Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Dennis Gruending writes about the difference between genuine populism focused on the interests of the public at large, and the discriminatory politics of the right which are often given the same label:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a populist as someone who is “a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.” That is just what Douglas and others, such as Ontario MP Agnes Macphail, were doing in the early to middling years of the 20th century. The rural community was being exploited by banks, railroads, grain buyers and farm machinery companies, with the complicity of most politicians in the old line parties.
...
Populists, including Douglas and Macphail, were engaged in movements to bring about economic and social reforms which were badly needed. They were also dedicated to winning those reforms through the ballot box. As democratic socialists they pushed the limits of liberal democracy while remaining committed to its structures and practices.
...
There remains a need today for popular movements to challenge elites – including Canada’s 100 highest paid CEOs who, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, took home salaries and benefits equal to 197 times more than the average worker in 2017. The pursuit of economic and environmental justice demands research, organization, and yes, appeals to emotion. But let’s not confuse those efforts with incitements by today’s demagogues to greed, violence and racism.

[Update: IP's Twitter response is worth a look in clarifying the academic definition of "populism" to include elements of both left and right.]

- Molly McCluskey discusses the lasting positive effects of Quebec's affordable child care program - along with the fact that there's room for improvement in ensuring that everybody has access to quality public care.

- Reuters reports on Google's offshoring of tens of billions of dollars in 2017 alone. Jeff Stein examines how much more revenue the U.S. would have to improve people's lives if it applied reasonable tax rates on extreme income and wealth, while William Horobin writes that a crackdown on tax compliance has become one of the latest achievements of France's gilets jaunes protests. And Owen Jones comments on the need for the UK's fat cats to start paying their fair share.

- Aimee Picchi reports on the thousands of U.S. drug price increases resulting from the Trump administration's willingness to let big pharma dictate the terms for access to necessary medication. And Aris Folley reports on just one tragic example of a 26-year-old diabetic who died for lack of access to insulin.

- Finally, Duane Bratt writes that while anger may be a useful tool as part of an effort to take power, it's useless as a guide to exercising it.

Musical interlude

CHVRCHES - Warning Call

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Doreen Nicoll makes the case to reinstate the basic income plan eliminated by Doug Ford in Ontario. Danielle Kurtz examines a few of the ideas being proposed by U.S. Democrats in the lead up to the 2020 presidential campaign (including their own basic income model), while Steven Vogel comments on Elizabeth Warren's arguments to reduce inequality at the predistribution phase. And Brian Dew proposes a "people's dividend" drawn from the growing concentration of unneeded corporate cash. 

- Kristin Annable reports on one Manitoba patient's discovery that chemotherapy pumps used for her treatment are regularly left uninspected. 

- Amanda Vyce discusses how a national public pharmacare program may be the only way to ensure a fair deal for Canadians in light of extended monopolies over biologic medicines.

- Finally, Takashi Tsuji and Yasu Ota report on a further push through WTO structures to hand corporations the ability to keep crucial information secret regardless of any public interest. And Rodrigo Samayoa reminds us why corporations can't be allowed to throttle neutral access to the Internet:

For years, Big Telecom has been telling us that the internet requires greater flexibility to innovate and invest in the new 5G networks that will allow us to safely ride self-driving vehicles and use remote health-care apps.

We have heard this from Verizon, AT&T, Bell, Rogers and Ajit Pai, the chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. But none of that is surprising, is it?

Of course they want greater flexibility. Wouldn't they love to charge you extra to hook up your car to the 5G network or charge insurance companies more for remote health care?
...
If Canada is to remain at the forefront of innovation and freedom, we need a robust net neutrality framework that doesn't benefit those with deep pockets and vested interests. How could a streaming startup or non-profit news service compete with the likes of Netflix and Google News in a world where your access to broadband is determined by how much you can pay?

For that matter, what guarantees are there that broadband access to telehealth apps won't be determined by how much you can pay?

In the United States, evidence of throttling by ISPs is already evident, even when it comes to first responders. Just last year Verizon throttled the "unlimited" internet connection of a California fire department in the middle of a catastrophic wildfire.

Is that the flexibility we need for net neutrality?

Wednesday Evening Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' annual report on CEO pay shows that executives are again being handed hundreds as much money as their employees - and that there's also a gender gap even at the executive level.

- The Economic Policy Institute charts the growth of inequality in the U.S. - as well as the role unions play in reducing it. And Maxime Quijoux and Guillaume Gourges point out how France's gilets jaunes protests (unlike their Canadian astroturf counterparts) could offer an opportunity to rejuvenate the labour movement.

- Saira Peesker reports on some of the Ontario employers who are following through on improved wages and working conditions, rather than taking Doug Ford's invitation to move backwards.

- Finally, Philip Doe argues that fracking would never be permitted if its effects approached the privileged people most likely to be pushing it for the sake of short-term profits. And Fiona Harvey offers some reasons to be optimistic about the environment in the year to come.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Decorated cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Glen Pearson discusses the glaring gap between what citizens actually value, and what gets done by the governments they elect through distorted political systems:

This past weekend, I wrote a column for the London Free Press, in which I stated the following:

“What polls continue to reveal is that the coming generations of leaders and voters are increasingly bent on achieving social justice, environmental reform, gender equity, affordable housing, stronger communities, and a political order in line with those values.”
...
A look at 2018 Pew and Gallup polls revealed some fascinating realities about American views in the midst of a white-hot Trump era.  Consider these:

• 70% of Americans support medicare for all
• 74% favour strong environmental laws
• 82% want equal pay for women
• 59% agree with free child care
• 58% favour breaking up the big banks
• In something of a shocker, 75% favour immigration within proper quotas
• 62% support labour unions
• 61% want the minimum wage increased in their respective states
• Surprisingly, 61% wish to see cuts to the military budget
• 71% are pro choice

This is not the America we hear about or see every day and yet it is part of the reason for the successful Democratic mid-term wave.  We are convinced that our neighbour to south is a culture of guns, but then learn that 78% of Americans don’t even own a gun.  The United States is more than we are seeing right now and what isn’t being recognized is how progressive it is.

The problem, then, is really one of politics, and much of the blame for that lies not with the politicians but with citizens themselves.  It shouldn’t surprise us to learn that 46.9% of Americans who could vote didn’t bother.  That is 106,516,046 people – almost three times the population of Canada.  With that number of citizens staying home, the majority of whom, as research and polls show, significantly support the above values, then it’s inevitable that that those of the opposite view prevail in elections and public policy.  And, yes, the electoral college in the U.S. often works against the popular vote (which conservatives lost by more than three million votes in 2016 and yet still prevailed).  What kind of democracy is it when the majority loses?  There are numerous answers to that question, but the point is that democracy itself is not served by such realities.

The other real problem is the grouping of the political, financial and corporate elites who have overseen our political and financial order and yet have failed to keep pace with the progressive instincts of their respective populations.  Voters trusted their promises, only to see jobs disappear, the environment continue under increasing threat, women still not receiving equal pay, and electoral reform frequently getting squelched.  That trust is now eroding.  The key job of the elites was to solve the primary problems of the entire citizenry, not maintain the status quo.

- Michael Sainato writes about the push toward a union by Amazon's warehouse employees seeking a more fair balance of power against an exploitative employer. And Simon Murphy exposes a UK employment agency whose appalling practices including fining workers for being sick.

- Alan Freeman comments on the combination of waste and mistreatment of employees that resulted from the Cons' and Libs' choice to impose the Phoenix pay system on the federal civil service.

- The Canadian Press reports that rural internet access is among the infrastructure which the Libs are holding hostage to the goal of finding private-sector profiteers. And Spencer Macnoughton and Conall Jones report on the desperate measures being taken by patients in need of insulin which has been priced far beyond their means.

- Finally, Paul Krugman discusses how it's possible to lay the groundwork for needed action to avert climate breakdown on an urgent basis even in the U.S.' political system where a denialist executive branch will prevent any immediate progress.

Monday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your year-end reading.

- Kenan Malik comments on the many forms of classism. And Roderick Benns examines how Ontario's basic income recipients were able to make use of their increased income security - including by spending more time with friends, with family and volunteering in their communities.

- Susan writes about the distinction between an Alberta NDP government which treats people with dignity and respect, and Jason Kenney's UCP which goes out of its way to try to strip anything of the sort from minority group members.

- David Leonhardt discusses the fundamental importance of climate change compared to every other area of public policy debate.

- Finally, Sonia Sodha writes that rather than accepting the food industry's spin on health regulations as reflecting an excessive nanny state, we should be concerned about the unhealthy diet we're pushed to eat by corporate giants:

“What about our free will?” the anti-nanny-staters will cry at the idea of forcing manufacturers to act. But we don’t see people with placards in the street protesting against the thwarting of our right to eat a slice of bread with as much salt as a packet of crisps. The beauty of food reformulation is that because it happens gradually, our palates adjust and we simply don’t notice that certain foods are 30% less salty than a decade ago.

The free-will question needs turning on its head. The dirty secret at the heart of the food industry is that the deliciously unhealthy stuff – fat, sugar, salt – is also cheap. Cram foods full of them and it’s not only consumers who love them, but shareholders. And this, together with changing eating habits, including the popularity of ready meals and eating out, has driven up the unhealthiness of our food over time. As the food that lines supermarket shelves gets fattier, saltier and more sugary, our palates are reconditioned to crave more of it. There’s no free choice about the industry reshaping our tastes to benefit its profit margins without us even realising.

That’s why it’s not just the usual suspects who are arguing for a compulsory approach, but some industry voices as well, including the British Retail Consortium. They know that unless all food manufacturers are forced to play by the rules, progress will be limited as even responsible manufacturers are held back by first-mover disadvantage.

That won’t stop the libertarians crying foul. Perhaps what motivates some of them is a belief that this is all about individual willpower, a disdain for people just too greedy to leave some of their dinner on their plate. But it’s not Christmas levels of gluttony primarily driving our obesity crisis. An irresponsible food industry has got a lot of lives to answer for.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Paul Barratt discusses the results of a roundtable addressing inequality in Australia - with plenty of lessons worth keeping in mind elsewhere:

...(I)nequality is increasing significantly in Australia and, without a change in public policy, the problem will continue to worsen. Australia’s social security system is no longer adequate; it imposes unacceptable constraints on the growing numbers of people dealing with the consequences of poverty, unemployment, homelessness and general social disadvantage. Australia’s poor record on closing the gap between Indigenous and other Australians and between men and women is unacceptable. So is the inappropriate influence on policy decisions wielded by the corporate sector and those in the upper percentiles of wealth and income, and the failure of the current political structures to curb that influence.

The roundtable participants repeatedly drew attention to the inadequacy of the current economic model, its dependency on endless growth, its failure to engage with ecological and climate limits, and its assumption that unconstrained markets can respond to the need for the dignity and wellbeing of the whole population.
...
We all deserve basic human rights: food, clothing, shelter, education and modern healthcare. But we should aspire to go way beyond that, to be a genuinely intelligent and inclusive nation guided by an agreed set of national values.

It is time to reject the politically charged distinction between “lifters” and “leaners” that undermines our identity as a people committed to a fair go for all. The overwhelming majority of Australians want to have a job. They want to feel that it is a job that has meaning and they want to do it well. How productive they are depends not only upon how hard they are prepared to work but how well they are trained, how well they are led and managed, and what equipment they are furnished with.

In our wage fixation processes we need to reintroduce the concept of the living wage. We must recognise the benefits of investing in people’s education, vocational training, improved access to healthcare, public housing and a decent living standard for those who find themselves unemployed. Elimination of tax benefits like the capital gains tax discount and uncapped negative gearing against personal income, and an effective assault on multinational avoidance, could provide the wherewithal to tackle the problem.

- Matt Bruenig discusses three classifications of populist policies which can rebalance our economic structures, and notes that the three can and should be complementary to each other.

- Dawn Foster points out how social housing has been undermined in the UK by privatization and class segregation. And Joshua Schneyer and Andrea Januta report on the private operators who have turned housing for the U.S. military into a source of exorbitant profits for substandard accommodations.

- Peter Gosselin highlights how workers in their 50s and up are being pushed out of the jobs they thought would last until a standard retirement age.

- Lisa Naccarato reports on a push by Ontario doctors to ensure that migrants have access to needed health care.

- Finally, Kira Lerner discusses how deliberate confusion prevents American voters from seeing their choices reflected through elections.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Joe Vipond and Noel Keough highlight the gap between the global impetus to avoid climate breakdown and the narrow self-interest of the Alberta oil industry. Michael Bueckert discusses Jason Kenney's attempt to turn the government apparatus against the exercise of fundamental freedoms through boycotts. And Markham Hislop comments that violent rhetoric from Kenney and his supporters is entirely counterproductive. 

- Meanwhile, Janani Whitfield reports on the damage being done to Saskatchewan municipalities by oil and gas operators skipping their tax payments. Janis Searles Jones and Phillipe Cousteau write about the Taylor Energy oil spill which has been polluting the Gulf of Mexico for over 14 years. And Jennifer Ludden reports on the Trump administration's decision to let coal plants inflict mercury and other toxic emissions on unsuspecting citizens.

- Jennifer Keesmat argues that Canada's cities need to be designed for people rather than cars - particularly in light of the death toll piling up as vehicle traffic has been prioritized over pedestrian safety.

- Doug Cuthand writes on the potentially wide-ranging effects of a recent Ontario court decision finding that Canada's treaty obligations should be interpreted to recognize shared ownership and account for modern developments.

- Finally, Taylor Owen opines that after a year of even more outrages than usual, it's time for governments to meaningfully regulate the online platforms which currently exercise massive and unchecked power.

Musical interlude

Matthew Good - Bad Guys Win

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Matt McGrath and Dahr Jamail each point out some of the most important immediate effects of climate change. And Kate Marvel discusses the challenge we face in trying to avoid more severe breakdown in the longer term:

You may have heard that we have 12 years to fix everything. This is well-meaning nonsense, but it’s still nonsense. We have both no time and more time. Climate change isn’t a cliff we fall off, but a slope we slide down. And, true, we’ve chosen to throw ourselves headlong down the hill at breakneck speed. But we can always choose to begin the long, slow, brutal climb back up. If we must argue about what the view will be like when we get there, let’s at least agree to turn around first.

It’s true that we’re not going to get utopia. The planet has already warmed by one degree Celsius. Most of the coral reefs are going to die, and many of the glaciers will melt. Climate change is here, leaving grubby human fingerprints on parched, burned, flooded and melted landscapes. But we don’t have to settle for dystopia. It’s going to be worse, but it doesn’t have to be bleak. We can have a “topia,” an ordinary future where we go about ordinary lives in cities on stilts, missing what we’ve lost but looking forward to better things. There is light in the future that doesn’t come from burning.

- Meanwhile, the Mound of Sound is rightly concerned that international trade agreements will be interpreted as preventing governments from doing what's needed to salvage a liveable climate.

- Claire Cain Miller examines the cost of parenting - and the increasing inequality in how much money is available to be spent on children. And Alex Matthews-King discusses how economic factors can affect a child's brain development for life.

- Finally, Owen Jones writes about the value of the UK's council housing - and points out that MPs who live in communities with a range of incomes and life situations are far better positioned to engage with a full range of constituent concerns than those who isolate themselves in wealthy enclaves.

New column day

Here, on the need for progressive leaders to treat consultation processes as a path to goals worth achieving rather than an excuse not to pursue them - particular in the face of right-wing politicians determined to reverse progress at the first opportunity.

For further reading...
- Ian Bailey notes that Quebec and Prince Edward Island represent the next hopes for electoral reform in Canada after the failure of British Columbia's referendum. And Crawford Kilian raises the possibility that a party merger may be the best short-term option in B.C. now that electoral reform has failed - though that would of course only worsen the problem with a limited range of choices.
- Katy Balls discusses how the UK's Brexit referendum may have turned some voters off for life (while also causing massive damage to the citizenry).
- The Globe and Mail has been tracking the massive damage being inflicted by Ontario based on Doug Ford's belief that having won power without a platform, he's entitled to radically alter policies without any regard for anybody but his cronies and donors. And Emma Graney reports on Jason Kenney's choice to pretend Alberta's next election is a formality - and to impose as much shock treatment as he can on the province if proven correct.
- Finally, Harry Cheadle writes about the Republicans' use of lame-duck sessions to undermine democracy where their opponents might otherwise be able to make use of popular mandates for change. And Ari Berman discusses how in addition to undermining specific elected officials, Republicans are also eliminating the availability of referendum processes after deciding they were being used too effectively to pass progressive policies.

Thursday Evening Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Howard Mann discusses the World Bank's new model for public-private partnerships which deliberately avoids placing any real risk with the profiteers who participate only to make money off of necessary infrastructure.

- The New York Times takes an in-depth look at the environmental damage being wrought by the Trump administration. And Jeffrey Kucik comments on the glaring lack of any meaningful environmental standards in international trade agreements.

- Hina Alam discusses the rapid deterioration of Western Canadian glaciers as yet another obvious effect of climate breakdown. And Monica Wilson notes that the crucial solution to plastic accumulation is to avoid creating waste at all.

- Ben Beckett examines some of the key fights faced by the labour movement in 2018 - and argues that the unions prepared to fight have been able to achieve some important gains.

- Finally, Michael Spence comments on the connection between policies aimed at further enriching elites, and the spread of both economic weakness and social unrest.

Wednesday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Wednesday reading.

- Matt Bruenig discusses the many opportunities available to expand the reach of public ownership in the U.S.:

The state can very competently own retail and manufacturing companies by simply buying up their stock and acting like an institutional investor. For instance, a social wealth fund created by the federal government could gradually buy up stock in Amazon and Walmart to get into retail and buy up stock in US Steel and General Motors to get into manufacturing. The latter is not even a hypothetical because the government did recently buy up almost all of the GM stock during the financial crisis, though it subsequently sold off its stake.

The genius of modern finance has been to create corporate ownership arrangements that allow basically anyone, including the government, to own shares of any company in any sector while being as involved (or uninvolved) as they want to be in steering the company. A federal social wealth fund, like the one I advocate, should be able to take advantage of modern shareholding institutions to expand public ownership into every aspect of the US economy.

- The Globe and Mail's editorial board offers a reminder of the need for multi-generational thinking - not in the sense of the Cons' spin about deficits and debts, but in the sense of using our collective power to build a healthy society and sustainable economy. And Matthew Taylor reports on UK Labour's plans to transition to a clean energy economy, while Liliana Camacho calls for a similar green jobs strategy in Ontario.

- Davide Castro comments on the folly of austerity - and the narrowly-defined self-interest of a few wealthy individuals which keeps it in the policy mix despite its obvious flaws. And James Brokenshire reports on the growing recognition even among UK Cons that homelessness and other avoidable problems are the result of anti-social policies - though that's not stopping them from continuing their gratuitous cuts to public services.

- Finally, Daniel Tencer points out how wage stagnation and soaring real estate prices have made it impossible for younger workers to own homes in many Canadian cities.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Holiday cats.

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Jeffrey Sachs writes that the fight against climate breakdown demands a concerted solution to global problem - rather than political wrangling over whether anybody will accept any responsibility for desperately-needed change. And Adam Tooze points out the foreseeable political threats posed by rising sea levels.

- James Wilt notes that a carbon tax at the levels on offer in Canada will fall far short of making a meaningful dent in our obligations - and argues that a relatively narrow issue placed front and centre for the political benefit of both the Cons and Libs is keeping us from having a necessary discussion about how to accomplish far more. And Harry Zehner writes about the problems with a neoliberal response to climate change:

In practice, neoliberalism favors the wealthy over the working class, the entrenched powers over social mobility and the individual over the collective good. It takes the training wheels off of global capitalism through deregulation and tax cuts, giving corporate powers free reign to raze the environment in the name of their bottom line. It chips away at the power of unions, collective action and the idea of social welfare, preferring to let a rigged market decide who prospers.

Neoliberalism doesn’t believe in systemic inequality. Instead, it tells those stuck in generational poverty that if only they worked harder and acted smarter, they would be rewarded by the free market’s unbiased invisible hand. The neoliberal ethos tells us climate change is a result of our personal habits, of our commute to work, of our diet, of our heating bill, while a handful of companies responsible for the vast majority of emissions get tax cuts and subsidies. Since its mainstream introduction by Thatcher and Reagan, neoliberal ideals have led to worsening wealth inequality, stagnant wages and a dwindling middle class.

It is this thinking that informs policies like Macron’s fuel tax.

The incentive-based logic behind the tax, that a high fuel price will lead people to switch to more efficient means of transportation, is faulty. Fossil fuel dependence is more than a personal choice, despite what the free-market enthusiasts would like you to believe. A working woman or man from France or the United States or Nigeria or Vietnam can’t respond to the brute force of a fuel tax if there’s no feasible alternative for them to turn to. Fossil fuel addiction exists on a structural level, not an individual one. 

...

By attempting to implement a surface level solution to a deeply ingrained problem, Macron handed the Right a talking point on a silver platter. His botched tax has likely set substantive climate action back years. At the same time, it has provided much needed clarity. There is only one path forward: governments must intervene to ensure affordable, ecologically friendly alternatives. Placing the burden of environmental healing on the working class isn’t just unfair; it’s impractical.

- Meanwhile, Mia Rabson reports on the Libs' claim that a move toward more efficient transportation may bridge the massive gap between the emission reductions they've promised and the policies they've offered.

- Karl Nerenberg points out how the Libs are alienating workers across the country even as they offer far more public resources to the oil sector than to other, cleaner forms of development.

- Nisha Kansal and Arnav Agarwal discuss the importance of health care as a human right, including for migrants who are currently excluded from the Canadian health care system.

- Finally, Lana Payne offers a few inspirational stories of activism to celebrate over the holidays and take as examples in the new year.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Jerry Dias writes that the holiday season will be a difficult one for far too many Canadian workers facing precarious employment and hostile governments. And the Economist discusses the long hours expected of workers in the U.S. and the UK.

- PressProgress highlights Scott Moe's condescension toward workers as part of his Christmas message. And Nora Loreto maps out at the big money and anti-worker animus behind Ontario Proud's astroturf campaign.

- Sarah Niedobl discusses the massive public demand for federal action to ensure housing is available and affordable.

- Mario Canseco examines the results of British Columbia's disappointing referendum on electoral reform, and finds that confusion with the choices represented a significant factor.
 
- And finally, Michael Erman and Robin Respaut report that big pharma is once again jacking up prices after temporarily holding them down in an effort to hand Donald Trump some political talking points.

Musical interlude

Trust - Capitol

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Tom Parkin discusses the contrived war between the Libs' fake progressives and the Cons' phony populists:

In Canada, under Conservatives and Liberals, income polarization continues, social programs get cut, workers’ economic strength weakens, infrastructure is turned into a finance rent-seeking scheme and oil and gas companies get billions in subsidies — currently by a government that claims to be a global climate leader.

Not surprisingly, this might make some people believe the political-economic elite and the Canadian people aren’t on the same team.

There is, of course, a perfectly rational way out of the economic and political disaster foisted on us. The high cost of everyday life needs to be unwound using policy initiatives, including a public drug plan and childcare. We need to attack money laundering and tax housing speculation. Critical monopolies like power grids should be turned into ratepayer-owned co-ops. Public investment in infrastructure needs to be delivered on-time and on-budget by ending the finance of the finance sector. And the labour market should expand bargaining power for people, especially those who are precarious and with low income. The billions being spent on oil and gas subsidies should be reinvested in what’s being labelled a Green New Deal. We should seek international trade and diplomatic alliances with countries that share our social and democratic values. We should stop arming tyrants.

It’s a pretty obvious plan. But it doesn’t help the political and economic elite. So to replace the obvious solutions, we have political fakery — in two brands. And you better believe it. Or at least one of them.

Brand A pushes the fake populist narrative that refugees are today’s crisis, tax cuts for the rich will raise wages, and the oil and gas industry needs more public subsidies. Brand B sells the fake progressive line that things are great, ending racism is one call-out away, and life-changing investments in people are just around the corner.

But surely Canadians understand that, whether it’s Brand A or Brand B, fake populists or fake progressives, Conservatives or Liberals, their reality doesn’t change.

- And Lynne Fernandez writes about the real challenges facing Manitoba (in contrast to the trumped-up deficit fears being used by Brian Pallister as an excuse to slash social investments).

- Sara Peach offers some suggestions in conducting difficult but necessary conversations about the realities of climate change. Jonathan Watts writes about the risks of climate tipping points - but also points out that they signal the value of taking action. Robert Hackett and Philippa Adams point out how mainstream coverage of pipeline issues tends to freeze out any voices other than oil industry backers. Bonnie Heilman reviews the Just Transition summit which discussed how Saskatchewan can do its part, while Vanessa Williamson comments on France's Gilets Jaunes protests (as opposed to the astroturf Alberta knockoff) as an indication that the price of climate action can't be imposed solely on the working class.

- David Climenhaga examines the corporate funding behind a "protest" which served mostly to confirm how clueless Andrew Scheer is. And Dave Cournoyer calls out the recent spate of separatist blather as the toddler's temper tantrum that it is, while Mitchell Anderson notes that reality wouldn't be kind to any Alberta attempt to go it alone.

- Finally, Sarah O'Connor examines how the UK Cons' freeze of housing benefits seems positively calculated to force people out of their homes. And Brittany Shoot discusses the obvious link between soaring rents and increased homelessness.