Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Linda McQuaig notes that the same financial actors who caused the global economic meltdown that's being used as an excuse for austerity measures around the world are themselves making out like bandits - even though the public strongly favours requiring them to at least pay their share:

For the past two years, Americans have repeatedly told pollsters that they support higher taxes on the rich as a way to reduce the deficit. A Washington Post poll last month, for instance, found 72 per cent supported raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000.
...
But a radical rump of Republicans, threatening to pull the trigger, succeeded in forcing Democrats to abandon tax increases on the wealthy — at a time when America’s wealthy are as rich as the tycoons of the Gilded Age. Feeling the gun at their temples, the Democrats joined the Republicans in the quest for deeper spending cuts — which will only make the disastrous U.S. unemployment situation worse.

So while programs helping students, the elderly and the poor have been picked over with surgical precision, hedge fund managers can get back to work destabilizing financial markets with full peace of mind, knowing they’ll continue to enjoy a tax rate lower than the mechanics who service their private jets.

- Alison rightly points out that many of the Canadian political media figures enlisted to declare that an incestuous system of the type which spawned the U.K.'s News of the World scandal are also the same people going out of their way to set up exactly that.

- Duncan Cameron comments on some of the factors which make Nycole Turmel an ideal interim choice to lead the NDP's charge, as well as what the NDP needs to do next:

The issues that matter to Canadians are jobs and incomes, access to public services, healthcare in particular, environmental protection, and availability of recreation and cultural facilities for family members. These are issues addressed by public sector unions every day. As a noted public sector union leader, Nycole Turmel is well placed to articulate the concerns of Canadians for the future, which is why her appointment was so widely supported by New Democrats.
...
In the next six weeks, caucus members will be canvassing Canadians in order to draw up lists of party priorities for the fall. NDP members of Parliament will first want to know how much support there is for Conservative policies. How many Canadians feel spending billions on new fighter jets makes a lot of sense? What degree of support is there for sending giant tanker ships through the coastal waters of British Columbia? How do Canadians feel about retiring on public pensions that will leave many of them below the poverty line?

To the extent they are known, Conservative policies are not popular with Canadians. The problem is that the public does not have a good picture of what the Conservatives are up to. So the Official Opposition needs to publicize widely what the Conservatives are actually doing. How well the NDP is able to fulfill that task -- without being able to count on media co-operation -- will determine how well it serves the public interest.

- Finally, let's close with at least some good news, as Les Whittington's report on Competition Commissioner Melanie Aitken highlights the fact that there's at least one watchdog showing some bite in dealing with corporate abuses.

On incomplete pictures

One might think that an expose into Nycole Turmel's political involvement would go back further than the past five years. But surely Daniel Leblanc wouldn't have cut anything important out of the story...

“I’ve been at this for decades,” Turmel said. “In the 1990s, I chaired cross-country NDP panels that consulted Canadians on their ideas about progressive government. I served as associate party president under (former leader) Alexa McDonough and moderated the leadership process that saw Jack Layton elected (in 2003).”

Of course, there's a separate issue with the meme (now being spread to smear Turmel) that past support for the Bloc should disqualify a plurality of Quebeckers from having any say in how Canada is governed. Even applying that glaringly flawed standard, though, one would think that an individual's previous decades of intensive involvement with a federalist party might serve as a rather important bit of context.

Unfortunately, Leblanc instead seems to want to be the first to present the anti-NDP spin to come, while leaving out any details which might provide an accurate picture of Turmel's professional and political history. And it's not hard to see a zombie lie in the making as a result.

Update: Dr. Dawg has more:

(F)or promoting social justice (and make no mistake, that’s her main sin in the eyes of the usual suspects) (Turmel) is now coming under assault from the Right, and from Liberals hoping to leverage their way back into the public consciousness by tarring her as a closet separatist sympathizer—the exact opposite of the truth.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

NDP Next Steps Roundup

Not surprisingly, plenty in the Canadian media have responded to the NDP's first big news of the summer with all kinds of discussion as to where the party will go next. But let's take a quick look at some of the particularly noteworthy coverage.

Sheila Copps' tribute to Jack Layton stands out as a show of respect from a political rival. In contrast, Tim Powers engaged in some concern trolling par excellence, warning Nycole Turmel that the Cons might not appreciate the NDP's principled opposition. But fortunately, Turmel doesn't seem to be taking Powers' advice.

Speaking of whom, Susan Delacourt profiled Turmel in her new leadership role. Bea Vongdouangchanh did the same for Brian Topp as the initial face of Layton's announcement. And Joanna Smith looked in depth at the NDP's team which has helped to propel the party to its Official Opposition status.

Daniel Leblanc and Gloria Galloway covered some of what might come next for the NDP - albeit with some stunningly obvious commentary (does anybody need to be told that the NDP should promote its own values rather than the Bloc's?) mixed in. Andy Blatchford noted that Layton's absence may make for an ideal opportunity for the NDP's younger and newer MPs to grow into their roles.

And finally, Gerald Caplan served up a reminder that the party isn't over no matter what.

Monday Morning Links

This and that for your long weekend reading.

- I'm not ordinarily a huge fan of spending much time in the present focusing on the past. But Dan Gardner's suggested label for today's holiday looks to be well worth adopting - if nothing else as a reminder that even prior to Confederation, Canada's history includes a place at the forefront of the development of human rights.

- Kudos to the Hill Times' Chris Plecash and Darcy McDonnell for staking out the Cons' hidden cabinet meetings last week and reporting on the secrecy surrounding them. And if they and others keep up the effort, it may well be possible to force the Harper government to be at least slightly less secretive.

- Ian Welsh lists some of the lessons from the U.S.' trumped-up debt ceiling crisis and subsequent capitulation by the Democrats.

- Meanwhile, Paul Krugman nicely sums up exactly what figures to happen as a result of the deal. And as usual, he's criticized as being "completely unhinged" in the absence of any plausible basis to suggest that he's wrong.

- Finally, Erin catches right-wing mouthpiece Jason Clemens talking out of both sides of his mouth in describing the fiscal policy of the Harper Cons - as the same commentator who regularly bashes the Cons for having in fact expanded the size of government is trying to paint nonexistent cuts (rather than less reckless financial regulations) as the basic difference between Canada and the U.S. for consumption south of the border.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

It's disappointing enough for the 'Riders to lose to Calgary at home. But it's doubly so to manage the feat while playing about as well as could possibly be expected in two phases of the game - leaving huge questions about an offensive unit which was supposed to be the team's strength.

On the bright side, Saskatchewan's defence was superb until the middle of the fourth quarter. In effect, the secondary looks to have taken a page out of the Stamps' playbook, pressuring receivers and jumping routes at every turn while making sure tackles when the ball did arrive. Meanwhile, the defensive line kept consistent pressure on Henry Burris. And the result was another game where one of the CFL's top offences was prevented both from finishing long drives, and from beating the 'Riders with big plays.

Meanwhile, the special teams finally seem to be performing consistently. Brandon West had the top single runback of the day, but both he and Tristan Jackson regularly generated positive yardage on kick returns. And Eddie Johnson's combination of booming kicks and frequent trips downfield to try to recover the ball figure to have given him a strong chance to hold onto his job even if Luca Congi returns healthy (particularly if the 'Riders do in fact prefer having one player handle kickoffs, punts and field goals).

But then there was the offence.

Yes, the 'Riders managed a few scattered big plays, and looked fairly decent by the numbers. But even when they were able to put points on the board, they did it more through stunts and lucky breaks than through any sustained control over the ball. And perhaps most problematically, the biggest issue facing the 'Riders this season still seems to be entirely unresolved.

There was never much doubt that Weston Dressler would be Saskatchewan's key receiver this season, and he's more than lived up to the title. But the 'Riders seem no closer to deciding who should join him as a go-to pass-catcher than they were at the start of the year. And with Jason Clermont moving far too slowly to get separation from most defenders, Terrence Nunn dropping what should have been a momentum-builder early in the game, Efrem Hill again pairing a single solid catch-and-run with a damaging penalty and Chris Getzlaf still looking inconsistent, the answer looks more and more to be that the 'Riders won't find what they're looking for on their current roster.

Fortunately, the end of the NFL's lockout raises the prospect of a Fantuz return and/or an influx of talent from south of the border before the CFL season is done. But if the offence can't figure out how to produce more consistently in the meantime, the 'Riders will have a huge hole to dig themselves out of once that talent arrives.

[Edit: fixed typo.]

Sunday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your long weekend.

- I'll agree with pogge that Tabatha Southey's latest is well worth a read. But while it's worth recognizing the differences between the respective priorities involved in managing a country as opposed to a family, there's one point hinted at by Southey which should be seen more as a similarity than it actually is:

(W)hile living within one's means is a noble goal, few people, and very few businesses, balance their budgets on a year-to-year basis. They have mortgages, for example, or loans taken out to expand investment, or because of unforeseen strife.

But then they also have assets. So debt is also investment.

It's easy to alarm people over a deficit. It's a high number and people are forever being told that it's theirs and their children's debt and specifically how much of it is theirs, per capita.

But no one ever tells them how much highway they own, per capita, or what section of the Grand Canyon is theirs. It's a very one-sided, frequently opportunistic way of expressing the situation.

Of course, part of the problem is that parties on the right tend to be averse to public ownership in the first place. But for the rest of us, it's well worth keeping in mind the value of owning assets publicly - and ensuring that value isn't lost to corporate-focused P3 or privatization schemes in deciding what to do with public resources.

- Antonia Zerbisias points out that we can't take a safesupply of water for granted. Sadly, Regina offers a case in point.

- The Cons make up poor excuses for their decision to prevent NDP MP Ryan Cleary from visiting the 9 Wing Gander air base. CC calls BS.

- Finally, Origins of Politics points out how Sun Media is giving far more reach and exposure to bigotry on the Canadian political scene.

Failing by any measure

It's no particular secret that "intensity" targets for greenhouse gas emissions are an utter joke, designed to facilitate the continued growth of heavy polluters as long as they make marginal improvements in per-unit emissions with no regard for the fact that our planet's environment doesn't stand to gain from dollars extracted. And it's also no particular secret that tar sands lobbyists (and consequently the Con government) have been pushing intensity targets for exactly that reason.

But what does it say about the interest of the oil industry and the Cons in living up to even their own flawed rhetoric that per-barrel "intensity" is managing to get worse?

Unequal interest

In my column this week, I pointed out the need to combat poverty and inequality in order to achieve better outcomes in all kinds of areas even if we're not prepared to deal with them for their own sake. But let's follow up with a quick look at the choice facing Saskatchewan voters when it comes to addressing them.

On the part of Brad Wall's Saskatchewan Party, the story is one of complete unwillingness to even see poverty or inequality as issues worth acknowledging. Looking for even the slightest mention of inequality on the Sask Party's caucus site? Tough luck. How about their party site? Ditto. The party site refers to poverty once - not as a matter of policy, but in the profile of a single volunteer. And most appropriately, the Sask Party's caucus site mentions poverty once as well - in a general article on the budget where an anti-poverty group slams the Wall government.

But what about documents from the provincial government, which might be a bit less focused on sticking to anti-social talking points? The best example looks to me to be Wall's government direction report. Which mentions poverty only as a subset of children and youth issues - and inequality not at all.

In contrast, the NDP's party site, caucus site and latest policy report all discuss poverty at length as an issue which demands action. And while there's ample room for improvement in the handling of inequality on the NDP's web presence, at least the issue doesn't draw a complete blank.

Now, there's a long way for the NDP to go both in developing its own priorities to address poverty and inequality, and in spreading the message among citizens. But there looks to be absolutely no room for doubt that Saskatchewan voters who care about the issues will find a willing partner in the NDP - compared to total neglect from the Wall Sask Party.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your long weekend.

- Thomas Walkom highlights the message being sent to students as to what workers should expect in the years to come. And it's well worth reflecting on whether the problem lies precisely with the politicians so eager to strip away the benefits workers have earned in the past:

The old world, it says, was marked by full-time jobs, stable work environments and long-term employment.

The new world, however, is characterized by short-term jobs. You may be on contract; you may be a temporary employee; you may work part-time. But the key is that you will probably be hired for a very short period (“just-in time work” is the moniker) and then “let go when the work is done.”

You will probably have to hold two or three jobs simultaneously for your entire working life.

You will have no pension, no benefits, no vacations, no sick days.

You will be constantly looking for work. “The permanent job, for the most part, is a thing of the past.”

How do you find a job? The labour market, the pamphlet says, is like a fish market: You are selling a commodity — in this case yourself.

And just as a fishmonger might wrap his mackerel in a fancy package, so you must make your labour power attractive to prospective buyers.
...
(T)he norm during that golden period of the 20th century when workers won their most basic rights was economic security. It was assumed that people had the right to live a life beyond the perpetual search for subsistence. If the chaos of the marketplace intervened, that chaos was tamed.

Now the market is back with a vengeance. This world of cutthroat competition and insecure work is not new. It may be disguised by new technologies such as the Internet or Twitter. But in essence it is very, very old. It is a world we thought we had conquered.

- Doug Saunders comments on the need to attack bigotry and religious fearmongering head-on - lest it serve as a breeding ground for the type of violent outburst perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik:

Every act of terrorism is built on a foundation of widely repeated ideas. To convert an ordinary person into a believer who’s willing to commit murder, those ideas must warn of an urgent threat of devastating proportions, one whose resistance and exposure will turn the terrorist into a hero and martyr. They must be repeated so often that they can be perceived as a crystalline truth that will be unveiled by the terrorist’s act.
...
(Anti-Muslim writers) begin with a demographic error: The claim that Muslims naturally have higher birth rates than others, that their numbers are growing faster than other new-immigrant groups did, that true Islamic believers are bound to become a majority in the West. This is demonstrably false.

Then they add a cultural error: that Muslims are nearly all literalist believers, that theirs is not merely another religion but a guiding ideology that commands its followers, that religion is the main force in the lives of these people so they can’t become ordinary members of Western secular societies. This, too, is demonstrably false.

Finally, they conclude with a millenarian message of impending societal takeover, in which the demographic and cultural fictions are combined into an urgent warning that, unless an unspecified something is done, we’ll all be under “their” command. Their works reserve their harshest condemnation for the political parties that dare tolerate or encourage this “takeover.”

Now we know that the authors of these works are part of a continuum of response that includes violence at its extreme end. Their ideas should never be banned or outlawed. But these figures, like moderates in other such movements, have a responsibility to work to eliminate the threats that have emerged from their ranks. And we all have a responsibility to expose their dangerous fictions.

- Scott Tracey criticizes the Cons' stubborn refusal to engage with reality when it comes to actual crime rates, and the policies which can actually serve to reduce them.

- Finally, Ontario's provincial election is shaping up to be a wild one. And Andrea Horwath's stunning favourability rating of 63% and climbing - paired with sub-50% numbers for each of the other two main leaders - suggests that there's plenty of upside for the NDP as the campaign develops.

Musical interlude

Amy Meredith - Young At Heart (Angger Dimas Remix)

Juxtaposition

Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman:

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.” But would that cult still rule in a situation as stark as the one we now face, in which one party is clearly engaged in blackmail and the other is dickering over the size of the ransom?

The answer, it turns out, is yes. And this is no laughing matter: The cult of balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of disaster. For when reporting on political disputes always implies that both sides are to blame, there is no penalty for extremism. Voters won’t punish you for outrageous behavior if all they ever hear is that both sides are at fault.
...
Many pundits view taking a position in the middle of the political spectrum as a virtue in itself. I don’t. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily reside in the middle of the road, and I want leaders who do the right thing, not the centrist thing.

Liberal Party Leadership Booby Prize Winner By Default Bob Rae:

The deep partisanship that has marked the crisis in the United States Congress has some lessons for Canadians. Polarisation is not the “new normal,” as New Democrats and Conservatives are preaching. It corrodes the body politic and takes us away from the simple truth that most people want a moderate, intelligent politics that’s based on facts, evidence, good values and compromise … we need to understand that most goals in politics, as they are in hockey or soccer, are scored from the centre. That’s where the action is, and that’s where most Canadians are...And that’s where the Liberal Party needs to be as well.

On clear choices

The fact that Nova Scotia's NDP government has managed to drag the province's budget into a substantial surplus even in the midst of difficult economic times has received some well-deserved attention over the past couple of days. But I'd think it's particularly worth noting the entirely typical response from the opposition Conservatives to the news that their province is one of the few jurisdictions in North America that's in the black:

Tory Leader Jamie Baillie said the increased surplus is a result of taxes that are too high, taking aim at the unpopular decision to hike the harmonized sales tax by two percentage points last July.

That's right: even as their federal cousins show exactly how deep a hole one can dig by slashing taxes to the point where a government's budgets don't quite balance even at the best of times, the opposition to Canada's newest NDP government is insisting that it should be less responsible with the province's money.

But then, it's not as if there's some particular advantage to be had in paying down the province's debt, right?

The statements also reveal the province's net debt fell to $12.8 billion on 2010-11, a decrease of $217.8 million over the previous year. That will help the province avoid about $55 million annually in debt servicing costs, the Finance Department said.

Still, that means the net debt for every man, woman and child in the province is $13,610.

In sum, Nova Scotia's Cons are fully living up to the right's habit of refusing to accept responsible management when the alternative is reckless tax slashing. And it's well worth pointing out the distinction between an NDP which offers the former, and the Cons' obsession with the latter.

An accidental opportunity

This morning, I theorized that the political fortunes of the NDP and the Libs will make for an interesting test case on the relative importance of leadership politics and party planning. But let's note part of the reason why Rae holds a relatively strong position within the Libs - and what it might mean in the years to come.

Again, I tend toward the view that a huge part of Jack Layton's current level of popularity can be traced to the fact that he was able to build his reputation over a period of years without facing the attack ads flying back and forth between the Cons and Libs. And now that Layton has built his public image to a level far beyond that of Stephen Harper, any attempt to tear him down may well do more harm than good for the party trying to launch attacks - meaning that the work put into building up Layton's reputation has served to substantially negate one of the Cons' favourite strategies.

In contrast, there can't be much doubt that a new permanent leader for the Libs (or the NDP if Layton steps down) will face the same type of smear attempt by the Cons that Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff experienced. But the Cons have quite understandably concluded that attack ads against an interim leader of the third party aren't worth their time - which looks like an elementary exercise in efficient resource allocation.

That is, as long as Rae's leadership is indeed on an interim basis. But let's ask rhetorically: what happens if by the time the Libs enter into their leadership campaign, Rae has managed to focus on developing his own image (which is of course one of the few areas within his control) to the point where he's seen as being substantially inoculated against possible Con attacks, while the rest of the party's leadership contenders face the virtual certainty of being defined by the Cons in a massive ad buy which the Libs can't afford to counter?

Of course, the above isn't to say that there's any scheme on Rae's part to turn his interim leadership into a permanent one - a possibility which has obviously been a bone of contention within the Libs. But it seems entirely plausible that his interim role might unintentionally provide a way out of the trap the Libs otherwise face.

On comparative advantages

Naturally, Jack Layton's leave of absence has raised plenty of speculation as to what will happen on Canada's opposition benches over the summer (and perhaps beyond). But Tim Powers hints at what may be the most interesting question to watch in the months to come.

Most of the time when a political party ends up under interim leadership, it's because events have conspired to rob it of any ability to develop or execute a long-term plan. And indeed, the Libs are in that situation for the third time in just a few years.

Like Bill Graham and Stephane Dion (post-2008 election) before him, Bob Rae's ability to substantially set his party's direction is significantly limited by the expectation that he'll hand the reins to a new leader in the relatively near future. In effect, Rae can't rely on the past planning of leaders who have been unceremoniously turfed - but nor can he afford to take any substantial risks or strong positions, lest he be seen as limiting the choices the party may want to make in the next couple of years. Which means that Rae - though perceived as a stronger politician than most interim leaders - is stuck acting more as a caretaker than a planner and decision-maker.

In contrast, there's no reason to think there's any particular desire within the NDP to substantially change course at a time the strongest leader in Canadian politics is sidelined temporarily. And so Nycole Turmel's role as the NDP's interim leader figures to be primarily to execute the plan that's been developed by Jack Layton and a strong team of advisers over a period of nearly a decade.

Which makes for a rather neat opportunity to test the comparative effects of two traits which are normally difficult to separate. If the Libs manage to make up ground on the NDP, that will speak to the importance of a well-recognized leader with extensive political experience. Or if the NDP holds its own, then we should be able to conclude that a strong plan and vision for a party's future ultimately mean more than the face of a single leader. And both parties will want to pay close attention to the results as they determine how to position themselves for the next few years.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Trish Hennessy crunches the numbers on vacation time for Canadians:

47
Percentage of Canadian workers who say they need a vacation more today than they’ve needed in four years.

10
Number of statutory holidays Canadians are entitled to in a year. Lowest of 40 countries in an international survey of vacation time.
...
22
Percentage of Canadians who say they cancelled vacation plans due to work.

49
Percentage of Canadian employers who say they expect workers to check in periodically while on vacation.
...
14
Percentage of Canadians who say they feel guilty taking a vacation.

- In case there was any doubt, mere evidence that public-sector pensions are entirely sustainable won't deter the coalition of anti-government and financial interests looking to trash them.

- And Susan Riley points out that if the Cons were the least bit interested in providing better retirement security through the CPP, there's a recent precedent for assembling the level of provincial cooperation necessary to overcome their current excuse.

- John Geddes tries to follow the money behind the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, and learns that any promised transparency is nowhere to be found.

- Finally, Alison is brilliant - this time with her discussion of Ethical Snake Oil.

Parliament In Review: June 22, 2011

The second-last day of debates in this spring's session dealt mostly with Bruce Hyer's motion on small business. But lest anybody think there would be agreement on the details of an issue where every party supported the motion itself (resulting in a rather inexplicable standing vote)...

The Big Issue

So what did the parties find to debate about while agreeing on the NDP's plan for small business taxes?

Well, the Cons tried to put forward Japan as a positive example - which led to Hyer's apt observation that corporate taxes are significantly higher there. (And I'll offer a reminder that in fact, the Cons' target tax rate is identical to Japan's definition of an abusive tax haven.)

Meanwhile, Dennis Bevington raised an important point as to how corporate tax slashing doesn't get passed along to consumers when products are sold in the world economy. To which Maxime Bernier could only respond (loosely paraphrased) "Hayek! Lower Taxes! Blargh!".

For the Libs, Joyce Murray proudly labeled herself as more anti-government than the Cons by taking credit for the B.C. Libs' regulation-slashing. But due credit to Scott Brison for criticizing corporate tax cuts while noting that they only offer anything to 5% of businesses.

And finally, Hyer served up a reminder as to which party actually has the best record of balancing budgets.

Budget Votes

The other main votes taken on the 22nd involved budget estimates and related legislation. And there were a few noteworthy departures from what one might have expected.

Rather than opposing the budget in full, the Libs voted for the Cons' requested Senate funding. And after making a show of supporting the Cons' budget, the Bloc joined the other opposition parties in opposing not only the main estimates, but also the budget legislation reflecting the policies they supported.

In Brief

Mathieu Ravignat challenged the Cons on their willingness to impose even higher prescription drug prices through the CETA. Laurin Liu and Megan Leslie offered timely questions on the toxic extraction of shale gas. Similarly, Anne Minh-Thu Quach and Libby Davies questioned the Cons' plan to do nothing about health care until 2014, and were met with a thoroughly worn list of unrelated spin. In presenting a petition, Nathan Cullen slammed the Cons for standing alone in the world in favour of unfettered asbestos production and exports. And Peter Stoffer countered the Cons' war on knowledge by introducing a bill to remove the GST from books.

On non-news

No, it isn't news that the Cons tried unsuccessfully to recruit Thomas Mulcair around the time when he decided instead to run for the NDP. But for those looking for an actual topic worth discussing, what does it say that the Cons' idea of a "gotcha" is to dredge up their own failures?

Thursday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Yes, it's taken a few days to refresh my memory as to how to discuss a Saskatchewan Roughrider win. But as great as it is for the 'Riders to have broken into the win column (and in Montreal no less), most of the results of Sunday's game look to reflect the flip side of what I talked about last week.

Once again, the 'Riders and their opponents were mostly evenly matched in the trenches. But this time, they got every break possible when it came to turnovers, big plays and personnel - and just barely hung on to win despite those advantages.

To the extent there's a serious concern for the 'Riders coming out of Sunday's win, it has to lie on the offensive side of the ball. The good news was the the team's running game (featuring both Darian Durant and Wes Cates) and ball control were both far stronger than they've been so far. But on the latter front, the lack of turnovers until Hugh Charles' late fumble was as much a matter of the Als missing opportunities as of the 'Riders not serving them up.

And perhaps more importantly, the 'Riders once again failed to convert on some obvious chances to rack up points - turning four first-quarter possessions starting in or near Alouette territory into a total of seven points, then bungling a first-and-goal from the 4 with Ryan Dinwiddie in at quarterback. Which looked like a potentially fatal set of missed opportunities as long as there was some prospect of Anthony Calvillo getting the chance to respond.

Fortunately for the 'Riders, Calvillo's injury removed him from the game just after he'd put together his first strong series. But even though it undoubtedly benefited from facing Adrian MacPherson most of the game, the defence deserves loads of credit for its performance.

Indeed, perhaps the most impressive part of the game seems to have gone mostly unnoticed so far. The Alouette offence, normally one of the most explosive in the CFL, didn't manage a single play longer than 29 yards.

And that wasn't a matter of Montreal trying but barely missing either. Throughout the game the Als' quarterbacks had time to look downfield, but were forced to run or throw the ball away as the 'Riders' coverage stifled what may the league's top group of receivers. And unlike in the teams' previous meeting, every completed pass was met with a quick enough tackle to keep the Als from tacking on large amounts of yardage after the catch.

That textbook execution of Richie Hall's defensive strategy by the secondary, along with a superb game by the 'Riders' return team, were the two major differences between this game and the previous few. And those look to be important parts of the team's strategy in the weeks to come.

But it's also worth keeping in mind that most of the teams in the CFL are sufficiently evenly matched that luck often carries the day. And the 'Riders have plenty of work left to do to make sure they don't need to rely on quite so much of it.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Andrew Jackson attacks the myth of expansionary austerity, particularly from a Canadian perspective:

(T)here is very rarely any such thing as expansionary austerity, according to IMF staff economists.

In a careful review of the historical evidence, they find that, typically, a 1 percent of GDP fiscal consolidation reduces real private consumption over the next two years by 0.75 percent, while real GDP declines by 0.62 percent.
...
For Canadians this is surely sobering. We face no fiscal crisis – our net debt is far below the OECD average. Austerity cannot produce lower interest rates – short term rates are near zero and the 10 year Government of Canada bond rate is at a near historic low of under 3%. And, with the dollar hugely over-valued and the US teetering on the edge of another downturn, there will be no offset to fiscal contraction from higher exports this time around.

As we begin the 2012 federal Budget debate, Flaherty must be asked why his planned cuts do not risk derailing an already very fragile recovery.

- Maude Barlow highlights the sad truth that third-world conditions - including a lack of running water - are still a reality in Canada, while our government is using its energy holding out against a global consensus on the right to water and sanitation.

- Linda McQuaig points out some of the pluses of the NDP's decision to make Nycole Turmel its interim leader:

"I think (it's) a great choice," said Linda McQuaig, a Toronto-based journalist and writer who recently co-authored The Trouble With Billionaires. "She's a union person, and a public sector union, at a time when the public sector is really under attack. She's a woman, and a staunch defender of pay equity."

She said that the appointment of Turmel sends "a good, clear message where NDP is coming from," in light of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's series of cutbacks to women's programs.

- The Fraser Institute runs into reality yet again. And the results aren't any prettier than usual.

- Finally, for those looking for a fix of political information to pass the summer, Kagro's 2011 election maps are well worth a look.

New column day

Here, on how new evidence on the effects of poverty and inequality gives us all the more reason to fight them.

For further reading...
- Of course, the Equality Trust is the for more about the effects of inequality.
- And for some of the new research on the behavioural effects of poverty, see the recent papers by Bertrand and Spears.

Coming soon to a country near you...

Yes, it's telling that Stephen Harper's spin on the U.S. debt ceiling crisis is to pretend that the problem has more to do with "the U.S. debt and fiscal situation" than his sister party's choice to hold the country hostage.

But since he's apparently willing to talk, isn't it worth asking whether Harper is interested in offering the slightest reassurance that his party won't do the same in Canada when it gets the chance?

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your midweek reading.

- Not surprising: Canadians find Stephen Harper's constant politicization of everything - including awards for volunteers - to be improper. Even less surprising: Stephen Harper couldn't care less.

- Meanwhile, the Cons' continued silencing of scientists is similarly predictable. But the reason this time looks to be particularly noteworthy:

The Privy Council Office also nixed a Fisheries Department news release about Miller's study, saying the release "was not very good, focused on salmon dying and not on the new science aspect," according to documents obtained by Postmedia News under the Access to Information Act.

So there may yet be hope for meaningful scientific research to be approved for public consumption - as long as it's billed as "New Research Triumph for Glorious Leader!" rather than promoted based on its actual content.

[Update: pogge has more.]

- Simon Houpt's review of how negative advertising has backfired in the corporate sector is well worth a read. But I'd think it's particularly worth wondering whether it's still possible for the same to happen in politics - or whether voters have simply become so accustomed to it that they no longer assign enough penalty or negative association to parties who go negative for the usual distaste to apply.

- Finally, Ryan Meili takes the case for a Crown drug manufacturer to the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Pop quiz

To my recollection, exactly one Canadian political party has featured a candidate other than its leader in a recent ad campaign.

Guess which one, and in which province.

Then take the spin that the party's leader served as its lone face in that province with a heavy grain of salt.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Shelved cats.

Deep thought

The use of "library group" as a putdown says far more about the speaker than about the target.

On successorship strategies

Naturally, Jack Layton's announcement that he's taking a temporary leave from the NDP's leadership has led to a wide assortment of speculation as to what might come next for the NDP, particularly if his absence does prove to be more than temporary. But I'm not sure the commentary so far has picked up on either the key challenge facing the party, or the obvious solution.

To start with, while it's fair enough to point out Layton's personal profile as a leader and discuss how any future successor might be able to match it, we shouldn't lose sight of how Layton got to where he is now.

I've argued for some time that Layton's popularity as a leader has been based not only on his personality and the NDP's strategy, but also on a helpful multi-party dynamic. In both election cycles since the Cons took power in 2006, we saw the Libs anoint a new leader while in opposition. And in both cases, the Cons responded with massive negative ad buys - which served to damage the new Lib leader, but also to build public fatigue with the Cons themselves (not to mention politics in general).

Against that background, Layton benefited immensely from the opportunity to develop his own public image over four election cycles without being personally dragged into the mud. And based on the contrast in public opinion between Layton and his rivals, it may well be too late for anybody to destroy Layton's image as long as he remains as NDP leader - meaning that the party wouldn't need to worry about an ad war to bolster his public profile.

Unfortunately, a new NDP leader wouldn't enjoy the same advantage. But the party could at least make use of the opportunity to learn from the Libs' mistakes, particularly if it works on building its own resources while Layton is in the picture.

From my perspective, the most important lesson to be taken from the past few years is that a newly-minted Leader of the Official Opposition needs to be ready to start defining himself or herself immediately - not merely by responding to the Cons' inevitable attacks, but by developing a strong public image from day one. And a key part of that effort figures to include not only efforts to connect in person, but also a positive ad campaign before the Cons dare to go negative.

With that potential need looming on the horizon, the NDP may want to put some extra focus on fund-raising in the next little while - with an emphasis on passing Layton's optimistic image to the party as a whole (including potential successors).

Ideally, that would offer more of a financial cushion for the next few years if Layton is able to return to his post. And in the worst-case scenario, it should at least help to make sure that the next leader has the best possible chance to follow in Layton's footsteps as the most highly-regarded leader in Canada.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- In case anybody held out hope that the Harper Cons might follow up on their residential school apology with some concrete action to change First Nations relations for the better, here's the predictable result: a gratuitous ultimatum on land claims which seeks to force First Nations to take whatever is on the table now or risk being left with next to nothing.

- Ellen Russell comments on how the corporate right has turned financial crisis into a way of life for its own benefit:

Because the appetite for risk is so pervasive (#4), financial instruments and practices are so complex (#5), regulations are so inadequate (#6), and markets are so interdependent (#7), the "contagion effects" of a panic in one market or country can spread to far-flung and unexpected places. Thus the problems in Greece may spread to other EU countries, to the banks and other investors holding the debt of eurozone countries, to those exposed directly or indirectly to these banks and other investors, to any entity that provided financial "insurance" on anything sucked into the crisis, and anywhere else that financial panic touches down.

Awareness is growing that the arcane workings of financial markets have big impacts on their lives. No one is exempt from the devastation once a financial tsunami gathers momentum -- especially since economic contractions and government downsizing often follow closely behind the financial wreckage.

Financial crisis do not have to become a way of life. Ultimately, financial crisis is a political problem. It will take a massive shift in political mobilization to counter the current hegemony of financial interests.

Democratic financial reform must be a cornerstone for all of our agendas for economic change. Since we ultimately bail out these financial titans when crisis hits, we are entitled to make sure that finance is serving the public interest. Neoliberalism has made financial crisis a way of life. To move beyond neoliberalism, we need crack down on the financial sector so that a different way of life is possible.

- Yes, the shift to an HST model is all about benefitting the well-connected. But it's quite thoughtful of the B.C. Libs to serve up Exhibit M just in time for the referendum.

- Which offers all the more reason to answer "Absolutely!" to Rafe Mair's rhetorical question.

- Finally, Digby reminds us of the dangers of cult conservatism.

Layton Announcement Roundup

Not much to add on this end to the news that Jack Layton is taking a temporary leave of absence to deal with a new form of cancer. But let's note a few of the pieces which stand out in the day's coverage.

- The CP reviewed the outpouring of best wishes from across the political spectrum.
- Conversely, Buckdog chronicled of some of the more appalling Sun comments.
- Tim Harper described the fight of Layton's life.
- Chris Selley emphasized Layton's bravery and optimism even at the toughest of times.
- The Globe and Mail noted Layton's true home in politics.
- And finally, for those who haven't seen it yet, here's Layton's own statement.

First things first

Meanwhile, for those wondering what the NDP has been up to in its first summer as Official Opposition, the Hill Times has part of the answer:

(W)ith so many new and young MPs, the question begs asking about whether or not this year's summer caucus meeting will include an extra dose of training for the rookie NDP MPs.

According to Ms. Turmel, more training will "probably not" happen at the caucus meeting. This decision likely is a result of the fact that the NDP, according to Ms. Turmel, has been training their new MPs all summer.

"The whole summer they are having training once a week or twice a week, depending on the subject...it's regular for the new staff, they had a meeting last week on how to reach out in the riding...it's a variety of subjects," said Ms. Turmel.

Ms. Turmel said the training sessions are run by the party and mostly have taken place at the party's national headquarters on Queen Street in Ottawa.

Which nicely signals that the already-overstated questions about the NDP caucus' experience should be a thing of the past by this fall. And that should position the NDP nicely to put its numbers in Parliament to the best possible use.

Compare and contrast

One party's response to a limited amount of Parliamentary resources:

“New Democrat MPs were responsible for 56 per cent of all private members’ motions, and 59 per cent of all private members’ bills. Compared to other parties, that’s four times as many motions and five times as many bills per MP. We work hard in committee, we are diligent about representing the interests of our constituents, and we are standing up to the Harper government,” said Layton.

Another party's take on a virtually identical situation:

Mr. MacEachern said he thinks the Liberals will need to decide what sort of opposition party they want to be. With fewer resources and reduced research funding, Mr. MacEachern said the Liberals will need to pick a "smaller, more realistic" number of policy areas; a number that better reflects their caucus' new size.

Might there be some connection to the fact that the former has managed to win more resources than the latter?

Sunday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to end your weekend.

- Nick Falvo discusses the unfortunate theory that any talk of improving standards of living for the neediest Canadians is either fruitless or extreme politically:

In reference to the Put Food In The Budget campaign, NDP Member of Provincial Parliament Michael Prue is quoted as saying: “I have asked hundreds of questions in the last 10 years on this topic [at Queen's Park] and have never once been quoted in the newspaper. Nobody has been interested. The NDP is standing back and asking, ‘Do we run on a platform when there is no public interest?”

I’m struck by what appears to be deep-seated pessimism on this important public policy issue. Even serious policy wonks are bending over backwards to conceal their proposals with smoke and mirrors, lest anyone realize that they’re advocating for a very low-income individual to live on more than $7,501 a year.

When did it become ’common sense’ for swing voters to believe that there is a job for every resident of Ontario? And when did it become acceptable to believe that $625/month is a sufficient amount of money to live on in Ontario?

- John Geddes uses the U.S. debt ceiling showdown as an example of the conundrum facing reporters trying to write fairly about issues where one side simply doesn't have a reasonable argument to make. But it's worth noting the flip side: the Republicans in manufacturing the debt crisis, like the Cons in demolishing the long-form census, obviously felt they could get away with such insane actions precisely because they could count on most sources repeating their nonsensical spin as if it had some basis in reality.

- Suddenly Stephen Harper's refusal to allow 24 Sussex Drive to be renovated makes a lot more sense, as the last thing Harper figures to be willing to countenance is to echo and legitimize environmental concerns about waste and inefficiency.

- Finally, Doug Allan points out that the Hudak PCs are predictably looking to stifle any public speech by unions - while failing to apply the same standard to corporations who spend far more money shaping public perceptions for their own benefit.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

On primary purposes

Yes, it's striking enough that multiple parties' MPs went out of their way to destroy information about constituent requests to make it harder for new NDP MPs to do their job. But it's particularly worth comparing the Cons' treatment of constituents' personal information when it's being used for its intended purpose with their philosophy when they can manipulate it for political gain.

Here's the supposed explanation for those who did choose to destroy constituents' personal information:

A spokeswoman for Verner said in an email that the constituency documents contained "confidential and sensitive information" and that staff were simply following official guidelines on how to close a riding office by destroying the paperwork.

Jessica McLean said Verner, who now sits as a senator, was not available for an interview. Her office had no comment about the alleged filing-cabinet message.

In contrast, it's not news that the information given to the likes of Verner by constituents seeking a Con MP's assistance has been handed over to the Cons' party database for years, and preserved there for political use - presumably long after an MP leaves office:

CIMS is used not only to track voter allegiance in a given riding -- something every political party attempts -- but also a host of other data gathered in the course of an MP's constituency office duties.

"Any time a constituent is engaged with the member of Parliament, they get zapped into the database," Turner said in an interview. "It's unethical and it's a shocking misuse of data.

"Because once you cotton on to what's going on here, it's not good constituency work at all to allow that data to fall into any kind of hands. But the party is desperate to get more and more data in there because the primary use is fundraising. The secondary use is voter tracking to get out the vote."

So when it comes to actually handing "confidential and personal information" to a party whose goal is to misuse it, the Cons don't see the slightest problem. Instead, it's only when a new MP might be able to assist a constituent that they suddenly think it's their right - nay, duty - to destroy every piece of information which might help in that task.

Which speaks volumes not only about how fabricated the Cons' privacy concerns are, but also about what the Cons consider their actual job to be.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- David Olive chimes in on the toxic effects of inequality:

Many of us did not engage in “excess,” yet are struggling to make ends meet. The real story is where did all the money go that has been generated by a North American economy that has greatly expanded since 1980?

And the answer is to be found in decades of outsourcing, offshoring, declining union membership and bargaining power, and productivity gains that have enabled employers to generate ever more revenue with steadily fewer employees.

What grates in this transformation is the sense of entitlement among the sole, conspicuous CEO beneficiaries of our New-and-Not-Improved-Economy.

In the erosion of the “social contract” between capital and labour dating from the end of World War II, we are not suffering equally. Indeed, we now reward failure in high places.
...
(The) dangerous imbalance could easily be corrected simply by restoring the system of progressive taxation to where it was in the booming 1950s and 1960s. That’s when leadership meant responsibility, not a hurried grasp for the brass ring, with the little guy paying for the consequences. That, history teaches us, is a lousy business plan.

- And Joshua Holland points out that the right's dogmatic focus on handing ever more money to those who already have the most is actually an excellent way of destroying jobs across the income spectrum:

Sure, the wealthy create a few jobs – people who offer exclusive services or sell them high-end goods. But the overwhelming majority of jobs in this country are “created” by ordinary Americans when they spend their paychecks.

Consumer demand accounts for around 70 percent of our economic output. And with so much wealth having been redistributed upward through a 40-year class-war from above, American consumers are too tapped out to spend as they once did. This remains the core issue in this sluggish, largely jobless recovery. The wealthy, in their voracious appetite for a bigger piece of the national pie, are the real job-killers in this economic climate.
...
In 1978, the top 1 percent of the ladder took in just under 9 percent of the nation's income, leaving a bit more than 91 percent for the rest of us. In 2007, the year before the crash, they took in 23.5 percent, leaving just 76.5 percent for the rest of the population to split up.

They banked most of that income, whereas we would have spent it. The fact that we're broke means that businesses are facing less demand for their goods and services than they otherwise would, and have less need to hire a bunch of employees. And that dynamic explains why it's the wealthiest Americans who are the real “job killers.”

- Luiza Ch. Savage notes another area where corporate-friendly free trade agreements lead to greater costs for mere citizens, as it's individual travellers who are now facing a U.S. surcharge to make up for the cost of eliminating tariffs.

- Finally, plenty of commentators have already pointed out the absurdity of the Cons embarrassing Canada on the world stage to defend an industry that's on the verge of dying off anyway. But let's at least grant the Cons this much: surely their determination to wring every possible gram of asbestos out of the last couple of existing mines fits nicely with the usual right-wing worldview that nothing matters more than exploiting all available resources whatever the cost.

The debate begins

Earlier this week, Gary Mason asked whether there would be any serious debate over the CETA. In case there were any doubt, Robert Chisholm provides the answer:

These deals can create jobs or ship them overseas. They can foster growth that supports our social programs or put these programs at risk. They can promote human rights abroad or undermine Canadian values at home. And they can enrich our communities with new opportunities — or hollow them out.

This isn’t a "free trade" against "protectionism" debate. This century’s economic challenges compel us to move beyond the old "free trade" model of blanket deregulation alongside unfettered foreign access to Canadian resources. Instead, we need domestic policies that help us take full advantage of opportunities on the global front. Effective trade agreements can open doors for our businesses without tying our hands at home.

Our trade minister forgets how Canada became one of the world’s best places to live. We owe a great deal to progressive industrial and social policies that fostered a strong, family-supporting domestic economy — and sought to ensure its survival in a competitive world.
...
New Democrats believe trade must be a priority, but every agreement should deliver a clear net benefit to Canada. This means bargaining hard for deals that open up new markets while protecting Canada’s public services; fostering quality job creation by promoting exports of value-added goods over bulk exports of raw materials; and making sure public health, environmental and human-rights concerns are front and centre.

An NDP government would ensure a full and open assessment of any proposed trade agreement’s impact on our families and communities, so we can have a vigorous public dialogue and make informed choices. Unlike this Conservative government, New Democrats trust Canadians to be part of this debate.

On revocability

Dr. Dawg has a post worth reading on the Cons' purification strategy. But let's take a closer look at part of that plan which I've only dealt with in snark form so far:

The federal government believes some 1,800 people have obtained their Canadian citizenship through fraudulent means and it intends to revoke their status, Postmedia News has learned.

After a lengthy investigation by police and the department of Citizenship and Immigration, letters have been issued to hundreds of Canadians telling them the federal government intends to revoke their citizenship.

Individuals can challenge the decision in Federal Court but if they don't, cabinet will move to void their passports and strip them of their citizenship.

I haven't seen much commentary yet on what that process actually means. So let's unpack it to see just how the Cons see Canadian citizenship.

The apparent starting point for the Cons' action is based on nothing more than what they "believe". There's no indication as to what evidence, if any, there is to support the letters of intention sent out this week - no reason indeed why the Cons couldn't simply be picking the name of immigrants out of a hat (or worse yet, targeting specific groups with no reasonable basis for doing so) in assembling their list.

From there, the onus is being placed on Canadian citizens to go to the trouble of going to court to avoid having their citizenship revoked. And it's particularly noteworthy that the Cons aren't the least bit open to considering citizens' positions at the applicant level; instead, they don't plan to even consider reversing their decisions (however unsupported) unless a court orders them to.

Of course, that will result in massive costs to anybody who wants to challenge the Cons' arbitrary decision. And it wouldn't be surprising at all if many of the immigrants targeted by the Cons have trouble proving the circumstances of their arrival and application for citizenship; after all, what reason would most have had to think they'd need to preserve evidence of how they became Canadian after making the effort to secure citizenship?

In sum, it's bad enough that the Cons think it's their job to try to slash Canada's citizenship rolls. But it's even more telling that they've chosen a process which involves zero accountability or willingness to listen to individual circumstances, combined with a maximum amount of formality and cost in trying to have any mistakes reversed. And the lesson for immigrants across the country can only be that as long as the Cons are in power, it's dangerous to think one is safe in Canada.

(Edit: fixed wording X2.)

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Jeffrey Simpson laments the Cons' evidence-averse crime policies. But it's worth noting that Simpson is off base on one point: much as he assumes that years of spin from the Cons and the media alike have pushed the public to fear for their safety at every turn and thus vote for dumb-on-crime rhetoric at any cost, it just ain't so.

- Gerald Caplan is right to note that for as much damage as they're doing at home, the Harper Cons seem downright moderate compared to some of their right-wing counterparts around the globe. But it's worth recognizing that he forms part of the same global movement - meaning that the disastrous examples abroad serve more as portents of what's to come than as evidence that Harper isn't so bad after all.

- And indeed, some small-c conservatives are coming to see the errors in their ways:

The credit crunch has exposed a similar process of how emancipation can be hijacked. The greater freedom to borrow which began in the 1980s was good for most people. A society in which credit is very restricted is one in which new people cannot rise. How many small businesses could start or first homes be bought without a loan? But when loans become the means by which millions finance mere consumption, that is different.

And when the banks that look after our money take it away, lose it and then, because of government guarantee, are not punished themselves, something much worse happens. It turns out – as the Left always claims – that a system purporting to advance the many has been perverted in order to enrich the few. The global banking system is an adventure playground for the participants, complete with spongy, health-and-safety approved flooring so that they bounce when they fall off. The role of the rest of us is simply to pay.

- Dan Gardner treats like things alike. Mayhem ensues.

- Finally, Shauna MacKinnon highlights Manitoba's Poverty Reduction Strategy Act, even while recognizing that it's only one step toward ending poverty in the province.

Deep thought

If there's any good news in the report that it's apparently impossible to keep corporate sponsorship off even the most political of public functions, it's that it should be highly entertaining to see where the trend goes next. I for one look forward to the Harper Cons responding to all media questioning with "This 'no comment' brought to you by Suncor".

Musical interlude

Massive Attack - Dissolved Girl

Same old story, slash-and-burn edition

So can Canadian progressives agree that eliminating environmental regulators is generally a short-sighted move which prioritizes a foolish focus on slashing government gratuitously over a society's long-term well-being?

Of course, I ask for no particular reason.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- As quickly as the Fraser Institute churns out corporate propaganda, Sixth Estate responds - this time nicely debunking a report encouraging yet more giveaways to big pharma:

(T)here’s a glaring lie by omission in the summary for this document: although the Fraser Institute really wants you to know that we spend about the same amount as the Americans do on drugs, what they don’t think you need to know is that, according to their own numbers, we actually spend almost 21% less per prescription than the Americans do. So government controls work, if not as well as we might hope, and the Fraser Institute wants to get rid of them anyways.

Secondly, the most interesting thing about healthcare comparisons is that Canadian brand-name drugs cost half as much as in America, but our generic drugs cost twice as much. Both are due to government price controls: our government forces prices low on brand-name drugs, but also allows generic drugmakers to charge high prices. You might think the solution, if the goal is lower drug prices for consumers, is to impose lower price controls on the generic market, or even just to let it float freely, like the Americans do.

That’s not the Fraser Institute’s solution. They say if you completely deregulate the industry, then the drugmakers will drop the prices on generic drugs, but they’ll still respect the artificially low rates for brand-name drugs. This sort of economic wizardry is exactly why we should take the Fraser Institute and dump them into the sea — an economical solution because they’re already near the ocean.

- While Andrew Jackson points out that plenty of think tanks from across the political spectrum prefer an expanded Canada Pension Plan to the Cons' gift to the financial sector, Carol Goar sums up exactly why the Cons' choice makes no sense:

(The Cons' plan) is a second-best solution and a poor substitute for strengthening the Canada Pension Plan, which covers the entire working population, is mandatory for all employers and employees, has worked well for 45 years and is actuarially sound for the next 75 years.

The only problem with the Canada Pension Plan is that it doesn’t provide enough to live on. The average annual payout is $6,150 a year. Even when that is combined with Old Age Security — the universal payment to all Canadians over 65 — the average is just $12,100, which falls roughly $6,800 below the poverty line.

That was fine when it was a supplement to the workplace pensions that most families could count on a generation ago. But today, 11 million workers have no pension. Many have no retirement savings at all.

Academics, actuaries, nonbank economists, labour leaders and seniors have urged the government since the recession to expand the Canada Pension Plan. Polls show Canadians would be willing to increase their contributions to assure themselves and others a dignified retirement.

The Conservatives are offering a less comprehensive, less reliable alternative.

- The Ottawa Citizen decries the Cons' willingness to run billions of public dollars through a shredder for the sake of posturing on crime. And Daphne Bramham notes that the prison-industrial complex is making inroads in B.C. as a result.

- Finally, Mike Smith's take on how to get anything done at the municipal level is well worth a read.

Deep thought

An environmental monitoring plan explicitly designed to improve the reputation of the industry involved is a thoroughly useless environmental monitoring plan.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Henry Farrell points out why supposedly progressive ideas which don't do anything to counter corporate power are doomed to failure:

Neo-liberals tend to favor a combination of market mechanisms and technocratic solutions to solve social problems. But these kinds of solutions tend to discount politics – and in particular political collective action, which requires strong collective actors such as trade unions. This means that vaguely-leftish versions of neo-liberalism often have weak theories of politics, and in particular of the politics of collective action. I see Doug and others as arguing that successful political change requires large scale organized collective action, and that this in turn requires the correction of major power imbalances (e.g. between labor and capital). They’re also arguing that neo-liberal policies at best tend not to help correct these imbalances, and they seem to me to have a pretty good case. Even if left-leaning neo-liberals are right to claim that technocratic solutions and market mechanisms can work to relieve disparities etc, it’s hard for me to see how left-leaning neo-liberalism can generate any self-sustaining politics. I’m sure that critics can point to political blind spots among lefties (e.g. the difficulties in figuring out what is a necessary compromise, and what is a blatant sell-out), but these don’t seem to me to be potentially crippling, in the way that the absence of a neo-liberal theory of politics (who are the organized interest groups and collective actors who will push consistently for technocratic efficiency?) is.

- Yes, the Cons have been told that environmental protection is important, including for economic reasons. No, they don't care in the slightest. Yes, this is a scandal.

- But then, maybe the Cons are just too busy looking for corporate money-making opportunities to act on what they know about the environment. And who won't feel better knowing that search-and-rescue operations are being carried out by the lowest bidder?

- Finally, it's great news that SaskTel will be connecting 28 First Nations communities with high-speed Internet and wireless coverage. But to fully appreciate the importance of the step, it's also worth highlighting how long the same connections would likely have taken if the private sector were left to its own devices.

New column day

Here, on how the TILMA's regressive trade rules are spreading across Canada in other forms.

For further reading...

- I've posted several times before about just some of the problems with the TILMA and the arguments made in favour of it, while also comparing it with the AIT as it stood a couple of years ago and highlighting how it's been replicated in the NWPTA.

- And for more recent commentary, I'll link again to posts by Erin (X2) and Alison.

Frequently-quoted answers to simple questions

Pogge asks:

Is (Brad) Wall so uninformed that he doesn't know about (federal subsidies for the oil sands)?

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

This has been a first edition of frequently-quoted answers to simple questions.

Unclear on the concept

Quick, try to make sense of this passage from Postmedia's coverage of the Cons' plans to reintroduce gun registry legislation this fall:

In October 2010, the bill was killed by an opposition motion, which passed by a slim margin of 153-151. The motion was supported by 75 Liberals, 48 Bloc Quebecois and 30 New Democrats. Two Independent MPs sided with the 143 Conservatives.

Six NDP MPs broke with their party and voted with the government to scrap the registry. This occurred because NDP leader Jack Layton allowed his caucus to vote their conscience by not "whipping" the vote, or compelling them to vote according to the party line.

So never mind the explicit recognition that NDP MP's weren't compelled to vote according to a party line at all. If the story demands that one be made up in order to declare that some MPs "broke" it, then so be it.

But have no fear. This mixup will be corrected by...outsiders decreeing that independent MP thought will not be tolerated in the future:

Hicks said Layton can't afford to allow much internal disagreement on the issue because he must demonstrate to Canadians he can control his caucus.

"When you're leader of the Opposition, your ability to control your caucus becomes a test of your competence as leader," he said. "Now that Jack Layton lives at Stornoway, this is something he has to tackle in a way he didn't before."

Of course, the Libs were able to allow free votes on the gun registry not only in opposition, but also while in power. But now that the NDP has improved its place in Canada's political party standings, the rules have changed - apparently based on little more than spin from the parties who have been left behind.

And all this while the Cons have the votes to push through their legislation without any opposition party support. Suffice it to say that once they've rendered the issue moot by doing so, this kind of hackery won't be missed.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Jeffrey Simpson has a bit of trouble recognizing that inequality applies at all rungs of the income ladder, not merely as a matter of resolving poverty. But otherwise his latest is well worth a read:

The Conference Board of Canada, hardly a bastion of far-left thinking, just reminded Canadians about the growing income inequalities in their society.

The richest group of Canadians, those in the top fifth of income earners, saw their share of national income rise from 1993 to 2008. Within that fortunate group, the biggest gainers were the super rich, the top 1 per cent. And they got even richer not so much from investments but from basic salaries of the kind paid bank presidents and company CEOs.

From 1980 to 2005, the earnings of the top group rose by 16.4 per cent, while middle-income Canadians’ incomes stagnated, and earnings for those in the bottom group slid.
...
So why are we a more unequal society? That’s the subject of fierce debate. Other countries’ income inequalities are also growing, albeit to varying degrees, and the inequalities in big developing countries such as China, India and Brazil are much higher than anything in Canada or Europe.

It’s argued that globalization rewards some of the highly skilled (and people who can manipulate other people’s money, as in hedge funds, banking and financial services), while leaving others behind. Clearly, the struggles of manufacturing in North America and Europe have robbed those societies of millions of good-paying, often unionized, jobs. Some of these have been replaced by better-paying service-sector jobs; most have not.

The Conference Board notes that government transfer programs flatten out some inequalities, but not as effectively as 20 years ago. Unemployment benefits go to fewer people; welfare rates haven’t always kept up with the cost of living.

Many of the Harper government’s tax cuts, for example, have disproportionately benefited those better off, since they’re not geared to income – as in all those itsy-bitsy bribes for sports equipment, the GST cut and the child benefit cheques than come through the mail every month.

- Apparently the Cons can't even hold a photo-op for their pension giveaway to the financial sector without somebody pointing out the more viable solution:

Retired graphic arts worker Rene Walti, who relied on saving inside an individual Registered Retirement Savings Plan, said he would be pleased to see his four children benefit from the pooled plan option.

“You try to instill in them that you start when they are 18, and save 10 per cent at least of every cheque. Then they have other ideas, as we had other ideas at their age, too. And, that’s the problem. People start too late in an RRSP.”

So, he said, the “the general expansion of the Canada Pension Plan should also take place, because some people don’t have the discipline to save. With a mandatory CPP deduction that is a bit higher than it is now, at least we can keep them out of poverty.”

Menzies said an expanded CPP “certainly hasn’t been taken off the radar screen,” but provincial finance ministers agreed the pooled plans would be the fastest way to offer Canadians a better savings option.

- Dan Gardner is right to note that the Cons' dumb-on-crime strategy is neither entirely new, nor based on a direct attack on historic sentencing principles. But aside from the hope of a shift back in the longer term, is there really much value in avoiding changing the principles used in exercising discretion (in both sentencing and parole) while severely limiting the outcomes that are actually available?

- Finally, David Sirota points out why fast food is cheaper than healthier alternatives - with a heavy emphasis on subsidies for major components of the less-healthy food.

Deep thought

I know I can't think of a higher priority for Canada at the moment than to declare war on citizenship.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Flattened cats.