Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- David Macdonald takes a closer look at a Fraser Institute study on income mobility, and finds strong evidence that there's a significant lack of mobility at both the bottom and the top of Canada's income distribution:

What should be very shocking to people is that in the shorter term panels, 50% of the poorest people in 2002 were still in the poorest category five years later (table 3).  That’s a pretty stunning conclusion.  For the second poorest category, a shocking 69% either ended up in the second poorest category or the poorest category (making even less).  So about 60% of the people in the bottom poorest categories were stuck there between 2002 and 2007.  That’s a lot of people living on very little income.  They are a bit mobile, but they are mobile between very poor and poor.  That’s not really the kind of mobility we should be looking for.

While the study focuses on the low end, there are some very interesting things going on at the upper end.  Take a look at table 6 for the top 20%.  The table does a “where are they now?” analysis over 19 years from 1990 to 2009.  For people that were in the top 20% in 1990, how many are still in the top 20% in 2009?  The answer is a whopping 64%.  Six out of 10 people that were in the top 20% in 1990 are still there today, two decades later.  Over a 10 year period between 1990 and 2000, almost 80% of the wealthy stayed at the top.

This is the opposite of income mobility, if you manage to slip into the exclusive club of wealthy Canadians it looks like you get a 10, if not a 20-year membership.  None of the other income groups are anywhere near that level of exclusivity.

- Meanwhile, Allison Jones reports on a Campaign 2000 study pointing out that it's possible to end child poverty in Canada by redirecting assorted tax credits. But I'd note that the contrast between universal benefits and the most narrow focus possible only serves as a means of pitting the currently-poor against the nearly-poor who are likely to lean heavily on the universal benefits - meaning that the real takeaway should be that it's possible to muster enough resources to end poverty in one form or another.

- Anne McGrath suggests applying a seven-generation test to Canada's international agreements, and finds the Cons' planned investor privilege pact with China to be sorely wanting by that standard:

The Iroquois had a rule: when making a major decision, consider its effects on the next seven generations.

It’s a good rule, one the Conservatives would do well to adopt. The reluctance of this government to submit the Canada-China FIPA (Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement) to parliamentary analysis and oversight deepens the apprehension many Canadians feel about the way we are pursuing trade and investment with China. Despite the government’s assurances, many remain unconvinced that the FIPA will be good for Canada in the long-term. Even its supporters acknowledge that further study and debate would be beneficial.
...
Given that under the current government Canada has gone from a $26 billion trade surplus to a $50 billion trade deficit, we cannot simply take it as gospel that a trade deal exempt from parliamentary scrutiny is in this country’s best interest.

Critics argue that FIPA promotes corporate rights at the expense of Canada’s democratic, environmental and social rights and may have negative consequences for this country for years to come. In the agreed terms, FIPA cannot be terminated for 15 years. What’s more, any investments made prior to the date of termination will stand for a further 15 years.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, in contrast, can be cancelled with six months’ notice. The impact of FIPA will be felt well beyond its 31-year duration and Canadians deserve to know it in detail.

 - But unfortunately, the Cons look to be applying a rather different lens to their dealings with the world.

- Finally, Bill Curry reports that the Senate is determined to remind people of its existence (and make a wrong-headed claim to relevance) by trashing a bill passed by Canada's actual elected representatives.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Floored cats.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your day.

- Frances Russell nicely sums up the effect of the Cons' bevy of anti-democratic trade deals:

Don’t be fooled. The innocuous language used to describe the avalanche of so-called “trade” agreements raining down on Canada under the Harper government — the TransPacific Partnership (TPP), the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Canada-China Foreign Investment Agreement, not to mention the plethora of single-country trade deals — aren’t about trade at all.

Their real purpose is to repeal democracy, to elevate investor/corporate rights over the democratic will of the people. Corporations — not governments — become the decision-makers, the de facto rulers.

This corporate coup d’etat is being accomplished through Orwellian investor rights clauses empowering corporations to sue governments, often for astronomical sums, should governments enact any laws for the public good that constrain corporate interests.

- But at least one of the deals mentioned by Russell looks like it may not come to pass - if only because the Harper Cons can't bear to see human rights protected in the process of handing more power to investors.

- Meanwhile, the NDP's position on trade has been receiving plenty of press lately - with Bruce Anderson pitching a focus on supporting some trade deals as a move toward the centre, while Murray Dobbin worries that it's becoming "Liberal-lite" in the process. But while at least some shift was to be expected after a leadership campaign where Tom Mulcair regularly defended NAFTA, I'd think there's ample room to fit a targeted set of possibilities into a message of multilateralism and social gains, while continuing to drawing a stark contrast to the corporatist tendency to trample all else in the name of marketization.

- Sandra Cuffe discusses how resource exploitation is destroying traditional First Nations and Metis territory in Western Canada.

- Finally, SOS Crowns weighs in on the Sask Party's ill-advised determination to privatize ISC after it had promised for two consecutive election cycles to leave our Crowns alone.

On competitive questions

There's been plenty of talk in recent weeks about how the Calgary Centre by-election might serve as either the time for an inter-party pact to limit voters' options opposing the Harper Cons, or a spur to future movement on the same front. But before we accept either of those arguments, let's point out that the same by-election also offers plenty of reasons to doubt the effectiveness of non-competition agreements.

Most obviously, Calgary Centre serves as an obvious case of doubt as to which opposition party is in fact best positioned to win. Two recent polls have shown a close race, but between three parties - meaning that we have very little way of even knowing who has the inside track to defeat Joan Crockatt based on their current starting point. (Keep in mind that the same problem arose in Ontario in 2011: at least some seats where "strategic voters" were admonished to vote Lib ended up as Con-NDP contests.)

And that uncertainty becomes doubly problematic given that even perfect information about which party is currently in second place may not tell us which has the best chance of winning a plurality of the vote. Is the Libs' brand toxic enough to lose Green voters who might otherwise form part of an opposition coalition? Or do the Libs have more ability to win over Red Tory voters who would see the Greens as too extreme? It's almost certainly too late to find out with any certainty - and absent some evidence that one candidate is substantially better positioned to assemble the needed number of voters to win, it's a fool's errand to try to organize votes based on guesswork.

Equally importantly, there's also the question of what a one-time pact would accomplish. The loss of a single seat won't put an end to Cons' stay in power, and Stephen Harper has never shown any inclination to move an inch off his chosen course of action based on concepts such as as "voters sending a message". Which means that even a successful attempt to translate anybody-but-Conservative votes into a by-election win will have a limited effect in practice.

And of course, the return from an added MP has to be weighed against what each other opposition party stands to lose by shedding by-election support. The NDP, Libs and Greens are all running strong candidates who would have been unlikely to pursue a nomination without some expectation that they'd receive the best support the party had to offer. And all three can justifiably see an opportunity to build off the infrastructure developed in the by-election in elections to come - even if the outcome on the 26th is another cringe-worthy trained seal in Harper's fold.

All of which is to say that I don't see a particularly compelling case to treat Calgary Centre as a scenario where parties or voters should set aside their long-term goals for the sake of a temporary celebration. Instead, far better to focus on building as much momentum as possible within each opposition party - with the goal of building opposition among Calgary's general public, rather than settling for a single MP as the be-all and end-all.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Laura Ryckewaert reports that Elections Canada's response to Robocon is now including an unprecedented level of public consultation, while Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor are digging deeper into voters' complaints at the time of the 2011 election. And Lawrence Martin recognizes the stakes involved in the Cons' gamble that nobody will get to the bottom of their robocalls:

Though nothing is conclusive, the revelations, which directly challenge the Conservatives’ version of events, can hardly be of comfort to Stephen Harper’s team. The story has become a whodunit with phenomenally high stakes. No democratic government found to have run a widespread vote-rigging operation is likely to survive.

Mr. Harper has denied any involvement by his party in a call campaign to misdirect voters. His 2011 campaign co-chair Guy Giorno, who said that suppressing the vote is a “despicable, reprehensible practice,” has been equally categoric.

In the run-up to voting day, EC officials had a list of complaints from 13 ridings. They found the alleged abuses so serious that, according to the Postmedia report, they immediately contacted Conservative Party lawyer Arthur Hamilton. He took a day to get back with a response that denied any wrongdoing, saying the calls were being made to ensure Conservative voters got to the right polling stations. Unsatisfied, EC officials went back to him again before voting began, but he responded in the same way.

The uncovered emails raise a question: if Conservative campaigners were only trying to assist their own voters, why were they giving out, as the Elections Canada officials saw it, false information on polling station locations? And why, if they were only dealing with their own supporters, would there be such a rash of protestations to Elections Canada?
...
But there are other questions: Why would the Tories stage a phone blitz on polling locations in the last week when, according to chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand, only 61 of 20,000 polling locations were moved in that week? That’s one half of one percent. Then there is the Ekos poll purporting to show the vast majority of poll-location calls went to voters supporting opposition parties. Why would that be? Then there is Michael Sona, the former Tory operative in the Guelph riding, who has referred to the vote suppression operation as being “a massive scheme.”

- Environics compares the attitudes of citizens toward inequality in countries across the Western hemisphere. And the results show a majority of Canadians seriously concerned about the inequality which the Harper Cons are working to exacerbate - and eager to see more progressive taxation as part of the solution:

Canada has weathered the recent global economic recession much better than most other countries, and Canadians are among the most upbeat in the Western Hemisphere about their national economy and household financial situation. But not all Canadians are doing well financially, and there is widespread concern about income equality. Most Canadians feel their politicians are defending the rich to the detriment of the poor, and expect their governments to reduce income disparities.

On this issue Canadians fall somewhere between citizens in Latin America and the Caribbean (who more strongly endorse active government efforts on income inequality) and Americans (who are divided on this issue). What distinguishes Canadians is their support for reducing poverty and inequality through higher taxes on the rich.

- Which in turn provides some rather important context for the Agenda's discussion of poverty and a guaranteed annual income:


- So part of the problem in our current corporatist direction is that far too many governments are ignoring what Canadian citizens are supporting in no uncertain terms. But Ben Sichel suggests that the labour movement needs to work on building students' knowledge of the role of unions long before they join a workplace for themselves.

- Finally, Murray Mandryk notes that the Sask Party's move to sell off most of ISC makes sense only as part of a longer-term scheme to gut Saskatchewan's public sector. 

#skndpldr Debate 1 Notes

There's already been some coverage of the first Saskatchewan NDP leadership debate which took place Saturday night (link to come once the video is available). But I'll take a few minutes to add my observations - which will mostly stick to the differences around the edges, rather than the broad effectiveness of the candidates in discussing progressive themes.

Cam Broten got the first opportunity to speak, and made the most of it - pairing an effective discussion centred on his answer to the question of why he's running with effective command of the room. And he kept up that pattern through most of the policy discussions.

However, Broten did leave some question as to his adaptation to the debate as it developed. Most notably, Broten's closing statement consisted largely of an exhortation to take the challenges facing the party seriously - but that message of urgency was followed with a reference to a policy which had come under significant fire as lacking substance (his plan for a process to develop a strategy to facilitate greater involvement by women).

I'm not sure whether that combination represented a matter of sticking too closely to a pre-written script, or a questionable reading of the debate as it progressed. But either way, any doubt about Broten's ability to respond to developments in the heat of a debate figures to complicate his pitch that he's substantially better prepared to deal with a leadership role than his competitors.

The second candidate to speak was Ryan Meili, who easily put to rest my question as to whether he'd be left out on the policy front in a campaign where he's signalled an intention to leave detailed platform announcements until later on. Indeed, Meili stood out both in offering big ideas (such as a Bank of Saskatchewan to go with the familiar SaskPharm theme), and in talking bluntly about the causes of a lack of women in politics as in other leadership roles.

But while Meili's content more than kept pace with the field, his presentation didn't match up as well. Unlike in the 2009 campaign, all three of Meili's opponents are powerful, polished speakers - making Meili's soft voice, fast pace and occasionally distracting movements stand out in comparison (to the detriment of his substantive message). And while Meili's message about practicing more authentic politics offers an easy explanation for sticking with a speaking style that's more comfortable to him, he may be best served tailoring his presentation more to the benefit of the audience.

Not surprisingly, Erin Weir more than held his own in addressing the policy topics. In particular, the sharpest exchanges of the night were between Weir and Broten on small business taxes and encouraging women's involvement in politics - and Weir ultimately got the better of both arguments.

However, Weir's effectiveness in delivering prepared statements lagged behind his skill speaking off the cuff. Weir's opening consisted mostly of a recitation of his campaign biography, without much by way of theme or narrative to pull in the audience. And his closing was framed around a challenge against the other candidates on trust - which seemed highly counterproductive to the extent it effectively questioned the judgment of other candidates' supporters.

Finally, Trent Wotherspoon delivered an effective if unspectacular performance. He may have been helped by a format which didn't offer much room for competitors to press him with follow-up points, but Wotherspoon had little trouble with the follow-up questions posed by moderator Mitch Diamantopoulos, and also took plenty of opportunities to echo and co-opt other candidates' policy proposals and themes (again a smart strategy given the need to cultivate down-ballot support).

On the balance, my impression is that Meili and Wotherspoon likely helped their positions somewhat, while Broten and Weir may not have accomplished as much as they'd have hoped. But the most important message for the candidates to take away from Saturday's debate is that there's plenty of room to grow during the course of the leadership campaign - and I'll hope to see that growth manifest itself both among the candidates and within the party by the time the NDP's debate circuit makes its return to Regina.

Update: See Scott's observations as well.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Peter O'Neil and Tara Carman report on the Cons' strategy of importing temporary foreign workers to drive down wages across Canada. And Craig McInnes juxtaposes that plan against the need for viable careers for young British Columbians in particular:

More than a quarter of (Canada's temporary foreign workers) are in B.C., where in October there were 148,000 people listed as unemployed in the Statistics Canada Labour Force Survey.

Meanwhile, 54,000 temporary foreign workers were in the province, working on farms, in construction, in trades, financial institutions, taking care of children and serving fast food.

Some of them are people with special skills that for some reason can’t be found here. That’s the argument for bringing in coal miners from China that has most recently shone a spotlight on the issue of temporary foreign workers in Canada.

But most of them are in jobs that employers say Canadians don’t want, either because of the nature of the work or where the work is.

Canadians include immigrants, of course, but the temporary foreign workers are not being invited to move to Canada, to bring their families and live the Canadian dream.

My question is why are the wages so low? Why is it that we encourage industries in this country that are so marginal they can’t produce a living wage for Canadians?

- And Lana Payne notes that we all stand to pay for the Cons' insistence on prioritizing corporate profits over all else:

In fact, the higher-than-forecasted deficit can be partly (some might say entirely) blamed on domestic decisions.

What we won’t hear about from the Conservatives is how their failed economic, labour market and tax policies have contributed to the higher deficit. It’s much easier to blame world economic conditions for all our woes.

But it doesn’t take a brilliant mathematician to deduct that a government that slashes taxes for super-wealthy corporations may end up taking in less revenues as a result. It also doesn’t take a genius to understand the link between policies and programs that suppress the wages and incomes of Canadians and how this just might impact on the amount of taxes they pay.

Billions of dollars in annual tax cuts to some of Canada’s biggest and most profitable corporations, including banks, oil and mining companies have certainly contributed to the deficit. And it doesn’t take a parliamentary budget officer to figure out that we all pay for these tax cuts to wealthy corporations.

- Meanwhile, Angella MacEwen discusses the consequences of the Cons' misplaced priorities - with the few jobs being created in Canada disproportionately falling into categories such as temporary work which provide no prospect of long-term career development.

- Adam Radwanski writes about Andrea Horwath's effort to offer Ontarians the chance to be heard in developing policy for the province (in stark contrast to her competitors' back-room decision-making):

Is it time to look seriously at raising taxes, perhaps on the corporate side, rather than just addressing program spending? Here she gives a little. “When you talk about taking a balanced approach, you look at both sides of the equation.” But that’s as far as she goes.
...
There are politicians who try to paper over their lack of policy specifics; Ms. Horwath wears them as a badge of honour. “I don’t necessarily believe that the way to do things is to sit in isolation, make up a whole bunch of policies based on internal brainstorming, and then sell that to the public,” she says. So she recently launched a “consultation on jobs,” which she identifies as her biggest priority, three-and-a-half years after winning the leadership.

It’s a marked contrast to the approach of Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, who is putting out a series of “white papers” that float stridently right-of-centre positions on everything from tax cuts to labour policy to health care. And for now, Ms. Horwath’s low-risk approach seems to be working fairly well, with her party capitalizing on voter unrest as much or more than Mr. Hudak’s.

It’s not hard to see why. Mr. McGuinty is leaving office amid perceptions that he grew out of touch after too long in power, running a closed shop more concerned with self-preservation than Ontarians’ concerns. Mr. Hudak, after a poor introduction to voters in last year’s campaign, is struggling to shake an image as a typical politician willing to say whatever he thinks voters want to hear. Being open and accessible and not claiming to have all the answers has considerable appeal.

 - Finally, Charlie Smith suggests a simple policy change to end the constant stream of false attack ads by the Cons - proposing an effective regulator to take the place of ad industry self-regulation.

[Edit: fixed formatting.]

#skndpldr Roundup

A few observations about the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race in advance of tonight's first debate...

The main news over the past week has involved the release of the candidates' October donation and expense numbers - which have been documented by Alice Funke and Joe Couture among others. But the most noteworthy number looks to be Trent Wotherspoon's expense total - and not merely because it makes his the sole campaign to be carrying a debt at the end of October.

While we don't yet have a breakdown of what Wotherspoon has purchased with his $47,977.10 in expenses, that total already represents a quarter of the $200,000 Wotherspoon's campaign is entitled to spend over the entire campaign period - again, before a single debate has been held, let alone any opportunity to put money toward voting infrastructure. And it's not yet clear what return Wotherspoon can expect from his high expense total so far.

Wotherspoon did generate some more positive news with the release of his policy on democratic reform and citizen engagement. And while bans on corporate and union donations, more accessible voting and a focus on open government may make for relatively familiar issues, Wotherspoon is offering a couple of highly significant proposals as to how to engage with and support Saskatchewan's First Nations population:

• Hold an annual meeting between the provincial cabinet and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nation leaders.
• Formally endorse the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The former looks particularly noteworthy by analogy to the developing pattern of joint cabinet meetings between provincial governments. In effect, Wotherspoon looks to be proposing to extend a similar level of respect to FSIN's leaders - which may make for an important point of discussion as the province works on ensuring aboriginal citizens play a part in Saskatchewan's development.

The other major policy release was Ryan Meili's plan for labour. Meili's main theme looks to be one of equity and protection for all workers - with pay equity extended to the private sector and to additional disadvantaged groups, while labour and social policy protections are extended to all workers (in contrast to the numerous exceptions that are currently enshrined in law, as well as the massive loophole for temporary foreign workers who have no means to enforce rights against employers who have final say over their ability to stay in Canada).

On the commentary front, Jason juxtaposed recent Youtube offerings from each of the campaigns, while John Warnock placed the current campaign into a historical context. And the main source for continuously updated discussion of the campaign continues to be Scott Stelmaschuk's blog.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Bill Curry reports on the Cons' latest public-sector slashing. But there hasn't yet been much discussion of the most alarming number: upwards of 30% of the Cons' cuts are coming from the Canada Revenue Agency, which at last notice already lacked sufficient staff to properly collect tax revenue. Which means that the Cons' plans continue to have everything to do with attacking federal fiscal capacity, and nothing at all to do with balancing the budget.

- Meanwhile, the Cons have apparently discovered the value of having audits of government activity conducted by experts with experience in the public sector:

The latest records released under the Access to Information law show Tining had found out from the privacy commissioner’s staff that Stoddart planned to hire outside specialists to do an audit of how veterans’ information was handled.

“Given the significant impacts on our department from the findings of the initial investigation, I wanted to take this opportunity to ask you to reconsider this approach in favour of using your own staff,” Tining wrote in a letter to “Jennifer.”

“I believe it would be in our mutual interest that the auditors be very familiar with federal government operations and have the benefit of being sensitized to the environment in which we are all working.”

Which naturally raises some question as to why they've eliminated the the public auditing service put in place to provide exactly those benefits for federal departments.

- Andrew Coyne writes about the potential for a guaranteed annual income - and rightly notes that the only real issues with such a plan involve turf wars and the need to establish a reasonable set of accompanying incentives. But lest anybody think there's much to be accomplished by merely trying to make minor incremental changes to benefit programs, Thomas Walkom points to Jordan Brennan's CCPA study on how increased inequality is largely the result of severe power imbalances.

- Finally, Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher break the news that Elections Canada was well aware about complaints about the Cons' false robocalls before the 2011 election. But the most worrisome aspect of the latest revelation is that while Elections Canada intervened in court to present its side of the story as to what happened in Boris Wrzesnewskyj's Etobicoke Centre challenge, it hasn't done anything to correct the public record in response to the Cons' debunked claim that issues of fraudulent phone calls were never raised until after the election.

Musical interlude

Orjan Nilsen - La Guitarra

On editorial decisions

By all means, I agree with the commentators pointing out that this is rather less than surprising treatment of (and by) a Con cabinet minister. But as always, there's another rather important followup question: why would Don Martin or anybody else still bother wasting their time interviewing MPs who are guaranteed from years of experience to have nothing but false, pre-programmed talking points to spout in the first place?

Friday Evening Links

This and that to end your week.

- Tavia Grant writes that at least one region of the globe - Latin America - is seeing some real progress in combating inequality. And the World Bank has some ideas to keep up the momentum:

The bank still sees room for improvement. It recommends governments incorporate the goal of equal opportunity into public policy and make further reforms to strengthen the social protection system.

It also urges governments to break the “vicious cycle” of low taxation and low quality of public services, by using some of the region’s commodity windfall to improve public services.

- Back in Canada, it's another week, another finding of pollution caused by the tar sands and covered up by the Harper Cons. Not to mention a concerted effort to exploit foreign labour to ensure Canadians can't find good jobs. Nothing to see here. Enjoy your publicly-funded propaganda campaign.

- Though Jeffrey Simpson does maintain enough residual faith in the prospect of making improvements to suggest that a national drug plan for seniors is in order. And Lawrence Martin is downright Pollyannaish in suggesting the Harper Cons might recognize that a judicial finding of electoral fraud might cast their legitimacy into enough doubt to require a federal election.

- Finally, Stephen Whitworth doesn't see much more reason for optimism at the provincial level:

(O)ne gets the distinct sense that Saskatchewan’s current leadership class have no vision, no imagination, no appreciation for the arts and no respect for the great things about this province’s history.

I submit that everything cool is getting kicked because in general, the business class and its toady politicians are ashamed of Saskatchewan’s historic achievements, which really, all come from the political left: health care, crown corps, arts boards and the co-operative sector. All that stuff really did make this place better but our conservative-types didn’t build it (actually, they fought it every step of the way) so they have to dismantle it. Because if they can’t have a legacy, NO ONE gets a legacy.

I mean, we’re in a boom and we’re starving our universities for funding? What a joke. I thought Saskatchewan was a have-province.

Leadership 2013 Debate Preview

I'll put together another #skndpldr roundup later today. But for now, I'll point out that the campaign's debate schedule starts tomorrow night in Regina (live-streamed here) - and discuss briefly what I see each candidate needing to do as the debates unfold.

Of course, it will be tempting to analyze the debates based solely on zingers and attempted gotcha moments. But I tend to agree with the line of thinking that each candidate should focus on specific strategic goals, rather than merely looking to be declared the winner at the end of any given debate. And in a contest where down-ballot support looks to be crucial, the debates could represent the best possible opportunity to make a case to members whose first allegiance lies elsewhere.

With that in mind, here's my quick rundown as to what each candidate should be hoping to accomplish...

Cam Broten - Stand out from the crowd. Again, Broten has done better than most of the candidates in setting up down-ballot support for himself - and he surely won't want to alienate supporters of other contenders. But the great risk for Broten is still that he won't accumulate enough early-ballot support for that to matter. And I'm not convinced that a focus on experience is going to get the job done for Broten, especially if he can't translate that experience into some ability to speak with more authority than his competitors. 

Ryan Meili - Keep pace on policy. Meili's choice to engage in a substantial consultation process before releasing a great deal of his platform presents both costs and benefits, and one of the major costs may become apparent based on how he approaches the early debates. It may be tempting to simply say "I'll get back to you on that" in order to avoid accusations of either withholding policy or making it up on the fly - but the danger is that Meili might then be seen as the lone candidate without much to say about issues of concern to members. As a result, Meili will need to at least deliver strong responses at a principled level on policies where he hasn't yet fleshed out the details.

Erin Weir - Bring out the olive branch. So far, Weir's campaign has been based largely on challenging the other candidates on all manner of issues - and it's worked to the extent that he's been able to stay competitive so far. But that relatively confrontational style also means that Weir has some heavier lifting yet to do in trying to win down-ballot support. And his best chance may be to recognize and latch onto some of the other candidates' themes and policy proposals.

Trent Wotherspoon - Go beyond talking points. While Wotherspoon has released plenty of policies already, he hasn't yet provided much by way of detailed explanation. Which means that he'll have to do so at the debates in the face of questions from his competitors - and his success in meeting those questions (rather than merely repeating his own message) may determine whether Wotherspoon enters the home stretch as the front-runner, or falls behind the pack.

New column day

Here, following up on this post as to the public returns Saskatchewan stands to lose if Brad Wall insists on giving away liquor profits to private operators rather than working within the proven SLGA retail model.

A few footnotes to the columns...
- The previous post applied SLGA's estimates rather than its actual data in estimating the percentage of sales that go to the wholesale cost of SLGA products. But the actual values for 2011 ($282,428,000/$571,844,000 * 100%) produce exactly the same 49.4% number.
- More importantly, the capital costs referred to as an up-front investment in my earlier post are actually included in existing store expenses - meaning that it's not clear that the cost of building or renting new facilities would actually represent any increase whatsoever in the relative capital cost of operating SLGA stores.
- Finally, the normal net profits for retail sales are drawn from here.

As for what Brad Wall in fact intends to accomplish by privatizing public services, we can draw a strong hint from the concurrent debate over the Information Services Corporation:

McMorris said that although a privatized ISC wouldn't pay profits directly back to the government, it could be a "success story for Saskatchewan."

Never mind that any such story will be utter fiction to the extent it pretends that commercial success arising out of public enterprises reflects the corporate owners who take the resulting profits rather than the civil servants who built successful operations in the first place.

Instead, the more important concern is that the Sask Party wants to separate financial success from any associated "story" - and hand the former over to the corporate sector while leaving the rest of Saskatchewan to tell tall tales as consolation.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Andrew Potter highlights the difficulties in practicing and encouraging truth-based politics at a time when entire parties make a deliberate strategy of lying - as well as the one technique that seems to be working:

Lying for political advantage is as old as the hills. But for the better part of human history, getting caught out in a lie was considered politically damaging, which is why politicians used to go to great lengths to hide the truth. And when caught, they would act apologetic, contrite and somewhat ashamed. But there came a point when politicians discovered that, if you simply kept repeating the same thing, over and over again, people would come to believe it regardless of whether it was true.
...
One difficulty is that the truth is not self-revealing. That is, you can’t debunk a claim simply by calling it a lie and pointing to relevant evidence, precisely because a lot of that evidence will itself be contentious. Facts don’t sit out there in the world waiting to be discovered. They exist at the centre of a web of overlapping observations, judgments and inferences, all of which are themselves open to challenge. Fact-checking will never be as principled and disinterested as we would like.

But a bigger problem with the effort to truth-squad our way back to fact-based politics is it misunderstands the way political persuasion works. Successful politicians don’t win over the electorate by giving them a set of plausible facts that in turn motivate a set of policies, they sell them on an attractive narrative. The best politicians, from Reagan to Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, are storytellers.
...
Truth should always remain a regulative ideal of political life. Facts matter, and fact-checking is still an important function of the independent press. But in the age of post-truth politics, it is important to remember that the guiding light of reason is the satirist. The literary devices of irony, sarcasm, and parody are the mechanisms through which grand political narratives are exposed not as false, but as laughable, preposterous or absurd.

- Of course, the U.S. experience also suggests that self-parody can have a rather profound impact on political decisions as well - if not in the way intended by the speaker. And Canada's political scene may soon offer its own examples if our own Fox News copycat is able to push itself on viewers.

- Meanwhile, the flip side of post-truth politics is an obsession with appearances. Needless to say, there's been plenty of evidence the Cons are far more interested in those than with facts thanks to multiple revelations about public money being used as media monitoring slush funds for the Cons' leaders - not to mention concerns that critical comments are being disappeared and questioning voices silenced. And Eva Sajoo offers some particularly important comparisons on the latter point:

(T)he political criteria of the CRA are applied with remarkable selectivity.

On the federal list of registered charities is the Fraser Institute, a self-described "think-tank" whose mission is to promote free-market economics. It produces a guide called Miningfacts.org, which promotes the economic benefits and safety of the mining industry. This puts the institute squarely behind the Harper government's controversial development and export policies on the oil sands industry via the Northern Gateway Project. The Fraser Institute also posted a recent study on the plan of the federal and B.C. governments to export liquefied natural gas to Asia, advocating removal of "the existing cumbersome and overlapping regulatory process and environmental reviews."
...
Then there is the Friends of the Oil Sands Interpretive Centre, also a registered charity. Its mission is "to serve as the gateway to Alberta's oilsands by presenting its history, science, and technology, promoting appreciation for it, and providing learning opportunities to all visitors." According to its website, the organization was founded by donations from "individuals, companies, and the Alberta government."
...
Or take Imperial Oil, which -- yes -- appears on the registered charity list although it invites investors, not donations.

Organizations that criticize government policy are another matter, notably on environmental issues.

The Vancouver-based Tides Canada, which opposes the Northern Gateway Project, has found itself subject to repeated audits from the CRA. Environmentalist opposition by organizations such as the Sierra Club has been condemned as "radical" by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, and labelled as domestic extremism by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

Once again, review of charitable status has been used as a threat to encourage silence.

- Finally, Andrew Stevens comments on the attempt by Saskatchewan's business community to turn our province into an anti-worker backwater through "right to work" laws.

On abdications of duty

Shorter Gerry Ritz:

If unscrupulous businesses want to fleece Canadian suckers consumers, far be it from we Conservatives to stand in their way.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Duncan Cameron highlights the choice between austerity and prosperity facing the governments of both Canada and the U.S.:

The economic realities faced by working people in both Canada and the United States need to be addressed. Talk about putting the fiscal house in order is code for taking money away from working people. It does not preclude giving grossly indecent fiscal advantages to corporations.
...
The debate about the fiscal cliff is important because it helps focus attention on how government policy can have negative or positive effects on quality of life, and living standards.

Getting agreement on the link between spending increases and prosperity would be an improvement over falsehoods put about in Canada and the U.S. about how austerity is necessary to reduce deficits. It is not, and will not. All austerity does is reduce the standard of living of citizens.

 - But David Macdonald worries that the Cons have already made their choice - and that they'll use an economy that's weaker than (oh-so-loudly) advertised as an excuse to make matters all the worse for Canadians. And Thomas Walkom's hope that Jim Flaherty might be merely wrong rather than outright crazy doesn't seem particularly reassuring - particularly keeping in mind that his government's response to the 2008 crash was to push austerity from day one until political calculations intervened.

- Michael Geist explains how the Cons' copyright legislation will affect content creators and users.

- And Andrew Nikiforuk discusses the risks the Cons are pushing on Canada through an investment-protection racket with China.

- Finally, Paul Adams points out the significance of California voters simultaneously voting to raise their own taxes, and giving state Democrats the supermajority they need to have room to maneuver. But I'd think the even more telling sign that tax protest messages may have run their course is that even with an explicit tax increase on their ballot, California voters turned out in relatively low numbers - meaning that anti-taxers weren't able to motivate citizens to vote against it.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Fiery cats.

Leadership 2013 Roundup

With a couple of weeks' worth of developments to address, I'll take a slightly higher-level look at the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race than I normally do. (And for those worried about missing out, note that we should have an opportunity to revisit new issues in detail as the debate schedule gets underway this weekend.)

Most significantly, Trent Wotherspoon released three new policy statements, covering the environment, health and the economy. Most of Wotherspoon's proposals can be safely classified as safe but effective statements of non-controversial policy within the NDP, but his small business tax proposals sets up what may be the first stark policy contrast of the campaign: where Erin Weir has suggested that corporate tax rates should be applied to more small business income in order to leave room for incentives for investment and hiring, Wotherspoon's economic plan proposes to eliminate corporate taxes altogether on earnings up to $100,000.

Weir also introduced his labour policy - which goes beyond restoring the law as it stood prior to the Saskatchewan Party's attacks on workers, but also includes additional steps to ensure that collective bargaining achieves fair results with a minimal amount of disruption:

He is calling for Saskatchewan to adopt legislation enabling either management or the union to apply for binding interest arbitration to resolve strikes or lock-outs that last more than 90 days. Such legislation has proven effective in Manitoba since it was enacted in 2004.
...
“Prohibiting replacement workers during legal strikes and lock-outs would also make these disputes less acrimonious,” said Weir. “Such anti-scab legislation would ensure that employers have an incentive to bargain in good faith rather than using replacements for 90 days until they can request arbitration.”
...
Weir would implement a construction tendering policy to prevent contractors from undercutting wages negotiated through the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council.

Weir also pointed out a spike in self-employment at the same time that actual jobs were lost in Saskatchewan - which at the very least raises serious questions as to whether the Sask Party is ensuring that a temporary boom provides as little security as possible for workers.

Ryan Meili responded to the Sask Party's liquor privatization plans with a focus on the social nature of problems caused by alcohol abuse (as found by the Parkland Institute and CCPA):

A couple of important points to keep in mind when weighing the government's recent actions:

Privatizing liquor sales leads to higher levels of alcohol consumption, which brings with it a host of social costs while increasing the burden on the health care and justice systems. Alberta, which became the first Canadian jurisdiction to privatize liquor sales in 1993, has the highest per-capita liquor consumption, while B.C., which began introducing private liquor stores in 2003, has higher-than-average consumption rates.

Private liquor stores replace quality, full-time jobs with low-paying, part-time jobs. "The studies agree there are more workers in liquor retail [in Alberta post-privatization], but they work fewer hours, have fewer benefits, and lower salaries than did Alberta government workers. So workers, by and large, are not better off."

Finally, Cam Broten offered his response to Scott's candidate questionnaire. And it's particularly interesting to contrast Broten's immediate priorities (which revolve entirely around party-building) against the policy issues he'd plan to tackle upon winning government. That hints at a noteworthy commitment to public engagement for its own sake on the path toward government - but may also provide fodder for the other candidates to question whether meaningful party-building is possible without highlighting issues as rallying points.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Lawrence Martin's take on Robocon doesn't offer much by way of new information, but nicely sums up exactly what deliberate vote suppression and electoral fraud should mean for a governing party:

At issue here is the legitimacy of the Conservative government. If the allegations are substantiated, they would arguably be worse than the sponsorship scandal that crippled the Liberal Party. Sponsorship was about lower-level Quebec operatives running off with the cash from a government advertising program to promote unity. Vote suppression is a campaign to throttle the workings of democracy by disenfranchising voters. It strikes at the heart of the democratic system.
...
A new Environics poll shows Mr. Harper’s trust ratings with the public to be among the lowest among leaders in a survey of 26 countries in the Americas. He can ill afford to have his party found culpable of running a campaign to disenfranchise opponents.

- Meanwhile, Democracy Watch highlights the need to close loopholes allowing big-money interests to influence our political system.

- Andrew Jackson points out some economic themes from Tom Mulcair which figure to help earn the trust of Canadian voters:

(T)he Conservatives are creating an economy where salaries will be much lower. There is less pressure with regard to all working conditions because of a series of measures that are being implemented. It is not by chance that, for the first time in Canada’s history, the middle class has seen a clear drop in income, and this occurred in tandem with the signing of NAFTA.

Over the past 25 years, the middle class has seen its real net income drop. This is the first time this has happened. In other words, the richest 20% of Canadians are experiencing a rise in income while the other 80% of Canadians—it has been measured and proven—are experiencing a drop in income. These are the results of the neo-conservative policies of the current government and its Liberal predecessors, who aggressively pursued the same goals for 25 years.

This is putting downward pressure on incomes and on employment conditions. As though that were not enough, these agreements are creating a race to the bottom: temporary foreign workers who used to come and work in a few sectors, such as produce farms, will now be in several employment categories. The government trumpets the fact that we can pay them a lot less than Canadians.
...
We need tailored incentives that better serve businesses and our economy as a whole. There are a couple of good examples that can be looked at in Canada where long-term vision and incentive by the government has produced a great result.

 

For example, take a look at the TV and film industry in Toronto. There used to be a time when it was only New York and Hollywood. Now, Toronto is in there competing with them every step of the way, but it required a partnership between government, business and labour. Those tax incentives were there for decades and they worked their way through the system and are producing the great result of bringing in billions of dollars a year and lots of high-quality jobs. However, it required government involvement every step of the way. The Conservatives simply do not believe in that.

 

We should be building the next success story now. Instead, we are getting less for workers, less for Canadians and less for our economy. That is what the Conservatives are about, less for everyone.

- Common Dreams compiles a few of the progressive arguments against another round of austerity south of the border.

- And finally, it'll be well worth keeping an eye on the Rolling Jubilee as a means of putting a dent in consumer debt.

Down the drain

There's rightly been plenty of debate over the Sask Party's recently-announced plan to decree that all future liquor stores in Saskatchewan will be privately-owned. But there looks to me to be room to take a closer look at exactly what Brad Wall is determined to give away - so let's take a back-of-the-envelope look at the profits we can expect to lose due to the gratuitous privatization of new liquor stores. (Numbers are from the SLGA Annual Report for 2012 (PDF).)

SLGA's liquor sales to the public (as opposed to sales to its franchisees) totalled $351,808.000 in 2011 (p. 45). Dividing that by the existing 51 stores, the effective sales per store are roughly $4,453,269.

The cost of liquor was roughly 49.4% of the subsequent sales price ($271,173,000/$549,454,000, from p. 26; I didn't see these numbers broken down by retail vs. franchise), while the cost of store operation was 11.9% of sales: p. 17.

That means that costs added up to 61.3% of the value of SLGA's retail sales. In turn 38.7% of the price of liquor from SLGA stores was pure profit for the people of Saskatchewan. And based on the per-store sales (which I'll generously assume wouldn't be any higher in booming areas than the average), for each store put in private hands rather than public ones, the province will lose out on $1,723,415 per year.

Of course, there would be a capital cost up front to build each store. But even allowing for rather generous building costs, the new stores would figure to pay for themselves within a few years - then produce returns many times over in the years to come.

And likewise, any residual income to the province from corporate taxes on private sales would figure to be dwarfed by the ample return SLGA is currently getting on its investment in retail stores.

Unfortunately, the Wall Saskatchewan Party isn't interested in the return to the province if it can find an excuse to shovel money into the private sector. And the province as a whole stands to lose tens of millions of dollars based on this ideological exercise alone.

[Edit: Fixed typo, wording.]

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Naomi Klein comments on how disaster capitalists have tried to turn Hurricane Sandy into a quick buck, while pointing out that there's a far more rational public policy response available:

The prize for shameless disaster capitalism, however, surely goes to rightwing economist Russell S Sobel, writing in a New York Times online forum. Sobel suggested that, in hard-hit areas, Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) should create "free-trade zones – in which all normal regulations, licensing and taxes [are] suspended". This corporate free-for-all would, apparently, "better provide the goods and services victims need".

Yes, that's right: this catastrophe, very likely created by climate change – a crisis born of the colossal regulatory failure to prevent corporations from treating the atmosphere as their open sewer – is just one more opportunity for further deregulation. And the fact that this storm has demonstrated that poor and working-class people are far more vulnerable to the climate crisis shows that this is clearly the right moment to strip those people of what few labour protections they have left, as well as to privatise the meagre public services available to them. Most of all, when faced with an extraordinarily costly crisis born of corporate greed, hand out tax holidays to corporations.

The flurry of attempts to use Sandy's destructive power as a cash grab is just the latest chapter in the very long story I have called the The Shock Doctrine. And it is but the tiniest glimpse into the ways large corporations are seeking to reap enormous profits from climate chaos.
...
Just as the Great Depression and the second world war launched movements that claimed as their proud legacies social safety nets across the industrialised world, so climate change can be a historic occasion to usher in the next great wave of progressive change. Moreover, none of the anti-democratic trickery I described in The Shock Doctrine is necessary to advance this agenda. Far from seizing on the climate crisis to push through unpopular policies, our task is to seize upon it to demand a truly populist agenda.

The reconstruction from Sandy is a great place to start road testing these ideas. Unlike the disaster capitalists who use crisis to end-run democracy, a People's Recovery (as many from the Occupy movement are already demanding) would call for new democratic processes, including neighbourhood assemblies, to decide how hard-hit communities should be rebuilt. The overriding principle must be addressing the twin crises of inequality and climate change at the same time. For starters, that means reconstruction that doesn't just create jobs but jobs that pay a living wage. It means not just more public transit, but energy-efficient, affordable housing along those transit lines. It also means not just more renewable power, but democratic community control over those projects.

But at the same time as we ramp up alternatives, we need to step up the fight against the forces actively making the climate crisis worse. 

 - Barbara Yaffe highlights the influence Canada's First Nations figure to have on resource development - as the constitutional duty to consult means they'll have a sound basis to challenge the Harper Cons' attempts to run over anybody who questions putting tar sands profits above all else.

- And in case there was any doubt whether many Canadians will accept Harper's spin unquestioned, Environics provides the answer...

(O)nly 16 per cent of Canadians place “a lot of trust” in their Prime Minister, putting Stephen Harper near the bottom among all leaders in the Americas.

“In an international context, Harper has a lower level of trust than almost every other national leader in the hemisphere,” Mr. Neuman said.

- Finally, Thomas Edsall writes about how Republicans lost the U.S. culture war. But Tom Tomorrow rightly questions whether they'll realize it anytime soon.

Sunday Afternoon 'Rider Blogging

Since I haven't had a chance to post after the Saskatchewan Roughriders' last two (mostly meaningless) regular-season games, I'll quickly preview today's West semi-final in Calgary.

To start with, it's always an open question as to whether Darian Durant can put together a virtuoso performance - and he's certainly managed the feat in the playoffs before against more distinguished defences than the one he'll face today. But the 'Riders offence has been at best consistent rather than explosive over the latter half of the 2012 season - and I'd hope the team won't need a 35-point outburst to stay in the game against the Stampeders.

That means the most important matchup should involve the greatest strength for each team: a Calgary offence built around two of the toughest players in the CFL to tackle, facing a Richie Hall defence built around limiting running room for opposing offences. And John Hufnagel has only raised the stakes by inserting Drew Tate at quarterback, trading off Kevin Glenn's well-honed passing skills for a quarterback with more ability to rack up yards on the ground.

While I wouldn't be brave enough to predict a Saskatchewan win based on that showdown, the 'Riders have risen to the occasion before - particularly by meeting a challenge to shut down Cornish in their previous meeting with the Stamps. And it'll likely take a repeat performance to give the 'Riders the upper hand today.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Haroon Siddiqui highlights the similarities between the Harper Cons and the U.S. Republicans - who lost last week's election, and are even less popular outside their country's own borders (including in Canada):

(W)hat Americans have rejected, Canadians are stuck with at least until the next election.

Americans did so with 51 per cent of the votes cast. Canadians did it with 60 per cent in the last election, Harper having formed the government with 40 per cent. That’s our parliamentary democracy. Still, it’s useful to remind ourselves of his policies that are not in sync with majority Canadian opinion but mesh with those of Romney and the Republicans.

He and they advocate smaller government and lower taxes, deficits and debts. But they believe in pork barrelling, milking government dry for their favoured projects. They also spend big on the military. That leads to bigger deficits and debts, as under George W. Bush and Harper (forcing the prime minister to now start cutting back on defence).

The Harper Conservatives and Romney Republicans don’t like gun controls or environmental regulations. They are oblivious to growing inequality. They treat adversaries as enemies — if you’re not with Harper, you are to be demonized, ideally destroyed.

 - Meanwhile, Ezra Klein notes that the Republicans actually lost the popular vote in all three national votes last week - holding the House of Representatives only through gerrymandering. Matthew Yglesias points out why the Republicans have no leverage at all to insist on extending the upper-class-only tax cuts rejected by voters. And Time discusses the data-driven campaign that helped to re-elect Barack Obama.

- Kev laments the sad state of all too many backbench MPs in Canada (even as some want to silence them even more). But then, the regina mom observes that plenty of constituents aren't missing much based on the caliber of Con MP they're stuck with.

- Finally, CBC reports that Mennonites are the latest group under attack by the federal government for daring to speak out for their values.

On executive decisions

My post yesterday on the Senate's choice to remind Canadians of its existence by blocking a bill passed by the House of Commons has sparked plenty of discussion. But I'll highlight one of the more stunning arguments being made in favour of the Senate's actions.

Here's Dale Smith in his own comments section:

The Senate is almost never going to turn down a budget bill because they’re confidence measures, and the Senate is not a confidence chamber.

And another commenter, James Bowden, in more stark terms:

There is no legitimate constitutional argument why the Senate should not be able to kill this private members’ bill. It is certainly not a matter of confidence and did not require the royal recommendation. The Senate poses no threat to the primacy of the Commons by voting against a frivolous private members’ bill.

So the pro-Senate line is that a private members' bill which happens to win the support of a majority of elected members can be killed without any reason to think twice - just so long it's the result of mere elected MPs debating and voting on a bill on their own, rather than the approval of the executive branch. (And the fact that the bill under discussion didn't receive a lot of debate has everything to do with the reality that very little time is allocated to private members' business compared to government business.)

By that account, the limits of Senatorial authority would be seen to begin and end with a declaration that a bill is a priority for the sitting government (as a budget or confidence measure). Which looks to me to entrench all the more power in the hands of the PMO - even as the Harper Cons have given us nothing but reason to worry about the control our current executive exercises over both MPs as a matter of party discipline, and parliamentary procedures as a matter of preventing inconvenient votes.

Suffice it to say I consider it rather questionable that a constitutional relic intended to limit democratic decision-making from day one should be accepted as a reason to treat the legislative process in the House of Commons as being no more significant in deciding on the fate of a law which meets with the disapproval of a chamber of appointed hacks than a straw poll of the Parliamentary kitchen staff. And if our goal is to make sure that MPs do their jobs better, we'll accomplish far more by asking them to justify their their actions directly than by declaring that we're just fine seeing their work rendered meaningless by unelected Senators.

On questionable advice

Shorter Zach Paikin:

In order to avoid the fate of the Ignatieff Libs, the NDP should totally abandon any principles and re-run Ignatieff's "we stand for nothing, but at least we're not that guy!" campaign.

Saturday Morning Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- Andrew Jackson takes a look at the UK's strong movement for a living wage, and notes that it's long past time for a similar push in Canada.

- The most remarkable part of this week's revelations about the Cons' cuts to refugee health is their apparent position that they're required to slash funding without consultation in the name of "budget secrecy", rather than talking to anybody to determine what programs are needed.

- And one has to figure that if the Cons thought they could talk to anybody rather than imposing decisions from on high, they'd know better than to waste some of the money they're burning on self-promotion and other questionable priorities.

- Meanwhile, the Cons' determination to make policy without adequate information is all the more obvious as they insist on unregulated tar-sands development while recognizing that we're starting from scratch in studying the cumulative impact of the industry.

- Finally, Tabatha Southey observes that if U.S. Republicans want to survive as a viable contender for power, they may need to both accept evolution and facilitate its application to their own development:

But the increasingly emaciated Republican Party remains maladapted to this new environment. Not all that enthusiastic about sex, able to dine on only a single and declining resource, the GOP faithful basically just amble about in this changed ecosystem, like so many political pandas cursed to live in an era of not very much bamboo.

The response from Republican supporters to their party’s plight is almost heartwarming. Many of the GOP have spent hours painstakingly bottle-feeding abandoned Republicans until they’re ready to restate their skepticism about climate change – sometimes washing oil into the feathers of conservative congressmen, in the hopes of making them more appealing to voters.
...
Some days, it’s hard not to feel for Charles and David Koch. The Koch brothers are the Diane Fossey and Jane Goodall of endangered conservatives. But by attempting to turn America into a giant Republican Party preservation park, they may be standing in the way of actual evolution – a process that involves natural selection, change compatible with reality, and letting go.

(Right now, the Republican Party has vestigial birthers, for example, and that is a problem for them.)

Musical interlude

Wide Mouth Mason - Sugarcane

On unwanted imports

The Mound of Sound is rightly appalled at the revelation that JP Morgan is making money off of the U.S.' food stamp program.

But lest we think the problem is limited to our neighbours, let's note that the Cons are doing their utmost to ensure that every social ill turns into a source of corporate profits on our side of the border as well:

(Diane) Finley has repeatedly rebuffed pleas for a national approach to housing and poverty, arguing that the federal government is not best placed to deal with issues that often have local nuances.

But at the same time, since the federal government provides significant funding for affordable housing, homelessness initiatives and other key social programs, Ottawa is deeply implicated in social policy whether it likes it or not.

Finley suggested she was frustrated with the lack of progress in social programs [ed note: of the type which her party has consistently refused to support], and wants to dramatically re-arrange the system...

And that re-arrangement means...

“Social finance is about mobilizing private capital to achieve social goals, creating opportunities for investors to finance projects that benefit Canadians and realize financial gains,” the government said in a statement announcing the financing mechanism.

So as far as the Cons are concerned, the main problem with poverty in Canada is that the financial sector hasn't yet figured out how to make enough money off of it. And absent some significant pushback, we can fully expect that the JP Morgan example will pale in comparison to what we'll end up paying to turn citizens' dire needs into corporate profits.

On bad bets

It's been glaringly obvious to those of us paying attention that the Cons have set up plenty of means to keep dictating the terms of Canadian politics from beyond the political grave - with the most obvious being their continued stacking of the Senate which will put at least a formal roadblock in the way of any future government for many years to come.

As a result, any opposition party with an ounce of foresight would know better than to send the message that unelected Senators should consider themselves free to overrule elected Members of Parliament - particularly when a bill has been passed unanimously among the representatives chosen by Canadian voters.

Unfortunately, the Libs' legacy Senate appointments still seem happy to show the short-sightedness that's decimated their party as an electoral force. And if we don't see an immediate move from the Libs' few remaining elected representatives to reverse that position, the result may be to tighten the Harper Cons' grip on power even past their removal from office.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Rick Salutin offers an important take on the U.S. election by pointing out that the Occupy movement and its focus on inequality laid the groundwork for Barack Obama's re-election:

The aftermath to the bailouts was the real revelation: the bailed-out were graceless and unrepentant. They resisted any similar help for the majority. Obama played along. His stimulus program was mild, like his aid to stressed homeowners. Books such as The Spirit Level (2010) pointed to the swelling damage but it was just a book. Then came Occupy Wall Street in the fall of 2011, with its slogan about the 1 per cent versus the 99 per cent. It resonated because it jibed with what people saw and experienced. It entered mass awareness. Occupy didn’t discover the gap, but they put it out where it could get political traction.

Obama’s “strategists” noticed. They were worried with an election coming and no serious recovery for anyone but the rich. Rising inequality began appearing in his speeches. Even Republicans noticed. They went from calling Occupy a mob, to saying they too fretted over “income disparity.” Obama’s own renditions of the theme were, I’d say, unenthusiastic, culminating in his listless performance at the first debate. Then, ironically, his competitiveness kicked in, he picked up his game, and went on to Tuesday’s victory.

But none of it would have worked, had Republicans not nominated the embodiment of Mr. One Per Cent, Mitt Romney. He likes firing people. He thinks 47 per cent of Americans are irresponsible takers. He parks his money abroad and won’t release his tax returns. All he lacks is a top hat and he surely has one in one of his homes. But the attacks, in turn, wouldn’t have taken, had Occupy not already poured the mould for Romney with its “1 per cent” trope.

- Paul Krugman makes the case as to why Obama shouldn't get bullied into letting the Republicans dictate the terms of a budget deal after winning a second mandate. [Update: See also Scott Lemieux' concise take.]

- Bob Hepburn points out that Mitt Romney's campaign strategy featured plenty of anti-democratic tricks which the Harper Cons might seek to emulate. But given that all the employer intimidation, false robocalls and vote suppression couldn't actually tilt the election Romney's way, I'd think there's reason for even the most craven Con to be skeptical that the Republicans' model is really worth following.

- Meanwhile, the Cons already have to answer for plenty of campaign deception. And Saskboy draws some important links between the latest word from Robocon fall-guy Michael Sona and the evidence that's already public as to the connection between the Cons' CIMS database and the calls placed into multiple ridings.

- Finally, pogge wonders why former Con cabinet minister Chuck Strahl is being handed another patronage appointment when the public record shows him having done nothing in what should be an important role with the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

New column day

Here, on how the Republicans' electoral strategy once again included a failed attempt to prioritize fossil fuels over mere people - and how the Harper Cons look to be on the verge of making the same mistake.

For further reading on the developing resource debate in Canada, see in particular Paul Wells' repeated observations about the Cons' strategy, and my initial reaction. And you'll find plenty more worth reading about the U.S.' campaign through the U.S. Blogs links to the right - with commentary from Josh Marshall, Jed Lewison, Erik Loomis and Tom Junod particularly deserving a look.

[Edit: fixed typo.]

On lemmings

No, we shouldn't be surprised that Jim Flaherty is lending the weight of Canada's federal government to a concerted effort to attack U.S. social programs. But for those who may have missed it, the supposed "fiscal cliff" being used as an excuse to push a lame-duck Congress to cut long-term benefits is rather less urgent than advertised.

Here's Matt Yglesias on why the "cliff" metaphor is utterly misplaced:

A salient fact about non-metaphorical cliffs is that falling over them is generally irreversible. If the cliff is high enough that falling off of it would kill you, then if you fall off you're going to die and that's the end of it. The "fiscal cliff" by contrast isn't like that at all.

Rather, it's a set of policy changes—mostly tax hikes plus some steep spending cuts—that if they were all locked into place would constitute a significant drag on economic growth over the course of a year. But if the Bush tax cuts fully expire on a Tuesday morning it's not as if some catastrophe strikes on Wednesday where suddenly middle class families have no money. It's true that if the new higher rates were to be locked in, then the medium-term drag on middle class take home pay would delay the deleveraging cycle and damage the recovery. But to resolve that, all you need to do is introduce a new package of middle class tax cuts on Wednesday afternoon, have congress pass it on Thursday, and then the president signs it on Friday. The fact that taxes were higher for three days—or even three weeks—is simply not that consequential.

Obviously to the extent that higher middle class taxes is bad, one day of them is worse than zero days and three days is worse than one day. But it's a deeply banal situation. There's no particularly large virtue to "averting" the fiscal cliff on Day N-3 versus "going over the fiscal cliff" and then fixing it in retrospect on Day N+3. If "going over the cliff" gives the White House leverage to lock a better medium-term fiscal policy in place, then going over the cliff is a no brainer. Because there is no cliff.

And likewise, Suzy Khimm points out that the primary significance of the January deadline is that it will temporarily withdraw some stimulus from the U.S. economy - meaning that there's no reason whatsoever to allow Republicans to hold long-term social spending hostage or insist that wealthy Americans pay disproportionately low taxes as the price of agreement.

As Yglesias notes, some sort of deal will eventually be needed to avoid having longer-term effects take hold. (And there may well be more reason for optimism now than in the last couple of Republican efforts at crisis-making, as at least nobody can point to limiting Barack Obama's time in office as a basis for courting disaster.)

But we should be highly skeptical of Flaherty and anybody else focusing primarily on an immediate deal rather than a reasonable one - lest we otherwise encourage the Republicans to herd the U.S. toward real dangers.

[Edit: Fixed formatting.]

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Barbara Yaffe writes about the continual rise in food bank use and the underlying political choices which have brought it about:

(I)n the last decade food banks have been helping Canadians through both good times and bad.

Doubtless, the latest food bank numbers, at least in part, are related to the private-sector propensity since the 2008 recession to maintain or boost profit by reducing employee numbers.

Also, as anyone who frequents a supermarket knows, food has grown noticeably more expensive in the past few years.

And Canadians are more indebted.

The public sector also is being constricted, with the robustness of social programs being diminished.

“As governments cut the size of the public workforce, emphasize low taxes and restrict new spending, social policy ... is at risk of neglect.”

 - Gus Van Harten reviews how FIPA investment deal with China being forced through by the Cons looks to have disastrous effects for Canada. And Rick Mercer rants about the Cons' refusal to accept debate or accountability on the deal:


- Amy Minsky has been reporting extensively on the Cons' anti-union bill - first highlighting the dishonesty involved in labeling the bill as a private member's legislation when Stephen Harper's own chief of staff has been documented meeting with the anti-worker lobbyists behind it, then covering the resulting committee hearings.

- And finally, Michael Harris discusses how direct interference by the Cons has led to the termination and silencing of journalists who dare to question their actions rather than serving as meek stenographers.

On delayed releases

I'll have plenty to catch up on over the next few days. But I'll start by pointing out the background behind what's become one of the most-discussed stories of the past week on the Saskatchewan political scene.

It's well and good that we've eventually learned the results of the report from the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce and SaskFilm showing just how much return we get from investing in the film industry.

But a week ago, that report was still being hidden from public view by the parties who commissioned it. And it took a public challenge from NDP MLA Danielle Chartier to both determine who had the authority to release the report, and make sure that the facts were eventually made public - notwithstanding that the contents were apparently known to the government a month earlier:

Culture Minister Kevin Doherty said the study, which was commissioned by the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce and Sask-Film, was presented to him about a month ago during a meeting that also included representation from the Saskatchewan Motion Picture Industry Association.

"What the report shows is that there is an economic benefit to the province of Saskatchewan from the film industry," Doherty told reporters on Monday at the Legislative Building after question period, during which the issue was raised by NDP culture critic Danielle Chartier.

Chartier said she has heard the study shows the net cost to taxpayers from the old refundable film employment tax credit was less than the $1 million per year budgeted by the government for its new, non-refundable replacement.

And that sequence of events raises more than a few questions. For example, would we ever have heard about the actual costs of the Sask Party's decision if Chartier hadn't heard about - and raised - the issue? Why did the parties who commissioned the report choose not to let the public in on a matter of public concern? And how much more information about the negative effects of Saskatchewan Party policies is being similarly withheld from the public?