Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The CCPA looks at Statistics Canada's latest income data and finds that inequality has been growing steadily across the country over the past few decades. The Canadian Labour Congress notes that corporate tax cuts have led to cash hoarding rather than increased jobs or productivity. Needless to say, the Village requests in all seriousness that observers not draw a connection between the two or any associated economic theory.

- Meanwhile, George Monbiot comments on how the removal of a privileged class from society at large serves to explain the disconnect between the wealthy and mere ordinary citizens:

In the Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt explains that the nobles of pre-revolutionary France "did not regard themselves as representative of the nation, but as a separate ruling caste which might have much more in common with a foreign people of the same society and condition than with its compatriots".

Last year the former Republican staffer Mike Lofgren wrote something very similar about the dominant classes of the US: "the rich elites of this country have far more in common with their counterparts in London, Paris, and Tokyo than with their fellow American citizens … the rich disconnect themselves from the civic life of the nation and from any concern about its well being except as a place to extract loot. Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and ruling it, but not of it."

Secession from the concerns and norms of the rest of society characterises any well established elite. Our own ruling caste, schooled separately, brought up to believe in justifying fairytales, lives in a world of its own, from which it can project power without understanding or even noticing the consequences. A removal from the life of the rest of the nation is no barrier to the desire to dominate it. In fact, it appears to be associated with a powerful sense of entitlement.

So if you have wondered how the current government can blithely engage in the wholesale transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, how its frontbench can rock with laughter as it truncates the livelihoods of the poorest people of this country, why it commits troops to ever more pointless post-colonial wars, here, I think, is part of the answer. Many of those who govern us do not in their hearts belong here. They belong to a different culture, a different world, which knows as little of its own acts as it knows of those who suffer them.

- Wendy Stueck reports that HD Mining is withdrawing some of its temporary foreign workers after having been required to provide information about the Canadian workers it rejected for the same jobs. But it remains to be seen whether that's an admission of guilt, or a threat not to bother pursuing profit if it has to pay fair wages in the process.

- Finally, Saskatchewan's federal electoral boundaries commission has released its final report - featuring some changes from the first set of proposed ridings, but not from the principle of urban communities of interest.

It takes a Village

Shorter John Ivison:

I consider it a sign of profound unseriousness that Romeo Saganash and the NDP want to give effect to an international treaty which might result in indigenous people having some influence over policy. Veto power for multinational corporate conglomerates, that's fine. But *people*? Outrageous, says I.

[Update: John Ibbitson provides the source declaring that all Serious People must support all free trade agreements regardless of merit.]

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- Maude Barlow offers some background to the Common Causes protests happening across Canada this week:

Over the last two years, we have witnessed amazing organizing and mobilizing in Canada -- from student movements in Québec, to the “Defend Our Coast” struggle against tar sands pipelines in British Columbia, to scientists speaking out against the “Death of Evidence,” to the environmental community standing together through the “Black Out Speak Out” campaign. Courageous doctors have stepped forward to challenge the attacks on refugee benefits, and librarians and archivists have marched to save our collective history. Workers are fighting for their rights. First Nations have taken direct action through the “Idle No More” movement, and Chief Theresa Spence of the Attawapiskat First Nation launched a hunger strike to protest unjust omnibus bills.

The time has come for Canada-wide coordinated action against the Harper government's agenda, which is fundamentally changing our society and our country. Common Causes will work to support the many mobilizations and campaigns that already exist, but also to create a strategic, coordinated plan to ensure that the Harper agenda is stopped at the next election and replaced with a progressive alternative. Common Causes will work cross-sectorally, locally, provincially and nationally to create an extended network for solidarity, resistance, action and change. Through this coordination, we will shape priorities for common action and maximum impact.

- And if we're looking for reasons to protest, the Cons have offered up a couple of noteworthy ones - including their suppression of details about oil spills caused by neglect in oversight, the presumably-related departure of an environment commissioner who found no apparent value in highlighting issues for a government which wouldn't listen, and their advertising to tell potential Roma refugees in Hungary they're not welcome in Canada.

- But while taking to the streets, we should make sure to focus on what we can plausibly accomplish. And Murray Dobbin seems to be headed in entirely the wrong direction - demanding a one-time electoral reform pact with little prospect of success, while ignoring the reality that a two-year gap in progressive work on substantive policy will only facilitate the rightward drift he takes as a given.

- Finally, it's good to see plenty of much-needed pushback against the City of Regina's plans to shut down the pool and recreation facilities which actually allow citizens to gather and keep fit while pouring millions upon millions of dollars into a new site for passive viewing purposes.

On second choices

The next week should be a relatively quiet one for the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership candidates: the membership deadline has passed, while the finalized list of members won't necessarily be available until the end of the week ahead (per the leadership rules). But I'll use the opportunity to note one point to watch as the voting window approaches.

This weekend's Ontario Liberal leadership convention offered a stark example as to how candidates can direct their supporters' actions in a delegated vote. In contrast, the one member, one vote system used by the NDP limits the effectiveness of any late shows of support for another candidate - particularly as an increasing number of voters make use of the advance preferential voting option (with the encouragement of candidates who want to lock in their own support).

As a result, in order to maximize his influence in choosing the eventual leader, a candidate will need to make lower-ballot preferences known in advance as well. But most participants in similar races have chosen not to do so, based presumably on two risks: that a candidate's recognition that any outcome other than victory is acceptable might undermine his or her own support base, and that in naming a second choice a candidate might alienate potential down-ballot supporters who back other candidates.

Martin Singh's federal NDP leadership campaign serves as a rare exception where a candidate has offered a public show of second-choice support. But it also offers an example of the circumstances in which a lower-ranked candidate might see more advantage in making a preference known early.

With that background in mind, I'll be curious to see whether the coming weeks see any direct declarations (or indirect hints) as to how the candidates themselves see their fellow contestants. And given that few people will have gained as much insight into the candidates over the past few months as regularly as those who have shared the stage, it may well be worthwhile to push the question as to how the candidates see their competitors before it's time to start voting.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- James Galbraith compares the mindless drones carrying an increasing share of the U.S.' military load, and those serving to try to attack social programs in the name of illusory deficit reduction. But sadly, Galbraith misses one of the most important similarities: in both cases, the use of replaceable machines for the task makes it far too easy to keep launching attacks even when reason would dictate otherwise.

- Meanwhile, Ivan Semeniuk reports on how poverty can influence childhood development. And Rob Carrick reports that lenders are finding ways to extract more and more money out of those with the least - ensuring that the corrosive effective of poverty are all the more devastating.

- Andrew Coyne is on target in pointing out why there's little reason to consider a merger among Canada's opposition parties. But Aaron Wherry discusses why Coyne's single-election push for electoral reform isn't any more feasible:

Are enough voters so interested in electoral reform that they would support turning the next election into a referendum on that subject? Could enough voters be convinced to momentarily suspend their concerns about other issues? Could enough voters be convinced to ignore the other policy differences between the NDP, Liberals and Greens? Could enough voters be convinced to ignore the possible ramifications of all other policy debates between the parties to vote with the hope that a real election would then be run in short order?

I’ll try to answer those questions: No. Granted, I can’t predict the future with certainty (and have just finished arguing against making such predictions). Perhaps the New Democrats, Liberals and Greens could persuade voters to make this a singular focus. But this strikes me as implausible. I don’t think voters, in general, are so interested in electoral reform that they’d go along with this. At the very least, it seems like a remarkable gamble for the three parties to make. (And, keep in mind, the Conservatives would be keen to explain, loudly and repeatedly and prominently, why this was such a terrible idea.)
...
Fundamentally overhauling the electoral system would probably take more than a couple days. Legislation would conceivably have to be passed through the House. Legislation would conceivably have to be passed through the Senate (how would a Conservative majority in the Senate handle such legislation?).

Even if you imagine this proceeding as expeditiously as possible, this would take some period of time (A month? A few months? More?). Someone would have to be Prime Minister while this was happening. Someone would have to be governing. How would that work? Conceivably they would have no mandate beyond changing the electoral system. Would they promise to not touch anything else for as long as they were in government? Would they promise to just carry on with Conservative policy until another election could be held? (Would anyone believe them if they promised as much?) What if something bad happened? What if something came up that required government action?

This is not a rhetorical device. I’m not trying to bury the idea in questions. I honestly want to know how this would work because I honestly don’t understand how this is supposed to work. What kind of government would we have for however long it took to change the federal electoral system and what would be the ramifications of having such a government?

- Finally, the Western Producer notes that there's ample reason to think the NDP can turn the tide on its own - particularly in its historical prairie strongholds.

#skndpldr Roundup

One of the more important dates of the Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign passed yesterday, as the membership deadline will close the list of members eligible to vote for the party's next leader.

We'll find out the official numbers before too long, but for now two of the campaigns have given an indication what we can expect. 2,000 new or renewed memberships were sold through Ryan Meili's campaign according to Aaron Genest (in a post which is well worth a read generally in discussing the background work needed to make a social media campaign effective). And Trent Wotherspoon had already sold "several hundred new memberships" according to Friday's final membership appeal on his campaign's Facebook page.

Barring a surprise either from the remaining candidates or from new members signing up through other means, those numbers figure to include most of the new supporters in the leadership voter pool.

In other news, a few relatively significant late-campaign endorsements were revealed over the past week. Athabasca MLA and deputy leader Buckley Belanger endorsed Wotherspoon, allowing him to claim additional support from a well-respected member of the NDP's current caucus while also boosting his apparent geographic base.

Meanwhile, Broten unveiled two endorsements of particular note. A nod from the United Steelworkers serves as both his first labour endorsement (at least to my recollection) and somewhat of a coup in light of Erin Weir's work for the union. And his endorsement by Anne Blakeney lends some weight to Broten's regular invocations of Allan Blakeney's legacy, while also highlighting his establishment support in Saskatoon.

Of course, it's the members rather than the endorsers who will ultimately vote on the leadership. And  now that one of the great unknowns of the campaign (the composition of the eligible membership) is settled, we can expect to see the campaigns focus entirely on targetting voters as the convention approaches.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Susan Delacourt comments on the role of robocalls in turning citizens away from politics - though it's worth pointing out that the Cons may well see that as a desirable result to capitalize on a modest base of support:

What may need more testing, however, is how robocalls work as a tool to suppress votes. Sure, they don’t make people any more likely to turn out at the polls, or vote for a particular party.

But they may just be annoying enough to turn people off politics or voting — and, from all accounts, that seemed to be the motive behind the rash of robocalls in the 2011 campaign. Robocalls are the political equivalent of telemarketers; the scourge of Canadian households, especially around dinnertime.

If you were trying to find a way to make people mad or cynical about politics, it would be hard to find a better medium than the irksome telephone.

- Meanwhile, Nanos' latest polling shows both the NDP and the Libs with a significantly greater pool of potential voters than the Cons in Quebec and elsewhere. And while most of the related commentary has focused on the fact that potential support is somewhat dispersed among various first choices, I'd have to think any party would prefer a larger universe of potential supporters rather than a smaller one.

On that front, the fact that the Cons haven't expanded their pool of possible support in the slightest since winning a majority looks to signal that their hold on power is in fact fairly precarious. But then, they're far from the party with the greatest contraction in possible support - as Nanos shows the Bloc's potential support in Quebec lower than the actual support held in the party's 2011 wipeout.

- The Guardian discusses how needless austerity has been tested in the UK - and has failed miserably. Better Way Alberta notes that an obsession with eliminating tax and royalty revenue has led to Alberta being stuck in the red even as its resources are exploited. Paul Krugman catches anti-equality spinmeisters trying to pass off increased wealth disparity as evidence that there's any benefit to the middle class in further divergence. And Andrew Jackson makes the case for taxes on accumulated wealth as a means of fostering both greater equality and increased economic development.

- Finally, David McNally writes about the role of the labour movement in addressing inequality:

When Chicago teachers waged their highly successful strike in September, many commentators rightly noted the enormous significance of the wide public support they garnered. But few appreciated that this support was a result of years of community-based organizing by the Coalition of Rank and File Educators (CORE), a progressive caucus in the teachers union, to prevent school closures in poor, racialized neighbourhoods. In 2010, activists from CORE won the executive elections in the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU). So, when the union struck in the fall of 2012, it could credibly claim it was striking as much for the needs of students as for the jobs and wages of teachers. Throughout the walkout, the CTU continued to foreground its commitments to challenging racism and poverty. The result was an outpouring of community support for the union, including solidarity rallies at schools throughout working class neighbourhoods. So shaken by this groundswell were city officials, that the CTU won important victories – for students and poor communities as much as the teachers themselves.

Closer to home, the last couple of years have seen the emergence of a vigourous alliance between the Ontario division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and the feisty, Toronto-based Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP). Together, CUPE and OCAP have spearheaded an energetic “Raise the Rates” campaign devoted to increasing social assistance rates in Ontario – something absolutely indispensable to alleviating poverty. Combining education and grassroots activism, the Raise the Rates campaign has been a genuine example of a community-labour alliance that transcends conventional collective bargaining. By creating an authentic and activist solidarity between poor people and trade unionists it offers a refreshing alternative to business style unionism.

There are reasons to believe, therefore, that a reinvigorated trade unionism is possible – one committed to gender, racial and generational justice. And such a trade unionism, mobilizing communities in a way labour has not done for generations, could become a powerful force in reversing the rampant social inequality promoted by neoliberalism.

Musical interlude

Kaskade feat. Marcus Bently - Let Me Go

#skndpldr - Weyburn Debate Notes

In principle, we might have expected the first debate after the holiday break to signal any change in direction from Saskatchewan's NDP leadership candidates. But it was instead the Weyburn debate which saw a couple of significant changes in tone and strategy (on top of the usual number of noteworthy developments).


While the candidates' opening statements have mostly seen only modest changes throughout the campaign, two new developments stand out from the above.

Erin Weir's opening featured far more discussion of principles as opposed to talking points than we've seen from him in the past. Yes, Weir continued to highlight costing and planning as central themes - but he did so only after emphasizing the importance of collective ownership and equal distribution of resources as the end goals to be pursued. And that explanation and advocacy as to what he's trying to accomplish set out a much-needed foundation for the message he's chosen to get there.

Meanwhile, Ryan Meili's strategy seems to have taken a noteworthy turn from merely introducing himself as an individual, to presenting a preview of how he'd deal with the Saskatchewan Party as leader of the opposition. Rather than emphasizing his well-worn metaphor of an "outside voice" within the NDP, Meili's opening honed in on the zero-dissent corporatism being preached by the Wall government and emphasized both the importance of actually being able to speak up in response to business demands, and some of the issues where there's the greatest opportunity to succeed with an alternative vision.

Those look to be the developments with the most potential impact on the balance of the campaign - as they reflect conscious choices on the part of the candidates as to what we'll see emphasized in the weeks to come. But as usual, there were also a few interesting exchanges within the candidate questions and answers.

In the first round of questioning, Trent Wotherspoon tried to replicate his success in challenging Cam Broten on outside ownership of Saskatchewan farmland. But not surprisingly, Broten was fully prepared to answer the issue this time - meaning that Wotherspoon wasn't able to create the gap in perspectives that worked to his advantage in the previous debate.

In turn, Wotherspoon faced some questions seeking specifics - including one set from Meili on greenhouse gas emissions, and one from Broten on party and policy structures. And in both cases, he stuck with his more general positions rather than rising to the challenge to go into more detail.


Wotherspoon did offer the most noteworthy response to any of the audience questions, noting the connection between an Idle No More rally and a party event dealing with inequality and poverty held the same day and acknowledging he could have done more to connect the two. But we'll see how many opportunities he has to put that type of recognition into action in the rest of the leadership campaign - as there's obviously less value in noticing a missed opening than actually putting the opportunity to good use.

Finally, the second round of questioning included a new challenge from Meili to Broten about his involvement in movement politics. And the issue looks to provide a valuable counter for Meili as both Broten and Wotherspoon play up the value of experience on the electoral scene.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Friday reading.

- In addition to providing my latest tagline, Alex Himelfarb takes aim at the austerians who seem happy to attack social well-being and economic development alike in the name of government-slashing:

(A)usterity had never been driven by fiscal policy or economics or evidence.  It was driven by ideology.  Market fundamentalism.  A desire to make government much smaller, eliminate or reduce, as much as politics allowed, so-called entitlements, create a “pro-business” climate of less regulation, less government, and, above all, lower taxes.

Think about the irony of this: that the huge recession-induced deficits that were largely the result of tax cuts and deregulation were now the justification to renew the commitment to that same failed ideology. Deficits were a gift – cover to do what many had wanted to do all along.  Cut government down to size.  Cut services. Cut. It seems that every failure of this neoconservative approach is used by its advocates to justify doing more of the same. That’s kind of nuts.

How about Canada? I left the Privy Council and Canada for a few years in 2006. At that time Canada had a $16 billion surplus. That’s a real problem for those who might share Cameron’s ideology because without big deficits it’s harder to argue for the urgency to cut programs, reduce government. Instead, the decision was made to cut taxes, for example, taking two cents out of GST. Today those two cents cost the federal government about $14 billion annually. That’s on top of continuing the corporate tax cuts the Liberals had already launched and on top of numerous “boutique tax cuts” and on top of Liberal tax cuts in 2000 that were the biggest in Canadian history.

Imagine none of that had happened.  Imagine that the federal government had at least a good portion of the revenue that they gave up over the last dozen years. They would have had enough money to be far more resilient in the face of recession, to help provinces that were in trouble, to invest in science, education, in a greener, cleaner economy and to begin to transform our health and social programs so they would be there for future generations.

Instead, we’re now talking about austerity as though it’s inevitable, as though we have no choice. (When our leaders tell us that there is no alternative, it is a safe bet to assume that there is indeed an alternative and one that we would prefer were it on offer.)

- Meanwhile, Chrystia Freeland points out that many of the world's wealthiest tycoons gathered in Davos are trying to perpetuate an obsession with deficits rather than well-being. But Paul Krugman has some hope that deficit hawks are rightly being marginalized in Washington.

- At home, Kevin Page's latest report features two obvious indications that deficit talk is just as empty here as elsewhere: the CP points out that the Cons' attacks on the civil service have resulted in a shift away from providing useful services without actually saving any money.

- And finally, Hugh MacKenzie reminds us that we should be concerned about a $145 billion backlog of infrastructure neglect rather than limiting our focus to cuts and tax baubles.

New column day

Here, on how a close Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign makes it all the more likely that a small number of new members can make a massive difference in the race.

The most important followup link is naturally to the party's membership page - which should be the best way to connect before tomorrow afternoon. But for those interested, leftdog and Aaron Genest have both issued membership appeals beyond those of the campaigns.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- There's plenty of reason for concern about the departure of some of the few independent officers who have successfully held the Cons to account at times - with departing environment commissioner Scott Vaughan serving as only the latest example.

- But the more important story is less the presence of watchdogs than that of effective regulators - and the fact that the Cons have limited environmental enforcement to sporadic letter-writing campaigns gives us plenty of reason for concern no matter who's in a position to point it out.

- Meanwhile, Luigi Zanasi offers up an actual proposal to deal with greenhouse gas emissions - which is particularly noteworthy as a response to the Cons' anti-environment spin since it involves up-front credits rather than costs for Canadians. But there is some reason for concern that a complex system would end up being more easily manipulated than one which focuses more directly on large emitters.

- Pat Atkinson writes about the success of community ownership of pasture land.

- Finally, Vaughn Palmer rightly approves of the B.C. NDP's proposal to eliminate publicly-funded political advertising.

On policy choices

Thomas Walkom and the Mound of Sound both note that a leadership race has only signalled how far the federal Libs are from being a progressive party. But with Walkom and Paul Adams also questioning whether Canada's political system has seen either a convergence in the middle or a drift to the right, let's note that the Libs' leadership convention may not be this spring's most important source of answers on those points.

On the same weekend the Libs choose their new leader, the NDP will be holding its first convention since last year's leadership vote which elected Tom Mulcair. And the Montreal convention website has now been updated with the basics of the NDP's policy development process - including both the current policy book (PDF), and the guidelines for convention resolutions which will have to be approved and submitted by February 11.

That doesn't leave much time to review and discuss what changes might be made to the principles agreed upon by the NDP's membership just a few years ago - either to strengthen the language to better reflect progressive values, or to water it down if the party's leadership wants more room to maneuver.

But we should be able to tell plenty about the party's future direction by watching how a convention featuring a high proportion of the NDP's new Quebec membership handles traditional party policy and proposed amendments. And the more important test for progressive politics in Canada may play out in Montreal - rather than at the Libs' putty sculpture contest down the road.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Erika Shaker rightly tears into the special brand of FAIPOF demanding that First Nations protesters focus solely on their own community leaders rather than recognizing broader and more systematic inequality:

Much is being made of Chief Spence’s Escalade (although I’m unsure if she actually owns one or if it’s urban legend) to try and mock the principled stand she has taken to call attention to the shameful conditions in which so many Indigenous peoples live. Because apparently if she had figured out how to stretch those shamefully inadequate federal transfers instead of engaging in a fast—which Barbara “just sayin’” Kay spells d-e-t-o-x—to protest the chronic underfunding of First Nations communities, Attawapiskat wouldn’t be in such a mess.

If only Chief Spence had had access to the Financial Post’s recent piece on “frugal billionaires who live like real people”. Then perhaps she would have learned some discretion when it came to her personal finances: modeling herself after Mark Zuckerberg’s “low key lifestyle” as evidenced by his recent Facebook-funded upgrade to a $7 million Palo Alto home which is “still well below his means”. Or Azim Premji, chairman of Wipro Limited with a net worth of $12.2 billion, who is so “frugal” he is said to “monitor the number of toilet paper rolls used in Wipro facilities” (which where employees are concerned seems less “frugal” than “fascist”). Oh, and Amancio Ortego, founder of Zara and worth $57.5 billion, “hasn’t let success go to his head”…except for perhaps one teensy indulgence: a private Bombardier jet that cost $45 million.

That’s how you do frugal, FP-style.

For some, wealth and reality are clearly fluid concepts—as the Financial Post and its comrades in the class struggle illustrate.
...
Clearly this is about perception, but more to the point, it’s about the perceptions that some people—who can afford them—impose on everyone else to either marginalize the majority of the population, or to sow seeds of division. The people who “matter”—those who make over $150,000—become the standard by which a “successful” society and the economy are judged. They deserve empathy for their hardship and a tax code that further enriches them…and facial expressions detailed in full colour.
...
Meanwhile, public outrage at an unworkable economic system that continues to marginalize so many of us—and some far more than others—can be directed elsewhere.

At the Theresa Spences of the world. For example.

- Meanwhile, Frances Russell discusses how the right's obsession with stripping out as much as possible from the tar sands into private hands has exacerbated inequality across Canada. Carol Goar notes that there's still a stark contrast between the reserves of cash held in corporate coffers and the lack of economic benefit for mere citizens. And CUPE questions the Cons' determination to turn social programs into yet another set of corporate profit centres.

- Hassan Arif discusses what progressive political parties need to do in order to counter the influence of big money (and all the astroturf attention it can buy):

(F)or progressive political parties, substantive policies, rooted in the concerns of party members and the general public (through genuine consultation and engagement) is key -- policies aimed at combating real problems faced by the general public, aimed at building a broad progressive coalition to defeat conservative parties which, in many cases in both Britain and Canada, are increasingly driven by rightwing neo-conservative ideology.

In Canada, this would entail building a coalition of environmentalists (including many who would normally support the Green Party), social democrats, liberals, and Red Tories who hail from the Progressive half of the old Progressive Conservative Party. This would involve emphasis on environmental conservation, poverty-reduction, a strong social safety net (both protecting and enhancing it), and an emphasis on entrepreneurship and innovation.
...
The Labour Party, in charting an assertively progressive path, in seeking to root policies in local concerns and to empower volunteers and elected officials, and in embarking on a genuinely consultative policy process, is offering lessons worth learning for other progressive parties, including here in Canada.

- But as Tim Harper points out, the default setting for far too many Canadian governments (of multiple partisan stripes) seems to be to limit the activity and effectiveness of elected legislative bodies. And so it may be particularly important to highlight how the link between voters, elected representatives and governments should work in order to ensure that policy actually reflects public priorities.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Side-by-side cats.

#skndpldr Candidate Rankings - January 22

Not surprisingly, there's relatively little change in this week's rankings: there have been relatively few new developments, and the most significant ones have mostly reinforced the candidates' current placements.

1. Ryan Meili (1)

Meili's December fund-raising success ensured that his top ranking wouldn't be in jeopardy. But the most important numbers for his campaign will be those which crystallize this week: new membership sales have always represented Meili's best chance to put some distance between himself and the balance of the candidates, and we'll know soon whether he's managed to achieve that.

2. Cam Broten (2)

Broten may be the other candidate with the most at stake as the membership deadline passes. While his campaign doesn't look to have as wide a reach as Meili's, Broten's targeted outreach toward immigrant communities could offer him an edge in early-ballot support which might fly under the radar. And we'll have a better idea soon whether Broten will enjoy that advantage over his competitors - or whether he'll face what could be an uphill battle for support among existing members in order to stay on the ballot.

3. Trent Wotherspoon (3)

In contrast, Wotherspoon's campaign has made a more public push to sell memberships - but with little indication as to how many people are taking up the invitation. And so Wotherspoon stays at his current position pending some indication that he's been able to bring in a substantial number of new supporters to give him an edge.

4. Erin Weir (4)

Finally, Weir has taken steps in the last couple of weeks to broaden both his general appeal, and the scope of debate within the campaign as a whole. But he still has some distance to travel to catch up to the plausible multiple-ballot support held by the top three candidates.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Jacob Chamberlain discusses the all-too-familiar pattern of corporate insiders using their wealth and influence to try to attack basic social supports for less-privileged citizens:

CEOs from America's largest corporations—including its biggest banks, retailers, and insurance companies who helped drive the country into the worst recession in nearly a century— are now calling on Congress to punish the nation's working class and society's most vulnerable by advocating major changes to Social Security and Medicare in a new lobbying push that critics say reveal the cruelty and selfish nature of the country's corporate class. 

The Business Roundtable, comprised of more than 200 chief executives and some of the nation's wealthiest individuals, began lobbying DC lawmakers Wednesday in a press conference calling for major cuts to Social Security (including a raise in elgibility age to 70) and a new push to privatize Medicare.
 ...
Among the other 200 corporations, Roundtable members include American Express, AT&T, Bank of America, Bayer, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Dow Chemical Company, and JPMorgan.

"Average CEO pay for S&P 500 companies is nearly $13 million," Garofalo adds. "Recent increases in life expectancy have only benefited wealthier workers in non-physical jobs. Poorer workers doing physical labor have not seen the same gains and would be most hurt by an increase in the retirement age."

- Meanwhile, the Harper Cons are using public money to make sure that Canada's equivalent business barons are able to jet-set around the globe in pursuit of their own profits.

- But while far too many Canadian governments have bought into the divine right of corporate leaders, the courts aren't quite so deferential - as evidenced by the ruling that HD Mining isn't entitled to escape scrutiny for its decade-plus "temporary" worker permits granted without any meaningful review.

- Andrew Jackson rebuts the claim that the erosion of Canadian manufacturing as anything but a sub-contractor to the tar sands is either inevitable or desirable:

In fact, there has been a huge divergence in the fortunes of Canadian and U.S. manufacturers over the past decade. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, if 2002 is set as the base year, U.S. manufacturing output grew by 23.2 per cent by 2011, while shrinking by 11.5 per cent in Canada.

The same data base shows that Canada experienced a massive loss of cost competitiveness compared to U.S. manufacturers. Canadian unit labour costs rose by 79.1 per cent on a U.S. dollar basis from 2002 to 2011, compared to a fall of 14.3 per cent in the U.S.

Most of this huge loss in cost competitiveness was due to the appreciation of the exchange rate. However, lagging productivity is also an important part of the story. Between 2002 and 2011, hourly productivity in manufacturing grew by a stunning 55.7 per cent in the U.S. compared to an abysmal 10.6 per cent in Canada.

To summarize, U.S. manufacturing output and productivity have both grown strongly since 2002, while output has shrunk in Canada and productivity has barely improved.

This picture is not one of successful restructuring. Rather the dismal state of Canadian manufacturing is the result of an over-valued exchange rate combined with the impacts of a structural regression to relatively low value-added resource extraction and processing.

- Finally, Pete McMartin rightly slams the closed-door nature of what are supposed to be public hearings into the Northern Gateway pipeline.

The litmus test

It's now the official rule of thumb for Canadian journalists: if the Harper Cons aren't attacking you for having the nerve to point out their falsehoods, then you're not doing your job.

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- Dennis Gruending writes about the importance of Edgar Schmidt's whistleblowing against unconstitutional legislation:

Schmidt says that he has over a period of years raised concerns about what he considers the department’s flawed practices. He has done that through various official channels, up to the deputy minister level — in both Liberal and Conservative governments. He says he has never received a satisfactory response and that he has gone to court as a matter of last resort.

Schmidt says the consequences of the department’s failure to act appropriately are serious. The state should be ensuring that it makes laws that it believes conform to the Charter and Bill of Rights. Instead, it is left to citizens, who usually do not have the resources, to discover and challenge such offending laws.

- Michael Harris notes that the Cons' efforts to silence any criticism have now extended to attacks on individual journalists - with Stephen Maher as only the latest example:

The measure for the kind of work that Maher, McGregor, Tim Naumetz and Greg Weston do is not the metric of public relations. The question is not whether their stories are good or bad for the government.

The question is whether the stories are true. If they’re not, it doesn’t mean that the reporters hate the government — just that they’re wrong. If they’re right, they form part of the composite of facts that makes up public reality. The RCMP are now involved in the investigation and the public is entitled to know that. Thanks to Stephen Maher, it does.

At one level, no one should be surprised at this scurrilous attack on a reporter. The Harper government, and the prime minister personally, specialize in character assassination when opposed.

It is one of the oldest and dirtiest tricks in the book. 

 - And Tabatha Southey wonders what additional abuses of power we might see from the Harper Cons in the years to come.

- While far too many seem to be eager to turn Mali into Canada's next ill-thought-out military intervention, Thomas Walkom makes the case for caution.

- Finally, Daniel Wilson highlights why there's rather less reason for patience when it comes to the federal government's neglect of First Nations.

#skndpldr Roundup

This past weekend saw another Saskatchewan NDP leadership debate, this time in Weyburn. But oddly enough (particularly given the presence of some of the most active social media presences in the campaign), Saturday's debate was the first not to be covered live at the time - meaning that the best sources of discussion for the moment are Jason's post and Jennifer LaCharite's story. As per usual, I'll look at the debate in a bit more detail once the video is available.

Meanwhile, the campaigns were otherwise relatively quiet over the past few days. Ryan Meili did unveil his policy planks on First Nations and justice (along with a redesigned website), and Meili, Trent Wotherspoon and Cam Broten have each held events as this week's membership deadline approaches.

Finally, Very Serious People are talking about what "some people" have told them about the race. Any resemblance to observable reality is purely coincidental.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Joseph Stiglitz discusses how the U.S.' extreme inequality is limiting its prospects for economic recovery:

There are all kinds of excuses for inequality. Some say it’s beyond our control, pointing to market forces like globalization, trade liberalization, the technological revolution, the “rise of the rest.” Others assert that doing anything about it would make us all worse off, by stifling our already sputtering economic engine. These are self-serving, ignorant falsehoods.

Market forces don’t exist in a vacuum — we shape them. Other countries, like fast-growing Brazil, have shaped them in ways that have lowered inequality while creating more opportunity and higher growth. Countries far poorer than ours have decided that all young people should have access to food, education and health care so they can fulfill their aspirations.

Our legal framework and the way we enforce it has provided more scope here for abuses by the financial sector; for perverse compensation for chief executives; for monopolies’ ability to take unjust advantage of their concentrated power.
...
The good news is that our thinking has been reframed: it used to be that we asked how much growth we would be willing to sacrifice for a little more equality and opportunity. Now we realize that we are paying a high price for our inequality and that alleviating it and promoting growth are intertwined, complementary goals. It will be up to all of us — our leaders included — to muster the courage and foresight to finally treat this beleaguering malady.

- Meanwhile, The Economist's Free Exchange blog notes that cities and neighbourhoods which make the effort to fund public services tend to generate a virtuous cycle in terms of overall well-being - while those who have tried to operate on the cheap have paid the price by falling behind further:

(C)ities that hoovered up more skilled workers became more productive and paid higher wages to high and low skill workers. But cities that attracted a large share of skilled workers then experienced a major improvement in their local amenities. The quality of local schools rose, for instance. Crime fell. Cultural and entertainment opportunities expanded. Thanks to slow housing supply growth, housing costs in these places soared. And because low skill households have been less willing to pay for the improvements in amenities, they've left for cheaper cities.

And here's the kicker: once one takes into account the rising amenity values in skilled places it turns out that growth in welfare inequality has been larger than growth in income inequality.

- Benedict Carey discusses the poverty trap - where those with less money wind up paying more for necessities as immediate needs override any capacity to plan:

The usual explanations for reckless borrowing focus on people’s character, or social norms that promote free spending and instant gratification. But recent research has shown that scarcity by itself is enough to cause this kind of financial self-sabotage.

 “When we put people in situations of scarcity in experiments, they get into poverty traps,” said Eldar Shafir, a professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton. “They borrow at high interest rates that hurt them, in ways they knew to avoid when there was less scarcity.”

The psychological burden of debt not only saps intellectual resources, it also reinforces the reckless behavior, and quickly, Dr. Shafir and other experts said. Millions of Americans have been keeping the lights on through hard times with borrowed money, running a kind of shell game to keep bill collectors away. The average debt for households earning $20,000 a year or less more than doubled to $26,000 between 2001 and 2010, according to the Urban Institute. The averages for households in slightly higher brackets grew by 50 to 90 percent in the same period. 

- Finally, the Star's editorial board salutes Edgar Schmidt's much-needed whistleblowing against the unconstitutional legislation. And Iain Hunter notes that the problem is particularly obvious when the lack of a proper review from the civil service is combined with the Cons' habit of ramming through legislation without debate (or even any particular thought).

[Edit: fixed typo.]

#skndpldr - Rosetown Debate Notes

As Scott has already noted, the first Saskatchewan NDP leadership forum of 2013 saw plenty of familiar themes - particularly in the prepared speeches and the audience questions. But the candidate questions took a couple of interesting turns.


The first candidate question went to Weir, and he used both of his questioning slots to a similar effect - in each case challenging one of his fellow candidates to make a principled case for a policy position. And the strategy seemed to catch the respondents somewhat off guard: Ryan Meili offered an effective first answer on reproductive rights generally but missed an obvious opportunity on his follow-up to link abortion choice in particular to social health outcomes, while Trent Wotherspoon sidestepped an invitation to make a case either for or against anti-scab legislation.

Now, I still think there's plenty of room for Weir himself to expand on the principled basis for his own proposals. But his challenge to other candidates to better explain the philosophy behind their policy choices looks like a highly valuable addition to the debate - and should help ensure that any eventual leader is better prepared to deal with the level of scrutiny that comes with a leadership role.

Meili followed Weir's initial question with another noteworthy offering, questioning Weir as to which of his platform planks would have to give way if expected revenue increases didn't materialize. Weir avoided the question by noting that his assumptions are modest enough to allow his entire platform to stand even if the economy does turn downward, but the overall message looks to be an important one: any leader or premier will have to prioritize, and voters seeking to evaluate potential leaders will be best served knowing how candidates will carry out that task even among the policies they support.

The most striking development of the Rosetown debate came in Trent Wotherspoon's first round of questioning. I've commented several times before about Wotherspoon's softball questions toward his competitors - and his first open query to Cam Broten about foreign ownership of farmland had a relatively similar feel to it, leading to Broten's characteristic on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand answer.

But this time, Wotherspoon's followup did far more than merely allow for further discussion at the respondent's leisure. Instead, Wotherspoon staked out a strong position on the initial question, pointing out that one of Broten's options might be taken to involve the violation of existing law against foreign ownership. And the result was to force Broten to backtrack from his original response and acknowledge his agreement with Wotherspoon's position.

The exchange was interesting enough as an example of a broader point as to the dangers of equivocation: some questions call for a strong answer, and a candidate can get in serious trouble by developing the habit of refusing to provide them. But it also suggests Wotherspoon is sharpening his skills in challenging his competitors after avoiding confrontation for the first half of the campaign. And while he likely won't catch anybody off guard quite as easily in the debates to come, it's a significant plus to see that change.

Finally, the more interesting question from Broten was his second one. Once again, he zeroed in on one of Meili's policy proposals, this time asking for specifics about a Bank of Saskatchewan. But Broten ran into trouble by equating a provincial structure with the obviously different purpose and structure of the Bank of Canada - leaving Meili all kinds of room to respond by pointing (as he has in the past) to North Dakota's example as to how a public bank can serve useful purposes without either setting broader monetary policy or harming the business of other financial institutions.

Again, the balance of the debate ran largely along the tracks set before the holiday break, subject to some development in Meili's speaking style and Broten's focus on the reform of party structures. But it still offered some hint of differences in strategy and execution as the campaign shifts to the home stretch - and the candidates figure to be put to a better test as leaders if the new developments continue.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Raz Godelnik challenges the all-too-conventional wisdom that corporations (and indeed individuals) should see tax avoidance and evasion as virtues:

One of the most common arguments is that the tax-avoidance techniques used by corporations like Starbucks or Google are legal and therefore they’re not to be blamed, but the tax systems that make them possible.

Apparently these techniques are indeed legal, but here are couple of other things that are legal, such as: cutting down trees in rainforests, sourcing blood minerals from Congo, working with suppliers in China that release hazardous materials into rivers or with factories in Bangladesh that put their employees in jeopardy, or not paying for externalities. Yet, we have expectations from companies that call themselves responsible to do more than just comply with the law in these cases – after all, it is widely assumed that CSR begins where the law ends. So why should tax payments be any different?

Bottom line: While tax systems should be revised, legality is no excuse for not doing the right thing, no matter if you’re talking about natural resources, working conditions or tax payments.

- Bill Tieleman discusses the impending corporate ad blitz against the B.C. NDP - with plenty of federal Lib links featuring prominently among a group dedicated to keeping a progressive party out of power at all costs.

- I'm not sure the minimal contribution of the private sector and the Saskatchewan Roughriders to the cost of a new stadium should come as much surprise. But Paul Dechene is duly outraged at the fact that the public is absorbing nearly the full risk and cost of the stadium - while even the remote possibility of a substantial deal for naming rights won't lead to any public benefit.

- Finally, Susan Delacourt observes that a governing party shouldn't gratuitously play politics at every single opportunity - a statement noteworthy mostly for the fact that the Harper Cons have raised the possibility of an opposing viewpoint being applied by our current government. And in a related vein, Aaron Wherry makes the case for independent thought from MPs:

We should, in the first place, probably assume that if an individual has been able to win election he or she possesses some basic reading skills and so there is little need for MPs to publicly prove their literacy by standing in the House to recite their party’s talking points. Indeed, there is little more depressing about our democracy than the rote recitation of sentences crafted by 20-something and 30-something party apparatchiks that many of the grown men and women we elect are asked to perform on a daily basis as seemingly the central purpose of their existence here. A certain uniformity and consistency of views is to be expected—it may even assist in the general coherence and understanding of what the parties stand for and represent—but the MP’s primary purpose should not be to spread the good word and attest to the gloriousness of their leader. They should not merely be party news releases made flesh and blood.

Mr. Rathgeber’s distinguishing characteristic is that he has a blog, on which he periodically expresses thoughts that do not seem to have been screened by his party leadership. This should not seem a revolutionary initiative.

Indeed, this should be our wish: more indications that our MPs exist as something other than tools of their parties. They needn’t start going rogue and spilling secrets and condemning their leaders. At least not right away. (And it is, it should be noted, possible to both stridently support the party line and act like a human being while doing so.) But a little less of the rote recitation and repetition and a little more of the using one’s own voice to articulate an opinion or thought would certainly go a long way toward making it a little bit easier to watch our politics get made this year.

Musical interlude

Wild Strawberries - I Don't Want To Think About It

Friday Morning Links

This and that to end your week.

- Bruce Campbell argues that Alberta should take a lesson from Norway on how to manage natural resources - and plenty of other provinces could stand to take notes as well:

The Norwegian government owns 80 per cent of petroleum production, and retains roughly 85 per cent of the net petroleum revenues mainly through a 78-per-cent company tax and through direct access mechanisms.

In Alberta and Canada, ownership and control have been controversial issues. At present, virtually the entire industry is owned by foreign and domestic private interests, which have taken the lion’s share of the petroleum wealth.

According to one estimate, the Alberta government has averaged just 9 per cent of the economic rent from the oilsands over the last 15 years, and the federal government now takes (after tax breaks) a paltry 7 per cent of oil company revenues through the general corporate income tax.

The Norwegian government has been very effective in distributing the benefits of oil wealth both regionally and throughout its population, thanks to a generous social welfare system, an equitable labour relations system and a progressive tax system. It has maintained one of the lowest levels of income inequality in the world.

Inequitable petrodollar recycling mechanisms explain, in large part, why inequality is substantially higher in Alberta than the Canadian average (which in turn is among the highest in the OECD), and why it has grown dramatically over the last decade.

- But of course, that won't be happening among the premiers more interested in serving as wholly-owned subsidiaries of oil barons than advancing any issue which might actually affect their own province.

- Thomas Walkom sees the latest set of Idle No More protests as a qualified success, while Barbara Yaffe identifies John Duncan and the Cons' handling of First Nation issued as an unmitigated failure. And Emma Teitel introduces some new language to discuss the reflexive anti-activist tendency of some columnists - though I think we may be best off contrasting "idle no more" against "curmudgeonly forever".

- Finally, Chris Sorenson and Charlie Gillis discuss the new underclass of young Canadians - as plenty of citizens who took exactly the path suggested for them (featuring higher education at ballooning prices) are now stuck with few job prospects.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Murray Dobbin writes about the significance of Idle No More as a shift away from the presumption that First Nations' interests are represented solely by elected officials:

There are some fascinating similarities between the Idle No More phenomenon and the Occupy movement. Both reflect a political dualism: they are focused on the lack of democracy, justice and equality for ordinary people and they are implicitly (and with Idle No More explicitly) telling conventional movement organizations that are supposed to speak for them that they have failed. And it should come as no surprise that most members of the leadership of Idle No More are women.

By the late 1980s government funding had established a mutually beneficial relationship between governments and aboriginal leaders. Into this status quo of continued poverty came native women's organizations which were genuinely radical (they had no big salaries to lose) and often critical of the totally male dominated aboriginal groups. They were the voices of aboriginal communities -- but lack of resources and bullying by the government-funded "official" organizations eventually prevailed. That they are back in leadership roles is one of the most important and positive aspects of the movement.

Idle No More is the most exciting development in aboriginal politics in two generations. It has rightfully scared the hell out of the entire First Nations leadership -- from Shawn Atleo down to the hundreds of chiefs, too many of whom do in fact live high on the hog while their band members suffer. And it has got the attention of Stephen Harper, a man who has dedicated his political career to the interests of the oil and other resource industries threatened by Idle No More. Remember that he cancelled the Kelowna Accord soon after he became prime minister. The only reason Harper met with First Nations leaders is because his intelligence gathering told him this could be real trouble. Let's hope it is.

- Meanwhile, Aaron Wherry interviews Romeo Saganash about his own path toward federal politics:

I had a mission in life and that was to help building bridges between my people and the rest of Quebec and Canadian society. My whole purpose was that over the last 30 years. When Jack first approached me in 2006 to run for the NDP, there was still a lot of unfinished business with the Cree at that time, so I preferred to continue to work with the Cree until 2011 when I thought was the timing was great for me. The campaign slogan was travaillons ensemble and that was me over the years.

The intent at that time was for me to run in Quebec City. I had worked from Quebec City for the grand council, my work base was in Quebec City and I had been there for 20 years, so I knew practically everybody in Quebec City. But Jack, and that was probably the only thing that he refused from me, said to me, no, my friend, you’re going back home. And I always loved the way that he explained his refusal to me. He said, look at this way: all of the challenges, the global challenges that we have today, the environment, climate change, relations with aboriginal peoples, the future of aboriginal peoples, resource development, the future of the north, the new geopolitical realities of the Arctic, you name them, they’re all in that riding. And he said, who better than you can represent that riding? And in a sense I’d never thought about it, because it’s so diverse in terms of population. There are Cree in my riding, there are Inuit in my riding, there are Algonquins in my riding, there are forestry workers in my riding, there are mining workers in my riding. More than half the province gets its electricity from that territory. It’s a huge riding, it’s the second largest in the country. And I know the riding very well. It’s a riding where the James Bay-Northern Quebec agreement, first model treaty, applies as well, more than half of the riding is covered by this constitutional arrangement. And I know that treaty very, very well. And I think Jack was right. And I’m certainly glad that he insisted.

- Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher report on the continued investigation against Dean Del Mastro's 2008 campaign for breaking Canadian electoral law. And Jim Bronskill points out Jim Flaherty's misuse of his ministerial title and resources to try to influence CRTC licensing decisions.

- Finally, Michael Geist discusses how the Cons' anti-spam legislation remains in limbo after being passed years ago - and has given way to pro-spam regulations at the behest of businesses who don't want to have to justify loading up Canadians' inboxes with unwanted ads.

New column day

Here, on the general irrationality of the right-wing obsession with chaining public services and tax rates to population growth - and the particularly egregious application of that theory by the Regina Chamber of Commerce when it's put added pressure on city services by insisting on generous tax abatements for some of the businesses and individuals who can most afford to contribute to maintaining them.

For further reading...
- My look at the city's proposed 2013 budget doesn't include a detailed breakdown of tax expenditures and abatements: there's some mention of the cost associated with the city's housing tax incentive, but other well-documented ad hoc tax goodies (and the associated loss of revenue to the city) don't appear to rate a mention.
- The Chamber's response to the proposed budget - including its insistence on "inflation plus growth" at the mill rate level with no concern for its effect on services - can be found in Will Chabun's coverage of the budget.
- And finally, Regina's own City Manager notes that growth for its own sake doesn't necessarily produce enough revenue to cover the added cost of services:

Davies explained that growth into new areas doesn't always generate the tax revenue needed to extend services to those neighbourhoods in the long-term. He says that means the city needs to budget more strategically.

"We need to get sharper with finding ways to save money, to create efficiencies and create some headroom that we can make some further investments," Davies noted. "The expectations (people have) are about services but more importantly these days it's about maintaining infrastructure."

#skndpldr Roundup

The most significant news from the Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign this week was the release of another month's worth of financial reports. And the December numbers look to reinforce rather than change the existing financial picture, with Ryan Meili posting strong gross and net numbers, Trent Wotherspoon spending enough to cancel out a significant take, and the other two candidates seeing fairly little activity.

But I'd think the most important number may be a low rather than a high. Cam Broten's $4,292.25 December take was the smallest for any candidate in any month of the campaign - and combining that further drop with Broten's already-sluggish fund-raising, I have to wonder for the first time whether he'll have to run the rest of his campaign with a substantially smaller budget than the party's already-modest spending limit.

Meanwhile...

- Broten supporter Mitchell Anderson earned some free media space to respond to Yens Pedersen's earlier contribution to the Star-Phoenix. But I'm not sure he particularly challenged Pedersen's main point that political parties can pursue change both by winning power and by influencing public discussion about policy issues.

- Jason Warick reported on the Rosetown leadership debate. But more interesting than his skeletal review of the debate itself was this bit of discussion about the NDP's road back toward success in rural Saskatchewan:

For much of the 1980s, the Grant Devine Progressive Conservative (PC) administration was seen as invincible in most parts of rural Saskatchewan. But soaring interest rates, unpopular policies and a widespread financial scandal reduced the PCs to just 10 seats in the 1991 election.

That year in Rosetown, Wiens narrowly defeated former PC cabinet minister and legislative speaker Herbert Swan. Wiens then comfortably won re-election.

Wiens believes there are signs the NDP could find electoral success in rural Saskatchewan.
"There are nicks and cracks showing up in the current government, and we've got a new generation (of candidates)," Wiens said.

"I am encouraged."

Another area farmer and former NDP leadership candidate, Nettie Wiebe, also attended and agreed there is cause for optimism.

"We are always on the edge of possibilities in a democracy," said Wiebe, who teaches at the University of Saskatchewan. "I am very impressed with the depth. I think it's a very strong field."

- While Murray Mandryk's take on the race includes plenty of utterly gratuitous potshots, he does hint at one important theme which I've discussed before. At a time when all of the candidates are talking about a need to reach out beyond the NDP's current level of support, at most one or two have made any visible progress in growing the party's grassroots during the leadership campaign - while much of the leadership campaign strategy seems to have been based on competing for small pieces of the existing party base.

- But lest anybody buy the story that the candidates are refusing to reach out beyond the NDP's core membership, all four have been appearing on John Gormley's radio show over the course of the week. I haven't yet had a chance to listen through in detail, but those interested can find the interviews here [Updated with Broten's at first link].

[Edit: fixed reference to Warick.]

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Bill Curry reports on what looks like a thoroughly warped view of the role of the Minister of Justice and Parliament in assessing the constitutionality of legislation (h/t to bigcitylib):

Ottawa is crafting legislation that risks running afoul of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms without informing Parliament, a federal lawyer charges.

In a highly unusual case, Department of Justice lawyer Edgar Schmidt is challenging his own department in Federal Court and revealing details about the internal guidelines used by federal lawyers. The department accuses Mr. Schmidt of violating his duties as a lawyer and public servant and has suspended him without pay.
...
Both sides agree that the Minister of Justice has a duty to report to the House of Commons if proposed legislation or regulations are inconsistent with the Charter. Where Mr. Schmidt and his superiors disagree is over how that requirement should be interpreted.

Mr. Schmidt argues that Parliament originally expected the test for this would be whether, on balance, a measure is likely not in compliance. However Mr. Schmidt says that since as far back as 1993, government lawyers have been directed to approve all measures as long as they can imagine an argument in favour of compliance that would have a 5 per cent chance of success. The government does not confirm this, arguing any internal instructions must be kept secret as solicitor client privilege and cabinet confidences. 

- Meanwhile, Jeremy Nuttall reports that the Cons are choosing to serve as puppets for HD Mining in arguing that nobody has any right to question the assertions of an applicant for a temporary foreign worker permit - including the department responsible to evaluate an application.
 
- Kady O'Malley and Sixth Estate both discuss Julian Fantino's gross misuse of public resources for partisan attacks - with the latter post also raising this rather noteworthy point about Fantino's general competence:

Here’s the first one, written to the NDP. Notice that in the final paragraph Julian Fantino singles out Canada’s aid program in Haiti as a particularly successful one, worthy of attention. A few days ago, Fantino announced that he was not satisfied with the Haiti program and that Canada should eliminate its aid to that country. How you want to square these remarks is up to you.

- Lest anybody think Canada's Senate is the only obvious example of a non-elected actor which can interfere in legislative processes, Robert Booth reports on the stunningly regular exercise of veto power by the Queen over bills passed in the UK.

- And finally, speaking of unaccountable interference by privileged political actors, David Climenhaga discusses the continued links between the Koch brothers and the Fraser Institute - which of course hasn't come under the same scrutiny as analogous charities who aren't such regular cheerleaders for the Cons or right-wing causes.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Helpful cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- George Monbiot reminds us that the mere fact that neoliberal economic theory has failed by any rational measure doesn't mean there won't still be plenty of well-funded efforts to promote it at the expense of social interests:

The policies that made the global monarchs so rich are the policies squeezing everyone else. This is not what the theory predicted. Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and their disciples – in a thousand business schools, the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD and just about every modern government – have argued that the less governments tax the rich, defend workers and redistribute wealth, the more prosperous everyone will be. Any attempt to reduce inequality would damage the efficiency of the market, impeding the rising tide that lifts all boats. The apostles have conducted a 30-year global experiment, and the results are now in. Total failure.
...
Throughout the OECD countries taxation has become more regressive: the rich pay less, the poor pay more. The result, the neoliberals claimed, would be that economic efficiency and investment would rise, enriching everyone. The opposite occurred. As taxes on the rich and on business diminished, the spending power of both the state and poorer people fell, and demand contracted. The result was that investment rates declined, in step with companies' expectations of growth.

The neoliberals also insisted that unrestrained inequality in incomes and flexible wages would reduce unemployment. But throughout the rich world both inequality and unemployment have soared. The recent jump in unemployment in most developed countries – worse than in any previous recession of the past three decades – was preceded by the lowest level of wages as a share of GDP since the second world war. Bang goes the theory. It failed for the same obvious reason: low wages suppress demand, which suppresses employment.

As wages stagnated, people supplemented their income with debt. Rising debt fed the deregulated banks, with consequences of which we are all aware. The greater inequality becomes, the UN report finds, the less stable the economy and the lower its rates of growth. The policies with which neoliberal governments seek to reduce their deficits and stimulate their economies are counter-productive.
...
I have no dog in this race, except a belief that no one, in this sea of riches, should have to be poor. But staring dumbfounded at the lessons unlearned in Britain, Europe and the US, it strikes me that the entire structure of neoliberal thought is a fraud. The demands of the ultra-rich have been dressed up as sophisticated economic theory and applied regardless of the outcome. The complete failure of this world-scale experiment is no impediment to its repetition. This has nothing to do with economics. It has everything to do with power.

- Meanwhile, EKOS finds (PDF) that Canadians see income inequality as the most important issue facing our country - even as the Cons go out of their way to exacerbate it.

- Dr. Dawg writes about the Ontario government's cynical attempt to use the cover of the "Honour of the Crown" as an excuse for running roughshod over First Nations. And Karl Nerenberg offers up a few different partial perspectives on the difficulties in trying to improve the well-being of First Nations - while hinting at the fact that the truth involves some appreciation of multiple barriers to improvement.

- Finally, both Jennifer Graham and Aaron Wherry discuss the NDP's Lethbridge Declaration process. But I'll suggest going directly to the source - as there are plenty of events coming up over the next few weeks.

#skndpldr Candidate Rankings - January 15, 2013

Following up on yesterday's introductory post, here are my first candidate rankings for the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race.

1. Ryan Meili (--)

Lest there be any doubt, there's still plenty of guesswork involved in trying to rank where the candidates stand: the lone poll we've seen during the course of the campaign was released back in October, and it showed undecided voters overwhelmingly outnumbering decided ones.

That being the case, I see Meili having the edge for now on two fronts: he's since built a strong lead over the other candidates in terms of passive engagement, and has also assembled what looks to me like the most active organization. And those factors look to give him the edge both in recruiting new and supportive members to the voter pool, and in winning over persuadable members.

2. Cam Broten (--)

The leadership campaign's second-choice candidate finds himself in a familiar position in the rankings.

Broten still looks to be nicely positioned if the candidates around him falter. But his paths toward down-ballot support can't overcome Meili's apparent advantage in outreach over the first few months of the campaign - though they do bump him ahead of Wotherspoon in what would otherwise be a too-close-to-call first-ballot contest.

3. Trent Wotherspoon (--)

Conversely, Wotherspoon starts out below Broten due primarily to the fact that it's less apparent how he'd make a sequence of ballots work in his favour given a comparable first-ballot showing.

But if the candidates are grouped as closely as it appears, Wotherspoon still figures to have a strong chance to jump ahead of his competitors based on two key factors: the possibility that his early-campaign investments might start to show some returns when it counts most, and the prospect that he could win over members during the course of the leadership debates.

4. Erin Weir (--)

Finally, Weir ends up in fourth place as the candidate with the least obvious organization and public following at this stage of the campaign.

But as I cautioned in my introductory post, that shouldn't be taken to suggest the rankings can't change, particularly as members become more engaged in the campaign. And the bigger unknown for Weir has less to do with his current standing than the question of whether his messages will actually sway undecided members.

#skndpldr Candidate Rankings Introduction

As I did in the NDP's federal leadership campaign in 2012, I'll start shortly with weekly rankings intended to highlight the relative positioning of the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership candidates. But before I get into the rankings themselves, I'll offer both a reminder of what they're intended to accomplish, and a description of how I'll put them together.

To start off, the rankings are intended to be a matter of prediction rather than endorsement. I'll put together a separate endorsement post shortly before the voting window opens - but the candidate rankings for now will reflect my impression as to how likely a candidate is to win, not my preference as to which candidate ultimately will.

And to be more specific, the rankings will be based on a candidate's likelihood of winning the leadership at convention - not necessarily who will perform best on the first ballot, nor who has the most perceived momentum at a particular point in time. And they'll be based on my perception of probabilities rather than any measure of certainty: the #1 ranking doesn't necessarily mean a candidate is more likely to win than not, and a lower position doesn't mean a candidate lacks any path to victory.

All else being equal, I'll presume that down-ballot support is fairly likely to mirror first-ballot support - such that I'll need to see some specific factor to justify ranking the candidates in any order other than what I consider to be their first-ballot positioning. (In effect, this means that I'll be inclined to take any substantial polling of the race at face value - though it's an open question whether anybody carrying out any polling will have both the information required to successfully identify the voter pool, and the neutrality to allow numbers to be taken without a grain of salt.)

However, if there's enough uncertainty as to the relative first-ballot support between two or more candidates or a close enough for additional factors to swing the candidates' positioning, I'll also take those into account where they raise a reasonable inference that down-ballot support might not match first-ballot support.

So based on that process, where do I see the leadership candidates ranking so far? Stay tuned...