-certain to be re-elected Labour leader next month – has unveiled policies such as compulsory collective bargaining for companies with more than 250 workers. Such an approach would help lift the wages of workers, not only for their own good, but for the good of the British economy, too. But the positive case for trade unionism cannot just be left to politicians: it needs to be made by all of us. It needs to be put in a language that resonates with the millions of non-unionised workers, and particularly for younger people for whom the very notion of trade unionism seems culturally alien. Personal debt is a blight in modern Britain – and trade unionism is one of its cures.

- And PressProgress highlights how Canada's youth are also facing an unprecedented combination of large debt and minimal employment opportunities.

- Tom Parkin notes that under the Trudeau Libs, Canada's real economy isn't keeping up with the "like economy" - and that we need strong government action to improve matters at all. And the New York Times' editorial board highlights the role an affordable child care system can play in improving outcomes for parents and children alike.

- Scott Santens surveys a UK review as to how means-testing can create fatal holes in a social safety net. But Noah Zon raises some important questions as to whether a basic income represents the best way to strengthen our social supports.

- Johnny SanPhillippo points out that poverty and precarity are important factors shaping individual well-being even in the areas (mostly suburbs) which are all too often considered to be immune.

- Finally, Brooke Harrington discusses the utter futility of expecting any positive social or economic outcomes from tax haven status. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Lucy Shaddock offers a response to the Institute for Fiscal Studies' report on poverty and inequality in the UK, while McKinsey finds that hundreds of millions of people in advanced economies are seeing their real incomes stagnate or decline. And Mariana Mazzucato and Michael Jacobs provide their take on what the UK needs to reduce inequality:

Can May succeed in building an economy of broadly shared prosperity? Only if she is willing to govern with the revolutionary zeal seen in that speech. To address the problems she identified will require a complete departure from Osborne’s failed plans. But more than that, it will require a departure the orthodox economics that shaped them.

Policymaking over the past half-century has relied on a narrow school of economic thought, dominated by a simplistic idea of “markets” and “market failures”, of “competition” and “shareholder value”. May’s new agenda will need to draw on a much richer palette.

...(M)arkets are not external forces that bind firms to inevitable choices. They are created by the decisions made inside private and public institutions, as well as pressures from civil society. So not only can policymakers fix “market failures”, but they can also actively reshape and create markets for better ends.

- Andre Picard rightly argues that global targets to reduce the spread of AIDS can't be met without a thorough effort to fight poverty and prejudice.
 
- Chris Hatch weighs in on the need to revamp how Canada evaluates and regulates pipelines and other environmental risks. Will Horter notes that there's no reason for optimism based on the Libs' attempt to paper over the National Energy Board's failings. And the Toronto Star criticizes the Libs' lack of follow-up on a loud announcement about removing and banning asbestos.

- Jim Bronskill reports on the Communications Security Establishmen's newfound refusal to provide even statistical data about the sharing of information which may lead to torture.

- Finally, Marc-André Miron, Marie-Claude Bertrand and Cym Gomery point out that the typical talking points against proportional representation lack any basis in reality.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Armine Yalnizyan points out the choice between a basic income and the provision of basic services, while making a strong case to focus on the latter:

At the federal level, the cost of raising everyone’s income above the poverty line is an estimated $30 billion a year. The Alternative Federal Budget shows we could permanently expand the stock of affordable housing, child care, and public transit; and almost eliminate user costs for pharmacare, dental care and post-secondary schooling for half the annual cost ($15 billion).

After a decade, we would have expanded access to more high-quality, affordable necessities of life, not just for the poor but for everyone.

A little more, and you could have free access to community and recreation centre programming, expanded mental health services, universal access to low-cost internet, and more legal aid. The net result: greater participation, greater mobility, greater potential, greater health.

Both a basic income and a basic service model put more money in people’s pockets, one with a cash transfer, one by offsetting the costs of necessities.

Basic income requires everyone to pay more to provide a small number of our most vulnerable neighbours more choice and more dignity. Basic service also requires we pay more, and also helps the most vulnerable, but benefits everyone by making incomes and markets matter less. It builds both potential and solidarity, and is a far easier sell in an era of slow growth.

Basic income talk has fired imaginations across the globe. Mr. Segal’s exercise offers a unique opportunity to test whether we’re better off when we have more income, or need less of it.

- Meanwhile, Susan Prentice, Linda White and Martha Friendly offer a useful outline to build a national child care system. And Bill Curry reports on this week's health care summit - though there's reason for concern in both the Libs' unwillingness to negotiate funding with the provinces, and their apparent inclination to eliminate universality in favour of means-testing. 

- And in case we needed a reminder as to the importance of shared knowledge of problems, Elizabeth Payne reports on how a week of management eating the meals previously served to patients at the Ottawa Hospital led to a revamping of the menu.

- Larry Elliott reports on the Institute for Fiscal Studies' report showing that the insecurity now facing middle-class families in the UK is comparable to the burden on households recognized as living in poverty a generation ago. But on the bright side, Jessica Elgot writes about Labour's plan for a national investment bank to both spur economic development, and give the public a greater stake in prosperity.

- Finally, Andrew Mitrovica points out why we should be skeptical of the security state's attempts to proclaim itself essential in the wake of attacks which it can never prevent.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Harry Leslie Smith writes about the problems with a U.K. budget and economic plan designed to avoid any moral compass:

Nothing better illustrates to me that Osborne is sailing us back to the harsh and socially unsustainable cruelty of the 1930s than his removal of substantial benefits from over 200k disabled citizens to pay for middle class tax relief. We cannot grow or sustain our middle class by starving our poorest members of society.

When he strips our most vulnerable of living a dignified existence through cuts to their benefits it doesn't make our economy stronger, it makes Britain a weaker nation because we have repudiated our greatest national asset: our belief in fair play.

No matter how much Osborne crows about saving the next generation from the vicissitudes of financial uncertainty, it won't happen through tax cuts or increasing the amount one can stash in an ISA, because the real threat to Britain's next generation is low wages and an economy that has become skewered to reward only our most affluent citizens.
...
Britain can't save its next generation if it doesn't invest in infrastructure all across this country.

Britain can't save its next generation unless it builds affordable homes on a a scale not seen since the days of Attlee and Harold Macmillian in the 1960s.

Britain can't save it's next generation if it doesn't introduce a real living wage instead of topping up the minimum wage.

And Britain most certainly can't save the next generation unless it reduces the cost of education and produces a viable action plan to put our young in gainful employment rather than stocking shelves on zero-hour contracts.

Sadly my fear is that George Osborne has condemned the next generation to the horrors my generation thought we had put to an end. We supported a Britain that believed in fair taxation, fair wages, fair benefits and the rights to all citizens – whether they be rich, poor or in-between – to a life that had both comfort and purpose.

- Meanwhile, Jeremy van Loon reports that the oil sector is still sitting on massive piles of unused cash - even as it demands handouts to clean up its messes. And Matt McClure points out Alberta's pile of unpaid corporate taxes which the NDP government is working on bringing into the province's public coffers.

- Anne Jarvis highlights the recent controversy over French's ketchup as a prime example of the importance of fighting for local jobs rather than allowing corporations to dictate the terms of economic development.

- And Ann Hui reports on the dangers to public health from a lack of CFIA food inspectors. 

- Finally, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is taking a much-needed look at the Trans-Pacific Partnership, including Jacqueline Wilson's analysis of its false environmental promises and Alexandre Maltais' review of its impact on cultural policy. But Jeremy Nuttall notes that the Libs are going out of their way to avoid allowing the public any real input into the deal.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Ed Miliband offers his take on inequality and the political steps needed to combat it:

(T)he terms of the case against inequality have changed. I have always believed that inequality divides people, deprives many of the chance to succeed and makes us all worse off. But now there is good reason to believe that inequality isn’t just unfair but that it actually inhibits economic growth. ‘Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time,’ the IMF announced in a report last year: ‘We find an inverse relationship between the income share accruing to the rich (top 20 per cent) and economic growth … the benefits do not trickle down.’ Last May, the OECD published a study entitled In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All. All this makes it possible for us to talk about equality not only in terms of fairness, but also as the means to prosperity. The UK is deeply unequal and has an unproductive economy when compared to its major competitors. There are good grounds for thinking the two facts are connected: a low-wage economy, which doesn’t invest properly in its workforce, is an unproductive economy. The mechanism that links low growth to inequality is still debated: some say that low wages for the majority cause low demand and low growth; others say that the social exclusion of a large segment of society has a depressive effect. But what is clear is that inequality must be tackled not just because it is important to distribute resources fairly but also in order to secure higher growth, from which everyone can benefit.
...
(F)inally, there is the question of how political change happens, and how to mobilise the millions of people needed to bring it about. Labour must make use of the opportunity afforded it by the remarkable number of new members it has gained since the general election. But it also needs to acknowledge the challenge it faces. The party emerged from the traditions of community organising, and some local Labour branches are now rekindling that spirit. To succeed, the party needs to be about more than knocking on doors, crucial though that is, and the passing of resolutions. Labour needs to use its expanded membership to build deeper roots in local communities, and to help people find the collective power to change things. In a way I didn’t manage, it needs to reinvent itself as a genuine community organisation.

This is a tough time to be a progressive in Britain, with the re-election of a government that seems determined to dismantle the progressive institutions that remain and to make inequality worse. Labour’s renewal must be built on ideas, the most underrated commodity in politics. Ideas create and sustain movements and inspire people – and indeed voters – to join a cause. The right can’t solve the problem of inequality because to do so would be to abandon too much of what they believe, from a belief in the small state to trickle-down economics. The deep injustices of modern capitalism compel us to find a better way of living together. The left should approach the coming years with a determination to renew itself but also with confidence in its values.

- And Ally Foster reports on a panel discussion on the erosion of the middle class in Canada.

- Derek Leahy discusses the Libs' plans to include upstream emissions as part of the environmental review process for pipelines. But Mike De Souza notes that the Libs are already falling behind on international climate change reporting.

- Meanwhile, the list of the Cons' damage in need of repair continues to grow. On that front, Kady O'Malley notes that their changes to elections rules may have enabled third parties to engage in unlimited robocalling, while BJ Siekierski reports on the wide range of Statistics Canada data gathering which was scrapped for no apparent reason.

- Finally, Laurie Monsebraaten writes about the push for Ontario to lead a national movement on child care, rather than settling for wage subsidies as the upper limit of public action.

On distinguishing factors

The common personalities and strategies by tired right-wing governments are leading to some comparisons between the ongoing Canadian campaign and the UK's election earlier this year. But even as we treat David Cameron's re-election as an important warning, let's note that there's a rather crucial difference between the two.

In the UK, the Conservatives' sudden win seems to have been entirely unexpected, within prominent forecasters having seen the race as a dead heat rather than one in which Cameron had any prospect of taking a majority. And that likely affected coverage of the race as well as party strategies in the approach to election day.

In contrast, the fact that the Harper Cons have thrown out the dog whistles in favour of bullhorns well before election day has set a radically different course of events into motion. Yes, the Cons have been rewarded with an appalling bump in the polls. But that's come soon enough to leave time for both opposition parties and voters to react - both by countering the Cons' message itself, and raising the real spectre of more Harper government as a risk which voters may not have foreseen when a minority Parliament seemed like a relatively sure thing.

As I've noted, the one common denominator in this year's campaign has been a focus on preventing anybody from staying ahead of the field. Now, the Cons have managed to become the main target for all other parties going into the home stretch - and it would be entirely appropriate for the Cons' bigotry to backfire by causing a backlash Stephen Harper can neither control nor survive.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Following his resounding win to become Labour's leader, Jeremy Corbyn describes the proper role of government as a vehicle for shared benefits:

We understand aspiration and we understand that it is only collectively that our aspirations can be realised.

Everybody aspires to an affordable home, a secure job, better living standards, reliable healthcare and a decent pension. My generation took those things for granted and so should future generations.
...

For the Conservatives, the deficit is just an excuse to railroad through the same old Tory agenda: driving down wages, cutting taxes for the wealthiest, allowing house prices to spiral out of reach, selling off our national assets and attacking trade unions. You can’t cut your way to prosperity, you have to build it: investing in modern infrastructure, investing in people and their skills, harnessing innovative ideas and new ways of working to tackle climate change to protect our environment and our future.

Our job is to show that the economy and our society can be made to work for everyone. That means ensuring we stand up against injustice wherever we find it and we fight for a fairer and more democratic future that meets the needs of all.

- Meanwhile, David Olive writes that the Cons' longstanding economic promises and boasts have proven to be completely illusory. Josh Bivens points out how hundreds of billions of dollars have been funnelled into U.S. corporate coffers based solely on the declining share of income going to workers. And Greg Grandin notes that the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other new trade agreements are designed to further push wealth to the few who already have the most at the expense of the vast majority of citizens.

- Scott Santens comments on the inescapable reality of technological unemployment. Sarah Jaffe questions the theory that workers are better off operating under the expectation that their employment will reflect the principle of "do what you love". And Deirdre Fulton examines yet more evidence as to how workers in general are far better off where unions are strong.

- Alex Boutilier discusses the need to bring Canada's access-to-information system into the 21st century. And Donovan Vincent reports on a renewed push for a restored long-form census which better allows Canadian governments and other organizations to have accurate information about the people they're supposed to be serving.

- Finally, Patti Tamara Lenard exposes the Cons' dismal record in dealing with refugees. And Dennis Gruending argues that the Cons will pay the price for their callous attempt to scapegoat the world's most vulnerable people.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Laurie Penny argues that Jeremy Corbyn's remarkable run to lead the Labour Party represents an important challenge to the theory that left-wing parties should avoid talking about principles in the name of winning power - particularly since the result hasn't been much success on either front.
- Trevor Pott discusses Canada's popular backlash against an unaccountable and security state, particularly when it's deployed primarily to silence dissenting political views.

- Bruce Johnstone writes that contempt for the law is par for the course from the Harper Cons. And Bruce Livesey reports on one of the Cons' latest batch of hand-chosen economic advisers - whose qualifications consist of lying about her past to take a position with a scandal-plagued energy company with a regular history of consumer and regulatory abuses.

- Murray Mandryk points out that the Cons' angry, old base - as epitomized by Earl Cowan - figures to be a hindrance rather than a help in trying to win over swing voters. But as Bruce Campion-Smith notes, the Cons may be counting more on limiting opposition voters' access to the polls than on actually earning support.

- Finally, the Star's editorial board chastises Kathleen Wynne for her ill-advised attacks on Tom Mulcair. And Dan Darrah examines Justin Trudeau's choice to complain about the NDP's progressive policies instead of presenting any meaningful plans of his own.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Robert Reich describes how U.S. voters are rejecting the concept of a ruling class from both the left and the right - while noting that it's vital to get the answer right as to which alternative is worth pursuing. And Owen Jones sees Jeremy Corbyn's rise as an inevitable response to the emptiness of New Labour in the UK:

Corbyn’s campaign has been unique in the Labour leadership campaign in actually offering coherent policies and a fleshed-out economic strategy: a radical housing programme; tax justice; democratic public ownership of utilities and services; a public investment bank to transform the economy; quantitative easing to invest in desperately needed infrastructure; a £10 minimum wage; a National Education Service; a costed abolition of tuition fees; women’s rights; and so on. His campaign is making astounding headway – against the odds – because it offers a coherent, inspiring and, crucially, a hopeful vision. His rivals offer little of any substance. What’s left for them?
...
If those in the self-described “centre-left” offered a coherent, inspiring vision, the Corbyn phenomenon would never have happened. They have failed to develop one. If they want to regain momentum within their own party – let alone win over the country – they should sideline the voices of negativity and learn how to inspire people. And however much they resort to cod psychology or sneering about the Corbyn phenomenon, the truth remains: they made it possible.

- Andrew Nikiforuk reminds us that the storm currently swamping Canada's economy was entirely predictable - and indeed predicted by those who didn't buy the Cons' belief in a narrow resource economy. And Louis-Philippe Rochon duly slams the Cons for now making matters worse with gratuitous austerity as another recession forms on their watch:

There may be a time and place to balance the books but now is not the time. Every economist today will tell you that Harper's pursuit of balancing the federal budget in times of crisis and indeed, in times of recession, is simply a bull-headed and wrong idea.

It does not help the economy; in fact, it hurts it — and hurts it deeply. At the very least, it is preventing the economy from taking flight and keeps it well anchored in a depressed state.

What we need now is more fiscal stimulus.
...
We are well aware of the absence of empirical support in favour of austerity, yet austerians like Harper insist on claiming that their approach is somehow superior, that contractions in fiscal stimulus will somehow, magically, be expansionary.

Imagine geocentrists being shown proof that the earth actually revolved around the sun, and dismissing the new science as fuddleduddlery. This is the world in which austerians like Harper live: first, deny fiscal stimulus can make any positive contribution to economic growth, despite the mountain of scientific evidence. Next, deny the mountain exists.

In the face of the lack of evidence and empirical support for their views and policies, one can only conclude that ideology and powerful interests are what keep these ideas afloat.

This is where Harper's policies come in: adopt policies that bring rewards to those who support you to the detriment of the rest, since they will contribute to your party that will get your elected and perpetuate those failed policies.

In this world, austerity and balanced budgets have nothing to do with economics. It's all politics.

- Michael Plaxton explains the "caretaker convention" which should limit how much more the Cons' ongoing power is used now that the campaign is officially underway.

- Finally, Ian Welsh offers a useful summary of what's at stake in October's election, while kev takes a first look at some of the policy choices on offer. Karl Nerenberg sets out the record that each party will have to defend. Greg Lyle examines the current party standings and paths to victory. Luke Savage rightly laments the state of election coverage which seems bent on focusing more and more on the trivial at the expense of the substantive. And Warren Bell writes about how the election may serve as a decision point for the CBC in particular, as the Cons have taken several steps to suggest it won't last in its current form if they have any say in the matter.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Carol Goar rightly criticizes Stephen Harper's plan to deal with an apparent recession by making Canada's economy even worse off through yet more cuts. Andrew Jackson writes that denying or ignoring an economic downturn won't make it go away, while Louis-Philippe Rochon traces its origins to the Cons' own ill-fated choices. And Michal Rozworski makes the case for stimulus which would both boost our economy in the short term, and better position it for the longer term:

(T)here is a space and an opening here in which to push for alternatives. The coming election is an opportunity to push the debate towards more than fumbling the ball better or worse. Far beyond that, however, there is room to orgainize around and popularize economic alternatives. The mainstream of the environmental movement is calling for jobs alongside climate justice. And here is a list of demands that was just released by the heads of the provincial labour federations:

• $15/hour minimum wage across the country;
• doubling of the Canada Pension Plan;
• creation of an affordable national childcare program;
• the revival of the Canada Health Accord;
• comprehensive immigration strategy with a pathway to citizenship; and
• establishment of a Green Jobs agenda for Canada.

Just these measures speak loudly in a desert of popular alternatives and they are but some examples. And the question of how to fund any of these demands will raise the question of who pays and how much: difficult, necessary questions that have their mirror in those about who has gained over the past two decades of growth.

- Larry Schwartz offers a jarring list of facts about the U.S.' gross level of inequality.

- Patrick Krueger, Melanie Tran, Robert Hummer and Virginia Chang find a direct relationship between one major dimension of inequality (variance in education) and mortality rates. And Kate McInturff examines gender inequality within and between Canadian cities.

- Finally, Patrick Wintour reports on the UK Cons' latest set of attacks on workers. And Zoe Williams writes that the move should only serve as a reminder of the vital role of labour in ensuring that increased wealth isn't concentrated only among the lucky few.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Adrian Morrow reports on Al Gore's explanation as to how the fight against climate change can be economically as well as environmentally beneficial, while CTV points out a new Nanos poll showing that Canadians largely agree with the view that cleaner technology can and should replace dirty fossil fuels. And Gary Mason argues that a summer of drought and wildfires should lead us to pay particularly close attention to climate change in this fall's election.

- But as per usual, the people making obscene amounts of money from environmental degradation aren't going to relinquish their publicly-subsidized profits without a fight. On that front, Justin Mikulka reports that the oil industry is now shipping even more dangerous fuels by train than the ones which blew up Lac-Megantic. And David Ball discusses the imminent reopening of the Mount Polley mine whose tailings pond failure destroyed water sources for a large surrounding area.

- Alana Semuels writes about the U.S.' first large-scale study as to how to combat homelessness - and finds that unconditional subsidies for housing tend to produce far better social outcomes than traditional and limited interventions. And Semuels also points out how community ownership can offer a needed alternative to both decay and unaffordability in urban housing.

- David Walker is the latest to highlight how hard work is no guarantee of escaping from poverty. But Rob Evans exposes how the UK has engaged in domestic espionage against the unions working to improve living conditions, rather than doing anything to fight poverty itself.

- Finally, Andrew Jackson discusses how corporate tax slashing has done little other than to ensure that rent-seekers keep more of what they were already extracting from Canada's economy:

The case for a much lower CIT rate was that higher after tax profits would boost business investment. But that has turned out to be a mirage.

Investment in machinery and equipment and in intellectual property combined is below the 2006 level in real dollar terms, and has fallen from 7.2% to 6.2% of GDP. Sluggish investment is recognized by the Bank of Canada, the IMF and the OECD to be one of Canada's key economic problems, but tax cuts have had little or no impact.
...
(A) cut in the tax rate is irrelevant to companies earning so-called rents or above average profits. During the resource boom, companies would have invested in the tar sands and new mines even if the CIT rate had been higher. The financial sector is also highly profitable.

Tax expert Robin Boadway, Professor Emeritus of economics at Queen's University, notes that, "to the extent that corporate taxable income constitutes rents, the need to maintain internationally competitive rates of return on capital is unaffected."

And a lot of business investment would not leave for other countries simply due to a somewhat higher corporate tax rate. Canadian banks, utilities, airlines, railways, retailers and cultural industries among others all have to operate mainly in Canada to serve the Canadian market and could not just up and pull stakes to the US or elsewhere.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Paul de Grauwe points out that the European push to force Greece into continued austerity is the most important factor holding back a recovery, as the country would be fully solvent if it were being allowed to borrow money on anything but the most draconian of terms. And Paul Mason criticizes the war that's been declared against the Greek public for trying to pursue democratic governance - while noting that the public's justified dissatisfaction isn't going away regardless of the result of the impending referendum.

- Sherif Alsayed-Ali responds to the news that the UK's intelligence agencies have been conducting illegal spying against Amnesty International - and it's worth noting that Bill C-51 will make Canada's sweeping powers and lack of oversight even worse than the UK's:

Our concerns about mass surveillance are not limited to human rights organizations, although this is already very worrying. Mass surveillance is invasive and a dangerous overreach of government power into our private lives and freedom of expression. In specific circumstances it can also put lives at risk, be used to discredit people or interfere with investigations into human rights violations by governments.

We have good reasons to believe that the British government is interested in our work. Over the past few years we have investigated possible war crimes by UK and US forces in Iraq, Western government involvement in the CIA's torture scheme known as the extraordinary rendition programme, and the callous killing of civilians in US drone strikes in Pakistan: it was recently revealed that GCHQ may have provided assistance for US drone attacks.

The obfuscation, secrecy and determination to avoid any meaningful oversight is worthy of a tin-pot dictatorship. It is time for serious public scrutiny of the behaviour of the British government. We need to know what surveillance programmes the government is operating, what spying they consider to be fair game, and why.

- Andrew Cohen sees the Cons' "Memorial to the Victims of Communism" as a monument to crass and destructive politics.

- Finally, Robin Sears highlights why the Cons' division and narrowcasting are doomed to fail as a strategy for building a natural governing party. And Thomas Walkom writes that the cult of personality around Stephen Harper is leading the Cons to shut out natural allies in the name of worshiping their leader.