Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Derrick O'Keefe highlights how Canada's election would look if coverage focused on the issues which feature strong public support, rather than the two painfully unappealing perceived front-runners who ignore them:

(T)he Ipsos poll results released Thursday...show an enormous potential for class-based demands aimed at reducing economic inequality in Canada. A whopping 67 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement “Canada’s economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful,” while only 10 per cent disagreed.

Relatedly, polling done earlier this year for North 99 found 67 per cent in support of a wealth tax on the super-rich. A mere 14 per cent were opposed to the hypothetical new tax, which would apply at a 2 per cent rate on fortunes over $50 million. (The NDP has included a wealth tax in their election platform, proposing a 1 per cent surtax on fortunes over $20 million.)
...
Last month, author and researcher Seth Klein released polling he had commissioned from Abacus looking at public opinion on climate and a potential Green New Deal in Canada. The results showed 72 per cent support for a Green New Deal here and only 12 per cent opposed. However, the polling also found limited awareness. “In Canada, only a minority are aware or think they have heard of the term ‘Green New Deal.’ Fourteen per cent say they have definitely heard something about it while 19 per cent think they have heard something.”

In other words, the Green New Deal is wildly popular, but only a small minority actually know much about it. This gap is the most important polling result of all, and it points to the great potential for a surge in support for parties and candidates who wholeheartedly push Green New Deal policies. Taken together with the poll numbers on the wealth tax and the rigged economy, we can see there’s a significant and largely untapped potential in Canada for a politics that unabashedly pushes for tax fairness and climate justice.

- And Andrew Coyne comments on the lack of a meaningful distinction between the Trudeau Libs and the Scheer Cons.

- Mike Scott points out that the global transition toward electric vehicles stands to make almost all current oil production uneconomical. And Barry Saxifrage writes about Canada's dirty fleet of vehicles, along with the opportunity for economic development as part of the much-needed transition to EVs.

- Finally, Brian Hennigan discusses the criminalization of poverty and homelessness as a prime example of the exploitation of the working class.

Musical interlude

Metric - Risk

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Giri Savaraman and Jim Stanford point out the importance of a more collaborative and inclusive economy, even as Australia's right-wing government pushes in the opposite direction:

The problem has not been an absence of productivity growth: our productivity can always be improved, but real wages already lag far behind what productivity growth is occurring. The bigger problem is the failure to share the fruits of productivity growth. And the international evidence is clear that stronger worker rights and collective bargaining also tend to result in a better distribution of income, both among workers and between workers and firms. In other words, better worker rights lead to a larger economic pie that gets more evenly distributed.

The Coalition and its business allies would turn the clock back to a labour market even more dominated by the unilateral power of employers to hire and fire, unilaterally set wages, and take maximum advantage of the desperation of an underutilised, precarious workforce.

...

Countries with more collaborative, balanced IR systems are eating our lunch in international competition. The solution to that challenge cannot be to suppress wages even further, to disempower and fragment workers even more. If we really want to build a collaborative, innovative, inclusive, dynamic economy, the reforms we badly need in labour law are exactly the opposite of those advanced by the suddenly-vocal warriors of the business community, and its friends in this government.

- Meanwhile, James Meadway writes that it's a good sign that UK Labour's plans to share control and ownership over economic resources with workers is earning the ire of the privileged few seeking to keep a stranglehold on them. And Kate Aronoff discusses the need to take on fossil fuel barons head-on in order to achieve any progress in averting climate disaster. 

- Matto Mildenberger and Erick Lachapelle examine the strong public will for climate action in Canada - including majority support in every riding in the country. But Charlie Gardner and Claire Wordley point out that we need to convert awareness and support into action, rather than counting on captured governments to do what's right. And Nathalie Baptiste notes that climate gentrification is well underway as the wealthiest people try to buy an escape from the damage they're doing to our planet.

-  Finally, Alex Usher writes about the implications of relying on tuition - and particularly inflated levels for foreign students - as the primary funding mechanism for universities. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Ian Welsh discusses the reality as to how economic decisions are made - and how we've allowed corporate control to remain in place even after it's failed even on its own terms:

All systems have to do only one thing: whatever is required to keep the system in power.

That’s all they have to do. Whether or not human welfare is advanced or not; whether or not we care about animals or nature is irrelevant to the raw calculus of power and staying in power, until it effect staying in power.

If the hoi polloi can be kept from revolting or demanding (remember demands are based on “or else,” they are not requests) well then, the powerful will not do anything that does not increase their power or money. They will only care about human welfare outside of their own group if they feel they must, or if, as happens occasionally, they see their group as being something other than the elite group.

Right now elites don’t care about other humans enough to reshape the money and political systems (the same thing, ultimately) to prioritize human welfare, avoid a great-die-off, or stop climate change. This is clear. It is not arguable, it is a fact, based simply on their actions.
...
...Capitalism requires both outside management and an insistence on market discipline. It is most important that market discipline be on the large actors, not the small ones, because the large ones set the terms of the market and make most of the allocative decision. When you offer people too cheap loans, they will take them, but you are the one offering them: you are the one in the wrong.

Price signals must encourage doing the right thing. When those with market power either misbehave or mis-allocate money, they must lose their power to do so.

- And Rebecca Leber reports on Elizabeth Warren's recognition that we can't avert a climate breakdown while allowing the fossil fuel sector to pretend that large emitting industries and energy sources aren't the bulk of the problem.

- Cat Hobbs examines (PDF) the value of public ownership and democratic decision-making in ensuring that everybody has climate-friendly housing. And Bridgette Watson offers a reminder of the importance of stable housing in allowing people to recover from addictions.

- Julia Lurie examines how Purdue Pharma developed an astroturf "movement" to increase the sale of addictive pain medication.

- Finally, Tom Sigurdson highlights how a strong organized labour movement helps all workers.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Kate Aronoff asks how much destruction is needed before we'll start taking climate change seriously - though the answer at this point looks to be that no amount of damage will be enough to move a substantial number of politicians off their insistence on putting fossil fuel extraction ahead of human well-being.

- Andrew Leach highlights the contrast between the real problems with Alberta's oil sector, and the Conservative talking points insisting that a dirty and costly industry will boom again if only people clap louder for it.

- David Climenhaga discusses how Jason Kenney has laid the groundwork to slash and privatize Alberta's health and education systems to fund corporate tax giveaways. Ricardo Tranjan maps out the per-student cuts faced by Ontario's schools under Doug Ford. And PressProgress notes that Brian Pallister's self-proclaimed achievements include saddling Manitoba with Canada's second-worst ER wait times even while slashing the number of emergency rooms accessible in the first place.

- Finally, P.E. Moskowitz writes about the far right's attempt to squelch all views other than their own in the name of "free speech".

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Perched cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Paul Krugman weighs in on the scam that is trickle-down economics, particularly in the form of tax-free zones which encourage domestic tax evasion.

- Timothy Taylor writes about the changing nature of work - while highlighting that workers who value secure and stable employment are seeing few opportunities. Paul Willcocks examines the deterioration of work over time, while noting that political choices are responsible. And Pilita Clark questions the spread of extreme work hours which add nothing to an individual's contribution or development.

- Anna Mehler Paperny discusses how necessary mental health care is available only to the rich in Canada - though the NDP of course plans to change that.

- Finally, Stephen Maher rightly challenges Joe Oliver's attempt to treat a global climate breakdown as a positive for Canada:

Oliver is echoing a view from the most strident Canadian oil executives, who argue that because Canadians produce a small share of global emissions, we would be foolish to do much to cut them. (They never mention, by the way, that we have among the world’s highest emissions per capita.)

This is a fallback position. They previously argued, and Oliver seemed to agree, that the cause of  climate change was unproven, just as cigarette manufacturers long argued that there was no conclusive evidence that smoking caused cancer.

As the tobacco industry gave up on the pro-smoking argument and started instead warning the public about the dangers of tobacco taxes, the fossil industry is now abandoning the scientific debate and making arguments about what we should do about the situation: not much.
...

(H)ow hard-hearted do you have to be to look at the biggest ecological and humanitarian disaster in history and think of the economic upside? Only the most flinty-eyed analyst can relish the opportunities created for Canadian farm producers if heat and water shortages make much of India uninhabitable, creating new opportunities for pulse exporters once our Indian competitors have been forced out of business.

Oliver’s arguments are so thin, his conclusions so predictable that he risks losing the respect traditionally accorded to statesmen opining on matters of public importance...

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Labour Day reading.

- Hassan Yussuff discusses what's at stake for Canadian workers in this fall's election campaign. And Binyamin Applebaum and Damon Winter rightly point out that while one job can be difficult enough, there are added stresses where workers need to try to satisfy more than one employer in order to scrape by.

- Alyssa Battistoni and Thea Riofrancos write about the importance of a Green New Deal oriented toward economic as well as environmental justice. And Matt Bruenig examines how UK Labour's inclusive ownership funds would serve to keep some wealth in the hands of the workers who generate it, while Jim Pickard and Robert Shrimsley take a look at Jeremy Corbyn's plans for a more fair economy and society in general.

- Trevor Tombe calls out a few of the more glaring falsehoods behind Jason Kenney's separatist messaging.

- Finally, John Michael McGrath offers a reminder that neither the Libs nor the Cons has any reason to brag about their record on same-sex marriage.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- David Lazarus writes about the fundamental dishonesty needed to keep purveying trickle-down spin in the face of all evidence. And Richard Rubin discusses how U.S. Democrats are having a serious discussion about the merits of progressive income and wealth taxes - even as Canada's two corporate parties treat anything of the sort as being off the table.

- Carlito Pablo notes that alongside its basic failure to address the supply and affordability of housing generally, the Libs' tax credit for home buyers is flat-out unavailable in the most expensive housing markets where the need is most acute.

- Doug Cuthand points out that the burning of the Amazon rain forest represents a particularly stark - but all-too-familiar - example of colonial disrespect for land and the Indigenous people who rely on and protect it. And Kendra Pierre-Louis points out that fires are becoming more frequent and severe around the globe as a result of our ongoing climate breakdown.

- Diana Yoon and Ian Borsuk make the case for Canada to stop validating Jair Bolsonaro's exterminationism. And Simon Tisdall notes that far too many governments are looking to exploit the effects of climate chaos rather than lifting a finger to prevent it - with Donald Trump's musings about buying a melting Greenland as just one of the more glaring examples.

- Finally, David Thurton reports on the Libs' lack of any plan to deal with the Arctic region after a full term in government.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Greg Wilpert interviews Julia Wolfe about the contract between soaring incomes for CEOs, and stagnant ones for workers. And David Cooper observes that everybody benefits from a fair minimum wage.

- Christopher Cheung points out that the presence - or absence - of basic bathroom facilities offers a simple test as to whether cities are designed to be lived in by people.

- Zoe Ducklow interviews Tatiana Schlossberg about the relationship between consumer lifestyles and our climate breakdown and other environmental consequences.

- Patricia Aldana rightly calls out Canada's corporate elite (and their fully-owned political subsidiaries) for prioritizing resource sector profits over the rule of law in Latin America. And Mitchell Anderson notes that we don't have any standing to claim superiority over Brazil in our effect on the climate - though the answer should be that we accept being subject to the same type of pressure we ought to apply to other countries who also place short-term profits ahead of the viability of our planet. 

- Finally, Bernie Sanders highlights how media outlets motivated by a combination of easy profits and billionaire manipulations represent a threat to democracy. And Dennis Gruending discusses how the Koch brothers' dark money has harmed Canada's political debate.

Musical interlude

Big Sugar - Dear Mr. Fantasy

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Rick Salutin writes that Canada's lack of accessible housing arises primarily as the result of general inequality. Derek Thompson notes that youth athletics are just one more sphere of activity in which concentrated wealth is driving out participation by people who don't have that advantage. And Michael Mendelson reports on Doug Ford's latest plan to remove what little support already exists for the people who need it most.

- Kevin Carmichael asks why our government isn't ensuring that digital giants pay their fair share to support a society which offers a source of massive profits. And David MacDonald and Chris Roberts examine how large corporations have stolen from their workers by deliberately underfunding pension plans while finding enough spare cash to pay out massive dividends.

- Gamechangers examines how Justin Trudeau's attempt to turn public works into a private profit centre included appeals to Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund.

- Finally, Chris Selley comments on the latest revelations about Trudeau's betrayal of progressive voters on electoral reform:

(W)e are asked to believe that this scholar of electoral reform, who felt quite strongly that proportional representation was “bad for Canada,” was convinced by his caucus to “leave the door open at least a crack for proportional representation” because he thought (per Wherry’s interviews) that he might be “willing to be convinced that (he was) wrong.”

There is no evidence he was, in fact, willing. Instead we are to believe that the committee of Trudeau’s MPs and those of other parties that Trudeau tasked to study and consult on this matter at great expense, and that ended up recommending PR, only to have then-democratic institutions minister Maryam Monsef dismiss their work as not what she asked for, only steeled his resolve against PR. We are to believe that Trudeau forgot to stump for ranked ballots even occasionally, once he became prime minister, because — per Katie Telford, now Trudeau’s chief of staff, to Wherry — “then we wouldn’t have been doing a lot of other things.”
...
Truly, the mind boggles. A keen student of electoral reform would have known the New Democrats would never accept ranked ballots because PR is party gospel, and ranked ballots are beside the point to PR and not in their electoral best interests. A keen student of electoral reform would have known the Conservatives would never accept ranked ballots because they believe quite strongly in the status quo, and because they are also not in their electoral best interests.

The honest person Justin Trudeau purports to be cannot claim good intentions in this situation and expect to get away with it. I cannot ever recall seeing such an implausibly ambitious plea for clemency for such a transparently cynical record. It says a lot that he would even attempt it.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Liaquat Ahamed writes about the pattern of wealth concentrating in the absence of a countervailing force - and the need for a political response. Linda McQuaig discusses how the media largely ignores the eminently popular prospect of raising taxes on the people who have more wealth than they could possibly put to good use. And Ilya Bañares reports on the majority of Canadians who have a positive view of socialism - a number equal to those approving of capitalism.

- Meanwhile, Annie Lowrey writes that millennials who are already facing an economy rigged against them stand to bear the brunt of the next recession when it hits. And Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood and Zaee Deshpande discuss the importance of including social equity as an integral element of a just transition toward clean energy.

- Larry Elliott recognizes that personal changes will fall far short of turning the tide when it comes to our climate crisis. And Robinson Meyer notes that there's no way to reverse foreseeable damage such as the destruction of the Amazon rain forest once we've gone too far.

- Finally, as Manitoba considers its options for a new provincial government, James Wilt examines the damage wrought by Brian Pallister since he took power.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- John Nichols interviews Bernie Sanders about the importance of resurrecting the principle of economic rights. Gallup examines how the American public is again recognizing the value of unions. And Simon Goodley writes about the positive effects of shortening the work week to 4 days by pointing out how productivity increases in weeks which are shorter due to holidays.

- But of course, we can count on our right-wing demagogues to never let evidence get in the way of their goal of shredding social bonds. On that front, Michelle Bellefontaine reports on the UCP's first fiscal update, featuring their declaration that they'll keep corporate tax giveaways in place regardless of whether or not they result in promised jobs or investment. And Doug Allan points out how Doug Ford plans to slash funding to Ontario's health care system which is already struggling to meet patients' needs.

- Geoff Zochodne reports on BMO's decision to exit the reinsurance market - with the risks of climate change representing a substantial part of the reason.

- Janyce McGregor reports on the Libs' insistence on pushing a free trade deal with the same Bolsonaro regime that's facilitating the destruction of the Amazon rain forest. And this - as Scott Gilmore points out - at a time when the rest of the world is learning to work around Donald Trump and his ilk.

- Finally, Christopher Guly writes that the Libs haven't succeeded in stifling any discussion of electoral reform - and that they can expect any possible multi-party negotiations to include that as a must.

In plain sight

Robyn Urback is rightly concerned about the lack of discussion of Quebec's systematic discrimination by most of Canada's federal parties - only to gloss over the strong position taken by Jagmeet Singh and the NDP.

Matt Gurney laments the lack of a remotely reasonable climate debate between the Libs and Cons, while failing to mention the NDP's New Deal at all.

And Neil MacDonald complains about an election based on mudslinging between the Libs and Cons, while only noting in passing that the NDP is offering meaningful solutions to the social ills those parties are ignoring.

If only there were some pattern as to how this fall's election might produce results Canadians actually want - and how the media can advance the discussion past the cynical politics of Trudeau and Scheer.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Cozy cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Paul Krugman writes about the U.S. Republicans' new complaint of evil eye economics - though it shouldn't come as much surprise that people who treat the economy as nothing more than a confidence game would object to anybody pointing out how the public is being conned.

- Alex Kotch writes about David Koch's legacy of destruction. And Suketu Mehta writes about the manufactured anti-immigration message which has allowed the racist right to grow across much of the developed world.

- Meanwhile, Ian Tucker interviews David Wallace-Wells about the pattern of policy hypocrisy which includes the Libs' determination to build pipelines at public expense while posturing as climate champions.

- Michael Laxer highlights how the Libs' housing plan for Nunavut involves funding only a tiny fraction of even the most immediate needs.

- Finally, Keith Gerein calls on Jason Kenney to acknowledge the evidence that supervised consumption sites save lives. And Andre Picard questions why we're happy to accept the social consumption of alcohol in bars while acting squeamish about the equivalent for any other substance. 

On mixed signals

Cam argues that the Libs' latest messaging on carbon pricing is a mistake in the sense of a political gaffe. And watching only the headlines today, that take would appear to be borne out.

But I'll respond that while a posture of studied ambiguity about carbon pricing may represent an error in strategy, it does reflect a deliberate choice.

And to be clear, an utter lack of clarity as to their plans for carbon pricing is exactly the message the Libs have chosen to offer:

In a news conference Monday morning, McKenna used careful phrasing to say that the current plan has no “intention” of going past $50 per tonne since it ends in 2022, but then added that decisions about future price increases will be made after discussing it with provincial governments.

“In 2016, we negotiated for a year with provinces and territories that included a price on pollution until 2022,” she said. “So there’s no intention to go up beyond that, any decision would be made in discussions with provinces and territories and stakeholders.”

She was asked specifically if she’s ruling out price increases beyond 2022, but didn’t respond directly. “All we’ve done is we’ve negotiated until 2022, so I’m not in a position to negotiate anything past that,” she said. “I think that there’ll be an election in 2023 and I think that might be a discussion for that election.”

While it's true that the Cons were quick to seize on the shift in position, the more important gap between the Libs' position and other policy options is that on the other side.

After all, it's generally recognized that the existing carbon price falls far short of representing a viable answer to our climate crisis - leaving the Libs vulnerable to significant challenges from the NDP (and the Greens) offering far more thorough proposals to a growing pool of voters whose desire for meaningful climate action will influence their ballots.

By deliberately failing to take any position, the Libs figure to be trying to take the best of both worlds: their environmentally-branded candidates (echoed by the Cons) can hint at increased carbon prices they haven't committed to, while the national campaign can point to the lack of any promise and accuse the Cons of fearmongering for asserting as a certainty something which isn't actually in their platform.

Unfortunately, that political ploy will serve only to muddy the waters for voters who demand more than deliberate obfuscation (along with counterproductive choices) in confronting the most serious challenge of our time. And anybody serious about reining in our carbon pollution will need to make clear that the Libs can't claim the benefit of their consciously-cultivated doubt.

Update: And this is surely exactly what the Libs were after - credit as a party to "fight climate change" from a prominent environmental voice, without actually presenting a plan or even a promise to develop one. 

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Peter Wade reports on new polling showing that American voters remain angry about a political system which benefits a privileged few at the expense of everybody else. Jake Johnson reports on Bernie Sanders' message that it's time for workers to win the class war that's been waged against them by the 1%. And Dave McKee discusses the importance of organizing new industries and business models to ensure employers can't evade effective collective action.

- Suzanne Bearne writes about Gary Bloch's efforts to ensure patients have the income they need to avoid illnesses caused by poverty. But PressProgress points out how Doug Ford is trying to make Ontario's poorest residents even worse off.

- Andrew Jackson writes that for a Green New Deal to achieve a just transition to a clean economy, it will need to include an industrial strategy to ensure that workers share in the benefits.

- David Miranda is the latest commentator to highlight how Jair Bolsonaro's corporatism is responsible for the burning Amazon rain forest. And Gary Yohe and Michael Mann point out the exploitative mindset behind both our climate crisis and the rise of bigoted populism.

- Finally, Joel Lexchin explains why we shouldn't settle for the Libs' patchwork plans and incrementalism when universal pharmacare is within reach.

Sunday Evening Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Binyamin Appelbaum discusses the folly of having turned economic decision-making over to people who somehow saw income inequality and the concentration of wealth as desirable ends. And Geoff Zochodne points out that Canada has been suffering from the "American disease" of having corporate cash converted into stock buybacks rather than the investment promised by the purveyors of corporate tax cuts.

- Meanwhile, Andrew Baker and Richard Murphy suggest a framework which could set minimum standards for corporate tax rates, and ensure that multinationals aren't able to avoid paying their fair share by sending income or assets offshore.

- Simon Tisdall writes that Donald Trump's musings about trying to buy Greenland are revealing in highlighting the belief that the parts of the natural environment facing the brunt of a climate breakdown are ripe for further exploitation. And Andre Pagliarini notes that a burning Amazon is another particularly glaring example of the same exploitative mindset, while Robert Hackett discusses how the fight against the Trans Mountain pipeline purchase and expansion represents a crucial step toward reversing it in Canada.

- Finally, Catherine Ford calls out Jason Kenney for stacking the deck against Alberta's most vulnerable workers in appointing a panel to cheerlead for a lower minimum wage.

Saturday Morning Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- Ryan Nunn, Jimmy O'Donnell and Jay Shambaugh study how the U.S.' labour movement has been ground down by corporate-controlled governments - and how workers in all kinds of workplaces are worse off as a result. And Robin Tress cautions against allowing businesses to dictate what constitutes the "public interest".

- Meanwhile, Jolson Lim reports that the vast majority of Canadians recognize that businesses and wealthy individuals need to contribute more toward the cost of building a functional society.

- Kate Aronoff highlights how any effective climate plan needs to include some idea how to overcome structural barriers put in place by the fossil fuel sector, rather than presuming that it will be remotely willing to cooperate in saving a habitable planet. And the CP reports on Greenpeace's call for an end to trade negotiations which would not only validate Brazil's destruction of the Amazon, but provide further protection for corporations wanting to get in on the damage.

- Graeme Benjamin reports on the justified backlash against anti-immigration billboards being used to advertise for the PPC. But Victoria Gibson notes that the Libs' actions have been entirely in keeping with the philosophy of locking up newcomers to Canada, as the number of children in immigration detention doubled in just the last year.

- Finally, Meera Bains writes about the plight of Amrit Kaur and others who have been driven out of Quebec workplaces by Bill 21.

Bottom lines and shifting goalposts

I noted last night that there's no validity to complaints about the NDP ruling out support for a Con government. But if anybody wants to point out which party's stance on supporting anybody else as a possible government does seem problematic, there's yet more odd spin coming from the Greens:

Hey. Just to correct the record, I never said that. I did say that the process in a minority parliament is to speak with all parties. Greens have a bottom line- "little bit" is not on the table. 1.5 to stay alive. And protect human rights. Period. https://t.co/VPxpdk8HKV

— Elizabeth May (@ElizabethMay) August 23, 2019

Needless to say, the bottom-line demand to "protect human rights" would be far more meaningful if Elizabeth May hadn't previously declared recognition of fundamental rights to be optional among her own candidates. And if the Greens were somehow to end up holding what would be at best a narrow balance of power, it's hard to see a way out for May which doesn't involve breaking some pre-election commitment if negotiations in a minority Parliament end up running into the issues raised by Bill 21, including the possibility of federal intervention.

On the one hand, May could try to whip her members on a subject where she's currently telling them they're free to do as they see fit. But in the process, she'd confirm that any promise of MP independence is illusory. 

Or more likely, she'd end up discarding one of her only two core commitments on the altar of expediency. But if it's easily foreseeable that one of her "bottom lines" will be erased at the first opportunity, progressive voters have every reason for concern about her judgment - especially when she sees supporting the Cons as an option to be left on the table.

Musical interlude

Foals - In Degrees

On clear positions

What should have been considered an entirely uncontroversial bit of news - that, like his predecessors, Jagmeet Singh has publicly stated that he's not interested in putting a Con government in power - has instead given rise to a truly impressive display of projection and selective amnesia. So let's set the record straight.

No, it's not accurate to say "but Jack Layton would never have done that!". To the contrary, Layton did it as well, releasing this passage in his own book when he was still leading the NDP and strategizing about post-election options:

I was not about to participate in any scheme cooked up by the Bloc and the Conservatives that would put the country in the hands of Stephen Harper.

And it's even more preposterous to suggest that it's "rare for a party leader to take options off the table so early in an election cycle".

The previous three federal election cycles have all been marked by the Libs trying to lay the foundation for their strategic voting racket by loudly trumpeting a refusal to countenance any post-election coalition with the NDP, even if the result was to leave Stephen Harper in power. And at every opportunity, they've indicated after the fact that they didn't mean a word of that spin.

Similarly, while the Cons have regularly run on multiple incorrect and unprincipled claims (that the party with the most seats governs, and that coalitions of any kind are illegitimate), they've never held to those positions when they've perceived any hope of seizing power by discarding them.

If there's any difference between the NDP's position and that of competing parties, it's that the NDP can be counted on to base its level of willingness to cooperate with other parties on reasonable principles, and to follow through on its commitments. And Singh is rightly upholding that well-established tradition.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Mia Rabson reports on a new Climate Action Network report card showing that Canada's plans for greenhouse gas emissions are as bad as any in the G8, projecting to lead to the same 4 degree temperature increase which would result from from Donald Trump's outright denialism. And Marc Jaccard concludes that the Cons' excuse for a climate plan will actually result in increases in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions over the next crucial decade.

- Meanwhile, Eliane Brum highlights how humanity as a whole is facing severe risks from Brazil's deliberate destruction of the Amazon rain forest in the name of short-term profits.

- Alicia Bridges reports on new research showing how even conventional oil production in Saskatchewan may be resulting in serious risks to drinking water. And Stephanie Tobin examines the false promise of offshore oil spill cleanup - where even ideal conditions result in 90% of what's dumped into water being left there to contaminate marine areas.

- Olivia Tobin reports on Jeremy Corbyn's warnings about the generation of young people being left behind by the UK's Conservative government, while Jagmeet Singh comments on the similar problem with the increasing precarity facing young Canadians. And Heather Scoffield writes about the experience of poverty among people being told they should be grateful for stagnant gaps between the wealthy and the rest of us.

- Finally, Jill Filipovic discusses new research showing how "pro-life" positions are primarily about asserting male dominance over women.

New column day

Here, on how right-wing provincial governments across Canada are deliberately denying benefits to their constituents solely to try to avoid any credit going to the federal level in advance of this fall's election.

For further reading...
- Murray Mandryk, Sarath Peiris and plenty of letter writers have already pointed out the pettiness of Scott Moe's refusal to fund projects in Regina.
- Mia Rabson reported on Brian Pallister's refusal to accept funding for energy efficiency in schools (along with the subsequent federal workaround), while Sean Kavanagh has reported on the lack of funding already suffered by Manitoba's education system under an austerian regime.
- John Geddes reports that gas station owners proposed less misleading stickers about fuel prices - but that Doug Ford was unwilling to do anything other than force them to feed into anti-carbon tax messaging.
- Finally, David Climenhaga has also pointed out the similarities between Canada's right-wing clique and a decade of Republican obstructionism.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Alex Hemingway writes about the need for Canada's federal election to include a discussion about democratizing ownership and control of our economy. Nicole Aschoff notes that any discussion about industrial policy needs to include a serious analysis as to who benefits from economic development. And Tristan Hughes argues that the SNC Lavalin scandal represents only a tiny slice of the problem of government subservience to the corporate sector - and that we can't ignore the structural problems in favour of disputes over the scandal's specifics.

- Gamechangers points out how federal corporate tax cuts - like those in so many other jurisdictions - have failed to produce any promised returns for anybody outside the shareholder and executive classes. And Allan Lanthier notes that estate freezes represent one more mechanism for wealth to accumulate across generations without helping to fund the society which enables it.

- Mae Nam writes about the need for unions to push for better workplace conditions. And Kayla Blado rejects the claim that "self-care" is any substitute for collective action.

- Finally, Elizabeth McSheffrey reports on the systemic culture of cover-ups when it comes to health and safety dangers caused by the fossil fuel sector. Justin Nobel discusses how North Dakota's regulator helped an operator misreport the size of an oil spill by a factor of a million. The Canadian Press reports on the new Bonterra spill which has dumped oil into a creek feeding into the North Saskatchewan River and Edmonton's water supply. And Morgan Krakow reports on a cyanide spill which affected drinking water in Michigan for days before the public was made aware.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Cheerful cats.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Tom Parkin talks to Toby Sanger about the utter failure of corporate tax cuts to produce anything other than concentrated wealth and increased inequality.

- Steven Greenhouse offers suggestions both as to how governments can level the playing field between workers and employers to reduce inequality, and how workers can have a voice even before those structural fixes are made.

- Alan Freeman examines the dangers associated with the Boeing 737 Max as a prime example of the consequences of deregulation.

- Robert Benzie reports that groups helping people with disabilities in Ontario are the latest to find out that Doug Ford isn't prepared to provide the funding needed to perform their work. And the Canadian Press reports that the same municipal cuts which were hastily reversed due to their devastating effect on communities are now set to be imposed again beginning in 2020.

- Martin Regg Cohn points out the absurdity of Ford ordering gas stations to display political propaganda.

- Finally, James Cairns writes about the selective nature of right-wing "free speech" messaging - which is in fact designed to do nothing but silence anybody other than their own reactionary movement.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Aditya Chakrabortty writes about the consequences of the UK's choice not to fund its or social infrastructure:

We are right in the middle of an infrastructure breakdown – we just haven’t named it yet. You’ll know what I mean when we list the component parts. More than 760 youth clubs have shut across the UK since 2012. A pub closes every 12 hours. Nearly 130 libraries were scrapped last year, and those that survive in England have lopped off 230,000 opening hours.

Each of the above is a news story. Each stings a different group: the books trade, the real-ale aficionados, the trade unions. But knit them together and a far darker picture emerges. Britain is being stripped of its social infrastructure: the institutions that make up its daily life, the buildings and spaces that host friends and gently push strangers together. Public parks are disappearing. Playgrounds are being sold off. High streets are fast turning to desert. These trends are national, but their greatest force is felt in the poorest towns and suburbs, the most remote parts of the countryside, where there isn’t the footfall to lure in the businesses or household wealth to save the local boozer.
...
When it comes to transport or energy or sewage, Britain has a National Infrastructure Commission that monitors the country’s needs and guides parliament on where to direct spending. After all, the quality of such hard infrastructure influences where multinationals set up shop: it is money-making. But parks and libraries don’t generate cash. Social infrastructure has no lobby, no registry of assets and certainly no government agency. No Whitehall official monitors how much of it has closed or withered away – that relies on civil society groups to file freedom of information requests or badger town halls with survey. Everyone knows we need it, yet just as our economic model prizes shareholder returns over investment in the National Grid, so our politics relies on drawing in the voters with unfeasibly low taxes. Until one day, something breaks and all hell breaks loose.

So here is a suggestion for Jeremy Corbyn or Nicola Sturgeon or Adam Price or whoever else fancies it. Talk about the importance of social infrastructure. Promise to set up a commission explicitly to audit what we have and help protect it. Commit public money to it, alongside gentle pressure on the private sector to do its bit. That way, we can publicly mark the public institutions we all know we need – and show the esteem due to the people who keep them going and use them. The spirit we need is that summed up by the librarian who rhapsodises to Klinenberg about his branch: “The library really is a palace. It bestows nobility on people who can’t otherwise afford a shred of it. People need to have nobility and dignity in their lives. And, you know, they need other people to recognise it in them too.”

- Chris Varcoe reports that the UCP's corporate tax giveaways are predictably leading to no economic benefit to anybody other than shareholders and executives. And Jessica Elgot reports on UK Labour's plans to give municipalities the power to restore abandoned shops to public use.

- Andrew Mitrovica highlights the significance of Justin Trudeau's ethical violations. The Globe and Mail's editorial board lists the many failings which went into the Libs' attempt to twist laws and constitutional principles to serve SNC-Lavalin. And Andrew Coyne zeroes in on the deception involved in Trudeau's interventions - including toward the Attorney General he'd appointed to uphold the rule of law.

- Ben Smee reports on a prime example on the contempt fossil fuel spokesflacks have for the lives of people affected by a climate breakdown. And Rick Salutin calls attention to Canada's appalling support for anti-democratic corporate repression in Honduras.

- Finally, Oliver Franklin-Wallis discusses the limited effectiveness of plastic recycling.

On selloffs and sellouts

So far, there hasn't been much follow-up since the revelation that the Saskatchewan Party set up (PDF) a committee, and arranged for sensitive operational details to be handed over to bidders in the process. But while there's plenty left to be investigated about how both the secret committee and the Crowns themselves tried to sell off public resources behind closed doors, we can already identify some glaring dishonesty from the Saskatchewan Party government.

Here's what was revealed as a result of SaskTel's submissions to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner about information never before revealed to the public. See para. 97:

In its submission, SaskTel indicated the following:

• the Cabinet Committee on Crown Structure had been set up to oversee the potential sale of up to 50% of crown corporations. It was created by the Premier at the March 1, 2017 Cabinet meeting.
• the Vice-Chairperson of the Cabinet Committee on Crown Structure (Vice-Chairperson), who was also the Minister Responsible for SaskTel and SaskTel Holding Corporation (SaskTel Minister), verbally asked SaskTel’s President and CEO to prepare the slide decks (records 10 and 11).
• SaskTel’s President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) prepared the slide deck to allow the Vice-Chairperson/SaskTel Minister to review the progress that had been made and to ultimately make decisions and determine next steps, if any, to achieve a partial sale of SaskTel.
• SaskTel’s President and CEO was advised that the slide deck would be shared with the Cabinet Committee on Crown Structure where further decisions would be made.
• The content of records 10 and 11 would clearly be so important that Cabinet and its committees would had to have been involved in a decision.

So how forthcoming was the Saskatchewan Party about its having taken the time which could have been spent consulting on tragic budget decisions to work on handing over equity stakes in the Crowns? For the answer, let's go to the March 6, 2017 Hansard (PDF) - in the first question period after Brad Wall secretly set up his selloff committee:

Mr. McCall: — Mr. Speaker, it’s cold comfort to the 40,000 Saskatchewan people that are out of work on this government’s watch. The Sask Party’s callous cuts are putting thousands of jobs at risk, more jobs, Mr. Speaker. And their plan to sell off up to 49 per cent of our Crowns without a referendum puts even more jobs at risk along with hundreds of millions of dollars in dividends that help to pay for health care and education.

The Sask Party’s plan to sell our Crowns to pay for their mismanagement was given a resounding no in the Meewasin by-election, Mr. Speaker, and the Sask Party should listen to that message. Will the Premier honour his promise from the last election? Will he stop the attempted sell-off? Will he scrap Bill 40 today?

Hon. Mr. Wall: With respect to the Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker, let me say this: what we said in the wake of the MTS [Manitoba Telephone System] takeover, Mr. Speaker, is that were we, as the representatives of the shareholder, to get an offer with respect to SaskTel to buy SaskTel in its entirety, were we to get an offer that checked off a number of boxes including better coverage and jobs here in Regina and across the province and a good price, that we would take that deal to the people in a referendum.

What has become abundantly clear to members on this side of the House, what has become abundantly clear to me — yes, and including what we heard in the Meewasin by-election but not limited to that — is that the people of the province aren’t interested in it. They’re not interested in a referendum. They oppose the sale of SaskTel, Mr. Speaker. That is what we campaigned on.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will just confirm for members of the House that notwithstanding if there ever is an offer to purchase SaskTel, we’re not going to take it forward. It’s not for sale.

Of course, it took two and a half years and a change in the Premier's office for the public to find out that only five days before providing his assurance - in a forum where it constitutes contempt to make misleading statements - that SaskTel was "not for sale", Wall had himself put a process in motion to sell it. And the OIPC's report confirms that the process continued long after the above answer.

So when Moe - who was of course in Cabinet at the time - now tries to claim there's no reason to doubt any assurances about the future of the Crowns even as SaskTel explicitly argues that it's leaving the door open for future takeovers, he needs to be met with some sharp questioning as to when he'll disavow his predecessor for misleading the province. And if Moe actually expects voters to trust him no matter how often his government lies and gaslights about its intentions, then the only reasonable response is to prove him wrong.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Nicholas Kristof writes about Donald Trump's choice to put the most virulent anti-worker cronies imaginable in charge of U.S. labour policy. David Climenhaga weighs in on the UPC's laughably biased committee charged with the task of driving down wages for service workers. And Joel French comments on the need to be wary of the panel intended to provide political cover for public-sector austerity.

- Sarath Pereis discusses how Scott Moe is treating Saskatchewan's citizens as pawns in an effort to influence the federal election.

- Jacquie Miller writes about the effect of private money in creating inequality within Ottawa's education system. And Jennifer Francis reports on one teacher's attempt to coordinate wholesale fundraising to patch over the holes in Saskatchewan's funding for schools.

- Meanwhile, Paul Willcocks points out the desperately reality-averse response of Lib mouthpieces to the finding that Justin Trudeau's efforts to put the thumb on the scales of justice on behalf of SNC Lavalin breached his ethical obligations.

- Finally, Robert Skidelsky makes the case for a guaranteed job program - though it's worth questioning his focus on "want of work" as a matter of greater urgency than the ability to afford the necessities of life.

Musical interlude

Glass Animals - Gooey

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Richard Cannings comments on the need for governments to collect a fair share of revenue from wealthy individuals and corporations. And Erin Weir argues that Canada's federal government shouldn't subsidize Jason Kenney's corporate tax giveaway with abatements on federal taxes.

- Meanwhile, Paul Krugman discusses the damage being done by the U.S.' plutocrats who are happily accepting the destruction of their country's social and economic infrastructure in exchange for short-term tax handouts.

- Jennifer Szalai reviews Christopher Leonard's Kochland, including a look at how the Koch brothers have manipulated governments and employees alike to wring out every possible dollar with no regard for any community interests. And David Olive notes that a reckoning is coming for the pharmaceutical corporations which have created North America's opioid crisis - while also observing that government acquiescence has played a role in an issue which hasn't similarly taken hold elsewhere. 

- Karl Nerenberg discusses the role Canada's successful but incomplete public health care system is playing in elections on both sides of the border. And A Montgomery et al study the consequences of widespread burnout among health care workers facing increasing demands and decreasing resources to fund them.

- Finally, Mary O'Hara writes about the connections between poverty and mental health - and the need for public policy which properly invests in ameliorating both. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Ben Parfitt comments on the dangers of captured regulators such as B.C.'s Oil and Gas Commission who end up serving corporate "clients" rather than the public interest. And Bryan Walsh discusses the discounting effect which makes it all too frequent for people to avoid seriously considering the long-term effects of a climate breakdown (among other policy choices).

- But if we needed an example as to how pollution affects people every day, Allison Aubrey discusses new research showing that smog and other air pollution can be as harmful to a person's lungs as being a heavy smoker. Pheobe Weston reports on the spread of microplastics to the most remote areas of the globe. And Jillian Ambrose reports on new research showing how fracking results in the emission of large quantities of methane with severe climate consequences.

- Meanwhile, Michael Salmato points out that plenty of coal workers (among other people currently tied to fossil fuels) recognize the need for a just transition to more sustainable energy sources.

- In the wake of the Ethics Commissioner's report finding Justin Trudeau to have broken the law by pressuring Jody Wilson-Raybould in SNC Lavalin's interests, Paul Wells highlights the reminder that a government's decisions and actions have consequences beyond immediate public relations effects. And Andrew Coyne notes that the problems with Trudeau's actions also extend beyond a conflict of interest alone.

- Finally, Paul Karp and Ben Butler take note of the attempt by Australian corporate giants to avoid any use of the Panama Papers which revealed their tax evasion - along with the rejection of that argument by the courts.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Andrew Jackson writes that bland centrism is no response to right-wing populism:

Right-wing populism is a complex phenomenon which varies a lot by country. But most analysts agree that it is deeply rooted in material circumstances: rising economic inequality to often obscene levels, the stagnation of middle and lower class incomes both before and after the global economic crisis, increased low wage and precarious employment, rising economic insecurity and, in much of Europe, continued very high unemployment. Many working-class voters feel, with good reason, that the system is rigged against them, and that centrist politicians have done nothing to help them weather tough economic times.
...
(E)mbracing discredited liberal centrist politics is the worst possible way to fight right-wing populism. Far better, argue US political voices like Robert Kuttner, Robert Frank, Jacobin magazine and the newly invigorated Democratic Socialists of America, to combat right-wing populism not just by identifying the enemy in class terms, but to identify the enemy correctly as the top 0.1% of the billionaire class who have pocketed almost all of the gains of economic expansion and wield the levers of political power in their own interests. Far better to speak to the need to rebuild a mass labour movement, including both white and racialized workers who have far more in common than what divides them. Far better to put forward a strong social democratic agenda to increase security and rebuild equality through vital public programs like health care and education, paid for from fair tax reforms, and tough labour standards.
 
The same broad principles apply in Canada. The populist right, which is growing in influence, similarly feeds off the growth in inequality and insecurity and the lack of an attractive and compelling vision of our collective future. 
...

The best antidote to right-wing populism is not centrist liberal policies which make little difference in people's lives, but a bold and self-confident social democratic party which embraces the need to seriously deal with climate change, precarious jobs and rising inequality.

- David Sessions highlights how plutocrats try to set up other groups of "elites" for abuse in order to be allowed to plunder the populace without objection. Aaron Saad comments on the campaign by the oil industry and its political puppets to dehumanize anybody who dares to point out the need to transition away from fossil fuels. And Jim Bronskill reports that the RCMP is apparently delaying the release of a report into its spying on environmental protesters by refusing to provide a response.
  
- Frances Bula notes that the Libs' election-year housing announcements fall far short of both their promises, and the steps needed to make a meaningful dent in the shortage of affordable homes.

- Finally, Jenna Price writes that workplaces in Australia are falling far short of accounting for the needs of employees (and primarily women) trying to fit in both work and caregiving responsibilities.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Napping cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Seth Klein summarizes new polling showing that Canadians are eager for far stronger action to fight climate change than the Libs or Cons will even consider. And Andrew Leach points out that the Cons' excuse for a climate plan is a study in vagueness whose few discernable elements are contrary to Andrew Scheer's apparent goals.

- Meanwhile, Jason Warick reports on the potential for severe water shortages caused by a climate breakdown - including in much of Saskatchewan.

- Ann Carlson discusses why oil companies are trying desperately to avoid answering for their deception about the dangers of carbon emissions. And Sam Levin exposes how Monsanto has tried to attack and smear anybody who dares to share factual information about the connections between its products and health risks including cancer.

- Alex Drummond reports on the safety risks of Ontario's underresourced emergency rooms.

- Finally, Will Hutton is optimistic that the exclusionary right-wing world order is approaching its expiry date. But Stephen Maher writes about Quebec's Bill 21 as a vivid example of the cost of bigotry as long as it's allowed to reign supreme.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Larry Elliott writes that a corporate-centred model of globalization is unlikely to survive the Trump regime. And Jeff Spross proposes an alternative which allows for people to be free and capital to be controlled, rather than the other way around.

- But Jo Becker notes that large amounts of money and disinformation are pushing for nationalism and xenophobia around the globe, rather than any recognition of our shared interests in a fair and connected system of international relations.

- Benjamin Fearnow reports on the FBI's insistence on treating peaceful activists for minority rights as a larger threat than violent white supremacists. And Robin Ttess discusses how Canada's security state has been used at the behest of the oil industry to spy on and stifle Indigenous peoples and environmental activists.

- Andy Blatchford reports on the Trudeau Libs' delays and obfuscations about supplying armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia.

- Finally, Alan Freeman debunks the Fraser Institute's regularly-scheduled attempt to gaslight Canadians about taxes by refusing to acknowledge what individuals actually pay as well as what public revenue funds.