Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Kit Yates discusses how the lifting of COVID-19 public health protections in the UK has predictably precipitated another wave of infections. Natalie Grover writes about the two-year-long battle to get decision-makers to accept that COVID-19 is transmitted through the air. And Catherine Pearson examines the factors which have allowed people to avoid becoming infected through the pandemic so far - with the effectiveness of public health measures (even when they haven't been recommended or required by governments) serving as the most important factor. 

- Meanwhile, Annie Lennon writes about research showing how COVID-19 can cause lasting nerve damage. And Adnan Qureshi et al. find that it can be responsible for new onset dementia. 

- Josh Rubin reports that far too many business are following cues from governments eager to declare the pandemic over in the face of any scientific evidence. Charlie Smith reports on research showing how racialized people suffer disproportionately from the elimination of public health protections, while the Canadian Press reports on the impossible situation facing parents of children under 5 who lack the protection from vaccination that the rest of the population is relying on to avoid the worst effects of COVID-19. And Adam Miller discusses how our mental health care system is in crisis while lacking any new resources to deal with new cases and issues arising out of the pandemic. 

- Finally, Markham Hislop contrasts Canada's largely empty words about transitioning to a clean economy against Europe's developing plan to make the shift over a decade or less. And Max Fawcett points out that Canada's oil industry is beholden to exactly the same Russian interests which its political puppets are claiming to be able to replace.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Ben Cohen writes that we shouldn't take a negative rapid test as license to stop taking every possible precaution to limit community spread. The Star's editorial board asks whether people are ready to make vaccinations mandatory. Supreya Dwivedi laments the innumeracy and delay which are making Ontario's Omicron wave far worse than it needs to be, while Richard Murphy highlights how stupidity in government has led to catastrophe in the UK. And Andrew Longhurst discusses the need for far stronger action in British Columbia as well. 

- Arnaud Boehmann makes the case to engage in a wartime-style mobilization against a climate breakdown. And Charlie Smith notes that the crank court challenges by petro-provinces against the federal carbon pricing system have opened the door for the federal government to play a substantial role in guiding a transition away from fossil fuel production. 

- Jim Stanford calls out the Ford government's choice to treat gig workers as second-class citizens rather than providing them the same protections as other employees. And Josh Kaye points out the New Brunswick NDP's push for a four-day workweek as an example of a meaningful gain for workers which may be well within reach. 

- Astra Taylor interviews David Wengrow about his research showing that inequality is far from inevitable in a developed society and economy. 

- Finally, Robert Hiltz writes that SaskTel should serve as a model for a country which is desperately lacking for affordable and reliable access to basic communication services due to a corporate oligopoly. 

#Elxn44 Roundup

News and notes from Canada's federal election campaign.

- Cam Fenton discusses how "strategic" votes for the Libs in the name of climate change figure to be anything but, while David Gray-Donald bluntly describes the Libs' offering as "denialist trash". Maya Menezes examines what we should be looking for in a climate platform, while Simon Donner discusses the need for any climate policy to fit with long-term goals. And Ben Simoni and Melissa Lavery discuss how Canada (and indeed the world) would benefit from a youth climate corps.

- Robert Hiltz writes that Erin O'Toole's mask has come off in the course of the election campaign, while Paul Willcocks discusses how O'Toole has campaigned as a trickster for lack of any ability to appeal to both his party's base and any expanded voter universe. Marieke Walsh reports on the refusal of the vast majority of Con candidates to say whether they've been vaccinated in the midst of a pandemic. And PressProgress exposes Con candidate Les Jickling's support for making health care about profit rather than patient needs. 

- Morna Ballantyne highlights how the Cons' tax baubles can't be equated with a plan to actually make child care available. And Paul Dechene similarly notes that the Cons plan to starve municipalities of desperately-needed infrastructure funding.

- On that front, Natasha Bulowski reports on the priority placed on housing by Canada's municipalities. And Erica Ifill discusses how the Libs' housing schemes have been gimmicky political diversions rather than effective plans to ensure people have the homes they need.

- Finally, Charlie Smith writes about the Robin Hood themes being presented by Jagmeet Singh in contrasting the NDP against the protectors of the wealthy.

Saturday Morning Links

 Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Charlie Smith talks to Robert Hare about the increasing concentration of corporate control - and deterioration of the public's capacity to provide a needed counterweight - in the decades since The Corporation was released.

- PressProgress exposes the hundreds of thousands of dollars of Saskatchewan Party donations connected to the Rawlco radio network's owners. And the Saskatchewan NDP highlights how Scott Moe insists on preserving an archaic campaign finance system where he's motivated to serve out-of-province numbered companies rather than the people of the province. 

- Marco D'Angelo warns that transit services are in danger of falling into a death spiral just as they're proving especially vital in ensuring fair access to transportation while minimizing carbon pollution.

- Meanwhile, Ian Hanomansing interviews David Suzuki about the Libs' appalling willingness to hype nuclear power, while CBC News reports on their choice to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at offshore drilling - even as they again dither when it comes to meaningful action to avert a climate breakdown.

- Finally, Saskatchewan's Chief Electoral Officer Michael Boda puts a call out for people to work at the polls to ensure everybody has access to the polls.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Don Pittis writes about Thomas Piketty's take that Bernie Sanders may be exactly what the U.S. needs.

- Laurie Penny wonders whether we're yet capable of overcoming the culture of complicity around the powerful men daring the justice system to hold them to account for immoral abuses of others. Laura Bassett questions why Mike Bloomberg expects a pass on dozens of examples of harassment and discrimination. And PressProgress calls out Andrew Wilkinson for minimizing the harm suffered by survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

- Elisha Dacey reports that after seeing the benefits of a strong film industry, Manitoba is making its film tax credit permanent. And Zak Vescera reports on Scott Moe's willingness to forgo federal health care funding in order to leave Saskatchewan on the hook for the privatization of medical services which has led to a doubling of waitlists.

- Charlie Smith points out that liquid natural gas projects too make little sense from a sheer business perspective even if one assigns zero value to both Indigenous rights and environmental protection.

- Finally, Scott Schmidt discusses the importance of speaking out against harmful government choices rather than silently acquiescing in social destruction - and while his focus is on the UCP, the message is one worth applying generally.

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.

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.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Grace Blakeley writes that class politics are making a sorely-needed return, raising the prospect that people might again start to make gains against corporate forces:

The reemergence of class politics is not a fad; it is a response to the material conditions created by the collapse of finance-led growth. After a recession caused by the reckless greed of the few was followed by an austerity programme that sought to impose the clean-up costs on the many, it is more obvious than ever that the wealth and power of the elite comes at the expense of everyone else. Or, to paraphrase Bernie Sanders, there has been a class war in this country for a long time – it’s time the working class won it.

In this new political context, economic policy is no longer a question of tinkering around the edges of a stable model: economic policy today is about power. As I argue in my new book, this is the moment for working people to seize back control of our most important institutions and rebalance power away from capital and towards labour.

The only way to bring about such a shift is to promote state, worker and community ownership of society’s most important resources. In an economy in which ownership is mediated by the finance sector, this requires a socialist government to take on the banks the way Thatcher took on the unions.

Finance-led growth emerged because its advocates used their control over the state to smash the organised power of working people and convince them that capitalism had won, once and for all. As the finance sector became ever more powerful, and the alternatives to capitalism faded further from view, it became extremely difficult to believe that there could be another way to organise the economy. Today, the greatest challenge for the left is to remind people that history isn’t over, that capitalism hasn’t won, and that we still have the power to change the world.

- Emma Teitel points out how Greta Thunberg and other climate activists are rightly forcing people to pay attention to devastating climate risks.

- But Fatima Syed and Emma McIntosh report that the forces who brought the world such catastrophes as Brexit and the Trump presidency are trying to push Canadian voters to accept continued negligence. And Charlie Smith writes that the Libs and Cons alike are serving their wealthy donors and patrons by trying to keep any option to transition away from fossil fuel extraction off the ballot, while Linda McQuaig calls out Justin Trudeau in particular for throwing money at pipelines while refusing to invest in clean transportation.

- Finally, Naheed Nenshi writes that Trudeau's history of blackface shouldn't draw our attention away from the ongoing and deliberate hatred being stoked in the federal election campaign. And Desmond Cole, Azeezah Kanji and Amar Wala go into detail about how racism is still reflected in public policy.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Kerri Breen reports on the public's understandable frustration with Canada's political system. Don Martin offers a prime example as to why that's justified, as Justin Trudeau has cynically concluded that it would be counterproductive to stand up for people facing religious discrimination in Quebec as a result of Bill 21. And Karl Nerenberg examines Trudeau's track record of broken promises - including some of the most important commitments which earned him a look from progressive voters in 2015.

- Meanwhile, Charlie Smith notes that Jagmeet Singh may be ideally positioned to offer a desperately-needed alternative to corporate service as usual.

- Common Dreams takes note of a new study showing both the ubiquity of plastic ingredients in the bodies of German children, and a familiar pattern of inequality in which less wealthy children are more likely to face dangerously elevated levels of pollution.

- Chris Varcoe points out that the City of Medicine Hat has joined the ranks of traitors to Jason Kenney's fossil fuel cause by planning to shut down gas wells which can't produce a viable return.

- Finally, William Horobin discusses Thomas Piketty's latest book, including its proposals for political and economic remedies to the scourge of undue inequality.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Joel Connelly reports on a new B.C. study showing the breadth and depth of the effects of a climate breakdown. Reuters examines the threat of water bankruptcy looming over a quarter of the Earth's population - including a substantial part of the Canadian Prairies. David Suzuki writes that climate deniers are having a perpetually more difficult time avoiding reality. And Charlie Smith discusses the impact the Extinction Rebellion has had around the world as it looks to make its mark in Canada.

- But Sarah Cox notes that reckless forestry and natural gas approvals are essentially choosing to facilitate environmental destruction and potentially species extinction. And Steven Hsieh reports on the Koch brothers' spending to shout down even the most modest of local transit plans in the name of maximizing the burning of fossil fuels (and the resulting damage to our planet).

- Arthur White-Crummey reports on Scott Moe's choice to turn away federal funding for major projects in Regina and Saskatoon solely for the sake of picking a political fight. And Mia Rabson discusses how Manitoba school boards have had to go around their provincial government due to Brian Pallister's similar decision to prioritize naked partisanship over the public good.

- Finally, Aditya Chakrabortty writes that economic policies designed to serve the super-rich have turned most of the UK's population into losers. Labor411 notes that Lowe's has joined the ranks of the corporations who have responded to Donald Trump's tax giveaways by slashing jobs. And Leslie Josephs and Michael Wayland write that workers are still trying to find some way to win a share of the windfall handed to the U.S.' wealthiest few.

Thursday Evening Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jonathan Aldred calls out the combination of handouts to the rich, cultivated attitudes of self-reliance and antisocial assumptions which have exacerbated inequality over the past few decades:

European countries have, on average, more redistributive tax systems and more welfare benefits for the poor than the US, and therefore less inequality, after taxes and benefits. Many people see this outcome as a reflection of the different values that shape US and European societies. But cause-and-effect may run the other way: you-deserve-what-you-get beliefs are strengthened by inequality.

Psychologists have shown that people have motivated beliefs: beliefs that they have chosen to hold because those beliefs meet a psychological need. Now, being poor in the US is extremely tough, given the meagre welfare benefits and high levels of post-tax inequality. So Americans have a greater need than Europeans to believe that you deserve what you get and you get what you deserve. These beliefs play a powerful role in motivating yourself and your children to work as hard as possible to avoid poverty. And these beliefs can help alleviate the guilt involved in ignoring a homeless person begging on your street.

This is not just a US issue. Britain is an outlier within Europe, with relatively high inequality and low economic and social mobility. Its recent history fits the cause-and-effect relationship here. Following the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979, inequality rose significantly. After inequality rose, British attitudes changed. More people became convinced that generous welfare benefits make poor people lazy and that high salaries are essential to motivate talented people. However, intergenerational mobility fell: your income in Britain today is closely correlated with your parents’ income.

If the American Dream and other narratives about everyone having a chance to be rich were true, we would expect the opposite relationship: high inequality (is fair because of) high intergenerational mobility. Instead, we see a very different narrative: people cope with high inequality by convincing themselves it is fair after all. We adopt narratives to justify inequality because society is highly unequal, not the other way round. So inequality may be self-perpetuating in a surprising way.

- David Climenhaga predicts that the UCP's review of health services - like so many before it - will cost more than it ever recoups in promised efficiencies. Brielle Morgan, Katie Hyslop, Cherise Seucharan and Tracy Sherlock highlight the absurdity of offering more money to foster families to house children after findings of poverty-based "neglect" than to the vulnerable families who only lack sufficient financial resources to be able to provide an adequate home. And Jesse Snyder reports on new research showing how blinkered fearmongering against carbon pricing stands to increase the cost of any climate progress.

- Brendan Kennedy discusses what the future will look like in New Brunswick as climate change continues to exacerbate the flooding which has become commonplace in recent years. And Charlie Smith looks at the effect of a movement away from air travel on cities such as Vancouver which currently rely on air traffic as a major part of their local economies.

- Finally, Simon Dyer offers six factors to look for in determining whether a climate policy is viable. And David Miller highlights how the NDP's climate plan measures up to the scope and urgency of our climate crisis.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Ellie Mae O'Hagan writes about the need for economic equality to be at the core of any push to eliminate the gender gap. And PressProgress highlights how the Trudeau Libs have gone in the wrong direction with tax handouts which favour wealthy men.

- The BBC reports on Michelle Bachelet's message that inequality tends to go hand in hand with violations of human rights. And Ephrat Livni points out how the gig economy is based on little more than blatant attempts to evade a century's worth of protection for workers. 

- Alan Pyke discusses the Republicans' choice to reduce the IRS' resources to rein in large-scale tax evasion while encouraging increased scrutiny of low-income earners. Paul Morgan-Bentley reports on the open use of tax havens in the UK, while also pointing out how the Cons have raised large amounts of money from the people hoarding wealth offshore. And Jim Waterson and Alex Hern report on the massive pro-Brexit spending by a secretive group funded entirely by dark money.

- Charlie Smith writes that we shouldn't be surprised by the reality that Justin Trudeau is far more interested in serving SNC-Lavalin than citizens. And Jen St. Denis reports on a push by Democracy Watch and Dogwood for closer scrutiny of corporate donations to Canadian politicians and parties.

- And finally, Karl Nerenberg discusses the alternative the NDP can offer to a status quo of alternating Lib and Con corruption schemes:

For the NDP, the imperative of the current crisis is more an issue of responsibility than crass political opportunity.

Canadians deserve a viable alternative to the wounded Trudeau government other than the not-very-comforting Harper Conservatives, led by Scheer.

To position themselves as that progressive alternative, NDPers have to do more than call for an independent inquiry. They have to formulate clear, muscular, well-formulated -- and perhaps outside-the-box -- policy proposals.

For instance, what should the federal government do if SNC-Lavalin were to become a target for foreign takeover, perhaps piece by piece. Is there any course of action that would save jobs and expertise, and protect shareholders, other than in effect condoning corporate criminality by letting the company off the hook for serious crimes committed overseas?

What about some form of public, cooperative or community ownership? The Quebec government's public pension fund, the Caisse de dépôt et placement, already owns a significant chunk of SNC-Lavalin's publicly traded shares. Would it now be a good idea for the federal government to enter into talks with the Quebec government about a possible joint federal-provincial effort to transform SNC-Lavalin into some sort of entirely publicly owned entity? That is the sort of bold and creative thinking a focused and serious progressive party should be doing right now.

Saturday Evening Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Nick Charity reports on the observations of the UN's envoy on poverty and human rights that callous and cruel austerian political choices have caused harm to millions of UK residents.

- Tess Kalinowski reports on the reality that Doug Ford's move to remove rent controls won't do anything to make housing available to the people who need it most. And Rick McGinnis writes that even leaving aside the importance of dealing with poverty and homelessness generally, suburban residents can't pretend they're somehow contained in core urban areas only.

- Meanwhile, Mike Crawley points out that a first set of cuts to important services won't even put a dent in Ontario's provincial debt - especially since it's being used to fund giveaways to polluters and the wealthy. And Robert Benzie notes that those handouts to the rich and their businesses are being paired with a loophole to allow corporations to funnel political donations through employees.

- Bill McKibben discusses how climate breakdown is shrinking the habitable space on our planet. Climate Transparency's Brown to Green study (PDF) highlights how Canada has both the highest emissions per capita of any G20 country, and the fourth-highest proportion of public financing for the fossil fuel sector as a proportion of GDP. And Charlie Smith interviews Donald Gutstein about the Libs' "grand bargain" (at the request of the oil industry) to keep allowing unsustainable emissions as long as they're attached to modest prices. 

- Finally, Malone Mullin reports on the Husky oil spill off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador which can't even be examined (let alone cleaned up).

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign.

- Peter Zimonjic, Katie Derosa and the Canadian Press each offered coverage of the Victoria debate.

- Charlie Angus unveiled Christine Moore's endorsement, providing him with some potentially crucial Quebec francophone support. Ryan Maloney examined Niki Ashton's racial justice plan. Fair Vote Canada compared the candidates' positions on electoral reform. And Kristy Kirkup offered a look at how the mainstream media is seeing the respective platforms - though there's lots more on the table than she addresses in her report.

- Campbell Clark sees Jagmeet Singh's focus being on expansion rather than the NDP's existing base. And Tim Harper theorizes that people questioning Singh sound similar to those who doubted Justin Trudeau in the course of his leadership campaign - though that comparison may not be a positive for Singh given how Trudeau has disappointed progressive Canadians on policy.

- Finally, Charlie Smith offered his take as to who the Libs and Cons prefer (and fear) out of the NDP's options. And CBC's Pollcast examined the state of the race.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Stephen Hawking discusses the crucial distinction between seeing money as a means of pursuing worthy ends versus treating it a goal in and of itself - and notes that we should be wary of political choices based on the latter view:

Money is also important because it is liberating for individuals. I have spoken in the past about my concern that government spending cuts in the UK will diminish support for disabled students, support that helped me during my career. In my case, of course, money has helped not only make my career possible but has also literally kept me alive.
...
So I would be the last person to decry the significance of money. However, although wealth has played an important practical role in my life, I have of course had a different relationship with it to most people. Paying for my care as a severely disabled man, and my work, is crucial; the acquisition of possessions is not. I don’t know what I would do with a racehorse, or indeed a Ferrari, even if I could afford one. So I have come to see money as a facilitator, as a means to an end – whether it is for ideas, or health, or security – but never as an end in itself.
...
I hope and believe that people will embrace more of this cathedral thinking for the future, as they have done in the past, because we are in perilous times. Our planet and the human race face multiple challenges. These challenges are global and serious – climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species, epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans. Such pressing issues will require us to collaborate, all of us, with a shared vision and cooperative endeavour to ensure that humanity can survive. We will need to adapt, rethink, refocus and change some of our fundamental assumptions about what we mean by wealth, by possessions, by mine and yours. Just like children, we will have to learn to share.

If we fail then the forces that contributed to Brexit, the envy and isolationism not just in the UK but around the world that spring from not sharing, of cultures driven by a narrow definition of wealth and a failure to divide it more fairly, both within nations and across national borders, will strengthen. If that were to happen, I would not be optimistic about the long-term outlook for our species.

But we can and will succeed. Humans are endlessly resourceful, optimistic and adaptable. We must broaden our definition of wealth to include knowledge, natural resources, and human capacity, and at the same time learn to share each of those more fairly. If we do this, then there is no limit to what humans can achieve together.

- Linda McQuaig sees Bernie Sanders' progressive populist movement as a crucial force in pushing back against rule by the .01%. And Branko Milanovic offers some theories as to how our economic system should change to better account for public well-being, rather than merely focusing on corporate demands.

- Lola Okolosie notes the connection between the decline of social mobility and school systems designed to preserve and exacerbate inequality.

- Nancy Macdonald examines the woeful exclusion of indigenous people from Saskatchewan's governing institutions (among other indicators of the desperate need to close the opportunity gap).

- Finally, Charlie Smith reports on the Trudeau Libs' choice to ram through Christy Clark's Site C dam with no regard for affected First Nations. And Matthew Behrens discusses how the Libs are continuing the Cons' attacks on human rights.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Charlie Smith discusses - and then follows up on - Donald Gutstein's work in tracing the connections between the Harper Cons and the shadowy, U.S.-based network of right-wing propaganda mills:

In Harperism: How Stephen Har­per and His Think Tank Colleagues Have Transformed Canada (James Lorimer & Company Ltd.), Gutstein makes the case that neoliberalism is far more sinister than simply having a desire for smaller government. A central tenet of his new book is that Harper is undermining democracy by marshalling the power of government to create and enforce markets where they’ve never existed before.

“He’s gradually moving the country from one that’s based on democracy to one that’s based on the market, which means that the decisions are not made by our duly elected representatives through the laws that they pass and the regulations that they enact,” Gutstein says.
...
With astonishing intellectual dexterity, Gutstein demonstrates in his book how Harper’s overarching mission to promote economic freedom through the imposition of markets is reflected in Conservative government policies.

This explains the zealous desire to dismantle environmental regulations, muzzle government scientists, and scrap the long-form census. The faith in markets also underlies Harper’s blindness to rising income inequality and his eagerness to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board.

In addition, it provides a theoretical framework behind efforts to persuade First Nations to abandon collective ownership of their land in favour of a fee-simple system. Neoliberal ideology also manifests itself in Harper galloping around the world to sign free-trade agreements, which limit municipal and provincial governments’ ability to introduce regulations or procure locally produced goods and services.

- And on that front, Arielle Mayer points out that the FIPA may severely limit Canada's ability to do anything to rein in climate change for upwards of a generation.

- Meanwhile, Kevin Campbell reminds us that inequality is bad for business as well as being socially corrosive:

The moral case for reducing inequality is well known, and compelling. But there's little discussion of the economic case. Competition and free markets will always result in some doing better than others, but when growth accrues overwhelmingly to the top 10 per cent, it threatens the health of our society and the sustainability of the economy. If the majority of our population is unable to spend on more than merely the basics, money won't circulate through the economy. If money doesn't circulate, economic growth slows. When economic growth slows, businesses fail, jobs disappear and key programs providing health, education and safety to our citizens begin to fail. It is true that we manage inequality better than many other countries, but since when is B.C. satisfied with measuring itself against the worst instead of by our proximity to the best?
...
In 2011, the top 10 per cent earned 34.4 per cent of all after-tax income in this province. But income only tells us half the story. A recent report has estimated that the top 10 per cent owns 56.2 per cent of the wealth in our province -- well above the national average.

At this point some might suggest this line of inquiry is motivated by a disdain for the economically mobile. Wrong. I believe these numbers show how income inequality is bad for business. Let me put it this way: if an individual earns 10 times as much as her neighbour, she does not buy 10 times as many bottles of Okanagan wine or make 10 times as many trips to Science World. We can measure this effect: the 'velocity' of money in Canada -- the measure of how many times the money supply circulates in a year -- is now at a 35 year low.
...
There's no shortage of ideas about how to address inequality without threatening our ability to do business, but few have talked about how much the future of our economy depends on reconciling this. Let's dare to end the false choice between growth and equality. Let's make our province more prosperous by making it more fair.

- And as one example of a policy choice which could help improve the position of workers within a stronger economy, Dr. Dawg makes the case for free university tuition as an important step in encouraging economic development and social equality alike.

- Tavia Grant discusses how workers lose out when employers offer only precarious and inconsistent work in order to pad their own profit margins:

The tilt to unstable work – temp jobs, shift work or erratic part-time positions – shows “these are not the 1970s jobs any more. There’s no sense of permanence to them. That’s the area that’s really changing – the lack of commitment by employers to employees in the long term,” says Wayne Lewchuk, professor at McMaster University’s economics and labour studies departments.

In prior decades, workers were seen as investments for companies, an asset to be developed over the long term. Now, he says, they’re often viewed as a liability or a cost to be minimized whenever possible.

“The reality is, our economy is much more competitive now than it was 40 or 50 years ago. It’s a brutal world out there if you’re a firm, and so they are looking for ways to cut costs. … So we’ve seen a movement of firms to protect a core [of employees] and surrounding that with a periphery of less permanent employees or tasks that are contracted out,” Prof. Lewchuk says.

He has surveyed 4,000 people in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area and found that nearly half now work in jobs with some degree of insecurity – from short-term contracts to self-employed, working for temp agencies or without benefits.

That has clear consequences for finances, his research has found, but the impact also spills into family, health and community involvement.

- Finally, Kim Stanton both argues for an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women, and describes what we'd need for that inquiry to lead to real progress. And Doug Cuthand is duly appalled by the Cons' push to undermine indigenous rights at the UN level.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Frank Graves' review of the current state of Canadian politics focuses in on the growing gap between the Cons' waning interest in listening to the public, and their growing expenditures on advertising and marketing:

In Canada in 2006, the federal government spent roughly the same amount of money on polling as it did on advertising (I declare a major self-interest on this point). Polling for the federal government is non-partisan and designed to solicit the feedback of citizens and clients for government on programs and policies. Government advertising is also supposed to be non-partisan and is intended to explain or communicate.

Cynics suggest that advertising is now more partisan in nature and is designed to persuade and comfort the public. Note, for example, the continuing federal marketing effort on Canada’s Economic Action Plan, which actually concluded its stimulus phase a couple of years ago. Although the numbers are difficult to nail down, it is clear that the federal government now spends somewhere between ten and twenty times as much on advertising as it does on ‘listening to Canadians’.

This dramatic shift from parity of polling and advertising is a fairly minor example of the shift from a focus on policy and engagement to one on persuasion and branding. Policy research has dropped dramatically in the Government of Canada, as Alan Gregg (sic) and others have noted.

This is not unique to Canada and the shift from the pursuit of rational public policies to massive investments in political marketing intended to cajole and persuade is our final example of a force we can expect to see bending Canadian politics for the foreseeable future.

- Meanwhile, Charlie Smith suggests that corporate self-regulation has been a failure when it comes to advertising standards - and wonders whether the NDP will call for public regulation instead.

- Keith Reynolds points out the inevitable intersection of two major corporatist trends: as the same time that P3s are pitched as a possible source of corporate tax revenue, tax avoidance schemes serve to make sure that the least possible amount of P3s spending actually stays within a province:

Partnerships BC calculates how much the private sector will pay in taxes. It calculates all of the expected tax revenue for BC and half of the expected tax revenue for the federal government. This amount is then added to the predicted cost of doing the project publicly because it is considered revenue lost to the province from taxes. The total predicted cost is then compared to the total predicted cost of doing a P3.

But what happens if the tax revenue predicted from the P3 project doesn’t materialize? That means the province does not get the expected revenue, which is a big deal in cash strapped British Columbia. It also means that the comparison used to decide whether to use a P3 to do the project publicly was biased against public operation because of overly optimistic revenue expectations from the P3.

One of the ways companies cut their taxes is by moving their headquarters to tax havens.  Instead of claiming their profits in the country where they actually deliver services profits are claimed in the tax haven and taxes are paid at much lower rates.

- Finally, the NDP's list of Harper Con lowlights offers a useful reminder as to just how far Canada has sunk over the past year.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Peter O'Neil and Tara Carman report on the Cons' strategy of importing temporary foreign workers to drive down wages across Canada. And Craig McInnes juxtaposes that plan against the need for viable careers for young British Columbians in particular:

More than a quarter of (Canada's temporary foreign workers) are in B.C., where in October there were 148,000 people listed as unemployed in the Statistics Canada Labour Force Survey.

Meanwhile, 54,000 temporary foreign workers were in the province, working on farms, in construction, in trades, financial institutions, taking care of children and serving fast food.

Some of them are people with special skills that for some reason can’t be found here. That’s the argument for bringing in coal miners from China that has most recently shone a spotlight on the issue of temporary foreign workers in Canada.

But most of them are in jobs that employers say Canadians don’t want, either because of the nature of the work or where the work is.

Canadians include immigrants, of course, but the temporary foreign workers are not being invited to move to Canada, to bring their families and live the Canadian dream.

My question is why are the wages so low? Why is it that we encourage industries in this country that are so marginal they can’t produce a living wage for Canadians?

- And Lana Payne notes that we all stand to pay for the Cons' insistence on prioritizing corporate profits over all else:

In fact, the higher-than-forecasted deficit can be partly (some might say entirely) blamed on domestic decisions.

What we won’t hear about from the Conservatives is how their failed economic, labour market and tax policies have contributed to the higher deficit. It’s much easier to blame world economic conditions for all our woes.

But it doesn’t take a brilliant mathematician to deduct that a government that slashes taxes for super-wealthy corporations may end up taking in less revenues as a result. It also doesn’t take a genius to understand the link between policies and programs that suppress the wages and incomes of Canadians and how this just might impact on the amount of taxes they pay.

Billions of dollars in annual tax cuts to some of Canada’s biggest and most profitable corporations, including banks, oil and mining companies have certainly contributed to the deficit. And it doesn’t take a parliamentary budget officer to figure out that we all pay for these tax cuts to wealthy corporations.

- Meanwhile, Angella MacEwen discusses the consequences of the Cons' misplaced priorities - with the few jobs being created in Canada disproportionately falling into categories such as temporary work which provide no prospect of long-term career development.

- Adam Radwanski writes about Andrea Horwath's effort to offer Ontarians the chance to be heard in developing policy for the province (in stark contrast to her competitors' back-room decision-making):

Is it time to look seriously at raising taxes, perhaps on the corporate side, rather than just addressing program spending? Here she gives a little. “When you talk about taking a balanced approach, you look at both sides of the equation.” But that’s as far as she goes.
...
There are politicians who try to paper over their lack of policy specifics; Ms. Horwath wears them as a badge of honour. “I don’t necessarily believe that the way to do things is to sit in isolation, make up a whole bunch of policies based on internal brainstorming, and then sell that to the public,” she says. So she recently launched a “consultation on jobs,” which she identifies as her biggest priority, three-and-a-half years after winning the leadership.

It’s a marked contrast to the approach of Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, who is putting out a series of “white papers” that float stridently right-of-centre positions on everything from tax cuts to labour policy to health care. And for now, Ms. Horwath’s low-risk approach seems to be working fairly well, with her party capitalizing on voter unrest as much or more than Mr. Hudak’s.

It’s not hard to see why. Mr. McGuinty is leaving office amid perceptions that he grew out of touch after too long in power, running a closed shop more concerned with self-preservation than Ontarians’ concerns. Mr. Hudak, after a poor introduction to voters in last year’s campaign, is struggling to shake an image as a typical politician willing to say whatever he thinks voters want to hear. Being open and accessible and not claiming to have all the answers has considerable appeal.

 - Finally, Charlie Smith suggests a simple policy change to end the constant stream of false attack ads by the Cons - proposing an effective regulator to take the place of ad industry self-regulation.

[Edit: fixed formatting.]

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- On the Nycole Turmel front: Christopher Majka cheers the fact that the NDP has managed to encourage so many more Quebeckers to see a place for themselves in Canadian federal politics. Michael Taube doesn't see any reason for the anti-NDP pile-on. And Charlie Smith offers another theory as to how the brouhaha could ultimately help the NDP.

- Meanwhile, the Hill Times checks in on the NDP's ongoing staffing process. And it's worth keeping in mind that the party's effective planning and use of its new resources may prove far more consequential in the long run than any short-term distraction or polling.

- John Mumme suggests that Canada look to Australia's superannuation system for an example of improved pensions and retirement security.

- But then, why stop at better national systems when the same issues are popping up around the world? And Thomas Palley's proposal for a global minimum wage looks like a great place to start in ensuring that development around the globe actually results in benefits for workers.