#Elxn44 Roundup

Assorted reactions to a federal election which changed so little.

- The Canadian Labour Congress points out that we can't afford to be stuck with the status quo when there's an opportunity for parties to chart a more equitable and sustainable course for Canada. And Aaron Wherry wonders how the federal parties will adapt to another apparent run of minority Parliaments by working on systemic cooperation rather than turning every confidence vote into a game of chicken, while Alex Marland points out the range of outcomes in historical minority governments from generational change to complete gridlock. 

- Seth Klein writes that the new Parliament will hold Canada's climate future in its hands. And Morgan Sharp argues that young voters will be looking for the parties to work together on that front, while Vijay Tupper makes the case that Jagmeet Singh needs to serve to counterbalance the influence of the fossil fuel sector. 

- Justin Ling writes that the main factors driving the outcome proved to be fatigue and resignation. Cameron Holmstrom writes that there were ultimately no winners among Canada's political parties.  

- Meanwhile, PressProgress reports on the problems with ballot box access in a pandemic election, including unconscionably long lines in some areas and a complete lack of polls in others. 

- Finally, Armine Yalnizyan offers a reminder that the pandemic's disproportionate impact on women is far from over - and that countering its effects needs to be another top priority in the next Parliament.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- The Globe and Mail's editorial board argues that the Libs should be putting their energy toward dealing with COVID-19, not setting up games of chicken over basic parliamentary accountability. And Cam Holmstrom highlights the NDP's role as the adults in the room.

- Daniele Zanotti, Safia Ahmed and Sophia Ikura discuss how to slow the spread of COVID-19 through vulnerable communities. David Salisbury writes about the dangers of relying on an immediate vaccine to control the coronavirus. Alexandra Rendely and Courtney Sas warn that we can't afford to shut down operating rooms due to a second wave. Devabhaktuni Srikrishna, Abraar Karan, David Beier and Ranu Dhillon argue that we should be ensuring that essential workers have better masks, rather than accepting the stopgaps put in place at the outset of the pandemic. And Zak Vescera reports on the growing concerns that long-term care residents will again face extended isolation due to poor policy choices.

- David Suzuki implores the federal government not to give in to fossil fuel lobbyists by weakening clean fuel standards. And Fiona Harvey reports on new research from Oxfam showing that poor countries which haven't contributed significantly to climate breakdown are incurring massive debt dealing with its consequences.

- Finally, Press Progress exposes the corporate pressure groups pushing anti-union propaganda into British Columbia workplaces. And Tara Carman reports on the effect the ban on corporate and union donations has had in ensuring parties have to engage with individual donors, rather than being able to run on institutional funding.

On mixed signals

Cam argues that the Libs' latest messaging on carbon pricing is a mistake in the sense of a political gaffe. And watching only the headlines today, that take would appear to be borne out.

But I'll respond that while a posture of studied ambiguity about carbon pricing may represent an error in strategy, it does reflect a deliberate choice.

And to be clear, an utter lack of clarity as to their plans for carbon pricing is exactly the message the Libs have chosen to offer:

In a news conference Monday morning, McKenna used careful phrasing to say that the current plan has no “intention” of going past $50 per tonne since it ends in 2022, but then added that decisions about future price increases will be made after discussing it with provincial governments.

“In 2016, we negotiated for a year with provinces and territories that included a price on pollution until 2022,” she said. “So there’s no intention to go up beyond that, any decision would be made in discussions with provinces and territories and stakeholders.”

She was asked specifically if she’s ruling out price increases beyond 2022, but didn’t respond directly. “All we’ve done is we’ve negotiated until 2022, so I’m not in a position to negotiate anything past that,” she said. “I think that there’ll be an election in 2023 and I think that might be a discussion for that election.”

While it's true that the Cons were quick to seize on the shift in position, the more important gap between the Libs' position and other policy options is that on the other side.

After all, it's generally recognized that the existing carbon price falls far short of representing a viable answer to our climate crisis - leaving the Libs vulnerable to significant challenges from the NDP (and the Greens) offering far more thorough proposals to a growing pool of voters whose desire for meaningful climate action will influence their ballots.

By deliberately failing to take any position, the Libs figure to be trying to take the best of both worlds: their environmentally-branded candidates (echoed by the Cons) can hint at increased carbon prices they haven't committed to, while the national campaign can point to the lack of any promise and accuse the Cons of fearmongering for asserting as a certainty something which isn't actually in their platform.

Unfortunately, that political ploy will serve only to muddy the waters for voters who demand more than deliberate obfuscation (along with counterproductive choices) in confronting the most serious challenge of our time. And anybody serious about reining in our carbon pollution will need to make clear that the Libs can't claim the benefit of their consciously-cultivated doubt.

Update: And this is surely exactly what the Libs were after - credit as a party to "fight climate change" from a prominent environmental voice, without actually presenting a plan or even a promise to develop one. 

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Norm Farrell examines some of the root causes of a political system which lavishes benefits on the wealthy while neglecting people who actually need help.

- Natalie Kitroeff, David Gelles and Jack Nicas examine the role of deregulation in the multiple crashes of Boeing 737 Maxes. And following up on this week's column on the misuse of regulatory power to help entrenched corporate interests, CBC News reports that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is actively trying to enforce the righthink demanded by the meat and dairy industries even against avowedly "100% vegan" restaurants.

- Henry Mance discusses how Silicon Valley is exacerbating our climate breakdown. And Akshat Rathi points out the dangerous feedback loops which develop when people use ever more dirty energy to avoid the effects of extreme weather.

- The Canadian Press reports on a joint letter warning that Canadian pharmaceutical supplies could be used up by U.S. patients - though it's worth noting that the question of whether production can be ramped to meet the needs of Canadians and other purchasers is one where there's obvious room for action. And Jennifer Keesmaat writes about the need for our housing policy to include recognition of the value of rental homes, rather than focusing almost entirely on individual ownership.

- Finally, Cam Holmstrom offers a response to Elizabeth May's stunning claim that the water rights and needs of Indigenous peoples can be met by having the federal government hijack the sentencing of SNC Lavalin rather than living up to its own responsibilities.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Lawrence Mishel points out that Donald Trump's giveaways to the rich actually resulted in a sharp decline in bonuses paid to workers.

- Robert Plummer reports on the precarity facing lower-income workers in the UK. And John Clapp writes from experience about the catch-22s standing between people and desperately-needed housing in Toronto.

- Gerald Kutney comments on the utter lack of content in the Cons' saw excuse for a climate change plan. Jasper Jolly discusses the role a shift toward electric airplanes will need to play as part of a transition to a sustainable economy. And Nicole Mortarillo writes about Canada's certain role as a haven for refugees driven from newly-uninhabitable areas as our climate crisis worsens.

- Jim Stanford points out a new report from the Conference Board of Canada showing how investment in education pays off many times over - even as right-wing governments across the country slash from students to give to the rich.

- Finally, Cam Holmstrom duly criticizes the Cons' unelected Senators who took it upon themselves to block legislation to implement UNDRIP. And Graham Thomson discusses what Jason Kenney's decision to hand earplugs to his trained seals to avoid even hearing the opposition in Alberta's legislature says about his attitude toward democracy.

On transitions

I'll offer a reply to Cam's knee-jerk response to the federal NDP's long-overdue push for the basic necessities of responsible economic and environmental policy - including real carbon emission reductions and an actual transition away from fossil fuel dependence.

Simply put, there's no reason to read every word of the announcement with the type of misleading spin we'd expect from our political rivals. And on a fair reading, the NDP's stance on averting a climate crisis is exactly what we should be hoping for.

To be clear, I'll agree that the NDP's focus should be on a just transition. But the essence of a transition is moving from point A (dependence on dirty energy for both domestic use and export) to point B (converting to a clean and sustainable economy on all fronts) - not looking for excuses to stay in place.

Contrary to what Cam claims, a just transition is entirely consistent with cleaning up the mess from the status quo, which should fully assuage any concern about dealing with abandoned well sites. And it's also consistent with ensuring income security and new opportunities for workers who have come to depend on the system which needs to be replaced.

But the concept of a just transition is entirely incompatible with using our limited resources to sustain and expand the broken system which we know needs to be wound down. And so a bright line of no subsidies for fossil fuel expansion and operation (as distinct from the transition away from them) makes eminent sense.

Indeed, the Libs have already let down both their 2015 supporters and a younger generation of new voters by not only breaking their promise to end fossil fuel subsidies, but instead pouring billions into expanding the dirty energy sector. And so there's a massive opportunity for the NDP to offer a genuine alternative.

Meanwhile, as I've pointed out, we've also been offered a cautionary tale about the folly of trying to out-cheerlead corporate parties when it comes to further enriching the oil industry. While making progress on many other fronts, Rachel Notley tried desperately to limit Jason Kenney's ability to argue with any credibility that he and his party would be more friendly to oil barons. But ultimately, Notley succeeded largely in leaving Alberta voters with the impression that their ballot question should be who was in fact more subservient to the sector.

That's not an argument the NDP can expect to win. Nor is it one worth pursuing.

Instead, the NDP at all levels needs to offer the means to actually meet our responsibility to maintain a liveable planet while respecting the interests of workers and citizens generally - not follow down the Trudeau path of delaying and triangulating in the face of an existential crisis. And the key next step will be to make sure voters understand how we can all benefit from accomplishing that goal, rather than allowing the Cons and their oil industry backers to convince the electorate that it can't be done.