Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Elizabeth Bruenig makes the case for the U.S. to make a much-needed turn toward democratic socialism:

In fact, both Sullivan’s and Mounk’s complaints — that Americans appear to be isolated, viciously competitive, suspicious of one another and spiritually shallow; and that we are anxiously looking for some kind of attachment to something real and profound in an age of decreasing trust and regard — seem to be emblematic of capitalism, which encourages and requires fierce individualism, self-interested disregard for the other, and resentment of arrangements into which one deposits more than he or she withdraws. (As a business-savvy friend once remarked: Nobody gets rich off of bilateral transactions where everybody knows what they’re doing.) Capitalism is an ideology that is far more encompassing than it admits, and one that turns every relationship into a calculable exchange. Bodies, time, energy, creativity, love — all become commodities to be priced and sold. Alienation reigns. There is no room for sustained contemplation and little interest in public morality; everything collapses down to the level of the atomized individual.

That capitalism is inimical to the best of liberalism isn’t a new concern: It’s a long-standing critique, present in early socialist thought. That both capitalism and liberal governance have changed since those days without displacing the criticism suggests that it’s true in a foundational way.

Not to be confused for a totalitarian nostalgist, I would support a kind of socialism that would be democratic and aimed primarily at decommodifying labor, reducing the vast inequality brought about by capitalism, and breaking capital’s stranglehold over politics and culture.

I don’t think that every problem can be traced back to capitalism: There were calamities and injustices long before capital, and I’ll venture to say there will be after. But it seems to me that it’s time for those who expected to enjoy the end of history to accept that, though they’re linked in certain respects, capitalism seems to be at odds with the harmonious, peaceful, stable liberalism of midcentury dreams. I don’t think we’ve reached the end of history yet, which means we still have the chance to shape the future we want. I suggest we take it.

- Drew Brown discusses how the Libs' perpetual attempts to equate progressivism with their interests get in the way of anything resembling the real thing, while also short-circuiting any real democratic decision-making.

- Catherine McIntyre notes that women's equality is becoming ever more distant under Justin Trudeau. And Linda Nazareth rightly argues that everybody stands to benefit from child care and other policies which allow women to participate more fully in the workplace.

- Jess Bidgood and Campbell Robertson view the West Virginia teachers' strike as an important reminder of the power of collective action.

- Finally, David Chudnovsky points out the myths and misinformation being used to try to keep British Columbia stuck with an unrepresentative electoral system.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Martha Friendly, Susan Prentice and Morna Ballantyne discuss how universal child care is a necessary element of any serious push toward equality for women. Dennis Grunding notes that it will take a concerted public effort to secure the universal pharmacare program Canadians want and deserve - even though the blueprint was set out over half a century ago. And the Star's editorial board calls out the Libs for their stubborn and counterproductive refusal to consider universal social programs of any kind:

The research of Rothstein and others, drawing on numerous international examples, suggests universal programs have a number of advantages that should not be glibly dismissed by governments, especially ones concerned about the middle class and those aspiring to join it.

For instance, because everyone benefits from them and is therefore invested, universal programs have been shown to be more durable, less vulnerable to market fluctuations or political lurches. Commitment to medicare, for example, has not seriously wavered, even through major recessions and long stretches of austerity government.

Moreover, while the initial costs can seem politically prohibitive, universal programs often create significant long-term savings. A universal pharmacare program, for instance, would allow for the bulk-purchasing of drugs and the elimination of administrative bureaucracy, yielding billions of dollars in savings forgone by a more targeted approach.

Finally, and crucially for a government concerned about inequality, universal programs have been shown to promote solidarity and trust. Targeted or means-tested programs may stigmatize recipients, contributing to a sense that low-income people are apart from the rest of the community. “A welfare state built mainly on means-tested programs,” Rothstein writes, can actually “perpetuate feelings of inequality among both the poor and the more affluent.”

Such feelings should worry Trudeau. After all, the prime minister rightly observed that Donald Trump won the U.S. election in part because too many Americans felt they were not sharing in the country’s prosperity and that this was something Ottawa must also address. The evidence suggests universal programs, design depending, can be a powerful tool for doing just that.

- Meanwhile, Patrick DeRochie lists a few of the crucial social supports which are receiving substantially less federal money than the Libs are paying out in subsidies to oil and gas companies.

- Andrew Jackson points out the importance of measuring different types of poverty (including absolute and relative measures), and ensuring that public policy responds to all of them.

- Finally, Rick Salutin discusses the potentially valuable side of populism which genuinely reflects the interests of people excluded from decision-making. And commenting on the Ontario PCs' leadership campaign, Martin Regg Cohn recognizes the risks that arise when only anti-social candidates present populist messages.

Musical interlude

John O'Callaghan w/ Timmy & Tommy - Talk To Me

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- May Boeve and Michael Brune comment on the danger that political- and court-based attacks on U.S. unions could substantially weaken the progressive movement as a whole. But Jane McAlevey writes that West Virginia's successful teachers' strike may provide an important reminder that the power of collective action can operate in the face of laws intended to isolate workers.  

- James Wilt notes that Canada's plans to transition communities away from reliance on diesel fuel fall far short of what's needed - resulting in dirty fuels continuing to be subsidized in the absence of alternatives. Andrew Ward points out the trillions of dollars being bet by the oil industry on an insufficient response to climate change. And George Monbiot writes about the facts of environmental destruction which are far too often ignored in policy discussions.

- Warren Bell discusses how a switch to a proportional electoral system in British Columbia could shift politics from a combat model to one based on cooperation.

- Meanwhile, Elvy Del Bianco, John Kay, Mary Childs, Ben Hyman and Marc Lee offer some suggestions to build B.C.'s cooperative economy.

- Finally, Tressie McMillan Cottom rightly argues that the real threat to freedom of speech and thought comes from harassment rooted in racism and sexism, not from overwrought complaints about political correctness.

New column day

Here, expanding on these posts as to the show of strength from both Ryan Meili and Trent Wotherspoon in the NDP's leadership campaign as compared to any of the Saskatchewan Party's candidates - and how that enthusiasm gap may be important in contrasting Meili against Scott Moe in the years to come.

For further reading, the past vote totals for the respective parties' leadership campaigns are drawn from here and here, while the turnout levels were the subject of more recent reporting. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Noortje Uphoff writes about the long-term effects of growing up in poverty and the resulting stress on a child:

Our childhood affects our health across the course of our lives. Stress, it seems, is a major contributor. While a life lived with financial, educational and social security and stability may not be free of worries, a disadvantaged childhood means more exposure to a number of difficult circumstances and events. These may include social tensions, domestic abuse, neglect, food and fuel poverty, unsafe or poor quality housing, and separation from caregivers.

These life events understandably cause stress. Most of us will have personal experience of responding to pressure at work or a relationship breakdown with ice cream, cigarettes or alcohol, or giving the gym a miss. When facing financial troubles, the health benefits of vegetables can seem trivial to parents in the face of the time- and money-saving virtues of junk food. Feeling like you do not have enough food, money, time, or friends occupies the mind so that there is less space to focus on decisions with long-term pay-offs.

Experiencing these feelings over a long period of time (rather than the shorter-term stress experienced when applying for a job or studying for an exam) can make it increasingly difficult to make healthy choices. Over a lifetime, choices add up. But this latest research suggests that chronic stress impacts more than just our choices.
...
We already know that children suffering from long-term stress build up higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol, making the body’s response to threats from the outside world change. Chronic stress in childhood is related to a host of diseases through mechanisms such as poorer mental health, changes in the body’s immune response to infection and injury, and increased blood pressure.

Now, we have evidence that growing up in poverty has a cumulative wear-and-tear effect on the physiological systems that govern how our bodies respond to our environment, permanently disrupting the ability of affected individuals to maintain good health in old age.

- Meanwhile, Angus Deaton explores the potential and pitfalls in basing policy on self-reported well-being.

- Andre Picard comments on the advantages of a national pharmacare system - as well as the obstacles we face in pursuing it.

- Andrew Jackson discusses the missed opportunities for more progressive revenue in the federal budget despite strong public demand to ensure the wealth pay their fair share. And Rachel Gilmore reports on Romeo Saganash's recognition that the Libs are still falling short of even basic fairness for Indigenous communities.

- Finally, Murray Mandryk points out that Scott Moe's plan to slash Saskatchewan's public service is unworkable based on his own government's track record.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Ann Pettifor rightly questions the supposed gains from austerity in belatedly balancing budgets only at the expense of avoidable social devastation. And the CCPA documents the billions of dollars in lost assets and thousands of jobs slashed in Saskatchewan even when Brad Wall was promising not to attack the province's public services (and simultaneously driving Saskatchewan into a deficit).

- Omar Khan writes about the racial and ethnic pay gap in the UK. And Stephen Buranyi points out that algorithmic recruitment practices only figure to make it more difficult for less-privileged applicants to find work, while John Harris notes that big data is creating the risk of similar issues in other areas of life.

- Stuart Trew discusses the fossilized view of energy which Canada continues to take in NAFTA negotiations. And Catherine McKenna's attempt to excuse Canada's falling far short of emission targets based on the bare hope that it will catch up later looks to signal both a lack of understanding of the underlying science of climate change which continues to get worse in the meantime, and a lack of seriousness in addressing it.

- Meanwhile, new research in the Lancet documents the massive gains in health which would be achieved by meeting the Paris climate change targets.

- Finally, Robin Sears comments on the need for government involvement in providing more basic services and supports through higher revenues - and the fit between that governing philosophy and the demands of a growing activist movement.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Slumbering cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Lucas Chancel points out the myths underlying any claim that corporate globalization does anything but voluntarily exacerbate inequality:

It is often said that rising inequality is inevitable — that it is a natural consequence of trade openness and digitalization that governments are powerless to counter. But the numbers presented above clearly demonstrate the diversity of inequality trajectories experienced by broadly comparable regions over the past decades. The U.S. and Europe, for instance, had similar population size and average income in 1980 — as well as analogous inequality levels. Both regions have also faced similar exposure to international markets and new technologies since, but their inequality trajectories have radically diverged. In the U.S., the bottom 50% income share decreased from 20% to 10% today, whereas in Europe it decreased from 24% to 22%.

Rather than openness to trade or digitalization, it is policy choices and institutional changes that explain divergences in inequality. After the neoliberal policy shift of the early 1980s, Europe resisted the impulse to turn its market economy into a market society more than the US — evidenced by differences on key policy areas concerning inequality. The progressivity of the tax code — how much more the rich pay as a percentage — was seriously undermined in the U.S., but much less so in continental Europe. The U.S. had the highest minimum wage of the world in the 1960s, but it has since decreased by 30%, whereas in France, the minimum wage has risen 300%. Access to higher education is costly and highly unequal in the U.S., whereas it is free in several European countries. Indeed, when Bavarian policymakers tried to introduce small university fees in the late 2000s, a referendum invalidated the decision. Health systems also provide universal access to good-quality healthcare in most European countries, while millions of Americans do not have access to healthcare plans.

Re-examining these pervasive beliefs around globalization and its impacts on global inequality is more important now than ever before. Using new data from the World Inequality Report is the first step in rectifying these myths and generating a new public discourse that has the potential to effect long-lasting, systemic change.

- Tonia Novitz, Alan Bogg, Katie Bales, Michael Ford and Roseanne Russell discuss the lack of good work in the gig economy.

- Marie-Danielle Smith reports on the Libs' deficient excuse for arms control legislation, whose loopholes include a failure to revisit export contracts in the face of new human rights abuses.

- Meanwhile, Marco Chown Oved reports on the some positive measures in cracking down on corporate tax avoidance - though it's worth noting that those join so many of the Libs' other progressive promises in being deferred past the next election.

- Finally, the Western Producer weighs in on the folly of pretending that gun violence is a worthwhile price for the protection of property. And James Hamblin comments on the stress and anxiety children face when confronted with active-shooter drills and other activities which normalize fear and violence.

Leadership 2018 Reference Page

A one-stop source for general links on the 2018 Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign.

General Information
Saskatchewan NDP Constitution (PDF)
Leadership Rules (PDF)
Leadership 2018

Candidate Information

Candidate	Website	Twitter	Facebook	Profile
Ryan Meili	RyanMeili.com	@ryanmeili	RyanMeiliNDP	Profile
Trent Wotherspoon	Trent4Leader.ca	@WotherspoonT	TrentWotherspoon	Profile

Other Resources
Wikipedia

Posts
All Posts By Label
Endorsement
Non-Prediction

Discussion
Twitter: #skndpldr

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Barry Eidlin and Micah Uetricht offer a reminder that the role of unions goes beyond securing higher wages, to giving workers a voice in workplace governance. And Eric Blanc interviews Jay O'Neal about the sorely-needed sense of agency earned by West Virginia's teachers in the course of their strike against unilateral changes to contracts.

- Alan Krueger and Eric Posner suggest (PDF) greater public involvement in both economic development and social supports to protect lower-income workers from concentrated corporate power.

- Lana Payne writes that while this year's federal budget offers some improvement in gender equality, it leaves plenty more work to be done. Jen Gerson argues that any progress is more rhetorical than real. And Sendhil Mullainathan examines the hidden penalties facing women who achieve success in their careers even in the face of structural disadvantages.

- Meanwhile, PressProgress tracks the necessary backlash against the Libs' "phony" pharmacare promise. And the Globe and Mail's editorial board weighs in the Libs' immediate attempt to backtrack from a fully effective pharmacare program.

- Finally, Roberta Timothy discusses the devastating health effects of systemic racism and prejudice against Indigenous peoples in particular.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Andrea Gordon offers the latest on the inequality caused by forcing schools to rely on fund-raising for basic equipment and activities. And Wanda Wyporska comments on the class pay gap which sees children of less wealthy parents face lifelong disadvantages:

The report pointed to the intergenerational dominance of the professional class. As the report found “the odds of those from professional backgrounds ending up in professional jobs are 2.5 times higher than the odds of those from less advantaged backgrounds reaching the professions.” Tellingly, it goes on to say that “45% of earnings inequalities are passed across generations”, which should worry us all greatly. Especially when you take into consideration the Longevity Science Panel’s report this month reiterated that ‘of the many factors comprising the Index of Multiple Deprivation, income levels have the most powerful influence over neighbourhood death rates.’ So the relationship between class and income matters, because a boy born in 2015, in one of the most advantaged 20% of neighbourhoods can expect to live 8.4 years longer than his contemporary born in one of the least advantaged 20% of neighbourhoods. This has increased from 2001, when that gap was 7.2 years.

Starkly, 73% of doctors are from professional and managerial backgrounds, but fewer than 6% are from working-class backgrounds. 

The deck is stacked against working class and poor children, as some may be as far as 12-18 months behind their peers when they start primary school, a gap that gets ever more cavernous as many fall further behind. Although education isn’t the only engine of social mobility, it’s clear that those who can afford to work unpaid as interns, secure work experience through family connections and have recourse to the bank of Mum and Dad, are likely to earn more and to gain jobs in the professions.

- Rebecca Burns discusses the criminalization of debt as an additional gratuitous punishment for people living in poverty. Laurie Monsebraaten notes that a reasonable quality of life is out of reach for far too many people in Toronto. And Nick Bunker highlights the dangers of relying on household debt to drive economic activity.

- Daniel Triesman points out that public policy which exacerbates inequality can largely be traced to a lack of understanding as to where people fit on the income spectrum - not to mention just how far that spectrum extends at the top end. And Paul Krugman writes that anybody who isn't already among the U.S.' privileged few will lose out from the Republicans' tax giveaways to the rich.

- Finally, Mike De Souza notes that the federal government's assumptions about oil production suggest that new pipelines would serve little purpose until at least 2030. And Andrew Nikiforuk discusses the growing recognition of the dangers of fracking.

On first choices

First-choice support for Ryan Meili in the NDP's leadership campaign: 5,973
First-choice support for Scott Moe in the Saskatchewan Party's leadership campaign: 4,483

Moe just barely edged past Meili's first-ballot vote total on the Saskatchewan Party's fourth ballot - when second- (or more likely third-)choice support shifted to him from voters trying to cut their losses within the Saskatchewan Party.

Needless to say, this presents a rather healthy contrast in enthusiasm as between the parties' respective leaders. And I'll look forward to seeing how Meili and the NDP can build on it.

Leadership 2018 - Convention Liveblog

For those following along, I'll be discussing the leadership showcases and voting results here. For now, stay tuned.

Before the showcases begin, I'll note that there doesn't seem to be a huge advantage for either candidate within the room - though the thunder sticks being used by Trent Wotherspoon's supporters make for a louder show. Wotherspoon will present his showcase first, followed by Ryan Meili.

Wotherspoon's showcase begins with strong testimonials both in person and on video. But it's striking that Wotherspoon's own words - even in video form - seem less organized and focused than those of the people introducing him.

Wotherspoon's supporters are definitely enthusiastic, giving standing ovations as his wife Stephanie and Trent respectively were introduced.

The catchphrase for Wotherspoon looks to be "hope, opportunity and reconcilation", as that phrase found its way into Wotherspoon's speech as well as his introduction.

Wotherspoon then delves into his platform, with mental health services and child care receiving particularly strong responses from the crowd.

Wotherspoon closes his speech and his showcase without any surprises, receiving a raucous ovation at the end.

Meili begins his showcase with the video used as his campaign's closing argument, followed by his introductions.

Lon Borgerson discusses his support for Meili based on a 48-hour trip together. We'll see if the showcase offers any new message to persuade people in the much smaller time spans available to reach most voters.

Meili also gets a standing ovation as he's introduced, and starts his speech by bringing a number of additional supporters onstage.

Meili contrasts a "garage sale economy" of the Sask Party against the longer-term vision of the NDP.

Meili's speech too is mostly familiar, including a concise statement of the "upstream" story.  And like Wotherspoon's it receives a strong response at the end.

The convention now breaks for voting, reconvening at 3:15.

Interim Leader Nicole Sarauer's final speech in that capacity includes details of funding promised in the provincial budget but not delivered - which will surely offer the new leader some strong evidence of a lack of fiscal foresight.

And the results are... Meili 5,973, Wotherspon 4,860. With strong voter turnout, Wotherspoon beat Meili's previous totals - but Meili managed to substantially increase his support.

Congratulations to both candidates for running strong and constructive campaigns - and it will be great to see that carry forward.

Leadership 2018 Links

The latest from the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign as the voting window closes and the results are about to be unveiled. (Note that members voting online are able to cast a ballot until 3:00 PM.)

- Not surprisingly, the impending vote has led to plenty more media coverage, including a lengthy list of candidate profiles. CJME has offered detailed profiles of Ryan Meili and Trent Wotherspoon, along with question-and-answer features with both candidates. CKRM's coverage of Meili and Wotherspoon is more limited. And CTV focuses on Meili's overarching vision of a healthy society, along with Wotherspoon's political experience.

- Ammerio Reza interviews Meili in depth about his plans for the campaign and beyond, while Greg Wiseman covers Meili's visit to Melfort. And CTV interviewed both candidates at the end of the campaign.

- Ryan Kessler reports on the candidates' final pushes for votes, while Adam Hunter summarizes the campaign to this point (and sets out today's schedule). D.C. Fraser discusses the difficulty anticipating today's outcome. Murray Mandryk argues that the key factor for the next leader will be his way of relating to Saskatchewan's citizenry.

- And finally, for the few voters who haven't yet cast a ballot, I'll offer a reminder of my take on what to look for in the candidates' final showcases today (though again I'll be surprised if it raises any problems for two experienced contenders):

Much of Stephane Dion's tenure as leader of the Libs was defined by a basic inability to handle even relatively basic planning and message coordination when it counted - ranging from his campaign interview false-start, to the late-delivered and poor-quality video that did so much to undermine the 2008 coalition. But less noted is that Libs had an obvious hint as to his difficulties in the area: at the leadership convention where he was elected, Dion had the plug pulled on a convention speech which seemed to bear little relationship to the time allotted. (Of course, that seemed to be forgotten by the next day as Dion made his way up the middle of the Ignatieff/Rae divide.)

So while it'll be worth watching how much the candidates can inspire the crowd..., we should also pay close attention to whether anybody's campaign shows signs of disorganization on the biggest stage the leadership candidates will face.

Musical interlude

The Revivalists - Wish I Knew You

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

-Tom Parkin laments the timidity of the Libs' budget, while recognizing the opportunities it creates for the NDP:

Over $7 billion in infrastructure investment, the cornerstone of the Liberals 2015 election appeal, was cut and pushed past the next election — despite the sorry state of our social housing, transit, roads and schools.

And just two days after the Liberals implied they would support a national pharmacare plan, Finance Minister Bill Morneau ruled it out, saying the Liberals would only create a piecemeal drug scheme. The U-turn probably pleased Big Pharma. After all, pharmacare lowers drug prices by using its universal, single-buyer model to squeeze better prices from drug companies.

Across all fronts, the Liberals took timid steps, failing to use their power to help Canadians stretch their paycheques right when interest rates are about to take a bigger bite from the economy. And that timid approach makes it harder to keep growth going.

For NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh it’s a big opportunity. Singh’s NDP has consistently advocated childcare, pharmacare and public infrastructure — and the NDP governments in BC and Alberta are now getting the job done. That bolder approach will now contrast sharply with that of the Liberals — who continue to serve-up a watery gruel to voters who thought they’d ordered a hearty stew.

- Thomas Walkom calls out the Libs' immediate backtracking on the prospect of pharmacare, while Andy Blatchford reports on the justified call for Bill Morneau to avoid making decisions about the issue when the firm bearing his name makes substantial profits from a patchwork system of drug coverage. And Trevor Hancock offers an upstream look at the causes of - and solutions to - the opioid crisis.

- Erica Johnson has reported on Bell Canada's false "guarantees" and pressure on salespeople to mislead customers.

- Finally, John McDonnell and Hilary Wainwright discuss UK Labour's plan for a new form of economics built around administration by and for the public. Fred Harris and Alan Curtis comment on the U.S.' unfulfilled promise of racial and economic equality. And Iglika Ivanova reminds us that we have a choice as to the effect of new technology on workers and inequality.

New column day

Here (via PressReader), on the importance of Saskatchewan's citizens staying engaged and active - rather than viewing the end of the main parties' leadership races as a basis to tune out until the next provincial election.

For further reading...
- Again, my reference page for the balance of the NDP's leadership campaign is here.
- And in case anybody is looking for issues worth organizing around, D.C. Fraser reports that Scott Moe is planning to echo Brad Wall's slash-and-burn approach to public services in his first budget. Alex MacPherson already exposed the Saskatchewan Party's plan for further asset selloffs. And Stephanie Taylor and Alex Salloum discuss how Moe is actively turning away federal funding in order to obstruct any climate action in Saskatchewan.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Thomas Walkom and Andre Picard took the time to wonder whether the Libs actually planned to deliver on pharmacare before Bill Morneau confirmed otherwise.

- Joe Fries examines the history of P3s in British Columbia. And Alex MacPherson breaks the news that the Saskatchewan Party is planning on trying to distort the province's fiscal picture by selling off campus properties to the same universities which are already facing a several budget squeeze.

- Miranda Green reports on the Trump administration's destruction of environmental protection, including its plan to terminate the office which researches the harmful effects of chemical exposure on children. And Joan Lowy and Tom Kishner report on Trump's choice to echo the lax transportation safety rules which contributed to the Lac-Megantic explosion.

- Meanwhile, Annie Nova points out that while Republicans try to wring every possible cent out of ordinary people for the benefit of the wealthy, a plurality of Americans now support a basic income for everybody.

- Finally, David Climenhaga offers his take on why the Andrea Horwath-led NDP will win Ontario's upcoming provincial election by analogyo to Rachel Notley's Alberta victory.

Leadership 2018: The Non-Prediction

In previous NDP leadership campaigns at both the provincial and federal levels, I've compiled regular rankings and/or predictions among the candidates.

Needless to say, I haven't done that for the ongoing Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign - in part because a two-candidate race has left no need to consider down-ballot implications, but also in part due to the difficulty determining exactly where the race stands. And I'll take this opportunity to explain why I'll also hold off on any predictions about Saturday's result.

In general, the issue isn't so much a race that's necessarily too close to call, as one which is too uncertain to call.

In most other campaigns, there's been at least somewhat more polling available to give some indication where the candidates stand. This year's race has featured exactly one public poll intended to capture member opinion - and Premier Cheveldayoff can tell us how sound its methodology has proven.

And in most other campaigns, there's been at least some trend among the other factors which I'd normally use to compare candidate strength. But this campaign has seen different results among those factors (with Meili leading in fund-raising and previous support, Wotherspoon in endorsements), and also no particular momentum for either candidate within those areas.

Complicating matters further, both candidates have a track record of late underperformance based on the 2013 campaign - where Wotherspoon's first-ballot count was far short of his own expectations, while Meili fell just short of winning over half of the party's voters on the final ballot.

And there are plausible factors which could have substantially boosted either candidate within the NDP's membership, including Wotherspoon's tenure as interim leader and Meili's election to the Legislature.

With all those considerations in mind, it's difficult to say more than that I won't be surprised by anything other than an outright blowout in either direction. And with such a wide range of outcomes within the realm of reasonable possibility, I won't be making any predictions as to which one is most likely.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- The Council of Canadians sets out the key numbers in the Libs' all-talk, no-action federal budget, while David Macdonald highlights its ultimate lack of ambition even when there's plenty of fiscal room to work with. David Reevely focuses on the grand total of zero dollars allocated to the headline issue of pharmacase. Angella MacEwen questions the framing of the budget as a meaningful step toward gender parity when it utterly ignores child care and other necessary steps toward equity. Jeremy Nuttall writes that the Libs are doing little to ameliorate poverty. And Josh Wingrove notes that the infrastructure funding which Justin Trudeau made the economic centerpiece of his 2015 campaign has been relegated to campaign promise status again for 2019.

- Neil Macdonald discusses how the Libs' real actions as a government are systematically far more gloomy than their PR. And the Canadian Press notes that the federal government's gap between promises and actions on climate change has only been getting worse under Trudeau, while Marc Lee is the latest to note the false assumptions behind pushes for fossil fuel expansion in the face of climate disaster.

- Meanwhile, Jeff Goodell takes a look at the impending wave of climate migration as one of the readily-foreseeable consequences of climate change. And Jonathan Watts writes about the unprecedented Arctic winter melt which suggests some of the most dire climate projections may be coming true decades sooner than anticipated.

- Finally, Steven Chase and Robert Fife report on the fallout from Anbang's takeover of B.C. retirement homes now that it's been taken over by the Chinese government. And Paul Willcocks discusses how seniors stand to lose out when their needs and interests are treated as secondary to those of international capital.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Shredding cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The New York Times' editorial board comments on the predictable flow of the Trump tax cuts toward primarily the few who already had more wealth than they could possibly put to productive use. And Tom Parkin discusses Jagmeet Singh's expectation that Canadians expect better from their government:

Surely one sharp contrast will be drawn with Trudeau’s proposed Infrastructure Bank, which hands over public infrastructure financing to private capital investors. Trudeau’s private banking approach increases financing costs significantly. And, because investor profits are required, Trudeau’s plan gives private investors a significant role in controlling which infrastructure projects — roads, bridges, community centres, transit — go forward and which won’t.

On infrastructure, Singh has plenty of room to develop contrasting policies that regain public control over projects and redirect financing costs into more project construction.

Another sharp policy contrast is likely to be drawn over tax policies. Trudeau, like Prime Minister Stephen Harper before him, continues to cut taxes and maintain loopholes for corporations and high-income Canadians, creating an increasingly unfair tax system.
...
Singh’s contrasting vow to “unrig” the tax system and restore fairness isn’t new. During his NDP Leadership campaign, Singh released a bundle of tax fairness proposals including increased corporate taxes, higher taxes on incomes over $350,000 and an estate tax on high inherited wealth. Those ideas may now get fine-tuned, but clearly they will not be abandoned.

The broad strokes of Singh’s conflict with Trudeau have been drawn. Jagmeet Singh doesn’t simply seek to replace Justin Trudeau. Singh seeks to rebuild a trust, broken by Trudeau, that public infrastructure and progressive taxation are social goods that create fairness and a strong country. If Singh can rebuild that trust he will have put himself on strong ground for his conflict with Justin Trudeau in 2019.

- Meanwhile, Ed Pilkington reports on the massive amounts of money spread around by U.S. billionaires to attack public-sector unions to lay the groundwork for this week's Supreme Court argument to trash the concept of collective action. And Rachel Cohen highlights some of the consequences if collective bargaining is treated as pure free speech rather than a separate class of activity.  

- Chris O'Neill-Yates reports on Husky's "economic" decision to risk a collision between an oil production vessel and an iceberg, while the Canadian Press reports on the HMCS Calgary's fuel spill off of Vancouver Island.

- Max Fineday argues that there's no prospect of reconciliation in Canada as long as Indigenous people's lives are being treated as expendable. And Tanya Talaga discusses how a long and shameful track record of deaths without accountability parallels the history of injustice for Indigenous people.

- Finally, John Nichols makes the case to lower the legal voting age to 16.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- J.W. Mason reviews Yanis Varoufakis' Adults in the Room with a focus on how damaging austerity was forced on Greece by other governments. And Jan Rovny comments on the need for Europe's left-wing parties to adapt to the precarious economy and evolving social structures.

- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on some of the early results of Ontario's basic income trial - including the predictable health benefits of income security. But in a signal as to how the corporate sector views individual financial security. Rob Davies reports on the UK's investigation into Carillion's collapse - including the privateers' view of the pensions promised to workers as a "waste of money"  .

- Douglas Welbanks challenges the arguments against free tuition by pointing out both the increased importance of post-secondary education, and the limited amelioration of inequality within a student loan system which saddles young workers with debt. 

- Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney point out that many countries are falling short of even their already-insufficient Paris Agreement emission reduction promises. And Crawford Kilian notes that Canada is living far beyond its environmental means.

- Finally, Kevin Milligan writes about the outlines of the alternative budget plans on offer from Canada's federal opposition parties. And Nora Loreto discusses how the NDP's future lies in its ability to mobilize the public, rather than hoping to catch lightning in a bottle on election day. [Edit: fixed wording, typo.]

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Nick Falvo highlights some of the most important proposals in the CCPA's alternative federal budget (parentheticals omitted):

3. Introduce a national pharmacare program. This proposal would help address the fact that many Canadians simply cannot access prescription medication; it would also result in reduced premiums paid by employers for health benefits for their employees. This initiative would cost the federal government $11.5 billion annually, but would likely save Canadian households and employers almost as much.

4. Address involuntary part-time employment among women. Points raised in the gender equality chapter include the following: women perform considerably more unpaid work in the home than men; increasingly, many women who work part-time in Canada report doing so involuntarily; and among women working part-time involuntarily, half say a lack of available child care is the reason they’re not working full time. To help address these challenges, the chapter proposes both universal child care and paid paternity leave.

5. Reduce poverty. The AFB proposes earmarking $4.4 billion annually as a Goods and Services Tax credit top up for low-income Canadians. It further proposes that $4 billion annually be transferred to the provinces and territories for their poverty-reduction initiatives. Finally, it proposes that $3.5 billion in new funding be spent on affordable housing, noting that the federal government’s recently-unveiled National Housing Strategy represents a rather modest increase in new builds going forward

- Nicholas Davis wonders whether citizens are substantially devaluing democracy due to the perception that leaders don't reflect the interests of the people who vote for them. And John Doyle discusses how Ontario's PCs are going far out of their way to feed into public contempt and distrust.

- Trevor Tombe rightly argues for a closer examination of the cost of various means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But I would respond that he gets the conclusion exactly wrong: our final goal should be to reach a sustainably reduced level of emissions as quickly and efficiently as possible, not to merely determine a price and let the emissions (and their associated environmental harms) fall where they may.

- Meanwhile, Larry Hughes comments on the problem with relying on intensity targets which allow for - or even encourage - emission increases.And Sean Kavanagh reports that Manitoba has signed on to the federal government's existing emission reduction plan, leaving Saskatchewan again as the sole laggard.

- Finally, Simon Enoch neatly summarizes how P3 schemes have been proven to be a poor use of public resources (as well as a dangerous choice for the future of essential services).

On historical perspective

I'll give Roland Priddle this much: he's absolutely right in his impression that the best way to argue for waving through expanded tar sands pipelines without an unbiased review is to pretend that nobody has learned anything about environmental protection, oil or dilbit spills, climate change, or energy industry trends over the past six-plus decades.

But I'll suggest that the public interest is probably best served by analysis based in the present rather than 1951.

Leadership 2018 Links

The latest from the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign in advance of next weekend's convention.

- Murray Mandryk's questions for the candidates led to substantial agreement on most of the areas covered. But one offers a potentially striking difference in their respective economic plans - with Trent Wotherspoon's tendency toward stark yes/no answers suggesting surprising acceptance of head office subsidies:

Would you continue with the policy of offering subsidies to companies to move to or maintain head office jobs to Saskatchewan?

RM: No. This has not been particularly successful, and there are more effective ways of increasing economic activity and jobs than direct subsidies to large companies.
TW: Yes.

- CBC reports on the latest fund-raising numbers showing Ryan Meili with a continued lead. But Candace Daniel's interview with Wotherspoon includes the noteworthy take that Wotherspoon had already met his fund-raising expectations even while trailing Meili - suggesting a leadership budget below than the $200,000 maximum.

- Meanwhile, D.C. Fraser reports on Meili's concerns with the late mailing of ballots which were just received this week.

- Finally, Jason Hammond offers his take as to why members should consider voting for Meili as the candidate who inspires the most support among the people whose involvement could help renew the NDP.

Update: I'll add a link to Tammy Robert's apt analysis of the campaign - but add only that contrary to her expectations, Meili hasn't been shy about using change as a theme even in talking about the steps the NDP needs to take as a party.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Noah Smith comments on the damaging effects of corporate concentration for workers, consumers and even the financial sector:

The biggest threat from the increasing dominance of big companies isn’t to Goldman Sachs, or even to retirement plans; it’s to workers and consumers. When companies squelch wages and raise prices, it reduces economic activity. It pushes workers out of the labor force entirely, sending them home to play video games on the couch as their job skills and work ethic rot. And it can result in lower output too -- fewer plane rides, fewer people buying broadband internet, few people buying new cars.
...
The risk is that economy becomes trapped in a toxic cycle. As industries grow more concentrated, dominant companies become a bigger piece of the stock market, and their profit margins push stock valuations higher. Politicians naturally will be less willing to take steps to make markets more competitive, allowing superstar companies to become even more powerful. All the while, retirement accounts do OK, but workers’ wages and the economy suffer from decreasing competition.

It’s important to reverse this vicious cycle before the problem becomes too severe. A bit of antitrust now would go a long way toward preventing oligopoly from turning into oligarchy.

- Meanwhile, Jennifer Wells writes that the stripping of workers' pension funds demands action, not Trudeauvian platitudes. And Mio Tastas Viktorson discusses some of the alternative models of ownership which can ensure that economic development is structured with positive social outcomes in mind.

- But Andrew Kurjata reports on the Libs' establishment of a democracy-free zone in Prince George which looks like a prime example of government allowing the corporate sector to operate without making any contribution to the public good.

- And Nav Persaud and Andrew Boozary note that opioid manufacturers who have faced crackdowns in the U.S. for misleading marketing have been allowed to keep operating without scrutiny in Canada.

- Finally, Mitchell Anderson points out the lack of any case for pipeline expansion based on anything other than wishful thinking. And Tzeporah Berman comments on the Libs' warped definition of a "public interest" in allowing biased assessment processes to govern the building of pipelines.

Musical interlude

Santigold - Disparate Youth

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Livia Gershon discusses why relative equality plays a far greater role in people's well-being than absolute income in developed countries. And Stefanie Stantcheva writes about the cultural roots of the U.S.' relative acceptance of extreme inequality (though it's worth noting that even in the U.S. public preferences are far more egalitarian than actual results):

Despite their country’s mounting income gap, Americans’ support for redistribution has, according to the General Social Survey, remained flat for decades. Perhaps John Steinbeck got it right when he supposedly said that, “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

For those who believe that a society should offer its members equal opportunity, and that anyone who works hard can climb higher on the socioeconomic ladder, redistribution is unnecessary and unfair. After all, equal opportunists argue, if everyone begins at the same starting point, a bad outcome must be due to an individual’s own missteps.

This view approximates that of a majority of Americans. According to the World Values Survey, 70% of Americans believe that the poor can make it out of poverty on their own. This contrasts sharply with attitudes in Europe, where only 35% believe the same thing. Put another way, most Europeans consider the poor unfortunate, while most Americans consider them indolent. This may be one reason why European countries support more generous – and costlier – welfare transfers than the US.
...

An even more striking pattern is that Americans are overly optimistic about social mobility in parts of the country where actual mobility is low – including the southeastern states of Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. In these states, respondents believe that mobility is more than two times greater than it is. By contrast, respondents underestimate social mobility in northern states – including Vermont, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington – where it is higher.

As part of our study, we shared data on social stratification in Europe and America with our participants. We found that self-identified liberals and conservatives interpreted this information differently. When shown pessimistic information about mobility, for example, liberals became even more supportive of redistributive policies, such as public education and universal health care.

Conservatives, by contrast, remained unmoved. While they acknowledged that low social mobility is economically limiting, they remained as averse to government intervention and redistribution as they were before we shared the data with them.

- George Monbiot discusses how a program to combat isolation has produced substantial social and health benefits for one UK community.

- The CCPA has released its Alternative Federal Budget as a reminder of what we could accomplish at the federal level with a modicum of political will and social values, while Andrew Jackson focuses on the opportunity to expand the Working Income Tax Benefit. And Paul Willcocks comments on the potential long-term benefits from the B.C. NDP's first budget under John Horgan.

- Nav Persaud makes the care for a national pharmacare program by pointing out the problems with tying prescription drug access to jobs.

- Finally, Jeremy Nuttall highlights the lack of any improvement in the latest iteration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership - no matter how reflexively the Liberals slap the term "progressive" on it.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Elizabeth Piper reports on Jeremy Corbyn's much-needed declaration that under a Labour government, the financial sector will serve the public rather than the other way around. And George Monbiot comments on the role the left needs to play in reversing the accumulation of wealth and power:

(O)nce you have money and property, you can use it to accumulate more money and property, taking an ever greater share of society’s wealth, through the harvesting of economic rent. By economic rent I mean charging people over the odds to use a non-reproducible resource over which you exercise exclusive control. Think, for example, of the ridiculous price we pay in the UK for train tickets, because the train companies have us over a barrel.

By this means, through no enterprise of their own, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. This process has no natural limits. Eventually, as we’ve seen in the past, the very rich can capture almost the entire production of society.

At this point, the debt, destitution and unemployment that results can cause economic collapse: the Great Depression is a good example.

This predicament is not a perversity of the system. It is an innate characteristic. It is bound to work this way, unless there is a political movement capable of breaking the vicious circle of wealth accumulation.
...
The right will never break the power of patrimonial wealth, because the right exists to defend it. But the left, when it remembers what it’s for, exists to confront it.

During the 1940s, when the left was arguably at the peak of its power in mainstream politics, the top rate of income tax in the US rose to 94%, and in the UK to 98%. Economists today look back on these rates and describe them as irrational. They argue that the Laffer Curve suggests that governments raise no further revenue above a rate of about 70%. But this is to miss the point. The point of these taxes was not just to raise revenue, but to break the power of patrimonial capital, and the vicious circle of wealth accumulation and inequality.

- Meanwhile, Frances Ryan discusses how the UK's punitive system for social benefit recipients is doing nothing but adding gratuitous stress for people already struggling to get by.

- Mike de Souza reports on the National Energy Board's attempt to weed out staff for providing accurate information to the media. And Barry Saxifrage examines how continued expansion of the tar sands is utterly incompatible with any serious attempt to meet Canada's already-unambitious greenhouse gas emissions targets, while Marc Jaccard calls out Justin Trudeau's Orwellian attempt to claim we can only cut carbon pollution by increasing it.

- Finally, Daniel Leblanc reports on the parting message of retiring Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault - and particularly the reality that access to information isn't getting any better under the Libs than it was under the Cons. And de Souza notes that the Harper Cons' habit of muzzling federal scientists remains standard operating procedure under Trudeau.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Rick Smith writes about the Filthy Five loopholes taking the most money out of Canada's public coffers for the least benefit to anybody but the wealthy. And Ed Finn reminds us to follow the money in figuring out who stands to gain from unconscionable policy choices.

- Douglas Quan reports on the justified outrage against Vancouver for trying to pitch itself as a low-wage jurisdiction in an attempt to cater to Amazon. And Raymond Wong discusses how youth have paid the price for out-of-control house prices - though yesterday's provincial budget offers some much-needed hope and help on that front.

- Meanwhile, the Maytree Foundation offers its recommendations for Ontario's forthcoming budget, while Fred Hahn points out how that province's citizens will be paying the price for the Libs' power privatization for decades to come. And ProgressAlberta traces the history of exorbitant public spending on high-priced private schools at the expense of accessible education under that province's Conservative governments.

- Brent Patterson comments on the Libs' contempt for the Canadian public surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as they plan to simultaneously hype "side letters" as their primary negotiating accomplishment while keeping them secret until it's too late.

- Finally, the Star's editorial board weighs in on the need to address child care at the national level. And Sarah Kliff examines the connection between child-rearing and long-term wage disadvantages.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Relaxing cats.

Leadership 2018: The Endorsement

The ongoing Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign isn't the first time I've chosen between the two candidates. And it likely won't come as much surprise that there's little change in either my overall assessment of both candidates as eminently qualified and suited for a leadership role, or my ultimate choice between them.

But it's worth noting what's changed since the 2013 leadership campaign - and how it leads to my renewed endorsement of Ryan Meili for the NDP's leadership.

The most obvious imminent role of the NDP's next leader will be to serve as leader of the opposition. And while Wotherspoon's tenure as interim leader may give him some advantage in public awareness, either will still need to reach a large number of voters who lack familiarity with both current party leaders.

Each brings some distinct skills to the task of building a contrast against Scott Moe, with Meili's storytelling holding at least as much prospect of winning over voters as Wotherspoon's camera-friendly persona. And while Wotherspoon's stronger support among the current core of the party can't be entirely overlooked, nor can Meili's reach beyond the existing party apparatus.

I also wouldn't foresee either candidate having any trouble uniting the NDP alongside existing and new allies in the lead up to the 2020 election. And that brings us to the question of what might happen afterward.

In the longer term, the more important question for members to consider is what each candidate would figure to do if given the chance to govern. (Of course, that factor is also highly relevant to the goal of winning an election to the extent a vision resonates - or fails to resonate - with voters.)

This leadership campaign has seen Meili develop an appealing mix of both specific proposals and general principles for a future NDP government. And that makes it easy to envision what would change for the better under a Meili government - not only in terms of reversing the Saskatchewan Party's damage, but in the "what" and "how" involved in building the province I'd like to see.

Wotherspoon largely held his own on the policy front at the beginning of the campaign, emphasizing mental health and fixed-price child care as important signature proposals. But his policy offerings essentially ground to a halt midway through the campaign, while offering less detail than Meili's from the outset. And that makes for a particularly significant omission for a candidate who's also prone to speaking in terms of generalities rather than clear principles.

As a result, a comparison of positive campaigns has strengthened my take that Meili is more likely both to choose the right priorities in government if given the opportunity, and to better manage the unforeseen as it arises.

In sum, rather than deciding based on a count of reasons, I'll stick with one overarching consideration: Ryan Meili offers the best-case scenario for progress as Saskatchewan's next premier. And hopefully we'll get the chance to build toward that outcome in the provincial election ahead.

Monday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your Family Day reading.

- Gloria Galloway reports on Jagmeet Singh's strong case for fair tax revenues as a key highlight from the NDP's federal convention:

In his speech to delegates, Mr. Singh lamented income inequality, urged the protection of pensions, called for publicly funded pharmacare and dental and eye care, and said it is time to take on "a rigged tax system" that allows foreign internet companies to avoid paying their fair share.

In an interview with The Globe and Mail on Sunday morning, he said that he wants to "change the frame" on taxation because taxes are necessary in a society where people aim to lift each other up.

"My mom always told me that we are all connected and we all suffer together or we rise together so there is a connection that we have," Mr. Singh said. "So, if we look at what we pay into our society as an investment, it's a different way of looking at it. You don't look at it as something that's being taken away from you, as taxes that are being taken away from you, it's something that's being given back to everybody."

Taxes, he said, are investments. "And investments are good. You make investments because you want your home to be better. You invest in your home, you invest in your local park to make it a prettier park, and you invest in society to make it better."

- Meanwhile, Caroline Newman points out Peter Belmi's research on the sources of inequality within both particular organizations and society at large. And Gaby Hinscliffe comments on the UK's sad attempt to substitute a voluntary "guilt tax" for the collection of reasonable revenue from its wealthiest residents.

- Brent Patterson notes that Justin Trudeau is actively trying to push India to sign away its sovereignty through ISDS trade provisions. And Marianne Lavine exposes the U.S.' reliance on the honour system to enforce worker protections - which surely won't be the subject of anywhere near as much pressure from Trudeau.

- Jessica Elgot reports on the hundreds of millions of pounds the UK will be paying in windfall profits to the corporate sector as a result of privatized schools.

- Finally, Robinson Meyer discusses the massive subsidies which underpin the oil industry and its massive profits. And Norman Farrell offers a reminder of the multiple ways in which fossil fuels pollute our environment.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Zoe Williams highlights how misleading framing has caused far too many people to accept destructive austerity and inequality:

Not unreasonably, given the financial crash and its worldwide consequences, the economy was seen as intensely volatile, susceptible to grand forces whose actual nature fell into a cognitive black hole: “market forces” were seen as determining but utterly mysterious. Words like “falling” and “tumbling” were ubiquitous. The language was of natural disaster, and it was highly unusual to link this back to any human responsibility, except that you shouldn’t take too much out of the bucket. This may explain the paradox that, while inequality is seen as a bad thing, there was very little support for redistributive policies; asymmetry may be destructive, yet, like a weather event, it was beyond the wit of man to correct.

Dora Meade, the lead researcher, was shocked by the “ubiquity and level of fatalism”. If you combine the feeling that the economy is something beyond a normal person’s understanding or control, with the sense that the system is rigged, “people are left feeling there is very little they can do. There’s no role for the general public, even if they believe it’s broken and unfair.”

Perhaps the most dispiriting element is that, when asked to describe or imagine a functional, healthy economy, people turned always to an idealised past, when wages were high, inequality was low and we were more “self-reliant”. The resonance here is not with austerity, but with Brexit arguments: people weren’t necessarily blaming immigration for low wages; but they were imagining a past in which wages were higher, and linking that nostalgia to an era of self-determination whose erosion can only, logically, have come from elsewhere.

The report goes on to describe the economic frames and images that might make us feel differently, less impotent, more optimistic: yet before we can talk about the economy as an ecosystem fostering meaning and fulfilment, rather than a bucket full of money, we need to have the courage, not of one’s convictions, but of one’s confusion.

- Sergei Guriev, Danny Leipziger and Jonathan Ostry note that an economy which provides growing spoils for only a lucky few is unsustainable. And Seth Ackerman interviews J.W. Mason about the instability created for investors and workers alike when more money is funneled to the top while workers borrow to give the appearance of keeping up.

- Meanwhile, Mark O'Connell writes about the steps the .01% are taking to isolate themselves from the social challenges they're unwilling to help address.

- Erik Hertzberg reports on the sky-high levels of Canadian consumer borrowing against home values. And Rajeshni Naidu-Ghelani notes that home purchases themselves are increasingly being financed by consumers dipping into their retirement savings.

- David Moscrop writes that the much-hyped automation of work is merely the latest iteration of the long-standing question of who will control - and benefit from - technological progress.

- Finally, Ioana Marinescu and Herbert Hovenkamp examine the possibility that competition law could be used to challenge corporate mergers based on their effect on the labour market (rather than merely because of the impact for customers). And Rob Davies discusses how Carillion's collapsed privatization scheme continues to affect workers, suppliers and public services alike.