While there's been plenty of ill-informed commentary since the NDP's convention last weekend, I'll take a moment to highlight a few of the followup points which deserve a read.
- Joshua Keep rightly recognizes the new leadership election as an opportunity for renewal, but no guarantee of improvement. Gerard Di Trolio focuses particularly on the prospects of an unabashedly left-wing leadership campaign. And Selina Chignall offers a look at what the NDP may be looking for in its next leader, while Samantha Power examines some of the competing forces within the party (though we shouldn't overstate the differences, particularly given that there was little apparent problem keeping all sides of any of the issues in the fold just an election cycle earlier).
- Gerald Caplan asks the question of whether the NDP's main problem has to do with its ability to be seen as a viable government. But I'd note in response that at least over the last two elections, the issue has been one of winning first-choice support rather than being in the consideration set of enough voters to contend for power.
- Nicholas Ellan offers a look at some of the tactics which worked for the Leap and Renewal movements at the NDP's convention - while discussing how they should inform the party's own work in the time to come.
- Finally, Crawford Kilian points out that the most extreme response to the Leap Manifesto resolution amounts to an attempt to deny the glaringly obvious. And lest anybody think the issue is at all new based on the development of the Leap Manifesto itself, see my earlier discussion in this post and column.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Alexander Panetta reports on the G20's agreement on the need to crack down on tax evasion - as well as the steps Canada needs to take to get our own house in order:
- Raul Aldaz reviews Gianluca Passarelli's study of the presidentialization of political parties around the world. And in what looks to offer a prime example, Tim Naumetz points out Justin Trudeau's plan to take any remaining policy-making levers out of the hands of the Libs' membership.
- Duff Conacher suggests that we can look to Quebec for an example in taking big money out of party politics.
- Finally, Trish Kahle discusses the need and opportunity for the labour and environmental movements to develop shared goals, rather than allowing cynical corporate interests to pit them against each other:
- Alexander Panetta reports on the G20's agreement on the need to crack down on tax evasion - as well as the steps Canada needs to take to get our own house in order:
The final communique warned of actions against countries that don't agree within a year to adopt bank-reporting standards being promoted by international agencies.- Steven Chase confirms that the Libs' choice to approve a massive arms deal with Saudi Arabia came long after they were aware of increasing human rights abuses. And Susana Mas highlights the Libs' limited and selective disclosure of the facts they're willing to share publicly even now.
...
One section of the G20 communique applies to more countries, including Canada. It says countries must do a better job of tracking down the true owners of companies, specifically those who might be hiding behind strawmen.
Dennis Howlett says Canada is currently in non-compliance with that provision. The executive director of Canadians for Tax Fairness says oversight is especially weak in some provinces.
"Canada has a lot of work to do to comply with the international standards on transparency of beneficial ownership," he said.
...
A recent report by the group Transparency International said Canada runs afoul of multiple internationally-agreed standards set by the G20. It says Canadian law doesn't properly define beneficial ownership — the true identity of people drawing profit from a company. It also says authorities aren't required to track their identity, nor can they easily access their identity.
- Raul Aldaz reviews Gianluca Passarelli's study of the presidentialization of political parties around the world. And in what looks to offer a prime example, Tim Naumetz points out Justin Trudeau's plan to take any remaining policy-making levers out of the hands of the Libs' membership.
- Duff Conacher suggests that we can look to Quebec for an example in taking big money out of party politics.
- Finally, Trish Kahle discusses the need and opportunity for the labour and environmental movements to develop shared goals, rather than allowing cynical corporate interests to pit them against each other:
Environmental politics must become generalized in the labor movement, and vice versa. The language of climate justice has already begun to infuse a sense of class politics into environmentalism, and green groups’ support for recent labor struggles is a promising step forward. Initiatives like the Labor Network for Sustainability, Trade Unions for Energy Democracy, and the BlueGreen Alliance are helping to connect the dots. But environmentalists must go further, acknowledging that there can be no real solution to the energy crisis without the input and leadership of the people who already do the work. Understanding the climate crisis as part of neoliberalism’s larger attack on public welfare and democracy (with the impacts, like all social failings in the United States, experienced more acutely by people of color and particularly by African Americans) can help expand the terrain on which both unions and climate activists struggle.
Ultimately, we live in the world we build. That world is both social and ecological, constantly made and remade through what sociologist Jason Moore has described as “the web of life.” If organized labor—and the climate—are to have a fighting chance, unions must offer real alternatives to the world of “shared sacrifice” and dead zones, of poisoning by austerity, of cheap fuels and cheap lives. What would it take for today’s coal-belt communities, channeling the Miners for Democracy, to fight not against EPA regulations but for jobs restoring lands destroyed by mountaintop removal mining? What would it take for union activists to have a meaningful say at the next international climate talks?
This work is just beginning. But with a shared vision to guide it, labor environmentalism can take us far. Its core demand is simple: to build a world that all of us, not just the rich or white, can actually live in.
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Saturday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your weekend reading.
- Lana Payne writes about the need for a Bernie Sanders in Canada to highlight and oppose the privilege of the wealthy few:
- Andrew Jackson points out the unfairness in using increasingly unequal lifespans as an excuse to cut pensions and other income supports in a way which places the heaviest burden on lower-income workers.
- Tammy Robert examines Saskatchewan's archaic political fund-raising laws, and starts tracing the Saskatchewan Party's largest donors over the years. And Jon Schwarz highlights Barack Obama's take on the influence of money in politics.
- Finally, Linda McQuaig questions why we've seen a knee-jerk response attacking the Leap Manifesto, rather than the global environmental calamity it's intended to help avert.
- Lana Payne writes about the need for a Bernie Sanders in Canada to highlight and oppose the privilege of the wealthy few:
It is in this context of blatant unfairness — rules for the rich and rules for the rest — that politicians like Bernie Sanders have become so popular.- Jim Coyle discusses the latest UNICEF report showing that the poorest Canadian children are facing increasing disparities in health and well-being. And the CP reports on the urgent need for investment in First Nations in particular to close the gap.
People are angry. And rightfully so. They play by the rules. Young people did what they were told. They are more educated than at any time in history and yet they face precarious employment and uncertainty and often bucketloads of debt. People are told to lower their expectations, especially over what the state should be providing.
And along comes Bernie, who says it doesn’t have to be this way. There is wealth. The problem is not that as a society we can’t afford free post-secondary education or universal health care, the problem is as a society we can’t afford rich people who don’t pay their taxes. We can’t afford to lose billions of dollars annually in tax revenues to tax havens.
We can’t afford to have an unfair tax system and Canada’s has grown increasingly unfair.
We need a Bernie Sanders in Canada. Someone who will change the conversation and put entitlement on the table. And then squash it.
- Andrew Jackson points out the unfairness in using increasingly unequal lifespans as an excuse to cut pensions and other income supports in a way which places the heaviest burden on lower-income workers.
- Tammy Robert examines Saskatchewan's archaic political fund-raising laws, and starts tracing the Saskatchewan Party's largest donors over the years. And Jon Schwarz highlights Barack Obama's take on the influence of money in politics.
- Finally, Linda McQuaig questions why we've seen a knee-jerk response attacking the Leap Manifesto, rather than the global environmental calamity it's intended to help avert.
Friday, April 15, 2016
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- George Monbiot discusses how neoliberal ideology has managed to take over as the default assumption in global governance - despite its disastrous and readily visible effects:
- Steven Chase reports on the Libs' deceptive attempt to dodge responsibility for approving the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. Alison succinctly links the sale to its known consequences, while Neil MacDonald points out that there's no difference at all between the Cons and Libs in their determination to push military exports at the expense of human rights. And both Michael Harris and the Globe and Mail's editorial board tear into the Libs for their hypocrisy and dishonesty.
- Meanwhile, Desmond Cole reminds us that Canadian torture victims are being met with utter contempt by the Trudeau Libs.
- Finally, Bruce Campbell writes that there's been virtually no progress on rail safety since the Lac-Mégantic disaster. And Mike De Souza notes that contrary to the spin of pipeline proponents, there's reason for concern that similar regulatory neglect and corporate greed connected to pipelines can result in damage on an equally large scale.
- George Monbiot discusses how neoliberal ideology has managed to take over as the default assumption in global governance - despite its disastrous and readily visible effects:
(T)he past four decades have been characterised by a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy: from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.- And Mike Small highlights how privatization schemes are predictably enriching private contractors at the expense of the general public without delivering the promised services.
Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.
The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public sector.
Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.
- Steven Chase reports on the Libs' deceptive attempt to dodge responsibility for approving the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. Alison succinctly links the sale to its known consequences, while Neil MacDonald points out that there's no difference at all between the Cons and Libs in their determination to push military exports at the expense of human rights. And both Michael Harris and the Globe and Mail's editorial board tear into the Libs for their hypocrisy and dishonesty.
- Meanwhile, Desmond Cole reminds us that Canadian torture victims are being met with utter contempt by the Trudeau Libs.
- Finally, Bruce Campbell writes that there's been virtually no progress on rail safety since the Lac-Mégantic disaster. And Mike De Souza notes that contrary to the spin of pipeline proponents, there's reason for concern that similar regulatory neglect and corporate greed connected to pipelines can result in damage on an equally large scale.
A place for discussion
Following up on yesterday's column, I'll expand somewhat on some of the decisions the NDP may want to consider as (or before) it elects new leaders. And since the recent federal convention has been treated by other commentators as everything from a shining example of party democracy in action to an absolute calamity, let's start at that level - with a particular focus on what should be seen as having worked and not in Edmonton.
I'll start by taking the view that whatever one's views on the merits, the convention's handling of resolutions related to the Leap Manifesto should be seen as an excellent example as to how policy debate can happen within a party.
Plenty of work went into developing a main resolution and informing members (and the public) about it. The convention's resolution panel examined its options, and put forward a primary resolution which addressed concerns about the original wording. The underlying issue was one which left room for thoughtful debate even among the convention's featured speakers. And the debate on the floor featured meaningful contributions from a combination of high-profile and rank-and-file members.
About all that was lacking was any sense of willingness to work with the outcome - which is unfortunate given that the resolution which passed leaves ample room for debate as to which portions of Leap should be accepted or not.
Unfortunately, time and capacity limitations make it impossible to engage in that level of discussion when it comes to all but a few resolutions at any given convention. And that seems to me to be a particularly important problem if conventions are seen as the sole direct opportunity for membership-level input into policies and choices.
But that's a problem which should be fairly readily fixed. The NDP's federal council has authority to make final decisions on policy between conventions - and the sheer volume of resolutions brought forward at every policy convention seems to me to signal some significant demand to ensure that more policy issues are dealt with.
With the council serving as a check on any mischief, there's no reason why the resolutions (PDF) which haven't yet been addressed by convention (and additional ideas put forward afterward) couldn't be made subject to systematic review and discussion through party channels. And the result of facilitating ongoing policy discussion could be to make the NDP and its policy conventions more productive in two ways.
First, it should help to narrow and clarify the issues up for discussion.
At the moment, there's a large amount of redundancy in the resolutions submitted since electoral district associations and commissions submit their own resolutions with little (if any) coordination. But the development of an ongoing policy forum should make it easier for EDAs and commissions to discuss and agree on the wording intended to address any given issue - which should reduce the number of resolutions submitted while better focusing their intent.
And second, the convention itself should run more efficiently and accomplish more if members' concerns have been addressed in advance, or can be addressed afterward.
In particular, there should be less room for argument about how much time is devoted to any specific policy - or policy in general - at a convention if there's a readily-available alternative forum in which to carry on the discussion.
Of course, it will inevitably take time for a new process to be developed and implemented. And I'd fully expect some of the past issues to remain until members' expectations adapt to a new policy review process. But in the long run, I'd think it's possible to put both convention time and members' policy interest to better use by making sure needed conversations about the NDP's direction take place on a continuous basis.
I'll start by taking the view that whatever one's views on the merits, the convention's handling of resolutions related to the Leap Manifesto should be seen as an excellent example as to how policy debate can happen within a party.
Plenty of work went into developing a main resolution and informing members (and the public) about it. The convention's resolution panel examined its options, and put forward a primary resolution which addressed concerns about the original wording. The underlying issue was one which left room for thoughtful debate even among the convention's featured speakers. And the debate on the floor featured meaningful contributions from a combination of high-profile and rank-and-file members.
About all that was lacking was any sense of willingness to work with the outcome - which is unfortunate given that the resolution which passed leaves ample room for debate as to which portions of Leap should be accepted or not.
Unfortunately, time and capacity limitations make it impossible to engage in that level of discussion when it comes to all but a few resolutions at any given convention. And that seems to me to be a particularly important problem if conventions are seen as the sole direct opportunity for membership-level input into policies and choices.
But that's a problem which should be fairly readily fixed. The NDP's federal council has authority to make final decisions on policy between conventions - and the sheer volume of resolutions brought forward at every policy convention seems to me to signal some significant demand to ensure that more policy issues are dealt with.
With the council serving as a check on any mischief, there's no reason why the resolutions (PDF) which haven't yet been addressed by convention (and additional ideas put forward afterward) couldn't be made subject to systematic review and discussion through party channels. And the result of facilitating ongoing policy discussion could be to make the NDP and its policy conventions more productive in two ways.
First, it should help to narrow and clarify the issues up for discussion.
At the moment, there's a large amount of redundancy in the resolutions submitted since electoral district associations and commissions submit their own resolutions with little (if any) coordination. But the development of an ongoing policy forum should make it easier for EDAs and commissions to discuss and agree on the wording intended to address any given issue - which should reduce the number of resolutions submitted while better focusing their intent.
And second, the convention itself should run more efficiently and accomplish more if members' concerns have been addressed in advance, or can be addressed afterward.
In particular, there should be less room for argument about how much time is devoted to any specific policy - or policy in general - at a convention if there's a readily-available alternative forum in which to carry on the discussion.
Of course, it will inevitably take time for a new process to be developed and implemented. And I'd fully expect some of the past issues to remain until members' expectations adapt to a new policy review process. But in the long run, I'd think it's possible to put both convention time and members' policy interest to better use by making sure needed conversations about the NDP's direction take place on a continuous basis.
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Thursday Afternoon Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Corey Hogan makes the case for Rachel Notley's NDP to develop a progressive fix to Alberta's fiscal mess:
- The Globe and Mail examines the state of money and politics in Saskatchewan - sadly including massive amounts of corporate money combined with little indication as to how it affects policy.
- Katie Hyslop writes that limitations on the availability of affordable supportive housing in B.C. can serve to tear families apart.
- Finally, May Warren reports on research showing that the majority of employment in the York region now consists of precarious work. And Jennifer Hollett examines the stressors facing precarious workers in Canada.
- Corey Hogan makes the case for Rachel Notley's NDP to develop a progressive fix to Alberta's fiscal mess:
No matter what you decide to do, you're going to take a political hit with somebody. Credibility will be lost, capital will be spent.- Thomas Walkom highlights why the Leap Manifesto bears no resemblance to the caricature being made of it by much of Canada's media. Rosemary Westwood argues that particularly based on the success of Bernie Sanders' campaign, the NDP shouldn't have to apologize for believing in the progressive and socialist principles which have worked so well for Canada. And Clare Foran discusses the future of Sanders' movement once the current presidential campaign passes.
...
Your upper income tax hike was a good start, but you and I both know it's only the minimum payment on that grand old PC legacy — Alberta's structural deficit.
Our taxes are so low they don't even pay for health care and education, let alone the rest of government. And it's not like there's no way out of this mess. If we moved to the tax rates of the next lowest-taxed province we wouldn't have a deficit at all.
If you're going to raise taxes, let's get it over with — and better one big tax hike than three small ones. We'll be further ahead as a province and you'll have three years for us to get over it and thank you for your foresight.
Now, not 2018, is the time to do what's necessary but not necessarily popular.
...
(J)ust because you need to spend your political capital doesn't mean you should waste it.
The amount you would need to win right-wing Alberta is well beyond your bank balance. Trading the goodwill of the people who voted for you in the hopes that it leads to the goodwill of people who will never like you is a sucker's bet.
...
Compromising with those who will never support you is a good way to lose the support of those who do.
Pick a side. Making the person who's angry with you angrier is better than alienating your supporter.
- The Globe and Mail examines the state of money and politics in Saskatchewan - sadly including massive amounts of corporate money combined with little indication as to how it affects policy.
- Katie Hyslop writes that limitations on the availability of affordable supportive housing in B.C. can serve to tear families apart.
- Finally, May Warren reports on research showing that the majority of employment in the York region now consists of precarious work. And Jennifer Hollett examines the stressors facing precarious workers in Canada.
New column day
Last week, I wrote that the NDP should be careful about assuming that changes in leadership would necessarily help in a needed process of party renewal.
Obviously, both elected to seek out new leadership. And so in this week's column, I point out that leadership races shouldn't put on hold any answer to the broader questions about the proper structure and role of a political party. And in fact, the absence of any single person to direct a party from the top down should offer an opportunity to build grassroots involvement.
Obviously, both elected to seek out new leadership. And so in this week's column, I point out that leadership races shouldn't put on hold any answer to the broader questions about the proper structure and role of a political party. And in fact, the absence of any single person to direct a party from the top down should offer an opportunity to build grassroots involvement.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Wednesday Afternoon Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- The Ontario Association of Food Banks discusses the long-term damage done by childhood poverty and deprivation:
- BJ Siekierski points out that even the Canadian Chamber of Commernce has figured out that the Cons' arbitrary limit on the number of regulations serves mostly to make governance more difficult - though their plan to let the corporate sector vet regulations isn't exactly a substantial improvement. And L. Ian MacDonald reminds us of the ugly state of corporate fund-raising in Canada which goes a long way toward explaining why businesses are allowed to write so many of their own rules to the public detriment.
- Finally, Clark Mindock and David Sirota trace the $600 billion of U.S. corporate money shifted offshore in a single year.
- The Ontario Association of Food Banks discusses the long-term damage done by childhood poverty and deprivation:
When facing a very tight budget, food is often the budget line that gets cut in order to afford rent or hydro: you can skip a meal for a day or two and still be OK, but there are much more immediate consequences to not paying your landlord.- Tamara Khandaker writes about the suicide crisis facing Attawapiskat (among other Canadian First Nations), while the Hamilton Spectator reports on a suicide pact stopped in the nick of time. And Jorge Barrera reports on Jean Chretien's appalling response that the answer is to abandon communities rather than to make resources available.
Instead, people in this situation often turn to food with higher calories and lower nutritional value to fill the empty feeling in their stomachs. Prices of healthy food in Ontario have skyrocketed over the last year: fresh fruit has jumped by 19.7 per cent since 2015, and fresh vegetables by 23.6 per cent, whereas the cost of candy has only risen by 0.4 per cent, while non-alcoholic beverages (such as pop) have actually dropped by 0.9 per cent.
People facing tough choices every single day -- rent or electricity? food or medicine? -- have high levels of stress. Stress can affect both your ability to take care of yourself and trigger high levels of blood glucose. Since diabetes is a disease in which your body isn't able to manage blood sugar levels, this can have even more adverse consequences.
All these things combined put low-income and First Nations people at a high risk for diabetes. Managing diabetes is itself expensive: beyond just the dietary changes required to keep it at bay, there is also the cost of prescription, supplies and equipment. Yet those who are low-income also often do not have enough or any insurance to cover these costs, because they work in precarious, low-wage jobs without benefits.
- BJ Siekierski points out that even the Canadian Chamber of Commernce has figured out that the Cons' arbitrary limit on the number of regulations serves mostly to make governance more difficult - though their plan to let the corporate sector vet regulations isn't exactly a substantial improvement. And L. Ian MacDonald reminds us of the ugly state of corporate fund-raising in Canada which goes a long way toward explaining why businesses are allowed to write so many of their own rules to the public detriment.
- Finally, Clark Mindock and David Sirota trace the $600 billion of U.S. corporate money shifted offshore in a single year.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- The Star makes the case for a new crackdown on Canadian tax cheats to not only merely recover money withheld, but also to name and shame the people who have thus far refused to pay their fair share:
- Steven Greenhouse looks into the movement toward a $15 minimum wage in the U.S. And Laura Bliss comments on the need to pay more attention to the workers who help to maintain the society we have, rather than focusing almost solely on disruption and innovation in evaluating individual merit.
- Finally, CBC examines ACORN's work to make affordable Internet access available to everybody - with a particular focus on tenants in non-profit housing.
- The Star makes the case for a new crackdown on Canadian tax cheats to not only merely recover money withheld, but also to name and shame the people who have thus far refused to pay their fair share:
(I)f the Trudeau government is genuinely serious about clamping down, it should be prepared to name and shame miscreants with a lot more zeal than it has yet demonstrated. There’s nothing like shining the antiseptic light of day into murky corners, to discourage banks, law firms, accountancy firms and the like from enabling schemes that play fast and loose with the public treasury.- CBC reports on research showing the historical role of human sacrifice as a means of social control. And while the deaths may no longer be public or deliberate, Jim Zarroli and Kevin Drum both discuss how inequality of income and wealth are still easily traced in the U.S.' survival rates.
Yet while agencies such as the CRA and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) are happy to name the small fish they catch breaking the laws and regulations, that hasn’t always been the case with bigger fish.
Just last week FINTRAC, which tracks money laundering and terrorist financing among other things, announced it had levied a stiff $1.1-million penalty on a Canadian bank for failing to report a suspicious transaction and various money transfers. But it declined to name the institution involved. Meanwhile it is busy naming players who have been slapped with fines of $15,000 or less.
And CRA has drawn criticism for quietly offering an amnesty deal to unnamed multi-millionaire clients of the KPMG accounting firm who were allegedly involved in tax avoidance on the Isle of Man. The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported that the group was required by CRA only to pay back the taxes they owed, plus interest. Yet the CRA routinely prosecutes and names people who fail to file tax returns or otherwise run afoul of the law.
If the government hopes to “give Canadians greater confidence that the tax system is fair to everyone,” its agencies should be prepared to publicly name offenders. Cutting deals to spare Ottawa the trouble of prosecuting, or to preserve the “good name” of financial institutions and their wealthy clients, isn’t going to reassure anyone other than the scofflaws themselves.
Ottawa shouldn’t be in the business of shielding those who have gone to extraordinary lengths to insulate themselves and their assets from public scrutiny.
- Steven Greenhouse looks into the movement toward a $15 minimum wage in the U.S. And Laura Bliss comments on the need to pay more attention to the workers who help to maintain the society we have, rather than focusing almost solely on disruption and innovation in evaluating individual merit.
- Finally, CBC examines ACORN's work to make affordable Internet access available to everybody - with a particular focus on tenants in non-profit housing.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Jason Hinkel writes that for as much attention as global inequality has received in recent years, it may be significantly more of a problem than we've previously assumed - and getting worse as time goes by:
- Aaron Hutchins exposes how Canada is regularly used to anonymize income for the purposes of tax avoidance, while Justin Ling looks into Canada's pitiful record of investigating and prosecuting tax evasion. And Mainstreet finds a whopping 81% of Canadians agree that the rich aren't paying their fair share - meaning there's plenty of demand for both far more enforcement than we've seen to date, and a more progressive tax system to begin with.
- Betsy Powell and Jennifer Pagliaro examine the schemes used primarily by developers to get around Toronto's political donation limits - while noting that there are some obvious fixes available to the extent anybody's committed to reining in those abuses.
- Finally, Colin Horgan raises one of the questions which the NDP should be working on resolving at this weekend's convention and beyond - being what role a political party should actually play.
- Jason Hinkel writes that for as much attention as global inequality has received in recent years, it may be significantly more of a problem than we've previously assumed - and getting worse as time goes by:
It doesn’t matter how you slice it; global inequality is getting worse. Much worse. Convergence theory turned out to be wildly incorrect. Inequality doesn’t disappear automatically; it all depends on the balance of political power in the global economy. As long as a few rich countries have the power to set the rules to their own advantage, inequality will continue to worsen. The debt system, structural adjustment, free trade agreements, tax evasion, and power asymmetries in the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO are all major reasons that inequality is getting worse instead of better.- Meanwhile, Thomas Piketty writes that the aftermath of the Panama Papers represents the perfect time to crack down on tax havens.
It’s time we face up to the imbalances that distort our global economy. There’s nothing natural about extreme inequality. It is man-made. It has to do with power. And we need to have the courage to say so.
- Aaron Hutchins exposes how Canada is regularly used to anonymize income for the purposes of tax avoidance, while Justin Ling looks into Canada's pitiful record of investigating and prosecuting tax evasion. And Mainstreet finds a whopping 81% of Canadians agree that the rich aren't paying their fair share - meaning there's plenty of demand for both far more enforcement than we've seen to date, and a more progressive tax system to begin with.
- Betsy Powell and Jennifer Pagliaro examine the schemes used primarily by developers to get around Toronto's political donation limits - while noting that there are some obvious fixes available to the extent anybody's committed to reining in those abuses.
- Finally, Colin Horgan raises one of the questions which the NDP should be working on resolving at this weekend's convention and beyond - being what role a political party should actually play.
Saturday, April 09, 2016
Choose your progressives
Choose your drug policy: harm reduction...
— Susan Gapka (@SusanGapka) April 9, 2016...or harm retention.
Spun out
Sadly, there are far too many half-baked outside arguments being made about the federal NDP's leadership review and how it connects to provincial-level choices. (To be clear, I contrast those against some genuine concerns being raised by members.) But let's highlight one particularly telling example of how the NDP in general is being misrepresented by the same people trying to push Mulcair out of the picture.
Here's the Alberta NDP's platform in the campaign which resulted in its historic victory last year, emphasizing a royalty review, an increased minimum wage, more progressive taxes, reversing cuts and enhancing public services.
The exercise for the reader is to assess whether this better reflects:
(a) a "rush to the centre", as Warren Kinsella says in an attempt to tar the NDP's successful campaigns with the same brush as its unsuccessful ones; or
(b) "a progressive platform consistent with the NDP's values", as I argued in pointing to it as an example worth following.
I'm not sure how anybody can conclude (a) without needing to do so in order to fit a convenient narrative. And again, we can fairly say that anybody whose main agenda includes trying to diminish the NDP's progressive victories shouldn't be paid much heed in deciding on the NDP's future.
Here's the Alberta NDP's platform in the campaign which resulted in its historic victory last year, emphasizing a royalty review, an increased minimum wage, more progressive taxes, reversing cuts and enhancing public services.
The exercise for the reader is to assess whether this better reflects:
(a) a "rush to the centre", as Warren Kinsella says in an attempt to tar the NDP's successful campaigns with the same brush as its unsuccessful ones; or
(b) "a progressive platform consistent with the NDP's values", as I argued in pointing to it as an example worth following.
I'm not sure how anybody can conclude (a) without needing to do so in order to fit a convenient narrative. And again, we can fairly say that anybody whose main agenda includes trying to diminish the NDP's progressive victories shouldn't be paid much heed in deciding on the NDP's future.
Friday, April 08, 2016
Friday Evening Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Angella MacEwen discusses how most of what's sold as "free trade" serves mostly to hand power to the corporate sector at the expense of the public. Ashley Csanady and Monika Warzecha point out that the same is true for Ontario's business subsidies and tax credits which are normally advertised as benefiting workers. And Paul Tukker reports on the publicly-funded cost to clean up abandoned mines in the Yukon as yet another example of how we're paying the price for exploitative corporate practices.
- Meanwhile, the Canadian Press contrasts the B.C. NDP's push to take big donors out of politics against Christy Clark's insistence on being able to fund her campaigns with corporate money.
- Coral Davenport discusses new research showing that it's possible to decouple economic development from increasing carbon emissions.
- The Globe and Mail questions the Libs' sudden loss of interest in access to information now that their actions stand to be held to account.
- Finally, Desmond Cole calls out an insidious attempt to label as "violent" peaceful protests and their response to state violence.
- Angella MacEwen discusses how most of what's sold as "free trade" serves mostly to hand power to the corporate sector at the expense of the public. Ashley Csanady and Monika Warzecha point out that the same is true for Ontario's business subsidies and tax credits which are normally advertised as benefiting workers. And Paul Tukker reports on the publicly-funded cost to clean up abandoned mines in the Yukon as yet another example of how we're paying the price for exploitative corporate practices.
- Meanwhile, the Canadian Press contrasts the B.C. NDP's push to take big donors out of politics against Christy Clark's insistence on being able to fund her campaigns with corporate money.
- Coral Davenport discusses new research showing that it's possible to decouple economic development from increasing carbon emissions.
- The Globe and Mail questions the Libs' sudden loss of interest in access to information now that their actions stand to be held to account.
- Finally, Desmond Cole calls out an insidious attempt to label as "violent" peaceful protests and their response to state violence.
Thursday, April 07, 2016
Up for discussion
Kady O'Malley has already highlighted a few of the noteworthy resolutions (PDF) submitted to this weekend's NDP policy convention. But I'll point out a few more which look to me to deserve attention.
First, in the category of simple good ideas regardless of one's ideological orientation...
Meanwhile, a few other resolutions fit with ideas which have been discussed elsewhere, but haven't been given extensive attention among Canada's federal political parties. Among those are 1-18-16 (among others) on postal banking, 1-21-16 on a financial transaction tax, 1-27-16 calling for a review of tax policy including challenging the Cons' GST cuts among others dealing with more progressive taxation, 1-67-16 providing for an inheritance tax, 3-06-16 on a basic income, 3-16-16 and others supporting a fully funded mental health and addictions strategy, 3-89-16 to eliminate mandatory minimum criminal sentences, and 6-04-16 to call for an end to carding.
And several more offer some important fodder for discussion, including a charter of citizen and corporate responsibilities (1-47-16), a detailed plan to transition to a low-carbon economy as the basis for the next campaign (2-24-16), a prohibition against genetic discrimination (3-26-16), a fund to encourage youth involvement in politics (5-12-16), and a move toward more ongoing participatory policy-making (7-14-16 among others).
Of course it's doubtful that this weekend will even scratch the surface of the above (along with many more worthwhile ideas which have been put before the convention). But there's certainly no lack of thoughtful ideas worth taking away even if they don't make it to the floor - and hopefully several of the above will find their way into platforms and policy before long.
First, in the category of simple good ideas regardless of one's ideological orientation...
1-08-16 SEVERANCE FLEXIBILITYAbout the only concern is that this might be too narrowly framed in applying only to plant closures. But it's well worth looking at ways to make sure that EI does more for workers (see also 3-05-16 among other resolutions for examples) - and the principle that EI should supplement severance packages rather than swallowing them up for workers in an especially difficult job market its the bill.
London-Fanshawe
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the following be added to Section 1.5 in the policy book:
1.5.f. Amending the Employment Insurance Act (severance) and the Income Tax Act so that employees who have lost their jobs due to plant closure can, on a one-time-only basis, retain their severance packages and be able to invest some or all of that severance money into RRSPs even if the investment is above their RRSP contribution limit and can, immediately upon termination of employment, collect the Employment Insurance to which they are entitled without any loss of severance monies.
1-20-16 PLANNED OBSOLESCENCEThis would fit neatly into the categories of consumer protection and environmental policy, at least allowing people to make more informed purchasing decisions and hopefully encouraging the development of more responsible production processes.
NDP Quebec Section
...
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the NDP require that for each device purchased, the consumer must have access to the following information:
§ A clear indication making it possible to know if the device is repairable and the duration of the availability of separate parts and accessories, as well as the device’s reasonable life cycle;
§ An explanation of the product’s environmental impact provided by the producers, such as:
§ Impact of CO2 emitted when the product was produced;
§ Preservation of natural resources: quantity of non-renewable resources (gold, silver and tin) in the composition of the product;
§ Instructions for recycling the device or returning it to the producer for recycling.
5-03-16 MAXIMUM LENGTH OF FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNSI'm not sure if anybody saw any merit in Stephen Harper's extended 2015 campaign for any purpose other than his own partisan advantage. But a legislated limit on the campaign period would seem a logical response to the issues raised when a prime minister can otherwise singlehandedly extend timelines and increase expense limits.
NDP Quebec Section, Richmond-Arthabaska, Jonquière
...
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the NDP support the adoption of legislation limiting the length of an election campaign to a maximum of 45 days.
Meanwhile, a few other resolutions fit with ideas which have been discussed elsewhere, but haven't been given extensive attention among Canada's federal political parties. Among those are 1-18-16 (among others) on postal banking, 1-21-16 on a financial transaction tax, 1-27-16 calling for a review of tax policy including challenging the Cons' GST cuts among others dealing with more progressive taxation, 1-67-16 providing for an inheritance tax, 3-06-16 on a basic income, 3-16-16 and others supporting a fully funded mental health and addictions strategy, 3-89-16 to eliminate mandatory minimum criminal sentences, and 6-04-16 to call for an end to carding.
And several more offer some important fodder for discussion, including a charter of citizen and corporate responsibilities (1-47-16), a detailed plan to transition to a low-carbon economy as the basis for the next campaign (2-24-16), a prohibition against genetic discrimination (3-26-16), a fund to encourage youth involvement in politics (5-12-16), and a move toward more ongoing participatory policy-making (7-14-16 among others).
Of course it's doubtful that this weekend will even scratch the surface of the above (along with many more worthwhile ideas which have been put before the convention). But there's certainly no lack of thoughtful ideas worth taking away even if they don't make it to the floor - and hopefully several of the above will find their way into platforms and policy before long.
New column day
Here, on the leadership choices facing the federal and provincial NDP - and why neither should be too quick to assume that changing leaders will necessarily help to rebuild after election disappointments.
For further reading...
- I've dealt with the background to the federal party's decision on Mulcair in a previous series of posts leading to last night's performance review, as well as this column. And plenty more people have offered varying takes on Mulcair's leadership which deserve a look (even if I don't necessarily agree) - including Nicholas Ellan, Peter Thurley, Tom Parkin, Benjamin Fox Dickerson, Bill Tieleman, Peggy Nash and Dan Harris.
- Mulcair's latest rating as a potential prime minister can be found via Nanos here (PDF). And Cam Broten's approval ratings from the provincial election campaign are here and here, showing him at a steady 39%.
- Finally, CBC offers a roundup of NDP reactions to this week's election result.
[Edit: updated link.]
For further reading...
- I've dealt with the background to the federal party's decision on Mulcair in a previous series of posts leading to last night's performance review, as well as this column. And plenty more people have offered varying takes on Mulcair's leadership which deserve a look (even if I don't necessarily agree) - including Nicholas Ellan, Peter Thurley, Tom Parkin, Benjamin Fox Dickerson, Bill Tieleman, Peggy Nash and Dan Harris.
- Mulcair's latest rating as a potential prime minister can be found via Nanos here (PDF). And Cam Broten's approval ratings from the provincial election campaign are here and here, showing him at a steady 39%.
- Finally, CBC offers a roundup of NDP reactions to this week's election result.
[Edit: updated link.]
Wednesday, April 06, 2016
On performance reviews
Following up on this post, I'll weigh in with my own take on the federal NDP's leadership review - based primarily on the question of what Tom Mulcair seems to have taken away from the 2015 federal election, and how it will position the party in the years to come.
As alluded to in some previous posts, I'd sum up my expectations in the wake of the election to be roughly the following:
- to critically assess what happened in the previous election campaign to determine what lessons can be learned, both for better and for worse;
- to put to rest any (however implausible) question as to which is the most progressive party in Parliament;
- to prioritize MP empowerment and outreach over caution and discipline;
- to transition away from "default opposition" status toward a stronger focus on policies and values; and
- to focus on long-term and broad-based movement-building, including with a concerted effort to approach people who were excluded from involvement with the party.
And on all counts, I'd see Mulcair as having at least taken meaningful steps down the right path.
The NDP's interim report and final campaign review (PDF) has received plenty of attention. And both offer at least a useful high-level set of reflections and ideas.
But some of the more noteworthy moves since the election also include significant issue-based initiatives by MPs, as well as a strong policy focus on inequality, precarious work and fairness for First Nations. And Mulcair's own pre-budget tour featured ample interactions with party activists and interested newcomers alike, while his pre-convention discussions have included some important recognition of the need to build from the NDP's membership base.
The most important question for me is then whether those steps should be seen as a temporary nod to the base in light of the impending leadership review, or the starting point in building the movement needed to elect a truly progressive federal government. And I see both reason for optimism that Mulcair himself recognizes the need for a change in course following the election, and another opportunity to address any continued shortcomings at the next NDP policy convention.
When the generally positive direction in a new political environment is combined with the strengths Mulcair has always brought to the table, I'm looking forward to seeing what he can work on building given the opportunity. And so I'll be voting to support Mulcair in Edmonton - with both the hope and the expectation that we'll see more sustainable party renewal without a leadership race than with one.
As alluded to in some previous posts, I'd sum up my expectations in the wake of the election to be roughly the following:
- to critically assess what happened in the previous election campaign to determine what lessons can be learned, both for better and for worse;
- to put to rest any (however implausible) question as to which is the most progressive party in Parliament;
- to prioritize MP empowerment and outreach over caution and discipline;
- to transition away from "default opposition" status toward a stronger focus on policies and values; and
- to focus on long-term and broad-based movement-building, including with a concerted effort to approach people who were excluded from involvement with the party.
And on all counts, I'd see Mulcair as having at least taken meaningful steps down the right path.
The NDP's interim report and final campaign review (PDF) has received plenty of attention. And both offer at least a useful high-level set of reflections and ideas.
But some of the more noteworthy moves since the election also include significant issue-based initiatives by MPs, as well as a strong policy focus on inequality, precarious work and fairness for First Nations. And Mulcair's own pre-budget tour featured ample interactions with party activists and interested newcomers alike, while his pre-convention discussions have included some important recognition of the need to build from the NDP's membership base.
The most important question for me is then whether those steps should be seen as a temporary nod to the base in light of the impending leadership review, or the starting point in building the movement needed to elect a truly progressive federal government. And I see both reason for optimism that Mulcair himself recognizes the need for a change in course following the election, and another opportunity to address any continued shortcomings at the next NDP policy convention.
When the generally positive direction in a new political environment is combined with the strengths Mulcair has always brought to the table, I'm looking forward to seeing what he can work on building given the opportunity. And so I'll be voting to support Mulcair in Edmonton - with both the hope and the expectation that we'll see more sustainable party renewal without a leadership race than with one.
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- In the wake of the Panama Papers, Don Pittis writes that tax shelters serve only to ensure that the wealthy don't pay their fair share for a functional society - meaning that everybody who can't afford to engage in financial shenanigans is left to pick up the slack. Neil Macdonald discusses the different rules purchased by the few who can afford them. And Ben Chu highlights why we need to crack down on tax avoidance to do anything about burgeoning wealth inequality, and Daniel Leblanc reports that the NDP is leading the charge to do just that.
- But Bruce Livesey documents the lobbying pressure on the part of the wealthy which stands in our way. And ThinkPol points out that the Panama free trade deal pushed by both the Cons and the Libs has only privileged tax evaders over the public.
- Robert MacDermid offers a few suggestions to reduce the impact of wealth on political financing - though it's worth noting that election and party funding represents only a small portion of the influence of the corporate elite on our political system. And the Pacific Gazette notes that an independent MLA has introduced legislation to bring British Columbia's political financing rules up to par.
- Ainslie Cruickshank discusses the need to remedy health inequality in Canada.
- Finally, Noah Zon argues that we need our anti-poverty programs - and notably the Canada Child Benefit - to keep up with the cost of living. And Anita Khanna calls for a push to finally end child poverty in Canada for good.
- In the wake of the Panama Papers, Don Pittis writes that tax shelters serve only to ensure that the wealthy don't pay their fair share for a functional society - meaning that everybody who can't afford to engage in financial shenanigans is left to pick up the slack. Neil Macdonald discusses the different rules purchased by the few who can afford them. And Ben Chu highlights why we need to crack down on tax avoidance to do anything about burgeoning wealth inequality, and Daniel Leblanc reports that the NDP is leading the charge to do just that.
- But Bruce Livesey documents the lobbying pressure on the part of the wealthy which stands in our way. And ThinkPol points out that the Panama free trade deal pushed by both the Cons and the Libs has only privileged tax evaders over the public.
- Robert MacDermid offers a few suggestions to reduce the impact of wealth on political financing - though it's worth noting that election and party funding represents only a small portion of the influence of the corporate elite on our political system. And the Pacific Gazette notes that an independent MLA has introduced legislation to bring British Columbia's political financing rules up to par.
- Ainslie Cruickshank discusses the need to remedy health inequality in Canada.
- Finally, Noah Zon argues that we need our anti-poverty programs - and notably the Canada Child Benefit - to keep up with the cost of living. And Anita Khanna calls for a push to finally end child poverty in Canada for good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)