Saturday Afternoon Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- Toby Sanger asks who really bears the risk when governments agree to hand over billions to the private sector through P3 arrangements:

While Canada may be one of the leaders in the market for P3s, we’re far from a leader when it comes to transparency, assessment and accounting for P3s.   P3s are already a murky business when it comes to financial transparency—and we’re close to the bottom of that pool.  The value for money assessments used to justify P3s in Canada are simply not credible for a number of reasons...

All the Canadian P3s I’ve seen in the past decade or so have been justified on the basis that they transfer large amounts of risk to the private sector.   This is also what U of T professor Matti Siemiatycki and Naeem Farooqi found when they analyzed all the P3s conducted by Infrastructure Ontario for an article published in the prestigious Journal of the American Planning Association last year.  Every single P3 project was justified on the basis of Value for Money assessments that claimed P3s transferred large amounts of risk from the public to the private sector.

The average amount of risk calculated for these projects was almost half (49%) the base project costs.   For some projects, the value of the “risk” calculated amounted to over 80% of the base project cost, averaged over $100 million for each of the 28 projects and over $3 billion in total.  That’s a lot of money, no matter how you count it.   Just to be clear: not one of these P3s would be justified on the basis of the central Value for Money assessments without this assumption that large amounts of risk were transferred to the private sector.  And Ontario isn’t unique: P3s in other provinces are also justified on the basis they transfer large amounts of risk to the private sector. (see note #2 below).

But how is this risk calculated?   They don’t say.   The value for money risk assessment templates Infrastructure Ontario provides are frankly embarrassing from a public policy perspective, especially for decisions that have involved billions of dollars of the public’s money.  There’s no evidence provided for any of the numbers proposed in their risk matrix—and other provinces are no better.  The value for money assessments release for each P3 project are superficial window dressing that provide none of the details necessary for an independent assessment.    And in the instances where auditors have reviewed the actual finances of P3s, they’ve generally always found that the project would have cost less if it were publicly financed and not run as a P3.

...

But no matter how complicated—and secret—these key calculations of risk transfer for P3s are, none I’ve seen acknowledge a crucial fact: the real risk the private sector assumes through a P3 is limited by the net amount of unsecured money they have put into the project.  This amount is represented by the equity they provide and any net cash they have committed, less funds received. The initial equity share of the cost of P3s is usually no more than 10-15% and sometimes as low as 8% or less.   Since P3s are invariably set up as “special purpose vehicles” (SPVs), the big companies behind them can simply walk away if they aren’t making enough profit or if things go wrong, thanks to limited liability laws for corporations.  The maximum they lose is any equity and any net cash they’ve put in, less what they’ve been paid.   And a number of P3 companies have abandoned their projects, or used the threat of doing so to get more money out of the government.

 - Scott Stelmaschuk highlights how inequality undercuts the foundation of any meaningful concept of self-determination - while being readily reduced if we make a collective determination to do something about it. And Rick Smith notes that we have no reason to be satisfied with the structural disparities as matters stand now.

- Josh Wingrove reports on the latest abuses of the temporary foreign worker program - featuring the Harper Cons arguing that they're helpless to so much as inform provinces of TFWs working in their jurisdiction based on the belief that workers should be free to be exploited by their employers in total secrecy:

However, provinces say the federal government isn’t sharing detailed information about the workers. It means that provincial workplace safety inspectors can’t proactively enforce labour laws, because they don’t know who the workers are or where they’re working.

“It’s for us to know where these workers are, so that we can make sure their rights are being protected,” Ontario Labour Minister Yasir Naqvi said, adding the province had been pushing for more information for four years.
...
It was a request echoed by several ministers, and Dr. Leitch said she would push to improve information sharing, saying privacy issues are among the barriers.

 - Finally, Marc Mayrand shares his take on how to get younger citizens more involved in our political system.

Saturday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Needless to say, last weekend's result against Winnipeg was far from what 'Rider fans would have hoped for to start the second half of the 2013 season. And it's particularly worth noting how a few strengths seem to have been lost just when they were needed most.

In last week's post, I noted that Saskatchewan's success in the Labour Day Classic was based largely on its ability to finish off drives. Unfortunately, that pattern didn't play out again against the same defence. While the 'Riders still managed slightly better offensive numbers than the Bombers, they didn't find the end zone once - with two solid drives and two turnovers in Winnipeg territory in the first half leading only to three field goals and an interception.

That left the 'Riders with a precarious halftime lead. But unlike in many games this year, the 'Riders didn't figure out how to exploit an opposing defence after the break. Instead, they had more trouble dealing with the Bombers' relentless pass rush as the game went on, as Darian Durant took hit after hit without managing to find any weak spots behind that first wave of pressure.

Nor did the special teams provide much help. The most obvious play of concern was Will Ford's return touchdown - which can perhaps be written off as a single breakdown. But in the weeks to come, I'll be most interested to see what becomes of the 'Riders' own uninspiring return game: Tristan Jackson's usual unreliable hands no longer seem to be paired with his trademark breakaway speed, which may leave Saskatchewan with a need to audition other returners until Jock Sanders is ready again. 

As a result, the 'Riders' defence was pretty much left on its own to try to salvage the game. And it came remarkably close, breaking down on only a couple of second-half drives (with undisciplined penalties and low-probability catches as the key plays) and producing multiple turnovers. But it fell just short of putting points on the board - which the 'Riders needed on a day when the offence couldn't produce a single touchdown or big play.

We'll start to find out today whether the 'Riders' struggles against Winnipeg were simply a matter of a bottom-tier team taking (and succeeding in) a few more risks than most opponents will dare, or whether it offered hints that other CFL teams will also be able to exploit. But there doesn't seem to be much doubt that the 'Riders have room for improvement as their schedule gets tougher down the stretch.

Musical interlude

Arcade Fire - Reflektor

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- There was never much doubt that the Cons' demolition of Canada's long-form census was intended to ensure that we lack data needed to develop evidence-based policies - and that the effects would be most significant among the most marginalized (or exclusive) groups. And Toby Sanger, pogge and the Globe and Mail editorial board all lament the result, while Sara Mayo observes the suspicion that the data trashed by the National Household Survey includes information about the ultra-wealthy.

- Meanwhile, Frances Russell highlights how the Cons are creating an expectation of falling standards of living and deteriorating social supports. And Jack Monroe speaks from experience about the devastating impact of poverty and inequality in the UK.

- The Globe and Mail identifies another serious regulatory breakdown which may have contributed to the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster, as highly flammable cargo was improperly labelled (without apparently attracting any attention until it exploded). Which naturally means that it's time for the Cons to head out to evangelize for more oil transportation - be it by rail, pipeline or tanker.

- The Ottawa Citizen takes aim at the Cons' pattern of constant and gratuitous cover-ups. 

- Finally, for those under the impression that there's no political choice but to accept and propose perpetual tax slashing, Jon Eligon writes about Missouri governor Jay Nixon - who has managed to put his state's Republicans on the defensive by showing people what they stand to lose if the anti-taxers get their way.

On middle ground

Tim Harper's column today is certainly worth a read in exposing the implausibility of the Cons' "economic stability" theme. But I'll point out that he completely buys the Cons' equally flawed spin as to who stands to benefit from the major planks they've hinted at in their 2015 platform:

The Conservatives under Harper have introduced a child-care benefit and a Working Income Tax Benefit to boost the working poor, but they are eager to put other measures aimed at the middle class in the window in 2015.

If the budget is balanced by then, the Conservatives are committed to doubling a children’s fitness tax credit, allowing income-splitting on family tax returns, introducing an adult fitness tax credit and doubling the limit on its Tax Free Savings Accounts to $10,000 annually.

Now, it may be true that the messages about income-splitting and TFSAs are intended to appeal to middle-class voters. But when it comes to the effects of those promises, there's little reason to think the middle class stands to benefit in the slightest.

Once again, here are David MacDonald's calculations on the distributional impact of income splitting:

Table 1 shows the distributional impact of Harper’s “Family Tax Cut.”  What is immediately clear is that this tax cut is anything but fair.  In fact, no family making under $41,000 gets any benefits whatsoever from the “Family Tax Cut,” no matter how they split their income up.  The poorest quarter of all Canadian families, which make $50,000 a year or less, share 0% of the total benefit and will see an average benefit of $20 a year.  Put another way, those half a million Canadian families that are stretched the most would see essentially no benefit from this proposal.

It isn’t only the poorest Canadians who get a bad deal out of the “Family Tax Cut”, middle class Canadians don’t fare well either. The middle 44% of Canadian families with children, those that make between $50,000 and $100,000, only get 39% of the benefit.  In essence, the “Family Tax Cut” steals from the poor and middle class to give to the rich.

At the very least, one would expect that something that is “fair” provides the same amount to all families with children, rich, poor or in the  middle.  However, the “Family Tax Cut” would provide 61% of the benefits to the richest third (32%) of Canadian families who make over $100,000 a year.   The very top 10% of families that make over $150,000 capture almost a third (28%) of this tax cut.

And similarly, Andrew Jackson summarizes the results of research into the impact of tax-free savings accounts:

Maureen Donnelly and Allister Young look at the slightly-longer UK experience with Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs), a plan similar to TFSAs. They find that beneficiaries of TFSAs are likely to be predominantly older, wealthier taxpayers, with relatively little benefit for low-income individuals. Rhys Kesselman argues that without a series of reforms, expanding the TFSA contribution limit would aggravate the TFSA’s existing deficiencies and result in a windfall for high income earners, allowing high earners to shelter additional wealth from income tax, and leading to higher GIS payments/lower OAS recovery tax.

Which is to say that the Cons' supposed "measures aimed at the middle class" serve only to exacerbate the across-the-spectrum inequality that's been stoked by the Libs and Cons alike over the past few decades - with the middle class once again losing ground compared to the wealthy. And while we might expect political spinmeisters to pretend otherwise, commentators like Harper should be smart enough to challenge the Cons' message rather than echoing it.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Annie Lowrey reports on the still-spreading blight of income inequality in the U.S.:

An updated study by the prominent economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty shows that the top 1 percent of earners took more than one-fifth of the country’s total income in 2012, one of the highest levels recorded in the century that the government has collected the relevant data.

The top 10 percent of earners took more than half of all income. That is the highest recorded level ever.

The figures underscore that even after the recession the country remains in a kind of new Gilded Age, with income as concentrated as it was in the years that preceded the Great Depression, if not more so.

High stock prices, rising home values and surging corporate profits have buoyed the recovery-era incomes of the rich, with the incomes of the rest still weighed down by high unemployment and stagnant wages for many blue- and white-collar workers.

 - And Alan Pyke discusses how austerity policies are about as defensible (and as effective) as blood-letting:

Economists have been underestimating the harm caused by pulling back on government spending, according to new work from economists Òscar Jordà and Alan Taylor.

The new work, published in September by the National Bureau of Economic Research, confirms what austerity opponents have long argued: “expansionary austerity” is a myth, and while cutting spending hurts weak economies far more than strong ones its effect on growth is negative in all circumstances.

- But not surprisingly, Stephen Harper is among the loudest voices around the world demanding that we replace effective and evidence-based care with leeches - as Duncan Cameron rightly notes.

- Meanwhile, Niki Ashton calls out the Fraser Institute for knowing precisely nothing about child care (based on its sad excuse for a review of parenting costs).

- Finally, Steve Burgess suggests that Canada's big telecoms try treating customers fairly to reduce the possibility of foreign competitors cutting into their market share - rather than counting on driving competitors away with astroturf campaigns.

New column day

Here, on how the U.S.' movement for fair fast food wages might be explained in part by greater recognition that many workers will be in the service sector for the long haul - while any Canadian equivalent may be suppressed by the use of temporary foreign workers.

For further reading...
- The best reporting on the U.S. movement is again that of Josh Eidelson - including this piece about the start of the movement, and this one about its current status.
- CBC reported on the use of temporary foreign workers in Saskatchewan - while the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce has helpfully responded by chewing out anybody who would even consider questioning the widespread use of TFWs in the name of corporate profits.
- Finally, the TFW-per-workplace numbers in my column are drawn from the second of the CBC's HRSDC documents. And for those interested in seeing which employers seem to be using the most temporary foreign workers in Saskatchewan, here's a quick chart of the employers with 10 or more TFWs:

TFWs    Employer
150   University of Saskatchewan*
85    Brandt Industries Ltd.
53    El-Rancho Food & Hospitality Partnership o/a KFC
40    Taylor Food Services Ltd. dba McDonald's Restaurant*
39    BHP Billiton Canada Inc.
36    Champion Canada International ULC o/a SRI Homes*
30    Spring Valley Farms Ltd. o/a McDonalds Restaurant
27    Kramer Ltd.
26    R & D Drywall Inc.
25    AMEC Americas Ltd. (Mining & Metals)
25    Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region
25    Supreme Steel LP
25    Wilco Contractors Southest Inc.
24    Cypress Health Region
21    Mac's Up Enterprises Inc. o/a McDonald's Restaurant
19    Cameco Corporation
19    JTK Food Services o/a McDonalds
16    Saskatoon Regional Health Authority
15    5904660 Alberta Ltd. o/a Skylark Stucco
14    Clean Harbors Energy & Industrial Services Corp
13    P&C Canada Ltd.
10    100065909 Saskatchewan Ltd. o/a Houston Pizza
10    7714571 Canada Inc. o/a Husky Travel Centre
10    Advance Engineered Products Ltd.
10    Associated Mining Construction Inc.

The chart is put together based on the "Number of TFW Employed" column of the HRSDC chart, taking the highest number for each employer listed - as several employers made multiple applications with different numbers of current TFWs. An asterisk (*) in the above chart means that I've omitted a second employer which appears to be the same as the one listed.

I'll note that the above chart will only include employers who made applications for additional TFWs after April 25, 2012. There may thus be others who would make the list based on TFW counts before that date.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Covered cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Tavia Grant reports on the most recent world happiness report from the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. And David Doorey points out a rather striking similarity among the countries at the top of the list, while Dan Gardner highlights Stephen Harper's longstanding goal of removing Canada from the group.

- CBC reveals that thousands of Saskatchewan employers - including hundreds of restaurants - have received permission to use temporary foreign workers rather than paying a fair wage to attract local workers.

- David Climenhaga reveals which public servants are next on the hit list of the Manning Centre and its corporate backers:

Getting back to the original point of all this, right there on the list for consideration were "the problem with municipal public consultations" and "confronting overbearing urban planners."

Given the well-known habit of right-wing think tanks and their ilk to respond compliantly to the wishes of their funders, plus the Calgary development industry's extremely generous contributions revealed by Wenzel, what do you want to bet that we can count on the next MNC to devote considerable attention to these matters?

And what, do you think, will they find to be the problem with municipal public consultations? That they're too democratic? A cynic might wonder, but it's important to remember that the people who finance and staff the Manning Centre, and indeed Preston Manning himself, don't necessarily define democracy the same way you and I do.

They are big on "economic democracy" -- which might cynically be described as the right to get rich as stink any way you please and not pay taxes while you’re about it. They are not so enthusiastic about your right to decide your fate through the ballot box without interference or deception, especially if your preferred representatives are not of a mind to "swing their way."

- And sadly, the attack on public involvement in policy decisions sounds all too familiar to those who read Bruce Johnstone's weekend tirade against Regina's wastewater referendum. Meanwhile, Paul Dechene interviews Michael Fougere (or possibly a random corporate buzzword generator) in an effort to get some explanation for Fougere's position - with predictable results.

- Finally, Aaron Wherry recognizes that the disclosure of relatively small office expenses on the part of elected officials makes for just a tiny (if perhaps necessary) part of a transparent picture of our political scene:

It is, for sure, for our MPs to explain and justify how they spend the public’s money. But we should always be careful to avoid lazy outrage. Or at least we should be mindful to focus on the real enemy—flagrant abuses of the public trust that lack justification. Perspective is also important. Parliament’s ability to scrutinize the billions in spending that it approves each year should, I will earnestly suggest, generally be of greater concern than however much parliamentarians spend on coffee-makers.

Of course, the possibility that we might be distracted by coffee-maker purchases is no excuse to avoid detailing the exact cost, shape and usefulness of every coffee-maker purchased with public funds. I suspect that after some fussing over coffee-makers, we’d all adjust to a world in which we understood our MPs to sometimes both consume coffee themselves and provide it for their staff and guests. Or so I dare to dream.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Jordon Cooper writes about the dangers of growing income inequality in Saskatchewan and around the world:

Income inequality is driven largely by market forces. Technology has changed the job market, and globalization has moved markets overseas or driven down wages.

It's also driven by actions of governments. They have tried to weaken organized labour for decades, which hurts the workers unions represent. Other institutional factors include stagnating minimum wage rates that hurt those at the bottom, while decreasing marginal tax rates are credited for the increases of top wage earners.

The problems are well known, but politicians struggle with the solutions. Whenever I ask an elected official what can be done, I get a couple of moments of awkward conversation about education being a big part of the solution to market problems (and something we have to improve in Saskatchewan), but that is it. No one wants to mention the institutional solution, which is to transfer money from the rich to the poor through personal income taxes and social programs.

Countries who have closed the gap on income inequality, such as the Nordic nations, have more generous social safety nets. By distributing the money over a wider population, the economy does better and those at the bottom have better options to be upwardly mobile.

- But while Cooper also worries that any interest in addressing inequality might be seen as a negative in a political party, Murray Dobbin writes that a strong push by the labour movement may help to change that assumption at the federal level. And Paul Adams suggests that we should be looking for our federal opposition parties to find common ground on progressive policy issues - contrary to Michael den Tandt's demand that Thomas Mulcair sing from the oil baron hymn book in order to gain admittance to the Very Serious Persons Society.

- Meanwhile, Richard Blackwell interviews Canada Without Poverty's Leilani Farha about the role employers should play in ensuring a living wage:

Is there a role for the business community in decreasing poverty in Canada?
Business has a very important role to play. On a practical level, employers need to pay their employees a living wage, and they need to do this without waiting for provincial governments to increase minimum wages. The bottom line is that it is not cheap to live. Employers need to take that into consideration.

Why do employers have that responsibility?
When I ask the business community to pay a living wage, I am actually asking them to stand in the shoes of their employees. What are their employees’ daycare costs? What are they paying for a loaf of bread? What are they paying in rent or what do their mortgage payments look like? What is the cost of Internet, cable TV, or whatever?


Are there economic benefits from reducing poverty?

It makes good business sense. If people have money, they will spend money. That will benefit employers and business, ultimately. It is expensive to run homeless shelters. [And poverty is a] huge tax on our health-care system.

- Finally, Susan Delacourt rightly suggests that Stephen Harper's legacy as Prime Minister has already taken shape - and that it consists mostly of social destruction.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Blacklocks reports (PDF) on the abuse of a corporate tax credit which served as an "open bar" allowing businesses to have the public fund their basic operations. And it's surely worth noting that after that abuse was identified, the Cons' reaction was to cover up the resulting report in order to keep the bar open (with slightly watered-down drinks).

- Meanwhile, David Martin highlights the Cons' attempts to break longstanding promises to public employees by slashing pension benefits after they've long since retired.

- And the Star's editorial board laments the Cons' destruction of the Centre of the Universe as part of their attacks on science.

- Finally, Alison discusses the backdoors built into all kinds of familiar encryption and security software to facilitate NSA access. And Camille Crowther offers a primer on CSEC's surveillance within Canada:

Supposedly, CSEC is only permitted to monitor communications in foreign countries - however, according to CSEC expert Bill Robinson, this rule no longer applies when CSEC conducts work in support of other agencies such as the RCMP or CSIS. Furthermore, by being able to gather the personal information of online users, this government agency can, as Deibert points out, “pinpoint not only who you are, but with whom you meet, with what frequency and duration, and at which locations”.

The secrecy that surrounds CSEC means that it is not yet possible to truly know just how much online spying is being done within this country. Even the government’s own Privacy Commissioner’s Office has ominously stated that they have “very little specific information at this point, but we want to find out more”.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Lana Payne discusses Unifor's goals in the wake of its founding convention:

The hope is that, collectively, working people can push back in new and profound ways against what has been a decades-long, anti-worker agenda perpetuated by both governments and corporations.

But just as importantly, the hope is that we can build social progress again for all Canadians. That progress has been virtually halted, stymied by the incredible growth and concentration in corporate power here at home and around the world and the subservience of governments to that power.

Corporations have been emboldened by globalization and trade deals that bestow on them staggering investor rights. They rode out the financial crisis (a crisis caused by their greed) and were not forced by governments to learn anything from it. Unfortunately, workers are still paying the price. Those same multinational corporations stockpiled cash and are continuing to rake in obscene profits while demanding that workers take less. The attack on young workers is particularly egregious.

The byproduct is unprecedented inequality.
...
Many of the gains we enjoy in society today were first negotiated at a collective bargaining table. Unions then fought for them for all workers. Maternity leave, same-sex benefits, vacation time and pensions are just a few in a long list of advances made by unions throughout the last number of decades.

More broadly, unions have been the key progressive force behind the building of a strong social fabric, including fighting for health care, unemployment insurance benefits, progressive health and safety laws and equality.

Today, unions spend much time defending these gains, not just for their members, but for all Canadians.

- But of course, the corporate domination of the past few decades hasn't been by accident. And it's worth noting that a publicly-funded P3 proponent is looking to make sure that our social fabric gives way entirely to a "standard" assumption that the business sector will control public services.

- Don Lenihan generously suggests that Justin Trudeau should get a pass on detailed policy based on his offering a "vision" instead. (Though I'm curious to hear what exactly that vision is - particularly since Lenihan's "engaging the public" premise doesn't exactly fit with Trudeau's few random positions so far.)

- And in contrast, Tom Mulcair highlights the economic themes most important to the NDP:

“The leader of the third party has announced he has nothing to say on the economy . . . . We have a lot to say on the economy,” Mulcair said.

That’s a reference to Trudeau’s refusal to be pinned down on economic policy at his party’s summer caucus retreat. Instead, Trudeau said detailed policy plans would be rolled out in advance of the election.

But the NDP leader said his party has detailed ideas for the economy, all part of a strategy to burnish the NDP’s economic credentials in voters’ eyes.

Those themes include household debt, mortgages, credit card fees, seniors’ poverty. Mulcair said Canada has yet to recover from the economic downturn that began in 2008: manufacturing jobs are disappeared and middle class wages are falling.

“On affordability issues, we’re the only ones who can talk seriously about it,” Mulcair said. 

- Finally, Laura Stone reports on the stunning declaration by newly-appointed Parliamentary Budget Officer Jean-Denis Frechette that after a week in the position, he's done everything he possible can to chase down information which the Cons prefer to withhold. And Colin Horgan's thesis that Frechette's surrender will force some future government to create a more powerful office doesn't exactly offer a great deal of hope - especially while we're still stuck with the Cons in power.

On bad-faith negotiations

I've written before about the Cons' blatant strategy of saying just enough about regulating greenhouse gas emissions from the oil industry to confuse voters about the issue while blocking the way toward any action. And so the real news in their offer to let the U.S. write the regulations they've been promising "next year" for seven years and counting is the prospect that it might actually result in some policy coming into effect.

That is, assuming one thinks the same prime minister who's gleefully played Lucy-with-the-football with the Canadian public on this exact issue will voluntarily follow through after the Obama administration provides any go-ahead to TransCanada. And it's especially noteworthy that the only force which seems capable of motivating Harper to even feign interest in climate change is a profit opportunity for a pipeline operator - signalling that the now more than ever, the Cons are transparently placing the interests of the oil sector above those of the general public.

All of which is to say that Obama should be careful to get the exact details of any "joint action" in writing and in law before even hinting at approving KXL - because there isn't much evidence the Cons are otherwise about to deviate from their track record of breaking every promise they make on climate change.

(The Mound of Sound and BigCityLib have more.)

Musical interlude

Anevo - Vibrations

Friday Afternoon 'Rider Blogging

Once again, the Saskatchewan Roughriders faced a significant challenge from a team at the bottom of the CFL's standings in last weekend's Labour Day Classic. But once again, the 'Riders emerged on top - finishing the first half of the 2013 season with an 8-1 record. And perhaps more importantly, one of the keys against the Bombers was one of the team's weaknesses over the previous few games.

After two games in which they had nothing but trouble finishing off drives, the 'Riders were ruthlessly efficient turning field position into points against Winnipeg. Out of 7 possessions where Darian Durant scrimmaged inside the Bombers' 40, the 'Riders managed touchdowns on 6 - and the lone exception (which resulted in a field goal) came after the 'Riders were already in semi-prevent mode with a 15-point lead.

That consistency in putting touchdowns on the board helped to mask what was otherwise a closer game than one might have expected given the records of the teams on the field.

In what's become a familiar theme, the 'Riders' defence played well below its potential against a quarterback who challenged it both on the ground and through the air (with another batch of careless penalties helping the Bombers stay in the game). The offence took the better part of the first half to get going. And the special teams which have given Saskatchewan an advantage through most of the 2013 season mostly played Winnipeg to a draw - at least, until the late Spencer Moore punt block which effectively sealed the game.

We'll have to hope that the 'Riders' increased effectiveness as last week's game went on will carry over into this weekend's matchup. But while there's room for improvement in a lot of areas, they'll be able to cover a lot of holes if Durant and Kory Sheets can keep converting when it counts.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Richard Seymour rightly calls out right-wing lobby groups in the UK for distorting the facts in order to attack social programs:

The report calls for benefits to fall in real terms, and refers to "the regrettable 5.2% blanket benefit increase put through in 2012". It doesn't mention that this was an inflation-linked rise. For a single recipient of employment support allowance, for example, the increase is a mere £2.80. The TaxPayers' Alliance can rest comfortably in the knowledge that things will get much worse for people on benefits for the next three years, as the government keeps rises below the rate of inflation.

And so on, and so on. To this extent, the report is a jumble of Tory tabloid thematics. The underlying case is that millions of people are on benefits because they are not habituated to work. For this reason, it proposes a compulsory work scheme for those who have been in receipt of benefits for a certain length of time. The aim is to force them to work for their poverty, giving them a total 30-hour working week (but not much time to seek paid employment).

Most of the report's claims are unsourced or only vaguely attributed. Taken altogether, the report is nothing that a half-competent undergraduate couldn't have put together using materials from the rightwing blogs. It is trivial, reactionary fluff.

But this has consistently been part of the Tory agenda, and that of its business backers. It will not significantly reduce their tax bill. It might offer some a pool of "free labour", just as workfare has done in the US. But its most salient effect would be to make people a lot more dependent on the market, and to increase the bargaining power of employers. Underpaid and badly treated? Too bad – try getting another job, or living on welfare.

The pseudo-populist right often tries to recruit "the working man", Joe-the-Plumber or whomever, in alliance against welfare recipients. But, whether or not they are in employment, it is workers who lose out from this.

- In a similar vein, David Doorey finds a perfect match between the textbook definition of "bullshit" and the corporate astroturf attack on unions.

- And Mary-Jane Bennett of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy provides another classic example of propaganda-tank nonsense - arguing in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic rail explosion that the Auditor General's recognition of a "serious lapse by regulators in ensuring safety compliance" is somehow an argument for further deregulation rather than evidence of the need for a stronger public role.

- Meanwhile, Tim Harper points out that the Cons' rhetoric about balancing the federal budget (which was, of course, already balanced before they started their slash-and-burn attack on tax revenues and public services alike) conspicuously omits any allowance for disaster relief.

- Finally, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have found that generosity rather than stinginess tends to lead to the best outcomes from an evolutionary perspective:

In generous strategies, which are essentially the opposite of extortion strategies, players tend to cooperate with their opponents, but, if they don’t, they suffer more than their opponents do over the long term. “Forgiveness” is also a feature of these strategies. A player who encounters a defector may punish the defector a bit but after a time may cooperate with the defector again.

Stewart noticed the first of these generous approaches among the zero determinant strategies that Press and Dyson had defined. After simulating how some generous strategies would fare in an evolving population, he and Plotkin crafted a mathematical proof showing that, not only can generous strategies succeed in the evolutionary version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, in fact these are the only approaches that resist defectors over the long term.

“Our paper shows that no selfish strategies will succeed in evolution,” Plotkin said. “The only strategies that are evolutionarily robust are generous ones.”

Juxtaposition

The Fouge sez: have no fear about corporate abuses or contract manipulation in a privatized wastewater system because...public procurement process!

Hamilton Wastewater System – A sewage operation and maintenance contract in Hamilton was cancelled. In Hamilton, the contractor was hired without a public procurement process. The City of Regina will procure our contractor through the public process regardless of the procurement model selected.

Reality sez: merely using another variation of "P3" doesn't do anything to curb corporate abuses, especially when one turns a blind eye to business collusion:

Marc-André Gélinas, who worked at a firm called Tecsult, on Tuesday described the alleged bid-rigging system in Gatineau at the Charbonneau inquiry into allegations of corruption in public construction contracts. He said that, in 2003, company officials in Laval – where a similar system long existed – told him his firm and three others had agreed to split up contracts worth between $25,000 to $500,000 in Gatineau. Under the deal, the contracts would go to Cima+ (40 per cent), Genivar (27 per cent), Tecsult (22 per cent) and Dessau (11 per cent), Mr. Gélinas said.
...
Another witness at the Charbonneau inquiry, engineer Patrice Mathieu, testified on Wednesday that a bid-rigging system also existed in the Quebec City region after 2004. He added that the federal government’s multibillion-dollar infrastructure program was “manna” in the second half of the 2000s, when major firms were colluding to split public projects among themselves.

On benefits at stake

Martin Regg Cohn is right to note that there's no empirical support for attacks on unions when it comes to jobs or economic development:

Why then is Hudak trying to turn the clock back? He points to the rise of Right to Work states in the U.S., where right-wing legislators have triumphed against unions in a historical battle that has its roots in the Deep South. The movement has recently spread to nearby Michigan and Indiana, so Ontario must now graft this foreign ideology onto its economy to remain competitive, Hudak argues.

The benefits? Lower unionization rates and lower wage rates.

...
You can pick your study to suit your point of view, but it’s hard to disagree with the OFL’s bottom line: the arguments against unions are entirely ideological, not empirical. And while ideologues get bogged down by unprovable arguments about how destroying unions creates jobs, they ignore the undeniable benefits to workplace health and safety from unionization (which ultimately lowers hospitalization costs for employers and taxpayers).

But Cohn falls short of drawing all of the connections worth associating with a labour movement capable of standing up for workers' interests - including reducing inequality and boosting voter turnout.

So when your local Chamber of Commerce starts bleating about fighting against a "union agenda", that's what it's really seeking to squelch at all costs: an engaged public looking to shape its own destiny and ensure both decent wages for workers, and a fair distribution of public resources. And we'll find out soon whether Regina voters value those factors more than easy profits for the wealthy.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Justin Ling reports on the federal government's covert surveillance of Idle No More:

Sitting in her teepee on Ottawa’s Victoria Island in December 2012, Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence was officially starting her hunger strike, breathing fire into the Idle No More movement and setting off a chain reaction that would eventually force Ottawa into talks on the nature of Canada’s relationship with First Nations. Meanwhile, five blocks away as the crow flies, the federal government’s security and emergency nervous system was ramping up its efforts to keep tabs on the movement. Just how extensive, and often ham-handed, the surveillance was is only now coming to light with the release of thousands of new documents.
...
At one point, a group of developers created an Idle No More app that allowed activists to share information and plan protests, flash mobs and round dances. Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Michael Wernick contacted his communications director to see if the office could surreptitiously piggyback on the app to get its own message across. “Is it in any way feasible to get our backgrounders into the flow of this app without the appearance of [government] ringers calling into an open-line show?” he asks in one document.
...
Media lines from the department stress that the federal government does not operate as Big Brother to First Nations: “[Aboriginal Affairs] does not perform any type of ‘surveillance’ of any individuals, groups, or communities,” says one communiqué. Palmater scoffs at that, citing the case of Cindy Blackstock, a First Nations child rights advocate who was under surveillance by the government’s own admission. With Idle No More, it’s snooping, not spying; still, “I don’t think they should be treating us like domestic terrorists,” says Palmater.

- But of course, the Cons see transparency as a one-way street - as evidenced by the fact that they've stopped the flow of decades-old documents which would normally be declassified.

- And the Council of Canadians offers another example of secrecy trumping basic rights of public participation, as the Northwest Territories are allowing fracking operations to proceed without even disclosing the nature of the toxic chemicals they're pumping into the ground.

- In an interview with Olivier Pascal-Moussellard,Thomas Piketty suggests that modest capital taxes on high net worth households might offer the solution to growing inequality.

- Finally, Peter Hamby's paper (PDF) on media coverage of the U.S.' 2012 presidential campaign is well worth a read - particularly in the lessons to be drawn by media outlets in deciding whether their resources are better directed toward bodies on a bus, or deeper analysis of the campaign as a whole.

New column day

Here, on how "we must increase stock prices!" - or worse yet, "we must increase company X's stock prices!" - makes for a thoroughly regressive public policy goal.

For further reading...
- The examples referenced in the column include Carol Goar's column threatening a revolt over telecom share prices, and Andrew Leach's piece about oil sands production costs (which at least acknowledges royalties as another concern beyond the hope that some profits might find their way into pension funds).
- The wealth distribution data mentioned in the column is found in Armine Yalnizyan's The Rise of the Richest 1% and sources cited therein, as well as Marc Lee's Wealth and income in the top 1%.
- And finally, both Dave Coles and Thomas Walkom make the case for expanded public providers to improve both competition and public returns in the telecom sector.