New column day

Here, on how the Regina Chamber of Commerce is taking election misdirection to new lows in this fall's municipal campaign.

For further reading...
- Vanda Schmokel pointed out the same issue earlier this week.
- The Chamber's Regina Votes site is here. The City of Regina's official site with the same theme is here. The City's rules surrounding the use of its logo (or at least its latest version) are here.
- In contrast to the Chamber, David Robert Loblaw's entirely neutral site includes a clear statement to avoid confusion (along with a thorough set of information about the candidates):

This is NOT an official election website.  The official City of Regina election site is at Regina.ca/residents/elections
Election questions should be directed to the official City Election Office

- Finally, CUPE Local 21's Wants vs Needs site doesn't pretend to be official - but it does mention some of the issues conspicuously excluded by the Chamber.

On image reinforcement

I won't disagree with those who have criticized Barack Obama's debate performance last night as listless. But did nobody else notice that the candidate who's rightly been criticized for his glee in firing workers and shipping jobs overseas had this to say as one of his supposed "zingers"?

The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.

That's right: Mitt Romney's first response to talk of tax rewards for job cuts...was to ask, "how can I get a piece of that action for myself?" Which looks to me to be far more telling than, say, a mere $10,000 bet offer as evidence of Romney's out-of-touch, exploitative mindset - even if he spent the rest of the debate repudiating every anti-social policy he and his party promote when there's no opponent on stage to rebut them.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Mitchell Anderson's final report on Norway's highly successful management of its oil resources puts Canada's current philosophy to the test:

Seen through this lens, how is Canada doing? Abysmally...:

1. Dependency. Even with our vast oil wealth, Canada currently relies on other countries for about 50 per cent of our supply -- so-called "unethical oil" from the volatile Middle East. Proposals to pipe unrefined bitumen from western Canada to Asia will increase this dangerous dependence since Alberta will have to import vast amounts of condensate from the Middle East to dilute thick bitumen enough for pipeline transport.

2. Staying in the red. Alberta has been unable to balance the books since 2007, burning through $17.7 billion of past oil wealth, with another $3 billion deficit forecast for the coming budget.

3. Draining at full tilt. Labour and production costs are through the roof, at least until the next employment bust. Both the Alberta Federation of Labour and the late premier Peter Lougheed have both called for slower (sic) the pace of oil sands growth. Ten proposed upgrades have been cancelled since the 2007 recession, replaced instead with pipeline proposals for unprocessed diluted bitumen. With resource values rising relative to global currencies, what's the rush?

4. Getting global black eye. The oil sands have such a credibility problem the Alberta government spends $25 million a year countering "baseless" criticism from environmental groups. 

 - Ken Coran and Ken Lewenza highlight the value of allowing unions and management to reach deals that make sense for a particular workplace, rather than having decrees issued from on high. But sadly, the only negotiations the McGuinty Libs seem prepared to accept are their own dealings with Tim Hudak and his party to eliminate workers' right to bargain collectively.

- Thomas Walkom describes the XL Beef E. coli disaster as the Harper Cons' Walkerton moment - and it would indeed seem to be about time to recognize the practical consequences of ineffective regulation. But Postmedia reports that the Cons aren't done making matters worse - planning instead to cut food safety programs by tens of millions of dollars more.

- Finally, Polly Toynbee discusses Ed Miliband's new "One Nation Labour" theme - with a particular focus on how it serves to promote cooperation rather than competition in public services:

Watch [the Conservatives] writhe as One Nation Labour encapsulates everything divisive they do, from Cameron's tax bonus for millionaires to his cruellest cuts for the disabled. Divide and rule is the Cameron hallmark, north against south, the in-work against the workless, private against public employees, young against old, exam-passers versus plebs. How clever to pilfer a Tory phrase with no intention of blurring boundaries or triangulating into Tory turf.

Subtlety is Miliband's style. So when he said to voters he understood "why you turned away from Labour", that was enough, everyone knows the reasons why. Of Cameron, he said he understood "why people gave him the benefit of the doubt" – but then he walloped him from here to kingdom come for inflicting all this pain to cut the deficit only to send it soaring higher than ever.

His words on the NHS brought the hall to its feet. A One Nation NHS means repealing the act that forces hospital to compete with hospital, instead of co-operating in common cause. Banks, businesses, schools, jobs – that One Nation phrase will suit everything Labour needs to say. It stands for the squeezed middle as well as the poor.

Leadership 2013 Roundup

A few notes from the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign over the past few days...

- Cam Broten's supporters have been highlighting his statement of values, with his focus on long-term thinking offering a particularly noteworthy development if put into practice (while also setting up a noteworthy test for Broten on the campaign trail):

Thinking in generations

Cam knows that the generations to come will feel the impacts of the decisions we make today and the decisions we put off making. Much better policies are made when decision-makers take a long-term perspective and are fundamentally committed to being fair and generous to not only current generations, but also future generations.

- Ryan Meili's campaign is encouraging site visitors to offer their own policy proposals. And Dave Mitchell's suggestion of a progressive legislation wiki looks to deserve a long look no matter what else happens during the course of the leadership race: it would seem just as easily set up by an individual or group as through the party, and indeed might be best developed outside formal party structures to encourage unfiltered discussion.

- Scott posts the contents of Erin Weir's first digital town hall, including this succinct statement of Weir's top policy priorities:

Q: What two measurable and quantifiable outcomes will be indicate that your time as leader was a success?

A: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and poverty. 

- Finally, Trent Wotherspoon's tour around the province has earned him plenty of local media coverage. And after pointing to another report yesterday, I'll highlight Wotherspoon's comments on education from the Lloydminster Source:

Wotherspoon said he will be laying out his platform as the six-month campaign unfolds. He did say that some of the themes he will be focusing on is making sure education fits the needs of families in the province and the economy.

“I think in many ways we see areas where there is constraint occurring in the education system but also, in many ways, a system that was built for another era and a different economy,” said Wotherspoon.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Embedded cats.

Deep thought

I'm pretty sure the monorail salesmen concerned business interests spending so much money equating "keeping Regina growing" with "sticking Regina with the tab for a new stadium" will start showing their evidence linking the two any day now. Yesiree, any day now...

Leadership 2013 Candidate Profile: Trent Wotherspoon

By most accounts, Trent Wotherspoon's campaign launch vaulted him immediately to frontrunner status. But let's take a closer look at whether he's likely to maintain that lead throughout the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race.

Strengths

Wotherspoon starts out with two significant advantages over his competitors. First, he's a natural retail politician: not just comfortable and friendly but downright gregarious in working any room, with seemingly boundless energy to put that skill to regular use. And second, there's a strong organization which allowed him to start the leadership campaign with a massive show of support.

And those two factors aren't operating in isolation. Wotherspoon has started the leadership campaign with an ambitious travel schedule, ensuring that he reaches out to the maximum number of potential voters before support has solidified - and presumably making a positive impression along the way.

Weaknesses

But then, there's this:



Or in written form..."What I'm excited about doing is building with purpose and bringing people together towards the common cause that exists, towards making that crystal clear focus that we are about making the improvements in the lives of Saskatchewan people in our communities..."

Now, the above isn't in response to a difficult question in a press scrum: instead, it's Wotherspoon's opening pitch which goes out of its way to avoid defining his campaign's animating "common cause". And while Wotherspoon has sounded far more convincing in some other formats (see e.g. his take on inter-connectivity and inequality here), it can't be a good sign if his official campaign message consists of word salad - particularly if the plan is to have Wotherspoon defend non-specifics in a debate format against his policy-savvy competitors.

Key Indicator

Of course, Wotherspoon's base may not see a campaign of broad generalities as reason to change course. But we'll want to keep a close eye on his approval among other candidates' supporters and undecided voters: if weaknesses in Wotherspoon's message and presentation are seen to trump his charisma among those without a personal stake in his campaign, he may be in for a rough race.

Key Opponent

Not surprisingly, the most important opponent for Wotherspoon looks to be Cam Broten - who has thus far combined a comparable level of institutional support with a more clear set of values.

Wotherspoon may have separate paths to victory based on either taking an insurmountable lead on the first ballot, or assembling enough support within the Meili and Weir camps to fend off Broten in a multi-ballot vote. But the two may involve substantially different strategies as the campaign progresses.
 
Plausible Outcomes
Best-case: First-ballot victory based on strong organization and personal appeal
Worst-case: Mid-place finish as members coalesce around other candidates' values and policy proposals

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The Star recognizes the danger facing anybody who tries to convince a Con MP to listen to constituents' concerns - as the Cons don't care enough to respond to specific appeals, but will be happy to use whatever information they can gather for future marketing purposes.

- Meanwhile, Don Lenihan suggests we should be more concerned with properly regulating location-based data generally than the comparatively small amount of personal information collected by political parties. But I'm not sure how he draws a distinction between location information and other personal information - and if anything, the argument to regulate political parties' use of data looks even stronger to me if there's a real possibility that location-based data might allow them to anticipate or determine where any voter is at any given time.

- The Harper Cons may have decided to axe the National Council on Welfare. But thanks to Sixth Estate, the Council's work won't be similarly disappeared.

- Finally, Joan Bryden reports on the current state of statements by members in the House of Commons. But I'm particularly skeptical of the proposed reform by one former Harper staffer:

Beardsley said the Speaker should formulate strict, new guidelines for members' statements or "do away with them altogether."

Of course, that wouldn't stop the Cons from being as abusive as they like during ongoing debates in Parliament. But it would severely restrict the range of subjects discussed, as statements by members and question period are effectively the only two times when MPs can choose their topic rather than being bound by a schedule that's mostly imposed by the Cons.

Which means that Beardsley's proposal really looks to be just one more attempt to declare that the Cons' abuses should limit other parties' MPs in making use of a valuable tool to raise topics of interest which don't figure in the Harper agenda.

Leadership 2013 Candidate Profile: Ryan Meili

Ryan Meili started the 2009 Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign at a distinct disadvantage against his opponents in terms of both time and name recognition. But he nonetheless came within just over five hundred votes of emerging as the party's leader.

For the 2013 campaign, Meili starts out as much more of a known quantity. But this doesn't look to be the type of contest where the previous runner-up is anointed as a favourite. So will he end up doing as well in a radically different race?

Strengths

Once again, there's plenty of upside to Meili's candidacy. In the previous campaign, he built on a solid resume by proving himself to be both an engaging campaigner and a strong policy thinker. And Meili has developed both of those strengths in the time since - writing a well-received book and making connections around the country to expand on those he developed in 2009.

In addition, Meili should have some organizational advantages based on the fact that he's run a leadership campaign before. But as I'll discuss shortly, it's not yet clear how much of a plus that factor will be. 

Weaknesses

While Meili stood out among the crowd in the previous leadership campaign, this isn't the 2009 field of candidates - where Yens Pedersen struggled to gain traction, Deb Higgins got stuck in neutral, and Dwain Lingenfelter provided an ideal foil for a message of youth and renewal. Instead, Meili will have three tough competitors for the title of "fresh young face" to lead the party - all of whom have spent more time in the public eye than he has over the past few years.

Moreover, Meili won't have the element of surprise on his side this time. And that means he'll likely face far more scrutiny from his rivals' camps than he did last time out, even as he faces a more difficult task in drawing contrasts that work in his favour.
 
Key Indicator

At the outset, the key question for Meili looks to be how much of his previous support is still in his camp and actively engaged to start the new campaign.

If he starts out with a machine of similar size, skill and enthusiasm as the one which wound up in his camp by the end of the previous campaign, Meili could once again far outperform expectations - which this time might mean a resounding victory. But if he hasn't locked in that past support, he may face a much tougher fight in trying to grow from his existing base.

Key Opponent

While I don't rule out the possibility that Meili could win on the first ballot (after all, sometimes past performance does hint at future results), his more likely path to victory would involve a final-ballot contest against Trent Wotherspoon. And it'll be particularly important for Meili not to be left behind by Wotherspoon's fast start in member outreach - lest he lose out on the HOAG factor based on his simply not reaching as many voters.
 
Plausible Outcomes
Best-case: First-ballot victory as more experience, time and exposure pave the way for a resounding win
Worst-case: Fourth-place finish as competitors eat into previous areas of growth

On likely stories

Yes, last week's attempt to call anti-immigrant bigots to testify before the Standing Committee on Immigration turned into a debacle for the Cons (thanks in no small part to a quick opposition response). But there's reason to doubt any claim that it was merely an innocent mistake.

After all, one of the Cons' first strategies to control committee proceedings (as contained in their dirty tricks manual) was to exercise strict top-down control over witness lists:

Last year, the governing Conservatives prepared a secret handbook on how to disrupt parliamentary committees and create chaos. No mere pamphlet, the book ran to 200 pages.

It instructed committee chairmen to select blatantly biased witnesses and tutor them in advance.

Nothing seems to have changed since the Cons took a majority in Parliament: they've continued to dictate who they want to allow to testify while shutting out anybody who might have anything inconvenient to say. And indeed, it was just last year that the Cons made a coordinated effort to institutionalize secrecy as to how witnesses were selected.

So barring some rather compelling evidence to the contrary, the general rule looks to be that witness selection is just as much a matter of party control as anything else the Cons do.

At the very least, that should create serious doubt about the Cons' story that their own witnesses are being chosen through a haphazard, second-cousin-of-a-constituent-who-heard-of-a-guy process. Which is the closest to an excuse they've offered for singling out hate groups to talk about immigration - conceding utter incompetence on the part of one MP in order to try to escape questions about the entire party's sympathy for bigotry.

That itself would create reason for criticism. But there's reason to be skeptical of the Cons' cover story - and the more control they continue to exercise over witnesses and how they're chosen, the more reason there will be to doubt that their choice of immigration witnesses was really a matter of one MP acting alone.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your weekend.

- For those wondering where progressive leaders are going with their policy proposals, the last week offered a couple of noteworthy examples. At home, Tom Mulcair's Canadian Club speech commented on the importance of real roles for the government and the public in making economic decisions:

A thriving private sector will, thankfully, always be at the heart of our national economy, and the engine of our economic growth.

But there’s also a commonsense role for government to play in building the fairer, more prosperous Canada that we all want.

There’s a commonsense role for government to play in creating the right environment of stability and predictability that business relies on to profit.

In ensuring sound economic policy that fosters productivity and competitiveness—without sacrificing long-term sustainability.

And investing in an economy better equipped to meet the demands of the 21st century: In knowledge, in research and development, in a more skilled workforce, in matching skills to jobs.

There is a pretty convincing argument for the role of government in science, education and innovation.

The best way to create wealth in a society is to increase knowledge.

 - Meanwhile, Ed Miliband made the case for greater wage "predistribution" as an essential part of a fairer society:

Instead of redistributing wealth through the tax and benefit system, there should be more "predistribution", the Labour leader said in a speech.

That meant better vocational training in schools - but also a change in attitude from business.

He called for more "responsible" firms that focused on the long-term.

...
"Predistribution is about saying, 'We cannot allow ourselves to be stuck with permanently being a low-wage economy and hope that through taxes and benefits we can make up the shortfall.'

"It's not just, nor does it enable us to pay our way in the world.

"Our aim must be to transform our economy so it is a much higher skill, much higher wage economy.

"Think about somebody working in a call centre, a supermarket, or in an old peoples' home.

"Redistribution offers a top-up to their wages. Predistribution seeks to go further - higher skills with higher wages."

- Meanwhile, we've also seen plenty of examples of the opposite goals from the Cons. Bruce Johnstone discusses how they've quite deliberately given away the farm in the name of trade deals without actually getting anything in return, while pogge rightly notes that the price of deregulation (using the latest e. coli outbreak as an example) is unacceptable even leaving aside the consumer toll.

- Finally, a group of labour researchers responds to the right-wing attempt to shackle unions in the name of "accountability" with a few suggestions as to how the Wall government could try to improve in that area itself.

Leadership 2013 Candidate Profile: Erin Weir

Erin Weir has wasted no time in carving out a place within the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign - with a pre-campaign "draft" movement presaging a quick launch once the campaign officially started. But what can we expect from him as the leadership race progresses? 

Strengths

First and foremost, Weir brings to the leadership campaign a strong base of economic and public-policy expertise - with a focus on resource royalties which ties in ideally to the decisions Saskatchewan faces as a province in the midst of a resource boom. So his campaign enjoys a ready-made central theme and rallying point.

In addition, Weir has ample experience and skill as a public advocate - meaning that he has a chance to stand out within the field in media and debate settings on topics going beyond economics.

Weaknesses

But it's less clear how Weir will fare when it comes to winning over actual and potential members in up-close-and-personal settings - particularly in contrast to Trent Wotherspoon and Ryan Meili. And I"m not sure that the campaign's current workaround will pay off in the end.

In fairness, Weir is engaging in some innovative means of reaching out to people with an interest in the race, and putting in plenty of appearances at public events. But he also looks to be putting substantial effort into media appearances as a perpetual voice in response to economic news - which looks to me to distract from both his ability to reach out to people in person, and his potential to chart a strong policy course which forces his leadership competitors and the Saskatchewan Party to respond on his terms.

Key Indicator

Which is to say that the defining question for Weir figures to be this: how much time and effort will other key political figures in the province spend responding to his cues on policy?

If Weir is able to both define the policy parameters of the leadership race and ensure that they're a major topic of discussion, then members will have to take a close look at how that ability might translate into the broader political scene. But if the main focus isn't on policy, then Weir may have trouble gaining much traction.

Key Opponent

The most obvious hurdle for Weir will be getting ahead of one opponent whose supporters might select him as a second choice - with the best-case scenario for him likely being a fourth-place finish for Meili which frees up the votes of non-establishment members.

That said, the larger issue is whether Weir can then win over supporters of one of the MLAs in the race once there are only two choices remaining. And that makes Cam Broten the most important opponent for Weir's chances: it's entirely plausible that Broten's supporters might see Weir as a preferable choice on a final ballot against Wotherspoon, but less likely that any of the factors leading to first-ballot support for Wotherspoon would do Weir much good on a final ballot against Broten.
 
Plausible Outcomes
Best-case: Late-ballot victory based on uniting activists and policy-focused voters
Worst-case: Fourth-place finish as other candidates maintain their higher profiles

Comments

Since Echo's comment system is being discontinued, I've reverted back to Blogspot's commenting system for now.

Please let me know if you have any issues in posting new comments. I'll be working on importing previous comments, and will hopefully have all of them together before too long.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

The last time the Saskatchewan Roughriders beat the B.C. Lions, the storyline involved Saskatchewan getting just enough breaks to overcome a seeming gap in talent. But last night, the 'Riders managed to win an entirely different type of game.

The 'Riders' offence was perfectly prepared for the CFL's toughest defence: a constant two-back threat from Kory Sheets and Jock Sanders kept the ball moving on nearly every 'Rider possession, while Weston Dressler took advantage of some unusual breakdowns in coverage to put together what may be the best half of play I've ever seen from a Saskatchewan receiver. And Darian Durant (behind a remarkably effective offensive line) neatly took advantage of the opportunities to put 27 points on the board - including a crucial late touchdown strike to Greg Carr at the point in the game when his offence has all too often shut down.

Meanwhile, the 'Riders' defence put together what may have been its best performance of the season, overmatching one of the CFL's top offences through most of the game.

Even with their full, star-studded slate of receivers on the field in the first half, the Lions couldn't put together any big plays against the 'Riders. And the entire defence deserves credit for that result: Travis Lulay faced blanket coverage when he did throw deep passes, and also had his timing disrupted by a steady pass rush.

Nor did B.C. manage much of a ball-control game through the better part of four quarters. Instead, the Lions' two touchdown drives were built on desperation heaves at the end of the game - at the point when throwing into coverage and hoping for the best was their only option.

Like the offence, the 'Riders' defence then rose to the occasion when it counted most, shutting down the Lions' final drive without allowing a single completion.

What's more, the fact that the Lions came as close as they did was mostly the result of a number of fluke plays going against the 'Riders. The single turnover in the 'Riders' favour before the final drive was immediately followed by Durant's lone interception; Drew Willy uncharacteristically turned the ball over on a short-yardage play to hand B.C. the ball with great field position; and Taj Smith gave the Lions one last chance by muffing an onside kick reception.

Which means that as much as the 'Riders proved in yesterday's win, they once again have significant room to do better. And neither B.C. nor Calgary figures to have an easy job trying to stay ahead of the 'Riders in the standings as long as Saskatchewan keeps up yesterday's performance level.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Thomas Walkom discusses how the McGuinty Libs are going beyond imposing immediate pay freezes on the public sector, and instead passing what's better seen as the War on Workers Measures Act - giving Ontario's government the power to dictate labour outcomes by decree without any forum for review:

If approved by the legislature, the Protecting Public Services bill would allow the government to not just freeze the wages it pays to unionized employees — ranging from nurses to home care workers to hydro linemen — but roll them back.

It would give cabinet the power to scrap or modify salary grids — as it has already done with the province’s teachers. The government would also be able to unilaterally change or eliminate any non-wage benefits unionized public sector workers now receive.

And the bill would bar unions from either striking or appealing such decisions to the courts.
For essential services such as hospitals, where workers are already barred from striking, the bill would prevent contract arbitrators from basing their rulings on either the Canadian constitution or the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Indeed, the arbitration section is perhaps the most internally contradictory part of the draft legislation.

Arbitration is based on the notion of having a fair-minded umpire decide issues that management and workers cannot. But this bill would allow that fair-minded umpire’s decision to be overturned by the government, which to all intents and purposes is management.

 - Toby Sanger points out that even the Fraser Institute's latest studies serve to thoroughly undermine blind faith in a corporatist market - at least, if one reads past the heavily-spun headlines to the actual data.

- George Monbiot highlights the social denialism of the uber-rich:

We could call it Romnesia: the ability of the very rich to forget the context in which they made their money. To forget their education, inheritance, family networks, contacts and introductions. To forget the workers whose labour enriched them. To forget the infrastructure and security, the educated workforce, the contracts, subsidies and bailouts the government provided.
...
As the developed nations succumb to extreme inequality and social immobility, the myth of the self-made man becomes ever more potent. It is used to justify its polar opposite: an unassailable rent-seeking class, deploying its inherited money to finance the seizure of other people's wealth.
The crudest exponent of Romnesia is the Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart. "There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," she insists. "If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain; do something to make more money yourselves – spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising and more time working … Remember our roots, and create your own success."

Remembering her roots is what Rinehart fails to do. She forgot to add that if you want to become a millionaire – in her case a billionaire – it helps to inherit an iron ore mine and a fortune from your father and to ride a spectacular commodities boom. Had she spent her life lying in bed and throwing darts at the wall, she would still be stupendously rich.

Rich lists are stuffed with people who either inherited their money or who made it through rent-seeking activities: by means other than innovation and productive effort. They're a catalogue of speculators, property barons, dukes, IT monopolists, loan sharks, bank chiefs, oil sheikhs, mining magnates, oligarchs and chief executives paid out of all proportion to any value they generate. Looters, in short. The richest mining barons are those to whom governments sold natural resources for a song. Russian, Mexican and British oligarchs acquired underpriced public assets through privatisation, and now run a toll-booth economy. Bankers use incomprehensible instruments to fleece their clients and the taxpayer. But as rentiers capture the economy, the opposite story must be told.

- But even as the corporatist worldview is exposed as a sham, Patrick Diamond notes that there's still plenty of need for progressive parties to better describe and defend an alternative.

- Finally, Gerald Caplan responds to the inevitable wave of talk about a Justin Trudeau leadership run by asking a rather pertinent question as to whether the Libs themselves take him seriously based on his roles in the party's caucus.

Musical interlude

Paul van Dyk feat. Plumb - I Don't Deserve You

Friday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Like so many games this season, the 'Riders' most recent win against Calgary ended up closer than it had to. But at least this time, Saskatchewan emerged on top - signalling that the 'Riders are starting to combine the ability to outplay their opponents throughout the game with a late-game killer instinct just when it matters most.

Throughout the game, the 'Riders' offensive line (though still in a state of flux) stood out in providing protection for a hobbled Darian Durant, while also clearing space for a rushing attack featuring both Kory Sheets and Jock Sanders. And the extra bit of time and space was enough to get the entire offence working better than it has through much of the season - a particularly important development late in the game when the Stamps were bound to pressure the 'Riders on every play.

Moreover, Durant finally looks to be managing the play clock and using his snap count against opposing defenders. For ages, his habit has been to let the clock run down on nearly every play, giving the defence time to set and eliminating any doubt about when the ball has to be snapped. But Sunday he drew at least one offside penalty, and generally seemed to keep the Stamps confused as to when plays were starting. Which should make for an extra challenge for defences who are already facing a growing range of different threats.

Meanwhile, the 'Riders' defence was stellar through three quarters (giving up its lone touchdown following a failed fake punt). And even after multiple injuries, it was just good enough to shut down the Stamps' late-game comeback attempt.

On that front, I'll give credit to Odell Willis for standing out when it mattered most. No, he hasn't consistently managed to keep pressure on opposing quarterbacks after being hailed as a major acquisition: in fact, one of the biggest problems in the 'Riders' previous late-game collapses has been their inability to disrupt opposing offences. But with two defensive linemen injured against Calgary, Willis turned into a one-man pass rush at the end of the game - and the 'Riders can more than afford the occasional drive-extending penalty if Willis can keep the opponent's quarterback from making plays.

Finally, I'll note that yesterday's game likely made for the first time in 2012 the 'Riders were able to beat a tough divisional opponent in a game where plenty could have gone better. The aforementioned fake punt was likely a shrewd call even if it didn't turn out; the injuries on defence forced Saskatchewan to improvise its late-game lineup; and the 'Riders' defence came within inches of several more interceptions than the two that registered in the stat line. Which means that even after an important victory, there's ample room left to grow as the season winds down.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Althia Raj reports on the Cons' concerted effort to undermine organized labour in Canada (along with anybody else who might object to putting the interests of dirty oil and dirty money above the needs of citizens):

Behind the rhetoric about “union bosses” and “transparency” lies a strategy, political observers say, that stokes controversies and throws up red herrings in order to force key opponents on the defensive — in this case, Canada’s labour movement and the NDP.

“The whole approach is not to push your guy but to totally demean and to discredit and to vilify your opponent so that the only person left standing in the ring is your own person,” said Nelson Wiseman, a political scientist at University of Toronto.
...
Critics of the government, such as Sierra Club of Canada executive director John Bennett, see a wider game of political distraction at play — the kind the Tories perfected last winter when they accused environmental groups of being radicals backed by foreign interests.

For months, environmentalists were forced to explain their activities and funding sources while the Harper government crafted a budget that scrapped decades of environmental legislation the groups had fought for.

The campaign began in January, when Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver suggested “radical groups” were out to destroy Canada’s economy. Environment Minister Peter Kent raised the spectre of charitable groups “laundering” foreign funds in Canada. And Conservative senators launched an inquiry into the "interference of foreign foundations in Canada’s domestic affairs and their abuse of Canada’s existing Revenue Canada charitable status.”

“It was a total distraction,” Bennett said. “I think that is what they wanted us to do — to be messaging not the vision of a sustainable future but rather the complaints of an interest group.

“And I think they are doing the same thing to the unions,” he said.

- Meanwhile, Kathryn May highlights the next step in the attack on public-sector workers, as the Cons are trying to impose a two-tier workforce.

- And Adam Radwanski discusses the McGuinty Libs' plans to test the limits as to how many labour rights they can strip away under the Charter. Which would be a dubious enough strategy even if it wasn't based on a false claim that public-sector wages are headed in a different direction than private-sector ones.

- Charmaine Borg stands up for the privacy concerns of Canadians in the wake of Facebook's timeline fiasco. And Megan Leslie calls for an end to the Cons' shredding of environmental standards.

- Finally, Paul Wells catches some major problems in the China trade deal the Cons want to push through without debate:

Why am I dragging you through all this business about dispute-settlement arbitration? Because things are getting crazy out there, and by “out there” I mean “wherever China doesn’t like the way a business deal turns out.” Say hello to Belgium, where on Monday the Chinese insurance company Ping An filed an arbitration claim worth $3 billion. In 2008 a Chinese SOE bought a Belgian bank. The global economy went through the ensuing turmoil and the Chinese firm lost its shirt. Which is, you know, life, but the Chinese firm figures the government of Belgium owes it the $3 billion it lost, and the arbitration mechanism will now consider the claim seriously.

“This might signal the beginning of a wave of Chinese claims if you think about the commodities they’ve been buying, and the investments they’ve made in commodity-related companies around the world,” a British trade lawyer told Reuters, while freaking ominous music played in the background if you’re reading his quote in Canada. ”There are bound to be any number of outward investments they have made in the last five to ten years which may now be starting to run into problems.”

So, you know, good luck. The FIPA, tabled yesterday, is available for consultation at the link above for 21 Parliamentary sitting days, at which point it comes into force without need for a vote in the House of Commons.

That's right: in addition to facilitating a takeover of our natural resources, the Cons may also be committing to have the Canadian public foot the bill for any investments that don't turn out as hoped. 

On healthy choices

It looks like the federal NDP is starting to highlight some of its priorities as an alternative government in order to better frame Canada's political debate. And while its first offering on health care includes some relatively low-hanging fruit (it's truly sad that "not gratuitously boosting drug costs by billions" makes for a genuine point of contrast rather than an obvious consensus view), a focus on the social determinants of health looks like a major step forward in tying the public's concerns about health to broader social issues:

What the federal government should do:
Promote living conditions that support good health through many different initiatives:

• Decent incomes: making sure every Canadian has access to decent jobs and working conditions;
• Food: establishing a pan-Canadian strategy for ensuring access to quality food;
• Housing: working with the provinces to establish a national affordable housing strategy;
• Strong social safety net: ensuring secure pensions, accessible Employment Insurance and policies to end poverty;
• Aboriginal living conditions: the federal government has failed in its responsibility to ensure proper health services, education, housing and clean water in aboriginal communities. It is time these communities had the resources they need.

And I'll be particularly curious to see how Canada's other federal parties will respond.

For the Cons, the NDP's health message neatly answers the Harper dodge about jurisdiction: even if health care is a matter of provincial administrative responsibility, there's plenty the federal government could and should be doing to promote a healthier Canada. And the recognition that the Cons will have to respond to an alternative political vision generally figures to limit their ability to control our federal political debate.

Meanwhile, a strong set of policy proposals from the NDP figures to shape the platforms of Lib leadership contenders looking for messages which will be amplified elsewhere on the Canadian political scene. But if too many candidates end up merely echoing ideas already on offer from the official opposition, that may only encourage questions as to whether the Libs serve any useful purpose as a party.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- The CCPA's Christopher Schenk offers up a detailed response to the Sask Party's attacks on workers, featuring this conclusion:

In a period of widening inequality restrictive labour laws are blatantly unnecessary and regressive. Indeed, their consideration is shocking when one considers that 34% of the workforce has neither full-time work nor job security, but occupies jobs that are termed contingent or precarious, including casual employment, irregular part time work, contract work, temporary work and self employment... This growing percentage of the workforce, which generally receives low pay and no benefits, needs an economic lift and unionization, not laws that negatively impact living standards. The literature discussed above strongly suggests that RTW-type laws, contrary to Rand formula-based laws, are both inefficient and serve to slow economic growth. Saskatchewan and the rest of Canada need to move away from austerity policies and weak economic recovery and toward environmentally sustainable economic growth that allows those who need and want to work to do so in a more democratic, equitable society. Unionization contributes to this end and labour laws should respond accordingly.

- Eric Grenier criticizes an increased level of partisanship in Parliamentary statements by members. But I'll note that there's a happy medium to be found between dispensing talking points and Grenier's mention of "(wishing) good luck to the contestants in that year’s edition of Canadian Idol" as an example of civility. And so the better measure of whether MPs are making effective use of their opportunities should probably be how many actually talk about policy, rather than how many use the time for messages that are of little relevance to functions of government.

- pogge comments on how the Cons are going ever further in trying to shut down the flow of any information which might reveal what they're doing while in power - with Kevin Page's Parliamentary Budget Office being frozen out just as thoroughly as the opposition and the public.

- Finally, Murray Mandryk rightly points out some examples of how a lack of investment in needed infrastructure can have direct and disastrous consequences for citizens. And Heather Scoffield reports that investing in housing in particular can save far higher costs of providing emergency services.

New column day

Here, on how Mitt Romney's attacks on 47% of American voters is an all-too-natural consequence of rhetoric about taking citizens "off the tax rolls".

For further reading...
- Chuck Marr and Chye-Ching Huang discuss the real tax rate faced by people who bring in less than the income-tax threshold here.
- For examples of exactly that principle being used in Canada, see here, here, here and here (PDF, at p. 8).
- But while it was far too willing to buy into the message in government, the Saskatchewan NDP isn't far off the mark in responding while in opposition.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Mike McBane and Stuart Trew note that Canada can't afford to sign on to yet another massive giveaway to big pharma:

An Ipsos Reid poll commissioned by the Council and the health coalition and released last week shows that what would normally be high support for a Canada-EU trade deal in principle (81 per cent) bottoms out to only 31 per cent when asked if CETA should extend patent protections for brand name drugs. Canadians clearly recognize the importance of trade to the economy, but they are not comfortable with those parts of CETA that will give more monopoly rights to Big Pharma.

And really, why should they be? This is an industry that can’t seem to make enough money but which consistently spends twice as much (at least) on advertising as it does on new research and development for truly new products. In 2011, according to the Forbes 500 list of richest companies, the top 10 pharmaceuticals makers collected over $74 billion in profits. Pfizer, the richest Big Pharma firm on the list, took home profits of $10 billion.

But as a percentage of sales, brand name R&D funding for innovation is now 5.6 per cent, the lowest rate since 1988, according to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board’s 2012 annual report. This is despite a promise from the brand name drug sector to the Mulroney government way back when to spend 10 per cent of sales consistently on new product development in return for patent extensions and other new protections.

If these firms are not living up to that promise today, should we trust them to live up to it after Canada signs this new trade deal with the EU?

-  Daniel Schwartz figures out how Jason Kenney may have used a privacy loophole to send out his creepy e-mail to LGBT rights supporters: if the petition supporting Alvaro Orozco went to Kenney's parliamentary e-mail address, it wouldn't be subject to the same protection that would apply if it went only to his department.

- Which is to say that much as I agree with her diagnosis that the Harper Cons are undermining democracy, Carol Goar's suggestion to try to get the attention of Con MPs may only provide them with information they can use to harass or manipulate voters as they see fit. (Instead, I'd suggest that the "political activism" option deserves rather more attention than Goar gives it.)

- Meanwhile, Lawrence Martin identifies the same problem while fearing there's not much of a solution to be found.

- Finally, Susan Riley theorizes that the Cons will eventually accept carbon pricing. And while I'm not so optimistic, I'd have to agree with Riley's view as to what it will take for that to happen: if and only if the oil sector itself demands greenhouse gas emission regulation, then the Cons will establish the weakest system anybody is prepared to accept as sufficient.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Playful cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Chris Hayes notes that Mitt Romney's $50,000-a-plate dinner caught on video represents a rare glimpse inside the U.S.' plutocracy - as well as a strong argument as to why we shouldn't allow that group to decide policy affecting the public at large:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

- Meanwhile, Linda McQuaig notes that Mitt Romney's great mistake was to expose a bit too much of what his party has long stood for.

- The CP documents the latest example of the Cons trying to distance themselves from mere commoners - as a much-ballyhooed Tony Clement Twitter town hall actually involved an exercise in underlings delivering pre-determined spin on his behalf.

- But that of course ranks a distant second as the most disturbing story about the Cons' manipulation of online interaction with Canadians, as Glen McGregor posts and writes about Jason Kenney's creepy e-mail to GLBT advocates. And it's well worth noting that the use of e-mail addresses supplied on a petition to a federal department as conduits for talking point delivery looks to be as clear an example as we've seen of the Cons' politicization of every piece of information they can collect - not to mention flagrant disregard for the federal Privacy Act and its protection of personal information.

- Finally, the Mound of Sound notes that income inequality in the U.S. may be worse today than in the era of slavery.

Leadership 2013 Candidate Profile - Cam Broten

As promised, let's start taking a closer look at the four candidates in Saskatchewan's NDP leadership race - starting with Cam Broten as the first to formally announce his candidacy.

Strengths

To the extent NDP members plan to vote based a checklist of experience and personal traits, Broten is positioned as well as any of the contenders. He's in his second term as an elected MLA; he served as chair of the NDP's most recent policy renewal process; and he has a strong reputation as an opposition critic.

Moreover, Broten has also shown enough organization to shape the race to his advantage. Not only was he the first to launch his campaign, he smartly used that opportunity to get a head start in defining himself while also releasing a fairly detailed platform from day one.

Weaknesses

But then, there's a reason why self-definition was a priority for Broten's campaign.To start with, his public presentation so far has been mostly as a member of the NDP's team of candidates rather than as an individual - and the relatively blank slate obviously needs to be filled in.

That said, the greater issue for Broten will be whether he can move past merely reaching the minimum criteria, and win over voters by standing out in any particular area - be it personal appeal, policy or vision. And that will be no easy task in a field where each of his competitors excels in at least one of those areas.

Key Indicator

First-choice support.

Broten should be well positioned to earn final-ballot support regardless of who else stays in the race: on a final ballot against Wotherspoon he should be the favourite to win over the votes of policy- and values-oriented voters from the Meili and Weir camps, while any other final-ballot opponent would likely send a good chunk of Wotherspoon's institutional support into Broten's hands.

But either of those outcomes requires that Broten impress enough voters early on to remain as one of the final two choices.

Key Opponent

And the greatest danger for Broten's campaign on that point looks to come from Ryan Meili. It's still an open question as to how (if at all) we should discount Meili's 2009 level of support based on a different field of candidates. But he looks to have both a reasonable chance of ranking ahead of Broten on the first ballot, and an obvious advantage when it comes to pulling support from Weir voters if Broten doesn't have a substantial lead.

That combination raises a real possibility that Broten's campaign could go the way of Deb Higgins' 2009 run, with a plausible multiple-ballot path to victory as a compromise candidate snuffed out by a lack of early-ballot enthusiasm.

Plausible Outcomes
Best-case: Mid-ballot victory based on moderate lead on multiple ballots
Worst-case: Early-ballot exit if campaign doesn't generate strong personal support base

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- The Economist adds a noteworthy voice to the chorus calling for greater tax enforcement to ensure the corporate elite pays its fair share:

Characterising this steady financing as short-term lending is “the ultimate example of form over substance” and undermines a fundamental tenet of American tax policy, huffed Mr Levin. When an HP executive tried to insist the manoeuvre did not constitute profit repatriation, the senator wielded an internal HP document in which it was discussed—in the repatriation-strategy section. The Senate investigators said they suspected other companies were doing the same thing but couldn’t say how prevalent the practice was.

Who to blame for all this darting through loopholes? To no one’s surprise, Mr Levin pointed the finger mostly at the companies that engage in “tax alchemy”.
...
The rule-setters and enforcers deserve their share of the blame. It is true that enforcement of arm’s-length deals is tricky because no two intangible assets are quite the same, making it hard to establish a fair price. Moreover, the IRS has to rely in part on the taxpaying company’s own projections of cash flows, risks and so on. But the agency leans too often on the side of leniency. It does not help that transfer-pricing regulations have grown unwieldy. Some experts describe them as unworkable.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board also took some flak at the hearing. Jack Ciesielski, an independent accounting expert, was scathing about a FASB exception that allows firms to avoid reporting and reserving for American tax liabilities for foreign earnings if they plan to invest these “permanently” overseas—a loophole that they continue to exploit even as they lobby for a tax break so they can bring those same profits home.

By focusing on a few striking cases, Mr Levin and his staff have increased their chances of making a splash with an issue that many find mind-numbingly technical. And profit-shifting is, as he put it, doubly problematic today, given the fragility of the economy and the fact that corporate-tax receipts are at historic lows as a percentage of federal revenue. Expect the IRS to take a dimmer view of avoidance schemes going forward. Whether it will prove a match for the multinationals’ phalanxes of lawyers and beancounters is another matter.

- In case there was any doubt how the power imbalance between employers and workers in Canada is being exploited, CJME confirms that gas station attendants in Saskatchewan - as in Ontario and elsewhere - are being encouraged to risk life and limb to avoid being docked pay based on gas theft. And Wendy Stueck reports on the unsafe living conditions facing temporary agricultural workers in British Columbia.

- For those worried that Robocon wasn't being investigated beyond the most glaring case in Guelph, Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor confirm that Elections Canada is looking into plenty more citizens' concerns.

- Dr. Dawg and Colby Cosh tear into the Globe and Mail and its public editor for a pitiful response to compelling concerns about plagiarism.

- Finally, Rick Mercer rants as to why we need to rant more often. But I'll add that while a good rant can help to define a problem, the words don't go far if not paired with some plan to solve it.

Peter Kent's Doomed Lemonade Stand

Aaron Wherry generously debunks Peter Kent's latest farcical spin only within the climate change debate, rather than fitting it into a general governance framework. But while I'll stick with my previous take on what the Cons really hope to accomplish in spinning about climate change, it's worth noting just what Kent would be saying if taken at face value:

Kent acknowledges that the government's system of imposing regulations on polluting sectors of the economy comes with costs too, Kent says none of the money will be collected by the government.

"We have absolutely no revenue generation by our regulation of coal-fire," he said.

The coal rules are not free, however. Federal calculations estimate that the new rules in just that one sector will cost about $16 billion in today’s terms. About half of that is due to increased consumption of natural gas that will be the side-effect of cracking down on coal.

But Kent says there is a big difference between those costs and the NDP's costing of its carbon reduction plan. With the Conservative regulations, the costs are spread out over decades, and none of money goes directly to the government, he explained.

Now, keep in mind that this is a minister within the same government which is shutting down and selling off vital public services - depriving countless Canadians of life, limb or livelihood in the process - in the name of deficit reduction. Or, put another way, in the name of closing a gap between expenses and revenue.

One might then think that any even faintly competent administrator would consider more revenue to be a plus. And that goes doubly if the increased revenue is paired with a more efficient means of reaching another stated policy goal.

But according to Kent, the Cons' overriding principle in making government decisions is the glibertarian theory that "revenue = bad". Which would thoroughly disqualify his party from holding office based on the elementary test of being competent to run a lemonade stand. (Though it isn't exactly news that the Cons are more interested in finding creative ways to flog their workers than demonstrating competent organizational management.)

Moreover, by any reasonable comparison of climate change policies, the Cons would then be choosing to impose higher compliance costs on industry (and ultimately consumers) for the sole purpose of avoiding the "evil" of revenue - even when that revenue would serve to reduce exactly the deficit they claim to be fighting.

In sum, Kent's latest spin looks even worse if taken seriously than if brushed off as just another example of the Cons being willing to say anything to delay doing anything about climate change. And it will be worth challenging him to see just how much truth there is to the possibility the Cons really value nothing more than the opportunity to starve the federal government of the revenue it needs to balance the books.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your weekend.

- Jonathan Bernstein comments on how the U.S.' right-wing echo chamber may be preventing Mitt Romney and other Republicans from recognizing when their spin has no hope of convincing voters:

As Romney rolled out yet another of these insipid, implausible campaign talking points, however, it occurs to me that there's yet another reason that the GOP-aligned media makes it more likely that Romney will do these sorts of things, even if they don't actually move voters. I was thinking earlier that it was a case of the Republican press influencing the campaign: they keep talking about something, and Romney feels pressure to start talking about it too. But there's a laziness to all of this too, which is also a function of how easily influenced Fox News and the rest of them are. In the old days, a campaign would come up with a theme or a line-of-the-day, and then would have to work really hard to insert it into the (neutral) media. Oh, you could do it, but it took message discipline and some real effort.

But that's not true with campaigns right now and the partisan press -- and no question but that it's far more developed on the Republican side, although it certainly exists on both sides. All Romney's campaign has to do is pull out a sentence and call it a gaffe, and it instantly becomes one. It blows up on twitter, it goes straight to Fox News and most of the conservative radio shows...it's all over the place. Indeed, if it's in those places, it's also going to be in Politico and Buzzfeed, too. So on the one hand, it must encourage laziness to know that all you have to do is come up with something vaguely appropriate to movement conservatives in order to get that effect; on the other hand, it must just feel as if you're making something happen when you do it. And the more it hits the sort of things that the GOP-aligned media loves, the more you get the immediate effect. Really, for campaign operatives, it must be incredibly temping to do it.

There are even internal bureaucratic incentives. After all, it's never easy to measure whether some campaign line moved voters, but it's easy to measure how much it resonated in the press. And the more it appeals to movement conservatives in the media, the more you'll get that "hit."  So if you're in the Romney press office, it's just incredibly easy to monitor the president's speeches, pull out a "gaffe," turn it into a firestorm, and show your bosses that you've been productive. Sure, it might blow over in 24 hours without actually having any effect at all on voters, but who is going to point that out...in the midst of a campaign, who will even know?

Needless to say, I hope the Cons and their media wing don't take a lesson from the above.

- And there's plenty of reason to suspect that they don't recognize the dangers of feedback loops - such as the connection of a single PR firm to every step of W5's blocked attempts to get information about the Cons' F-35 debacle.

- Meanwhile, Nathan Vanderklippe writes that the Cons' predominant line of spin is running into reality beyond political control, as tar-sands operators are having to question whether constant expansion makes economic sense despite the Cons' efforts to make it their sole economic priority.

- Finally, Alice has unveiled her aggregator/almanac for federal Liberal leadership news. And Scott takes a look at the slogans and logos of Saskatchewan's NDP leadership candidates.

Leadership 2013 - The Basics

Before I start taking an individual look at the candidates in Saskatchewan's 2013 NDP leadership campaign, I'll point out a few areas of discussion from past leadership races which don't look to be matters of great distinction between the candidates this time out.

Endorsements

As I've noted before, I tend to see endorsements as a threshold issue with diminishing returns for a candidate. Aside from a basic level of publicly-stated support required to establish a candidate as a serious presence in a race (and subject to any surprising endorsements against type which help to change perceptions of the candidate), there's relatively little to be gained by listing names of supporters or serving up boilerplate endorsements.

In this campaign, all four of the announced candidates look to have met the basic level of initial support. Cam Broten and Trent Wotherspoon were both able to include multiple prominent MLAs past and present in their launches; Ryan Meili's support base looks to generally parallel his core group from the 2009 campaign; and Erin Weir's combination of MLAs, MPs and even former Manitoba Premier Howard Pawley easily meets the initial threshold.

From that starting point, the main effect of endorsements may be to signal failing campaigns (if endorsers start jumping ship), or to tie candidates to particular issues if prominent activists choose to take a side. But I wouldn't expect to see many endorsements substantially change the complexion of the campaign.

Websites

Similarly, I'd consider at least some effective and consistent online presence to be a must. But all four candidates meet that standard easily with neatly-designed and regularly-updated websites.

That said, there is some room for any candidate to stand out by figuring out ways of using the website which serve to better engage potential supporters. And on that front, there are a couple of initiatives worth noting: Weir is holding a digital town hall October 1 to introduce himself to interested observers, while Meili's campaign story looks like a noteworthy development in presenting a single, easily-accessed campaign narrative.

Online Support

Finally, another area of campaign strength combining the two above issues similarly looks to be less than decisive in trying to determine who has an edge.

While Jason has tracked Facebook "likes" so far, there doesn't look to be enough difference in either numbers or type to substantially distinguish the candidates yet. And I'll be hesitant to draw much from the Facebook numbers from here on in unless one candidate can cultivate an influx of new supporters within Saskatchewan who wouldn't otherwise figure to participate in the campaign.

Similarly, the campaigns have naturally taken online polls as an opportunity to show early-campaign support. But the one obvious example so far took multiple turns before Wotherspoon finally jumped to a substantial lead. And while that end result bodes well for Wotherspoon as a show of strength, I'd think it's most significant that all of the campaigns were able to move the needle at various points.

So with those factors looking like they won't serve to distinguish the current contenders, what should we watch for as the campaign develops? Not surprisingly, I'll have a few suggestions involving each candidate in posts to come.

Saturday Afternoon Links

This and that to end your Saturday.

- As pointed out by Paul Krugman, Kathleen Geier recognizes an obvious possible cause of a declining life expectancy for some less-wealthy Americans:

I will offer an alternative hypothesis, one which is not explicitly identified in the Times article: inequality. In the U.S., the period between 1990 and 2008, which is a period that saw such steep declines in life expectancy for the least well-off white people, is also a period during which economic inequality soared. Moreover, there is a compelling body of research that suggests that inequality itself — quite apart from low incomes, or lack of health insurance — is associated with more negative health outcomes for those at the bottom of the heap. One of the most famous series of studies of the social determinants of health, Britain’s Whitehall Studies, had as their subjects British civil servants, all of whom health insurance and (presumably) decent enough jobs. Intriguingly, these studies

found a strong association between grade levels of civil servant employment and mortality rates from a range of causes. Men in the lowest grade (messengers, doorkeepers, etc.) had a mortality rate three times higher than that of men in the highest grade (administrators).

...
I believe that inequality-related stressors are likely to be the determining factors in declining American life expectancies, as well. I’m surprised, in fact, that the Times article did not specifically identify inequality as a causal factor, because the health risks associated with economic inequality are well-established in the scientific literature. For decades, the United States has been making a series of political choices that has distributed wealth and power upwards and left working Americans not only poorer and sicker, but also feeling far more burdened and distressed, and experiencing far less security and control over their lives. The consequences of these choices have been devastating, and absent a dramatic reversal in our political course, they are likely to get even worse. Where inequality is concerned, Republicans have their foot on the accelerator, while the best the Democrats seem to be able to do is to (temporarily) put their foot on the brake.

- And Adam Davidson-Harden recognizes the need to reverse the trend of social backsliding arising out of increased inequality as a crucial reason why we need fight back against attacks on labour and other progressive forces:

If I was a betting man (which I'm not), I'd put my money behind the idea that the Ontario Liberals thought they could win a majority government out of declaring war on teachers in the recent round of byelections. Of course, they were wrong on that score, but they are still working on a strategy that banks on austerity as a key plank in their platform, from the Drummond report on.

The snake-oil consists of a fairly simple, business and bank-approved message: we can't afford social programs anymore. We need to retrench them and cut everything in the public sector. We don't have the money (repeat that last five times or more to get the general point). Meanwhile, Ontario sports some of the lowest corporate taxes in any developed economy.

Rolling over sends a message to the political prophets and priests of austerity. It says to them: 'well, maybe we have things too good after all. Maybe the rights, benefits and working conditions/learning conditions we've won are too much. Maybe we don't deserve them.' Rolling over under assault is giving up, and giving up is interpreted by employers and governments as simply acknowledging that they're right, that austerity is the default, inevitable, unavoidable, a universal fate of retrenching social programs.   

- Meanwhile, Althia Raj reports that Ontario is just one of far too many provinces with no interest in protecting its interests while negotiating the CETA. But it's worth noting that such agreements are normally designed to ensure the ongoing erosion of democratic power no matter who holds office at any given time: exemptions can't be added without other parties' agreement, but can be permanently destroyed by a single term of a right-wing government.

- Finally, John Geddes' profile of Tom Mulcair is well worth a read.

On single issues

Apparently today is Stadium Cheerleading Day in the Leader-Post. But in correctly noting that this fall's election will be decisive in determining whether a stadium goes ahead, Bruce Johnstone seems to me to give away the real choice voters face:

Of course, this doesn't mean that the stadium is the only issue in the coming municipal election. But it's the biggest single issue to face this council and this city in a generation.

Who isn't in favour of building a new water treatment plant, or fixing the roads or broken watermains, or recycling, or keeping taxes down? The stadium project is the big wedge issue in this campaign that very quickly divides voters into one camp or the other.

Now, it's probably true that few candidates want to admit they couldn't care less about such obvious needs as infrastructure and city services. 

But it's also obvious that the council incumbents mouthing their interest in those subjects have done nothing during their time in office to address them. Which makes for a stark contrast against how the current council has closed ranks and agreed to a long-term tax increase - just as long as it's directed toward the circus rather than bread, water or housing. 

So the question facing voters isn't merely whether to approve of a stadium, but whether to endorse a council which sees no other priorities as worth anywhere near the same level of time and effort. And I'll argue that anybody who can't see more important problems facing the city which deserve more attention can be dismissed as a viable candidate on that basis alone.

Saturday Morning 'Rider Blogging

It shouldn't come as much surprised that Drew Willy's first CFL start - against one of the league's elite teams - resulted in a loss for the Saskatchewan Roughriders. But even an eleven-point loss may have somewhat flattered the 'Riders.

The game story inevitably revolved largely around Willy. And while he again displayed some ability to avoid the rush, he also showed some tendencies which will need some significant work.

In particular, another reasonably high completion rate was built primarily on Willy's tendency to look for short, simple passes to the exclusion of any inclination to throw downfield. And with the exception of Kory Sheets' touchdown reception, those passes also weren't timed to allow for yards after the catch as an alternative to longer throws - with receivers regularly running into traffic or out of bounds as they caught the ball.

That might make for a relatively safe ball-control strategy for a single game. But it also severely limits a team's offensive production - and becomes more and more risky with time as opponents start to attack the shorter routes based on the reassurance they won't be punished for doing so.

Fortunately, Darian Durant will be back in the lineup this week - meaning that the Stampeders won't have quite the same advantage that the Als did. But the 'Riders' offence in general has had trouble connecting on big plays through most of 2012 - and a continued revolving door on the offensive line raises the question of whether Durant will have time to change that for the better.

Meanwhile, the 'Riders' defence and special teams looked relatively effective last week. However, it's worth noting that some of the results had less to do with Saskatchewan's performance than Montreal's: a half-dozen dropped passes by two of the CFL's top receivers went a long way in preventing the Als from putting the game out of reach, while Montreal's special teams failed to capitalize on some significant opportunities (including Jock Sanders' miscue in taking a punt off his helmet).

All of which is to say that there are still far more questions than answers as to what the 'Riders can do to stay competitive against the CFL's top teams. And while the continued struggles of the Esks, Ticats and Bombers have kept Saskatchewan in the playoff hunt, the prospect of the 'Riders developing into more than first-round cannon fodder is dimming by the week.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Business Insider reports on a new study from the U.S.' Congressional Research Service showing that in addition to exacerbating inequality, top-heavy tax cuts rank somewhere between useless and downright harmful when it comes to overall economic growth:

According to a new study by the Congressional Research Service (non-partisan), there's no evidence that tax cuts spur growth.

In fact, although correlation is not causation, when you compare economic growth in periods with declining tax rates versus periods with high tax rates, there seems to be evidence that tax cuts might hurt growth. But we'll leave that possibility for another day.
... The following charts show the correlation between tax rates and economic growth over the periods above. The slope of the solid line in each chart is the key.

The lefthand chart shows that there is no correlation between GDP growth and the top marginal tax rates. The righthand chart shows that there might be a very modest tendency toward faster economic growth with higher capital gains rates.

- Plenty of commentators are continuing to point out the Cons' lies, hypocrisy and broken promises when it comes to cap-and-trade - with Bruce Cheadle, Paul Wells, Stephen Maher and Colin Horgan all blasting the Cons while worrying that their blatant disregard for reality might succeed as a matter of political strategy. But of course, it's worth recognizing that the latter message may turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy: if pundits want to encourage more reality-based politics, it helps not to declare new heights of dishonesty as victories.

- Meanwhile, David Pugliese reports on the Cons' latest effort to hide facts about their government from Canadian citizens, as the Department of National Defence is being instructed to look for excuses to keep accurate information out of the public eye.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom salutes Rob Ford for daring to embody the form of self-absorbed exceptionalism which the Harper Cons try to keep hidden:

Modern conservatives believe the rules don’t apply to them. Various loopholes in the U.S. system ensure that Romney pays little or no income tax. But that’s all right. He’s Mitt Romney.

Yet if poor people or seniors use the same rules to pay no income tax, they’re just grifters.

Until he was caught, Romney had the grace to try and keep his real views on the rich and poor private. Ford doesn’t bother with such niceties.
...
Not that I would get rid of Ford. He may be useless as mayor. But he does have a role — one similar to that of a medieval king’s royal fool.

Ford reminds us of the absurdity of the powerful in general and the political right in particular. He is a piece of walking self-satire. Long may he reign.

Musical interlude

Jonas Steur - Sonrisa