Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- The latest to chime in on the recent theme of growing inequality is Alex Himelfarb, who nicely ties the issue back into the question of how to define a progressive Canadian vision:

Over the past week or two I came across several pieces on the absence of a left or centre-left narrative that works, that convinces and inspires Canadians. Cowed by the persistent dominance of neo-liberal, free market thinking, even after the meltdown, aware that environmental stewardship remains a difficult sell, and constrained by the stimulus-created deficits and uncertain economy, the left has in many jurisdictions portrayed itself as a nicer version of the right and not surprisingly, the right prevails. But Wilkinson provides a useful reminder that above all else what it always means to be “on the left”, what it has always meant, is a commitment to equality as well as freedom, or indeed equality as prerequisite to freedom.
...
(T)here are many routes to greater equality depending on circumstances and political culture and we ought to be finding the contemporary Canadian way. A commitment to equality is not a simple policy prescription – it is, to use the dreaded term, a vision, a progressive vision of a just Canada that works. It is a commitment to recover our sense of common purpose and to demand from every sector and every level of government that they play their part for the good of us all. And we have the data that show it can be done.

And for those who worry about economic freedom, even here the data have a surprise. Says Wilkinson, if you want to live the American dream, move to Denmark. The just society puts equality, democracy, sustainability at the centre of its policy agenda – and it works.

- Of course, part of the democracy is the ability to hold governments to account. And James Travers is skeptical that any party holding power will act on a commitment to making government more transparent.

But it's worth meeting that concern with an answer to why a progressive vision includes more effective oversight of the public sector worth putting into practice even once political winds have changed.

After all, if one believes that government can and should actually play a positive role in the lives of citizens, then one figures to have a strong incentive to make sure that it meets that potential. Which means that unlike the nihilistic Cons who can justify "anything goes" on the basis that public spending can't do any good anyway, a progressive government has a strong incentive to let the public verify the results of its policies.

- Meanwhile, at least one watchdog (if not one pointed at the Con government) looks to be making some significant noise. But it's particularly interesting to note that the Competition Bureau's move on credit card fees mirrors that of the NDP just days ago - perhaps serving as a positive example of how to build an issue when an independent observer and a political party decide to act on the same problem at the same time.

- Finally, Politics Watcher's post on the state of the Canadian voter (via Susan Delacourt) is a must-read in reminding us who should be the ultimate political decision-makers.