Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Monday, October 21, 2019
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your election day reading.
- Jagmeet Singh makes his case for Canadians to vote for what we believe in. Don Martin discusses how Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer have hurt their own causes as well as each others' by focusing on negative messages. And Nora Loreto discusses the need for traditional political parties to reinvent themselves to speak to and for people rather than merely reciting focus-tested talking points at them.
- Herman Rosenfeld discusses how free public transit is an essential element of any effective Green New Deal. And Angela Carter, Truzaar Dordi and Yonatan Strauch write that the federal election represents a crossroads for Canada's energy future (save for the incumbent trying to go in all directions at once).
- Katherine Scott examines what the federal parties have on offer to fight against poverty. Karl Nerenberg assesses their respective plans to address inequality. And the Tyee offers election readers on issues including pharmacare and dental care and electoral reform,
- Finally, Nav Persaud and Danielle Martin write about the cruel experiment being performed on Canadians who can't afford necessary medications - and the need for a universal pharmacare system to make sure nobody faces that predicament.
- Jagmeet Singh makes his case for Canadians to vote for what we believe in. Don Martin discusses how Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer have hurt their own causes as well as each others' by focusing on negative messages. And Nora Loreto discusses the need for traditional political parties to reinvent themselves to speak to and for people rather than merely reciting focus-tested talking points at them.
- Herman Rosenfeld discusses how free public transit is an essential element of any effective Green New Deal. And Angela Carter, Truzaar Dordi and Yonatan Strauch write that the federal election represents a crossroads for Canada's energy future (save for the incumbent trying to go in all directions at once).
- Katherine Scott examines what the federal parties have on offer to fight against poverty. Karl Nerenberg assesses their respective plans to address inequality. And the Tyee offers election readers on issues including pharmacare and dental care and electoral reform,
- Finally, Nav Persaud and Danielle Martin write about the cruel experiment being performed on Canadians who can't afford necessary medications - and the need for a universal pharmacare system to make sure nobody faces that predicament.
Sunday, October 20, 2019
Canada 2019 - Election Notes
With Canadians going to the polls tomorrow, I'll offer a few thoughts on what to watch for on election day and beyond in a campaign whose early stability seems to have given way to some late shifts.
First, a minority Parliament seems likely. But of all the predictions and expectations which can go awry based on unexpected late-campaign movement, few are more precarious than the balancing act required to create a minority situation. And 2015 offers a recent precedent where a seemingly close race turned into an unexpected majority.
By the same token, the seat projections which have shown effective ties for first and third place based on median expectations shouldn't be seen to make those into particularly likely outcomes in any event. The end of the campaign matters in ways which won't have been caught by earlier polling, and the default expectation should be that they'll be off somewhat (even if we can only make the most educated guesses possible as to how, with Frank Graves for one already reporting that a Lib majority might be in sight).
Second, if a minority does result from the vote, the next crucial question will be which party or parties hold the balance of power - or which might instead be dismissed as unworthy of any say due to being just short of the mark. (See Paul Martin, 2004.)
There, the most important swing factor is one which has received relatively little attention in mainstream coverage, even if it seems to be the subject of plenty of individual-level interest.
The Bloc has undoubtedly regained strength in Quebec compared to the previous two election cycles, with some models hinting at prospects of winning half the province's seats or more. But the NDP has pushed its way upward in the polls at the end of the campaign as it challenges the Bloc directly for the support of progressive voters.
That matters in two key ways: a relatively small shift may be decisive in Quebec seats with multi-party splits (as can be seen from the sharp turns at the end of both the 2011 and 2015 campaigns), while also determining who emerges with the larger caucus and the balance of power in Parliament as a whole. And for voters who want to see the Libs forced to act on the national progressive promises they're again trumpeting on the campaign trail after neglecting them in office, it's crucial for the NDP to be in a position to set the terms of any governing arrangement.
Plenty of other battleground regions could also substantially change the balance of power with relatively subtle swings. And most importantly, a strategic vote against another neoliberal majority now looks to involve ensuring that other, more progressive parties get the upper hand on the Libs wherever possible.
But particularly given the lack of much organization on that front, it doesn't appear likely that any attempt to be strategic will overcome the two main forces in the campaign, being the NDP's surge and the Cons' collapse relative to the Libs. And so the main questions for tomorrow seems to be which of those factors will have a greater impact in electing MPs.
First, a minority Parliament seems likely. But of all the predictions and expectations which can go awry based on unexpected late-campaign movement, few are more precarious than the balancing act required to create a minority situation. And 2015 offers a recent precedent where a seemingly close race turned into an unexpected majority.
By the same token, the seat projections which have shown effective ties for first and third place based on median expectations shouldn't be seen to make those into particularly likely outcomes in any event. The end of the campaign matters in ways which won't have been caught by earlier polling, and the default expectation should be that they'll be off somewhat (even if we can only make the most educated guesses possible as to how, with Frank Graves for one already reporting that a Lib majority might be in sight).
Second, if a minority does result from the vote, the next crucial question will be which party or parties hold the balance of power - or which might instead be dismissed as unworthy of any say due to being just short of the mark. (See Paul Martin, 2004.)
There, the most important swing factor is one which has received relatively little attention in mainstream coverage, even if it seems to be the subject of plenty of individual-level interest.
The Bloc has undoubtedly regained strength in Quebec compared to the previous two election cycles, with some models hinting at prospects of winning half the province's seats or more. But the NDP has pushed its way upward in the polls at the end of the campaign as it challenges the Bloc directly for the support of progressive voters.
That matters in two key ways: a relatively small shift may be decisive in Quebec seats with multi-party splits (as can be seen from the sharp turns at the end of both the 2011 and 2015 campaigns), while also determining who emerges with the larger caucus and the balance of power in Parliament as a whole. And for voters who want to see the Libs forced to act on the national progressive promises they're again trumpeting on the campaign trail after neglecting them in office, it's crucial for the NDP to be in a position to set the terms of any governing arrangement.
Plenty of other battleground regions could also substantially change the balance of power with relatively subtle swings. And most importantly, a strategic vote against another neoliberal majority now looks to involve ensuring that other, more progressive parties get the upper hand on the Libs wherever possible.
But particularly given the lack of much organization on that front, it doesn't appear likely that any attempt to be strategic will overcome the two main forces in the campaign, being the NDP's surge and the Cons' collapse relative to the Libs. And so the main questions for tomorrow seems to be which of those factors will have a greater impact in electing MPs.
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Andrew Jackson calls out the Cons for their platform of taking from the many to further enrich the most privileged few. David Macdonald studies what the unspecified cuts promised by the Cons could mean in terms of losses to public services. And Mike Moffatt points out the absurdity of obsessing over nominal deficits - rather than value for public investment - as the sole measure of fiscal responsibility.
- Meanwhile, Canadians for Tax Fairness offers (PDF) a report card for voters looking at tax fairness as a key issue. And Toby Sanger looks in detail at the parties' plans for taxing digital giants.
- Meghan Bell joins the ranks of wealthy people who recognize the need to pay more taxes to support a functional society, while Jon McPhedran Waitzer, Claire Trottier, David Gray-Donald, Daniel Hoyer, Bronwyn Oatley and Sylvie Trottier propose to pay more to address the climate crisis in particular. Henry Aaron makes the case for an inheritance tax to reduce inequality both within and across generations. And Alex Williams writes about the bizarre motivations behind the accumulation of extreme wealth.
- Anne Gaviola laments the lack of discussion of housing as a major election issue - though of course it's not for lack of ambition and commitment in the NDP's platform.
- Finally, Amara Posslan argues that Canadian voters need to take collective action toward meaningful change rather than settling for a mediocre "strategic" option. Toula Drimolis hopes that the current campaign will be a first step toward being able to vote generally for what we believe in, rather than against what we're told to fear. Farzana Hassan writes that it's past time for our government to reflect the voters responsible for electing it. And Gloria Galloway weighs in on the unfairness of facing another first-past-the-post election after we'd been promised better.
- Andrew Jackson calls out the Cons for their platform of taking from the many to further enrich the most privileged few. David Macdonald studies what the unspecified cuts promised by the Cons could mean in terms of losses to public services. And Mike Moffatt points out the absurdity of obsessing over nominal deficits - rather than value for public investment - as the sole measure of fiscal responsibility.
- Meanwhile, Canadians for Tax Fairness offers (PDF) a report card for voters looking at tax fairness as a key issue. And Toby Sanger looks in detail at the parties' plans for taxing digital giants.
- Meghan Bell joins the ranks of wealthy people who recognize the need to pay more taxes to support a functional society, while Jon McPhedran Waitzer, Claire Trottier, David Gray-Donald, Daniel Hoyer, Bronwyn Oatley and Sylvie Trottier propose to pay more to address the climate crisis in particular. Henry Aaron makes the case for an inheritance tax to reduce inequality both within and across generations. And Alex Williams writes about the bizarre motivations behind the accumulation of extreme wealth.
- Anne Gaviola laments the lack of discussion of housing as a major election issue - though of course it's not for lack of ambition and commitment in the NDP's platform.
- Finally, Amara Posslan argues that Canadian voters need to take collective action toward meaningful change rather than settling for a mediocre "strategic" option. Toula Drimolis hopes that the current campaign will be a first step toward being able to vote generally for what we believe in, rather than against what we're told to fear. Farzana Hassan writes that it's past time for our government to reflect the voters responsible for electing it. And Gloria Galloway weighs in on the unfairness of facing another first-past-the-post election after we'd been promised better.
Saturday, October 19, 2019
Saturday Afternoon Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Alexandra Zannis discusses the need to treat the end of poverty as a core policy goal. Peter Gilmer highlights how voters motivated by Christian ethics should be particularly focused on improving the condition of marginalized people. And Lynn Giesbrecht reports on Cindy Blackstock's work to call needed attention to the continuing systemic discrimination against Indigenous people in Canada.
- Meanwhile, Toby Sanger comments on the glaring need to crack down on tax havens and the wealthy few who abuse them to avoid contributing to the social good.
- Jason Markusoff examines the glaring flaws in the attempts of tar sands operators to paint themselves as environmentally responsible even by the standards of oil producers. Fiona Harvey, Damian Carrington, Jonathan Watts and Patrick Greenfield offer some suggestions to rein in the fossil fuel industry. Bruce Wilson writes that energy sector workers are well aware of the life-and-death stakes involved in carbon pollution. And Don Pittis rightly questions whether anybody trying to invest for the long term should want to bet on a dying sector.
- Eric Beinhocker writes about the need for a carbon abolition movement. And Polly Toynbee discusses the change in culture already flowing from growing activism against the climate crisis.
- Finally, Derrick O'Keefe writes that a strong turnout among young voters could result in a massive change to Canada's political status quo. And Laird Cronk and Sussanne Skidmore argue that voters should support an NDP government to end economic insecurity and precarity.
- Alexandra Zannis discusses the need to treat the end of poverty as a core policy goal. Peter Gilmer highlights how voters motivated by Christian ethics should be particularly focused on improving the condition of marginalized people. And Lynn Giesbrecht reports on Cindy Blackstock's work to call needed attention to the continuing systemic discrimination against Indigenous people in Canada.
- Meanwhile, Toby Sanger comments on the glaring need to crack down on tax havens and the wealthy few who abuse them to avoid contributing to the social good.
- Jason Markusoff examines the glaring flaws in the attempts of tar sands operators to paint themselves as environmentally responsible even by the standards of oil producers. Fiona Harvey, Damian Carrington, Jonathan Watts and Patrick Greenfield offer some suggestions to rein in the fossil fuel industry. Bruce Wilson writes that energy sector workers are well aware of the life-and-death stakes involved in carbon pollution. And Don Pittis rightly questions whether anybody trying to invest for the long term should want to bet on a dying sector.
- Eric Beinhocker writes about the need for a carbon abolition movement. And Polly Toynbee discusses the change in culture already flowing from growing activism against the climate crisis.
- Finally, Derrick O'Keefe writes that a strong turnout among young voters could result in a massive change to Canada's political status quo. And Laird Cronk and Sussanne Skidmore argue that voters should support an NDP government to end economic insecurity and precarity.
Thursday, October 17, 2019
New column day
Here, discussing how Justin Trudeau is campaign entirely according to the formula so thoroughly documented by Martin Lukacs - and why voters seeking change need to reject politicians committed to the preservation of power and privilege.
For further reading...
- Others have also discussed Lukacs' The Trudeau Formula, including Nora Loreto and Joel Laforest. And some of Lukacs' own analysis can be found here and here.
- David Macdonald documents the high cost and minimal benefit of the tax cuts which represent the Libs' largest platform commitment.
- Finally, Duncan Cameron writes about the need to break the cycle of Lib and Con governments in order to ensure meaningful action in response to the climate crisis. And Charlie Smith points out the risk that Trudeau will again accept putting the Cons in power - though I'd note that the most significant factor might be Trudeau's willingness to support a Scheer government as the price of preserving an electoral system which freezes the public out.
For further reading...
- Others have also discussed Lukacs' The Trudeau Formula, including Nora Loreto and Joel Laforest. And some of Lukacs' own analysis can be found here and here.
- David Macdonald documents the high cost and minimal benefit of the tax cuts which represent the Libs' largest platform commitment.
- Finally, Duncan Cameron writes about the need to break the cycle of Lib and Con governments in order to ensure meaningful action in response to the climate crisis. And Charlie Smith points out the risk that Trudeau will again accept putting the Cons in power - though I'd note that the most significant factor might be Trudeau's willingness to support a Scheer government as the price of preserving an electoral system which freezes the public out.
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Paul Kahnert writes that tax cuts never lead to widespread prosperity - but do further entrench the wealth and power of those who already have the most. Andrew Jackson points out how the Cons' platform follows a familiar pattern of freebies for the lucky few and austerity for the many. And Nicholas Kristof argues that there's ample reason to instead require an increased contribution from the people who profit off of the general public:
- Travis Lupick laments the failure of the Libs and Cons to engage at all with the known solutions to an epidemic of drug-related deaths. And Emma Davie reports on the call of the Canadian Association of Pharmacists to end medication shortages.
- Daphne Bramham discusses why Canadian voters are rightly suspicious of Andrew Scheer. And Fatima Syed and Alastair Sharp comment on Jagmeet Singh's response to a flurry of issues of race and representation in the course of the federal election campaign.
- Finally, Christopher Guly writes that electoral reform advocates have rightly refused to accept Justin Trudeau's attempt to declare fair elections an impossible goal.
- Paul Kahnert writes that tax cuts never lead to widespread prosperity - but do further entrench the wealth and power of those who already have the most. Andrew Jackson points out how the Cons' platform follows a familiar pattern of freebies for the lucky few and austerity for the many. And Nicholas Kristof argues that there's ample reason to instead require an increased contribution from the people who profit off of the general public:
That’s the rot in our system: Great wealth has translated into immense political power, which is then leveraged to multiply that wealth and power all over again — and also multiply the suffering of those at the bottom. This is a legal corruption that President Trump magnified but that predated him and will outlast him; this is America’s cancer.- Meanwhile, Halena Seiferling writes that an election focused on the cost of living should pay far more attention to the need for higher wages.
We hear protests about “class warfare” and warnings not to try to “soak the rich.” But as Warren Buffett has observed: “There’s class warfare, all right. But it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
...
By raising taxes on the wealthy, we could end the lead poisoning that afflicts half a million American kids, we could provide high-quality preschool for all, we could offer treatment for all people with addictions and we could ensure that virtually all kids graduate from a decent high school and at least get a crack at college.
The wealthy would still have more money than they could ever spend: Jeff Bezos would have had $87 billion in 2018 if Warren’s wealth tax had been in place all along, rather than $160 billion, according to calculations of Saez and Zucman. But we would be, I think, a fairer and better nation.
So should we soak the rich? You bet we should.
- Travis Lupick laments the failure of the Libs and Cons to engage at all with the known solutions to an epidemic of drug-related deaths. And Emma Davie reports on the call of the Canadian Association of Pharmacists to end medication shortages.
- Daphne Bramham discusses why Canadian voters are rightly suspicious of Andrew Scheer. And Fatima Syed and Alastair Sharp comment on Jagmeet Singh's response to a flurry of issues of race and representation in the course of the federal election campaign.
- Finally, Christopher Guly writes that electoral reform advocates have rightly refused to accept Justin Trudeau's attempt to declare fair elections an impossible goal.
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Mitchell Anderson writes that personal debt may be the most important hidden issue in Canada's federal election:
- Meanwhile, Health Providers Against Poverty offers (PDF) its assessment of the health platforms of Canada's federal parties.
- Larissa Atkinson examines the impact of secretive privatization schemes in building and renovating health infrastructure. And David Robertson offers ten reasons to oppose the development of Toronto's eastern waterfront as a corporate-controlled, privacy-free "smart city".
- Finally, Yanis Varoufakis and David Alder argue that a foreseeable recession should be treated as the impetus for a Green New Deal.
- Mitchell Anderson writes that personal debt may be the most important hidden issue in Canada's federal election:
The reason Canada cannot act in a more moral manner might lie in ballooning amounts of household debt. Canadians now owe an eye-watering $2.2 trillion or 178 per cent of disposable income — a measure that has doubled in the last 20 years. Personal bills now amount to more than our entire GDP, making us the most indebted citizenry in the G20 and fourth highest in the world.- And while Aaron Wherry takes note of the atmosphere of anxiety around the election campaign, Ed Finn rightly challenges the claim that Canada lacks the resources to address the most prominent stressors facing voters.
Over half of Canadians report they are only $200 per month away from insolvency.
How can you care about climate change or global stability when your credit cards are maxed out or you are dodging debt collectors? Owing vast amounts of money seems now a defining Canadian characteristic and is increasingly enabled by indulgent political leaders.
...
If Canada has a financial moral injury, it is largely self-inflicted. No one forced consumers to incur such massive personal debts for the trappings of a detached house and everything that goes in it. Canadians spend $2 billion every year on lawn mowers and $85 billion on new vehicles.
What is non-consensual, however, is the pervasive pressure to borrow. Consumers are bombarded with ads from financial institutions and credit card companies encouraging them to borrow ever more. Aggressive marketing by mainstream and B-list lenders targets those least able to carry more credit. If civilization collapses due to inaction on climate change, the marketing departments of major banks should reflect on their contribution to that apocalyptic outcome.
All this debt might seem more rational if it made people happy, but evidence suggests the opposite is true. Forty-eight per cent of Canadians fret that they are on the edge on insolvency. Financial worries are the number one source of stress.
Personal debt is the elephant in the room of Canadian public policy. Decades of cheap money have undermined our national character and now prevents us from being a more principled nation. Canada remains an incredibly compassionate country but in order to meet the moral challenges of the coming century, we need to ditch our debt.
- Meanwhile, Health Providers Against Poverty offers (PDF) its assessment of the health platforms of Canada's federal parties.
- Larissa Atkinson examines the impact of secretive privatization schemes in building and renovating health infrastructure. And David Robertson offers ten reasons to oppose the development of Toronto's eastern waterfront as a corporate-controlled, privacy-free "smart city".
- Finally, Yanis Varoufakis and David Alder argue that a foreseeable recession should be treated as the impetus for a Green New Deal.
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Joao Medeiros writes about Mariana Mazzucato's push to have governments use collective wealth and power for the common good.
- Matt Elliott wonders why the Libs and Cons have nothing meaningful to say about housing or transit in an election where those loom as both key issues on their own, and vital parts of the solution to the climate crisis. And Aaron Saad offers a guide to the climate policies on offer from Canada's federal parties.
- Bruce Wilson writes that it's long past time to plan a just transition away from an economy dependent on fossil fuels. And Jillian Ambrose notes that renewable energy is set to replace dirtier legacy sources no matter how stubbornly any company or government tries to stay in denial.
- Sara Mohtehedzadeh and Melissa Renwick report on the many ways in which migrant agricultural workers are exploited.
- Finally, Jim Stanford discusses why we should aspire to far more than a system which allows a few people to hoard massive amounts of wealth. And Tax Justice Now allows anybody to model how the U.S.' economy can be made more inclusive and equal.
- Joao Medeiros writes about Mariana Mazzucato's push to have governments use collective wealth and power for the common good.
- Matt Elliott wonders why the Libs and Cons have nothing meaningful to say about housing or transit in an election where those loom as both key issues on their own, and vital parts of the solution to the climate crisis. And Aaron Saad offers a guide to the climate policies on offer from Canada's federal parties.
- Bruce Wilson writes that it's long past time to plan a just transition away from an economy dependent on fossil fuels. And Jillian Ambrose notes that renewable energy is set to replace dirtier legacy sources no matter how stubbornly any company or government tries to stay in denial.
- Sara Mohtehedzadeh and Melissa Renwick report on the many ways in which migrant agricultural workers are exploited.
- Finally, Jim Stanford discusses why we should aspire to far more than a system which allows a few people to hoard massive amounts of wealth. And Tax Justice Now allows anybody to model how the U.S.' economy can be made more inclusive and equal.
Monday, October 14, 2019
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.
- Scott Schmidt highlights how the wealthy have seized any gains in economic growth over a period of decades. Michael Hobbes discusses the "glass floor" keeping the children of rich families from facing any risk of failure. And Crawford Kilian discusses Thomas Piketty's observations about self-proclaimed left-of-centre parties who have chosen to serve the interests of the corporate elite.
- Trevor Herriot discusses the unsustainable subsidies which have resulted in far too many prairie residents prioritizing a fossil fuel economy and a car culture over sustainable alternative. And Judith Shulevitz writes about the social isolation caused by unsynchronized and unpredictable work and activity schedules.
- Megan Leslie makes the case for Canadians to vote based on the environment. Ed Finn writes that voters looking for change should be supporting the NDP as it looks set to win the balance of power in a minority Parliament. And Charlie Smith offers a preview of the Libs' predictable attacks on Jagmeet Singh.
- Finally, Priyamvada Gopal discusses the need to call out and challenge racism by its name alongside other forms of structural inequality.
- Scott Schmidt highlights how the wealthy have seized any gains in economic growth over a period of decades. Michael Hobbes discusses the "glass floor" keeping the children of rich families from facing any risk of failure. And Crawford Kilian discusses Thomas Piketty's observations about self-proclaimed left-of-centre parties who have chosen to serve the interests of the corporate elite.
- Trevor Herriot discusses the unsustainable subsidies which have resulted in far too many prairie residents prioritizing a fossil fuel economy and a car culture over sustainable alternative. And Judith Shulevitz writes about the social isolation caused by unsynchronized and unpredictable work and activity schedules.
- Megan Leslie makes the case for Canadians to vote based on the environment. Ed Finn writes that voters looking for change should be supporting the NDP as it looks set to win the balance of power in a minority Parliament. And Charlie Smith offers a preview of the Libs' predictable attacks on Jagmeet Singh.
- Finally, Priyamvada Gopal discusses the need to call out and challenge racism by its name alongside other forms of structural inequality.
Sunday, October 13, 2019
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- David Moscrop writes that the Libs' choice to break the promise of electoral reform to instead lock in an unfair and unrepresentative electoral system fits with their pattern of action:
- Jason Antonio reports on the increasing dependence on Moose Jaw's food bank. And Stephanie Babych writes about Calgary's mobile grocery store which is making healthier options available in food deserts.
- George Monbiot writes that a fossil fuel industry which has lied to us for decades about the known consequences of carbon pollution has managed to avoid answering for its harm to our environment by pointing fingers at individual consumers, while Emma McIntosh points out that the oil lobby's wishlist for Canada's election would only make matters worse. And Robinson Meyer notes that California's recent blackouts represent a direct result of climate inaction.
- Finally, Amanda Follett Hosgood discusses how northern British Columbia can transition away from relying on oil and gas production. And Geoff Dembicki notes that Jason Kenney is deliberately destroying the transition plans which offered some more sustainable opportunities to workers in the fossil fuel sector.
- David Moscrop writes that the Libs' choice to break the promise of electoral reform to instead lock in an unfair and unrepresentative electoral system fits with their pattern of action:
What of the strategic questions? Do the Liberals regret their decision to abandon electoral reform? Will they be able to live with themselves if they lose the popular vote, but form government? Well, have you met them? They’ll be fine.- Cillian O'Brien and Avis Favaro highlight how people struggling to get by with low incomes would benefit from pharmacare.
What if they end up hoisted on their own petard, ejected from government altogether, out of power and influence despite winning more votes than the party that takes power? Given the chance, knowing what they know now, would they do things differently? History suggests not.
Since Confederation, the Liberal Party has governed more often than not. Parties that expect to form government would typically take a four– or eight–year time out than shut themselves out from total power in perpetuity. Under PR, it would be unlikely for any party to form a majority government on their own. Instead, parties would be incentivized to negotiate and cooperate with other parties: to govern as a minority or form a coalition.
Parties with a history of governing would rather take all the power half the time than half the power all the time—it’s how they’re wired.
- Jason Antonio reports on the increasing dependence on Moose Jaw's food bank. And Stephanie Babych writes about Calgary's mobile grocery store which is making healthier options available in food deserts.
- George Monbiot writes that a fossil fuel industry which has lied to us for decades about the known consequences of carbon pollution has managed to avoid answering for its harm to our environment by pointing fingers at individual consumers, while Emma McIntosh points out that the oil lobby's wishlist for Canada's election would only make matters worse. And Robinson Meyer notes that California's recent blackouts represent a direct result of climate inaction.
- Finally, Amanda Follett Hosgood discusses how northern British Columbia can transition away from relying on oil and gas production. And Geoff Dembicki notes that Jason Kenney is deliberately destroying the transition plans which offered some more sustainable opportunities to workers in the fossil fuel sector.
Saturday, October 12, 2019
Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Linda McQuaig writes about the myth that we have no choice but to pursue privatization - and notes that electric vehicle production represents an ideal opportunity to build public economic capacity:
- Erika Shaker compares how Canada's federal parties are addressing the increasing unaffordability of post-secondary education. And Anne Gaviola examines the numerous positive spinoff effects of forgiving student debt.
- John Geddes points out the minimal differences between the tax tinkering of the Libs and Cons (at a galling cost to the federal government's fiscal capacity).
- Finally, Michal Rozworski writes that it should be a no-brainer to bring in more revenue from Canada's wealthiest few, both to fund needed programs and to try to reduce the inequality in power which comes from the concentration of wealth. And Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman write that the U.S. too should be determining how to tax its way toward increased social justice.
- Linda McQuaig writes about the myth that we have no choice but to pursue privatization - and notes that electric vehicle production represents an ideal opportunity to build public economic capacity:
Is it feasible to save the once-vibrant Oshawa complex and transform it into a publicly owned plant producing environmentally essential products, as part of a Green New Deal?- Jon Milton discusses the importance of treating housing and transit as social goods rather than profit or revenue centres as part of any viable climate plan. And Bill Blaikie writes that we should be far more concerned about a long-term environmental deficit - the extreme damage we're inflicting on our planet - than about incremental differences in budget expectations.
Gindin notes that during the Second World War, GM facilities were converted to produce military vehicles. He insists that the Oshawa plant be expropriated today without compensation since Canadian taxpayers have already generously subsidized GM. While he acknowledges that the project is a long shot, he adds, “it seems criminal not to at least try.”
Indeed, what is needed is some bold, out-of-the-box thinking that takes us beyond the current dogma of privatization. Given that Canada’s historic auto-making centre is about to be shut down, we should consider creating a publicly owned facility that could potentially start a transformative industry here. If that idea is ultimately rejected, the rejection should be based on something more than the notion that such a project is too ambitious for public enterprise and is best left to the private sector.
In truth, the very ambitiousness of the project seems to call out for public enterprise. For most of our history, we’ve been mere "hewers of wood and drawers of water" and operators of branch plants. When we’ve risen above that, it’s usually been because we’ve created public enterprises that served a broader public purpose than what private interests were offering. We became the country we are today in part because, at key moments our past, some visionary Canadians had bold, ambitious ideas for public enterprises and weren’t deterred by the admonitions of the business elite.
There may be reasons not to turn the Oshawa plant into a green production facility, but let’s not succumb to the ill-informed notion that Canadians aren’t up to the task or that we don’t know how to do public enterprise in this country.
- Erika Shaker compares how Canada's federal parties are addressing the increasing unaffordability of post-secondary education. And Anne Gaviola examines the numerous positive spinoff effects of forgiving student debt.
- John Geddes points out the minimal differences between the tax tinkering of the Libs and Cons (at a galling cost to the federal government's fiscal capacity).
- Finally, Michal Rozworski writes that it should be a no-brainer to bring in more revenue from Canada's wealthiest few, both to fund needed programs and to try to reduce the inequality in power which comes from the concentration of wealth. And Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman write that the U.S. too should be determining how to tax its way toward increased social justice.
Friday, October 11, 2019
Wednesday, October 09, 2019
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins interviews Eugene McCarraher about the cultivation of capitalist greed as a new religion. And Annie Lowrey writes about the value of cancelling the concept of billionaires:
- Meanwhile, Hannah Thibedeau reports that the Libs' hand-selected expert on pharmacare sees the NDP as offering the best combination of structure and funding to ensure people have access to the medications they need.
- David Macdonald points out the importance of taking into account all kinds of debt when developing policy - particularly when the alternative is to pile unmanageable amounts of debt on people in the name of arbitrary demands for government budgets.
- Finally, Matthew Taylor and Jonathan Watts discuss the 20 companies responsible for a third of humanity's greenhouse gas emissions.
- Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins interviews Eugene McCarraher about the cultivation of capitalist greed as a new religion. And Annie Lowrey writes about the value of cancelling the concept of billionaires:
(T)here are far more urgent reasons than poverty to get rid of billionaires and reverse the trend of economic polarization. A growing body of economic and political-science research demonstrates that Gilded Age–type inequality does not just mean having too many with too little. It is warping the very social fabric of the country, stifling mobility, innovation, investment, and growth, and putting the country at political risk.- Shannon Proudfoot writes that meaningless appeals to the "middle class" like those favoured by the Libs and Cons avoid the questions which should be asked about the concentration of wealth and power. And Nora Loreto views Martin Lukacs' thorough analysis of the Trudeau Libs (including the contrast between public and private pronouncements) as a crucial starting point for media and voters alike.
Dramatic inequality in wealth means dramatic inequality in terms of political power means a political system unresponsive to what most people want. Wealth inequality, in other words, is an anti-democratic force. A remarkable study by Lee Drutman found that just 31,385 people—one ten-thousandth of the population—accounted for more than a quarter of all political donations in the 2012 campaign cycle, with politicians getting more money from fewer people than in any other year analyzed. No wonder low-income households’ policy preferences have little effect on political outcomes in the United States, whereas high-income households’ policy preferences do, as research by Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern forcefully shows. One of those political outcomes? Inequality itself: Unequal societies tend not to correct their own inequality, because of the political influence of the rich.
The country’s inequality is also stifling mobility and damaging the country’s human capital. As the country has become more unequal, it has also become more sclerotic and class-dominated. Despite all the money the government spends on public education, private education, health, and welfare, rich kids are likely to stay rich and poor kids are likely to stay poor. Measures of absolute mobility have fallen: Children born in 1940 had a 90 percent chance of doing better than their parents did, whereas children born in the 1980s had just a 50 percent chance of the same. The steps of the income ladder are too far apart for kids to climb them, in other words. Safe neighborhoods, quality education, and security at home are out of reach for too many children. Inequality is now driving a longevity gap, an educational-attainment gap, and a health gap. It lurks behind the country’s falling entrepreneurship rate, too. The country will not prosper through growth alone, but only through sharing its prosperity more widely.
- Meanwhile, Hannah Thibedeau reports that the Libs' hand-selected expert on pharmacare sees the NDP as offering the best combination of structure and funding to ensure people have access to the medications they need.
- David Macdonald points out the importance of taking into account all kinds of debt when developing policy - particularly when the alternative is to pile unmanageable amounts of debt on people in the name of arbitrary demands for government budgets.
- Finally, Matthew Taylor and Jonathan Watts discuss the 20 companies responsible for a third of humanity's greenhouse gas emissions.
Tuesday, October 08, 2019
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- In an excerpt from his new book, Martin Lukacs examines the disappointment Justin Trudeau has inflicted on anybody who thought his carefully-cultivated progressive image would be matched by action:
- Mike Drolet reports on the obvious public demand for a national pharmacare program and the politics and corporate interests standing in the way. And Meghan Collie reminds us that employers demanding sick notes are making everybody less healthy - both by wasting medical resources and by ensuring the spread of disease.
- Erin Gray and Calvin Sandborn discuss the need for Canada to stop subsidizing the fossil fuel sector.
- Finally, George Monbiot discusses how to counter the stoking of anger and division by right-wing demagogues by refusing to engage on their terms.
- In an excerpt from his new book, Martin Lukacs examines the disappointment Justin Trudeau has inflicted on anybody who thought his carefully-cultivated progressive image would be matched by action:
Long before photographs of Trudeau partying in black-face and brown-face in his twenties surfaced in the fall of 2019, his carefully cultivated image as a champion of progressive causes was looking tattered. Trudeau had promised to replace an antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system as part of sweeping democratic reforms, but reversed his position when it became apparent that the wishes of Canadians for proportional representation would not favor his incumbent government. In June 2018, he bought into public ownership the Trans Mountain pipeline from US magnates for $3.4 billion, in order to expand the export of Alberta’s dirty tar sands oil, spending far more on a piece of fossil-fuel infrastructure than on any single renewable energy project. Each year since his government had signed on to the Paris Climate Accords in 2016, the gap between Canada’s official carbon reduction targets and its spiralling emissions has grown wider.- Meanwhile, Vincent Bevins takes note of the success of Portugal's Socialist government under the type of proportional electoral system deemed unacceptable by Trudeau.
...
In late 2018, this avowed friend of labor legislated away the right to strike of a postal union that wanted safer working conditions; this champion of equality gave profitable multinational corporations giant hand-outs, maintaining multibillion-dollar subsidies to oil companies and granting $10.5 billion in tax breaks on the heels of similar measures by Trump; and this advocate of women’s rights set a record selling weapons to the theocratic, patriarchal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, even as their war on Yemen escalated. Private wealth continued to soar, without any discernible benefit to the public good. Much-needed universal social programs like childcare or the extension of healthcare to cover the costs of medicines in Canada—which are the second highest of any country—never materialized. Within a year of Trudeau’s election, Canadians stopped hearing much at all about his vaunted assault on income disparities—except for an occasional proclamation, usually issued abroad to a less discerning international press corps, to sustain the impression that economic justice was still at the top of his agenda.
Shedding tears about the injustices of the country’s past, inveighing against the inequalities of the present, pledging a dynamic politics of the future: Justin Trudeau was a dazzling simulation of defiance against the social and economic order that he would ultimately seek to defend.
- Mike Drolet reports on the obvious public demand for a national pharmacare program and the politics and corporate interests standing in the way. And Meghan Collie reminds us that employers demanding sick notes are making everybody less healthy - both by wasting medical resources and by ensuring the spread of disease.
- Erin Gray and Calvin Sandborn discuss the need for Canada to stop subsidizing the fossil fuel sector.
- Finally, George Monbiot discusses how to counter the stoking of anger and division by right-wing demagogues by refusing to engage on their terms.
Monday, October 07, 2019
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- David Leonhardt discusses how the U.S.' tax system has become definitively regressive, featuring this chart as to how the wealthiest few now pay a smaller share of their income than anybody else.
- Ann Pettifor highlights how society suffers when rentier capitalism is allowed to dictate our policy options. And Matthew Goodwin writes that in the UK - as here - voters are eager to see alternatives which result in a more democratic distribution of wealth and power.
- David Macdonald reminds us of the continued blight of child poverty in Canada three decades after Parliament voted unanimously to eradicate it. Laurie Monsebraaten reports on Campaign 2000's update on the state of poverty and inequality. And Yolande Cole takes note of new research showing that half of Calgarians are struggling to pay for basic needs such as food and shelter.
- Colin McClelland reports on BDO Dunwoody's latest survey showing the spread of precarity and personal debt. And Kevin Camichael notes that the Libs' and Cons' focus on targeting first-time homebuyers at the expense of everybody else will only stand to make matters worse.
- Finally, Kathy Tomlinson points out how the trucking industry is exploiting immigrants and endangering the public by charging fees to hire drivers with no regard for safety.
- David Leonhardt discusses how the U.S.' tax system has become definitively regressive, featuring this chart as to how the wealthiest few now pay a smaller share of their income than anybody else.
- Ann Pettifor highlights how society suffers when rentier capitalism is allowed to dictate our policy options. And Matthew Goodwin writes that in the UK - as here - voters are eager to see alternatives which result in a more democratic distribution of wealth and power.
- David Macdonald reminds us of the continued blight of child poverty in Canada three decades after Parliament voted unanimously to eradicate it. Laurie Monsebraaten reports on Campaign 2000's update on the state of poverty and inequality. And Yolande Cole takes note of new research showing that half of Calgarians are struggling to pay for basic needs such as food and shelter.
- Colin McClelland reports on BDO Dunwoody's latest survey showing the spread of precarity and personal debt. And Kevin Camichael notes that the Libs' and Cons' focus on targeting first-time homebuyers at the expense of everybody else will only stand to make matters worse.
- Finally, Kathy Tomlinson points out how the trucking industry is exploiting immigrants and endangering the public by charging fees to hire drivers with no regard for safety.
Sunday, October 06, 2019
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Steven Strauss examines the catastrophic results of the U.S. Republicans' obsession with handouts to the rich and austerity for everybody else. And Scott Schmidt points out that Jason Kenney has exactly the same plan in mind for Alberta.
- Luke Darby writes about the IRS' admission that it focuses on auditing and pursuing lower-income people since it's been starved of the resources needed to enforce the law against the rich. Yet Richard Reeves is the latest commentator to observe that the U.S.' wealthiest few expect the rest of the world to pity them over the slightest hint that they might be expected to contribute something to society at large.
- Oscar Williams-Grut reports on the bribery scheme among drug companies which artificially increases the prices paid by the UK's NHS. And Wil Crisp reports on the systematic use of "cheat devices" by shipping companies to dump pollution into the sea rather than containing it.
- David Roberts discusses Greta Thunberg's key theme that we need to set our sights high in responding to the climate emergency rather than baking destructive compromise into any starting point. Marc Jaccard and Chris Ragan discuss the need to keep all available possibilities in play in order to reach the greenhouse gas emission targets we need to meet. And Stephen Maher notes that Andrew Scheer - in keeping with the rule for right-wing politicians - is focused primarily on taking nearly all available options off the table.
- Finally, Katie Hyslop offers a brief reminder as to how Canada has historically discriminated against Indigenous children.
- Steven Strauss examines the catastrophic results of the U.S. Republicans' obsession with handouts to the rich and austerity for everybody else. And Scott Schmidt points out that Jason Kenney has exactly the same plan in mind for Alberta.
- Luke Darby writes about the IRS' admission that it focuses on auditing and pursuing lower-income people since it's been starved of the resources needed to enforce the law against the rich. Yet Richard Reeves is the latest commentator to observe that the U.S.' wealthiest few expect the rest of the world to pity them over the slightest hint that they might be expected to contribute something to society at large.
- Oscar Williams-Grut reports on the bribery scheme among drug companies which artificially increases the prices paid by the UK's NHS. And Wil Crisp reports on the systematic use of "cheat devices" by shipping companies to dump pollution into the sea rather than containing it.
- David Roberts discusses Greta Thunberg's key theme that we need to set our sights high in responding to the climate emergency rather than baking destructive compromise into any starting point. Marc Jaccard and Chris Ragan discuss the need to keep all available possibilities in play in order to reach the greenhouse gas emission targets we need to meet. And Stephen Maher notes that Andrew Scheer - in keeping with the rule for right-wing politicians - is focused primarily on taking nearly all available options off the table.
- Finally, Katie Hyslop offers a brief reminder as to how Canada has historically discriminated against Indigenous children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)