Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Joyce Green sees the Saskatchewan NDP's proposal for First Nations revenue sharing as a desperately-needed starting point in remedying what should be out greatest shame as a province and country:

Saskatchewan is one of the wealthiest jurisdictions in Canada, itself one of the wealthiest states in the world.

That wealth is based primarily on expropriation of aboriginal lands and exploitation of its resources.
...
The wealth has not been "shared" with First Nations and Metis peoples, and quality of life indices demonstrate the disparities.

The Third World poverty and social immiseration in aboriginal communities has been noted by several United Nations committees as constituting violation of Canada's obligations under international law, and of the human rights of aboriginal peoples.

Meanwhile, provincial governments hide behind the fig leaf of constitutional jurisdictional arguments to avoid spending on status Indians.

Lingenfelter's proposal is a welcome initiative, much in need of detail and budgetary commitment.

- And speaking of improving standards of living, the unveiling of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing looks to offer the prospect of a far more comprehensive means of evaluating policy choices - as well as a more realistic assessment of how we've fared over the past couple of decades than a GDP-only evaluation.

- Peggy Nash's apparent entry into the NDP's leadership race should fill in the largest gaps in the current field. But I'd think there's probably room for one more upper-tier candidate to build on a prairie base - particularly since Nathan Cullen's proposal for electoral cooperation with the Libs (which Steve discusses here) may make it tougher for him to win over populists who see the Libs more as part of the problem than part of any solution.

- Finally, it's great to see Carolyn Bennett recognize that voter suppression is a serious problem in Canada. But it would be all the better if she'd explain why her party backed one of the very forms of suppression she's now criticizing.

On choices

A couple of Lib stalwarts are already starting the conversation about what that party figures to do if faced with the choice of supporting either the Cons or the NDP as Canada's government. And without getting too far ahead of ourselves, we definitely shouldn't take for granted that the Libs will support an NDP effort to replace Harper - though there's one easy step the NDP can take to significantly swing their decision.

To start off with, I don't think there's much doubt that at least part of the Libs' braintrust will insist on sticking to its current plan of doing nothing to suggest the NDP might be of use to anybody based on the hope that it'll go away on its own.

To the extent the Libs are more concerned about their party brand than their ability to accomplish anything useful in public life, there's at least some argument to be made for that view. And I'd fully expect the Cons to take up that message at every available opportunity to the extent they don't want to give an inch on either policy or cabinet posts.

Of course, that list of non-negotiable items from the Cons hints at the options available to the NDP. But the Libs figure to be a relatively difficult party to win over in terms of policy.

Yes, some Lib MPs will genuinely want to see a progressive alternative replace the Harper Cons, and an NDP government would likely be willing to implement some of the Libs' core platform planks if that's the price of their support. But I'm not sure anybody thinks the Libs as a whole are so attached to any policies as to make those the deciding factor.

But that leaves the area where there's the most room for discussion.

After all, the Libs' late-campaign attack on the NDP has included an attempt to paint their own experience as a major selling point. And that leaves the door open for Jack Layton to say that while he fully intends to follow through on changing Ottawa, he'll be glad to see the Libs use their experience for the good of the country under a coalition government.

That may make for a rather compelling opportunity not just for Michael Ignatieff himself, but also for the Bob Raes, John McCallums and Carolyn Bennetts of the party who surely figured they'd be headed for senior cabinet posts rather than third-party status. And younger Lib members who haven't yet had a chance to serve as parliamentary secretaries might also see more of an opportunity than they'd ever receive as long as the Harper Cons are in power.

So if yesterday's EKOS results reflect where the campaign is going, I'd fully expect the battle among the Libs to be less an issue of red versus blue, and more a question of strategists versus MPs (to say nothing of a substantial part of the party's base). And considering what the strategists have accomplished in the last four election cycles, the Libs would be well advised to be skeptical that they should carry the day this time.

Sunday Morning Links

Content goes here.

- Donald Savoie's analysis of politics in the U.K. is no less applicable at home:

We ought not to be surprised that voters today are less inclined to identify themselves (with parties) as their parents tended to do. They have little reason to do so given that political parties are increasingly election-day machines. This has important implications for representative democracies. When we move away from political parties to pursue more narrow interests, the connection between citizens and government is further fragmented. It also speaks to the rise of more "personalised realities".

The problem is that the economic and political interests of the political, intellectual and economic elites are heard at the expense of the broader community. The power and influence of political parties and even formal policymaking processes have given way to powerful individuals and actor-centred institutionalism. This, in turn, has made it virtually impossible for many elected representatives, let alone ordinary citizens, to play any meaningful role in shaping public policies or even holding government to account. We ought not to be surprised at voter apathy and the growing cynicism about government in society.

- From the "how to use Twitter" department: Edmonton-Leduc NDP candidate Artem Medvedev has responded to a request for more ideas (instead of negativity) with a steady stream of policy proposals.

- In contrast, from the "how to abuse Twitter" department, the Libs are apparently trying to draw nonexistent connections between the deliberately nonpartisan CAPP and the explicitly partisan (at least in the sense of directly challenging the Cons) Unseat Harper site. Which isn't to say I disagree with the aims of the latter in the least - but surely it's worth being honest about who's actually part of what project.

- And finally, Dr. Dawg notes that any commentary about police abuses is apparently off limits for publicly-displayed art in Ottawa. Place your bets as to whether Canada's Speech Warriors (TM) choose to ignore the suppression of speech entirely, or justify it based on their fondness for abuses of authority as long as it's directed toward people they don't like.

Simplified

Memo to Carolyn Bennett: the line you're fumbling around looking for is "save the money by saving the census". You're welcome.

So much to learn

I noted earlier how the Libs' leadership foibles figure to have made it difficult for them to develop consistent messages. But apparently they're in worse shape than I'd thought when it comes to even the basic rules of communication, as even a couple of their supposedly-brighter MPs don't seem to recognize that it's a bad idea to launch into a public speech when nobody is listening.

(Though in fairness, I'd fully expect the "scrum without reporters" idea to be taken up by the Cons at some point as a means of further insulating themselves from journalistic scrutiny.)

Off target

While the Cons are back to their usual habits, it looks like the Libs are outright regressing. Rather than pointing out any of the problems with the Cons' budget, they're instead attacking one of the few institutions which has managed to shed some light on the Harper government's manipulations.

Now, this is far from the first time the Libs have taken a bizarre stand against government transparency from opposition benches. And as in the case of the Accountability Act when the Cons first took power, it appears that the Libs are eager to allow the Cons a free pass for now if it means less checks on their own actions in a future government.

But the difference now is that Harper has joined the Libs in the fight against oversight - and has had several years of experience in taking advantage of the secrecy which the Libs are so eager to preserve. Which means that if the Libs don't remind themselves soon that they're still in opposition and start choosing their targets accordingly, they may end up strengthening Harper's hand even further.