Friday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to end your week.

- Michael Harris discusses how Donald Trump's taking power has reordered Canadian politics. But lest we be too confident of a united front in responding to attacks on our sovereignty and identity, Matthew Renfrew notes that Pierre Poilievre's constant anti-Canadian rhetoric is entirely unhelpful, while Liam O'Connor reports that Scott Moe has joined the Trumpist crew seeking to have us concede defeat. And Charlie Angus rightly criticizes our own parcel of rogues for trying to sell out Canada.

- Meanwhile, Andrew Potter writes that there's plenty we should be doing to build and defend our independence regardless of the the imminent threat posed by Trump. And Joseph Stiglitz worries that Trump may precipitate the end of progress around the globe - though Jeet Heer discusses how the U.S.' militaristic foreign policy was plenty harmful under the Biden administration as well. 

- Robert Reich discusses the causes and effects of Trump's seizure and freezing of every government funding mechanism he can identify. And Alan Elrod discusses the role of status anxiety as part of Trump's appeal to those looking to maintain privilege and self-entitlement.

- MercoPress reports on the success of Brazil's efforts to collect a fairer share of revenue from the super rich - though the Libs' decision to keep letting Canada's wealthy exploit capital gains rules makes for a lost opportunity to level the playing field at home. And Grace Blakeley talks to Li Andersson about the work being done by Finland's Left Alliance in offering an alternative to the bigotry and austerity of the alt-right.

- Finally, Anthony Painter points out the problems with relying on growthism as a substitute for security and well-being. And Jim Stanford discusses how Alberta workers are suffering the effects of a UCP government bent on further enriching the capital class at their expense. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Lesley Clark reports on the emergence of documents tying Exxon and its lobbying firm to the hacking of climate activists for the purpose of perpetuating decades of fraud on the public. Keith Stewart discusses the role Donald Trump, Pierre Poilievre and other petropoliticians play as enforcers for fossil fuel tycoons. And Brett McKay examines the timeline as to how coal lobbyists have controlled Alberta resource management policy in the face of consistent public and scientific opposition. 

- Meanwhile, David Climenhaga highlights how Danielle Smith is refusing to allow housing to be built in Jasper as anything other than a suburb which requires paving over part of a national park. And Lois Parshley notes that Donald Trump's obsession with Greenland fits with the apparent plans of his billionaire cronies to take over its natural resources. 

- Tax Justice UK argues that the threat billionaires pose to democracy and freedom can only be met by taxing them to ensure they can't exert financial dominance over the general public. And Seth Abramson discusses two recently-revealed letters which offer disturbing insight into Elon Musk's accumulation of both power and villainy. 

- Sarah Kendzior notes that while she and others have been warning of the corruption and disintegration of the U.S.' political and economic system, what ultimately matters most is taking action to change that course of events. Wajahat Ali discusses the need for a true political resistance to reinforce and focus the passion people have to preserve their country from an authoritarian regime. And Bruce McKenna and Jill O'Reilly point out that the most effective organizing needs to actually engage with people rather than merely marketing a political brand to them, while Will Stancil observes that U.S. Democrats have largely allowed a consultant class (relying on assumptions from a previous era) to purge that type of work from their party.  

- Finally, Cory Doctorow discusses the connection between monopoly positioning and the enshittification of social media services. And Ian Welsh notes that the degeneration of AI can be predicted based on the similar path followed by Google as a "state of nature" gave way to a system designed to manipulate users. 

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Eric Holthaus warns that the escalation of temperatures in 2024 threatens to lay the groundwork for much worse to come. And Virgina Iglesias discusses why the the more intense wildfires we're seeing now are harder to contain than the ones our current firefighting systems were designed for. 

- Nitish Pahwa calls out the right-wing propaganda machine for its conspiracy theories about the source of the ongoing fires in Los Angeles, while Seth Abramson points out Elon Musk's reality-averse attacks on Gavin Newson (coupled with proposterous attempts to change the subject from the actual fires). And Margaret Klein Salamon points out how the corporate media is conspicuously omitting the climate link to the fires and other extreme weather. 

- Carole Cadwalladr warns of the potential for total information collapse based on the combination of increasing concentration of weaponized social media ownership, and its integration with the power of governments. Roy Edroso offers a reminder that the scumbaggery is the point of the alt-right cabal. And Christy Somos discusses how Canada's media is ill equipped to dig into the forces which are actually shaping people's lives due to the constant demand to produce cheap and easy content rather than challenging power. 

- But on a hopeful note, Aisha Malik points out the Free our Feeds initiative working both to protect Bluesky's underlying technology and put it past the reach of would-be manipulators and saboteurs.

- Finally, Owen Jones discusses the despair faced by young voters, while pointing out the need to provide alternatives other than fascist dictatorship. Jonathan Chait comments on the reality that a focus on corporate-friendly economic development did nothing to win over the U.S. working-class voters. And The Guardian's editorial board points out the importance of focusing on social and climate priorities rather than treating markets as the sole interest to be pursued. 

On immediacy

It didn't take long for the opportunities I'd mused about to emerge in Canadian politics. But while the Libs haven't yet decided on a structure for their leadership campaign, we can see what the NDP is doing to ensure voters have an option to resist a Trump takeover.

And that now includes Jagmeet Singh taking on a lead role in fostering both resistance and hope (if only after Charlie Angus had shown how readily a leader can win support just by standing up to Trump):

But I would note there's room for further work in indicating not only a willingness to fight against Trump and his Con allies, but also the determination to build the alternate structures needed to support people caught in the violence in time to help them. And that's where I'd argue there's still room for a change in mindset.

Over the past few years, the main indicator for the federal NDP's success has been one of incremental progress. The achievements most valued by the party have involved negotiating the partial implementation of much larger ideas including dental care and pharmacare. And with the Libs holding power, the manner and pace of implementation has been almost entirely out of the NDP's hands - resulting in the habit of treating any step forward as a win, full stop.

But the reality is that there's still ample work to be done in developing what those programs can and should be. Plenty of people will have reason to ask why their needs haven't yet been addressed - and what an NDP government plans to do differently. 

And that question will become all the more important when the humanitarian crisis blows up later this month, creating imminent and severe risks to all kinds of people facing a hateful and emboldened Trump administration. I've already noted what the policy response might look like - but it's worth also pairing the "what" with attention to the "when" and "how".

Fortunately, there's a compelling example to point out thanks to Wab Kinew. His Manitoba NDP government is combining clear timelines for larger goals with a commitment to dealing with urgent circumstances as soon as possible - addressing immediate homelessness through proactive outreach in a matter of weeks, while working on a longer-term plan to ensure everybody has housing. 

Similarly, it's worth emphasizing the NDP's determination to identify the most significant needs where they exist, and commit the resources needed to deal with the full scope of a problem on a defined schedule.

That should make for a particularly compelling message on the housing front when compared to a Con position based on nothing more than meddling in municipal decision-making while actually reducing the federal government's resources applied to home construction. 

Among the other glaring problems with treating deregulation as a panacea, it involves precisely zero attention and focus toward people's immediate needs where they don't offer the largest opportunity for immediate profit. And that leaves an opening for the NDP to advance direct action to ensure the right to housing is met, rather than asking people to settle for the bare hope someone else (or a mythical invisible hand) will fix the problem at some point in the future.  

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Owen Schalk writes that there's no need for Canadian leaders to be doormats for the Trump administration. And A.R. Moxon offers some lessons as to how an opposition party and movement should respond in the face of rising fascism - with a willingness to fight being the first step to both achieving substantive results and earning trust. 

- Jonathan Weisman discusses how U.S. Democrats lost enthusiasm among the working class by hoping policy aimed at long-term stability would overcome an immediate sense of precarity and unfairness. Michael Podhorzer notes that the most important difference between the 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections was a collapse in interest among anti-Trump voters. Brian Beutler writes about the need for simple and repeated messages to reach voters - and the danger that corporatism and corruption will run rampant if opposition leaders don't focus attention on them. 

- Meanwhile, Charlie Warzel and Mike Caulfield write about the most important effect of the right-wing information ecosystem, as it serves to rationalize and excuse even what's obviously wrong. Brandi Buchman talks to Michael Fanone about the disillusionment of security officers seeing the leader of a  violent riot returned to office. 

- Amanda Marcotte writes about the role of toxic masculinity in fomenting terrorist violence against inclusivity and equality (currently framed in terms of "woke" culture). Yves Engler discusses how Pierre Poilievre is using the same themes, while at the same time planning to impose far more draconian restrictions on speech than anything he claims to be complaining about. And Olufemi Taiwo highlights the need for solidarity against the divide-and-conquer bullying from the right. 

- Finally, Amos Barshad discusses how buy now, pay later services are creating sustained precarity (particularly among those who are already the most financially vulnerable). Aballah Fayyad weighs in on the value of universal social programs which both reduce administration costs and ensure far greater income security for recipients. Ned Fresnikoff points out that modest income redistribution alone may do little if anything to reduce homelessness if it's not accompanied with action to make more affordable housing available. And Laura Dwyer-Lindgren et al. study the radically different life expectancies among ten distinct groups of Americans based on factors including race, geography and income. 

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your new year.

- Michael Mann and Peter Hotez write about the combined threat posed by climate change, pandemics and an anti-science message which makes it far more difficult to deal with real problems. Katharine Hayhoe offers a year-end summary of the state of the climate - featuring the juxtaposition of a climate breaking down faster than previously assumed with growing recognition that we have (but are failing to implement) means to stop the harm. And Holly Elser et al. study how the effects of wildfire smoke include increased risks of dementia and other brain damage. 

- Andrew Egger highlights how Republicans have become trained to reward chaos agents while seeing actual governance as a problem. Stephen Hanson and Jeffrey Kopstein discuss how the plan for Donald Trump's second term is to replace any trace of public service with patrimonialism based solely on Trump's connections and interests. 

- Jared Yates Sexton offers his take on how Americans need to prepare for Trump's ascension to power. And Ian Dunt notes that the most important individual action will be to act with decency even in the face of a government bent on cruelty. 

- Finally, Paul Krugman discusses how social media fits into the culture of generating profits from addictions. And Thor Benson interviews Ryan Cooper about the options available to build a new information ecosystem beyond the poisoned social media giants. 

On windows of opportunity

Following up on yesterday's post, the NDP's decision to advance a non-confidence vote obviously reflects a different path than the one which seemed promising to me. And there's at least one explanation as to why there may be an interest in an election sooner rather than later:

Speaking with sources within the NDP. There is a noticeable shift in the parties attitude towards and election. They WANT an election against Trudeau. I have been told there is data coming showing them in a steady 2nd place against Poilievre with a shorter than expected ground to reclaim.

— JB (@jb.polaris.tube) December 20, 2024 at 12:43 PM

From the standpoint of merely managing party interests in Parliament, that type of data would create a strong incentive for an early election - particularly if the main alternative is trying to negotiate with a leader whose ability to give effect to any agreement is in doubt. 

But I'm still not convinced there isn't a better third option which could pair a relatively strong party position with a concerted effort to tap into public resistance to an American oligarchy which seems likely to overwhelm domestic discussions in any election campaign. 

Meanwhile, it's also worth noting the timing involved. Just as now isn't a time when there's a realistic prospect of negotiating legislation, it's also too late for any non-confidence vote to take place for at least a period of months. And there's risk in assuming that both of the conditions seen as favouring an election now (the assumption of polling momentum and Justin Trudeau's continued leadership of the Libs) will still be in place by the time there's any chance to act on today's declaration. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Laurie Laybourn and James Dyke comment on the developing doom loop as fear, hardship and political instability created by a climate breakdown in progress make it harder to coordinate efforts to ameliorate it. And Gaby Hinsliff writes that Storm Darragh taught her family and community how poorly prepared they were for climate disaster, while Matthew Ballew et al. examine how psychological distress appears to be a spur toward climate activism. 

- Fiona Harvey warns that a COP29 outcome more attuned to Vladimir Putin's political ends than the preservation of a liveable environment may be only the beginning. David Suzuki laments how the oil industry undermined any effort to agree on a plastics treaty. Eamon Ryan discusses how the oil industry and other corporate forces poisoned public opinion against a successful push to reduce carbon pollution in Ireland. And Joe Vipond makes the case to treat the fossil fuel industry like big tobacco - i.e. as a dishonest and destructive actor impeding work which is necessary for the public good.  

- Dharna Noor reports on new NOAA data showing that the Arctic is now a net emitter of carbon pollution, rather than serving as a carbon sink. Max Fawcett discusses Kevin O'Leary's attempt to play Alberta for a fool by seeking out public money for a highly-polluting, zero-benefit AI project - and the danger that the UCP will be happy to play along. And Rewiring America studies the effects of converting to electrical power - finding that a shift to electric appliances produces demonstrable benefits to air quality both inside and outside the home. 

- The Angus Reid Institute finds that a strong majority of Canadians see corruption and tax evasion as a major cause of the affordability crisis - potentially signaling a strong appetite for a credible plan of attack against them. Paul Krugman (on his new site after his retirement from the New York Times) discusses how the right's anti-public sector rhetoric facilitates actual fraud and abuse by corporations and the righ. David Macdonald points out that a time-limited GST holiday isn't a particularly good use even of a temporary windfall, while glaringly failing to address the structural factors that are stressing people's finances. And Paul Kiel reports on a tax loophole which wealthy Americans are using to avoid contributing a cent of a Medicare tax paid by workers. 

- Jason Sattler writes that Donald Trump's main political skill is setting up an alternate reality for himself and a maddeningly large number of voters. Oliver Willis notes that he's been able to get away with denialism in large part due to the refusal of Democrats to engage in a meaningful fight as to the controlling narrative. And Simon Wren-Lewis rightly argues that progressives shouldn't fall into the trap of echoing and reinforcing the politics of stupid. 

- Finally, Ryan Romard writes that public sector strikes in Canada (spurred by years of relatively high inflation paired with pay freezes) are helping to set up opportunities for all kinds of workers to seek better wages and working conditions. 

[Edit: added link.]

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Aria Bendix examines the state of current knowledge as to how likely people are to suffer from long COVID after being infected - with a seemingly declining risk for any given infection being more than counterbalanced by the threat from repeated reinfection. And the Lancet discusses how much more there is to learn about long COVID, while Caora McKenna shares the stories of some of the people currently afflicted with it.

- Meanwhile, Brennan Doherty reports on the fight of federal employees to be able to continue minimizing unnecessary spread by working from home where possible. And Zak Vescera discusses the prospect of a four-day work week. 

- Matthew Yglesias writes that contrary to the assumptions of people looking to find complicated solutions to poverty in the U.S., the real problem is that current programs are effective but underfunded. 

- Inori Roy reports on the private deals which are making long-term care in Ontario even more oriented toward enriching connected corporations rather than ensuring people have the homes and care they need.

- Bob Wells points out how the covered-up Kearl tar sands leak exposes dangerous gaps in environmental regulation, while Adrienne Tanner calls for accountability for the people responsible. Danny Halpin reports on new research finding that the effects of a climate breakdown include a quadrupling of extreme rainfall events. And Matthew McClearn writes about the consequences of disappearing ice cover over the Great Lakes.

- Finally, Umair Haque examines the UK Cons' takeover of the BBC as a prime example of the fascist tendency to break the institutions of civil society. And Chelsea Nash reports on Faiz Shakir's message that progressives need to recognize public anger and its causes - while turning it toward positive ends rather than the hate and destruction peddled by the right.

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Scott Rivkees writes that COVID-19 denialism has come to dominate public policy around an ongoing viral threat, while Kelly Skjerven reports that the relentless minimization of the ongoing pandemic has led Canadians to stop getting updated vaccinations. Eric Reinhart discusses how doctors are understandably demoralized by systemic failures which prevent them from helping to treat patients. And Joyce Sampson writes that there are plenty of benefits to face masks even beyond the reduced transmission of (and infection by) COVID. 

- Kat Echner comments on the potential for employee ownership trusts to allow employees to share in the benefit from their work. And Jon Brodkin reports on Apple's violations of employee rights in preventing workers from gathering wage data or discussing working conditions.  

- Jen Hassum writes about the need for progressives to recognize and channel people's rightful anger at a system rigger against them - rather than allowing the Cons to coast on that sentiment while planning to make matters worse. 

- Meanwhile, Martin Wolf discusses the advantages of a land value tax to ensure idle assets don't exacerbate inequality. And Guio Jacinto makes the case for industrial policy (dealing with steel and other vital inputs) to ensure that Canada rebuilds an industrial base while transitioning to a clean economy. 

- Finally, Pete Evans highlights the juxtaposition between record fossil fuel profits and attempts to walk back previous climate commitments, while Alex Lawson takes note of the particularly glaring profit-taking by BP as it breaks emission reduction promises. Julia Levin points out the continued lack of an evidentiary basis to think carbon capture will accomplish anything but greenwashing continued environmental destruction. And Drilled News surveys the oil industry's determination to bully people into believing we can't live without their exploitation. 

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Irelyne Lavery reports on the increasing number of Canadians needing medical attention for the flu as COVID-related protections have been scrapped. And Wallace Immen reports on some of the possibilities to try to improve a health care system which has been put under intolerable strain by the pandemic - though it's worth noting the distinction between the people working on improving the system, and those looking to enable the extraction of wealth from it.

- Meanwhile, Ian Tucker interviews Peter Kalmus about the dangers of trying to stay on auto-pilot in a system which is obviously breaking down absent major repair. And Fiona Harvey reports on the first steps being taken toward managing geoengineering as a risky substitute for reducing avoidable carbon pollution.

- Matt Krupnick reports on research showing that thousands of dangerous chemicals can be found in food packaging.

- Kriston Capps and Sarah Holder report on the workplace organizing happening among architects in an occupation where long hours and heavy debt are the norm.

- Finally, Jordan Bollag discusses the need for the left to build capacity as a movement willing to fight for social outcomes, rather than merely as an electoral machine hoping to harvest votes on election day. And Melanie Paradis points out how the anger-driven strategy which has become the norm on the right is ultimately untenable for any party or leader.

#SKNDPLDR Roundup

So far, the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign has been awfully quiet. And with a membership deadline looming for anybody who wants to be able to vote in the leadership election, time is running out for anybody looking to attract support from outside the party's existing membership base.

While it remains to be seen whether she'll success, Kaitlyn Harvey has taken a couple of steps which should pique some interest: announcing the endorsement of Seth Klein as one of the country's prominent voices for climate action, and unveiling a platform based on principles of sustainability and harm prevention, as well as a far more honest assessment of the costs of maintaining the status quo. 

There's some obvious potential for those messages both in establishing Harvey's bona fides within the climate justice movement, and for the party's future path as a part of that movement. But time is running short to convert that potential into memberships and votes. 

Meanwhile, Carla Beck's campaign has demurred from releasing a detailed platform. Instead, she's offered a list of priorities with a few policy proposals, along with an explanation for not going into much more detail than that. (And there's actually another reasonable argument on that point which she doesn't address, which is the effort underway to improve the NDP's internal policy development.) 

Not surprisingly, Beck has also added to her list of endorsements - though it's hard to see those as a novel development in a race where she's had establishment support lined up behind her from day one. 

We'll find out fairly soon whether there are any surprises in the membership numbers which may affect the balance of the race. In the meantime, though, a quiet campaign looks to favour Beck as the default favourite. 

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Laura Spinney offers a reminder that the few places which actually made an effort at a COVID Zero strategy have fared far better than those trying to get a rightly-concerned public to accept COVID Unlimited. Nature points out the folly of eliminating the testing we need to know what risks we face in making both public policy and personal risk assessments. And Ariana Eunjung Cha reports on the similarities between long COVID and the brain fog associated with chemotherapy and Alzheimer's disease. 

- Nav Persaud points out that we won't make progress in improving prescription drug coverage without standing up to a sector making lucrative profits off of people's illnesses. 

- Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent discuss the connection between fossil fuel dependency and authoritarian politics - and the opportunities available to a political party willing to call it out. And the Economist's review of Eric Lonergan and Corinne Sawers' Supercharge Me discusses how carbon pricing alone won't get us where we need to go in order to avert climate breakdown. 

- Finally, Robin Sears is hopeful that the supply and confidence agreement between the NDP and Libs may hint at a more mature and cooperative political scene - though both the parties' history and the incentives created by a warped electoral system (which the Libs are unwilling to change) suggest we can't take that for granted.

On priorities

While I've pointed out the absurdity of yet another round of anti-coalition scaremongering, it does seem clear that any discussion between the NDP and the Libs will instead involve a confidence and supply arrangement. And that may well be for the best, as it maximizes the policy outcomes the NDP can expect to generate from an agreement. 

That said, in determining which priorities should be given precedence, it's worth keeping in mind what can realistically be achieved in that type of arrangement - particularly in light of the dynamics it would create between the parties involved. So let's look at a few of the criteria by which we can evaluate possible points of agreement - and which options might best fit within a deal.

• Public Benefit - Needless to say, the core consideration for anything the NDP requests needs to be a tangible benefit for people. While this might seem obvious, remember that the Libs once considered it a good idea to keep the Harper Cons in power in exchange for partisan progress reports on stimulus spending. The NDP hopefully knows better than to pursue process points over substance - but in case there's any doubt, it needs to view the contents of a policy deal as embodying the belief that political choices can improve people's welfare. 
• Immediacy - Any supply agreement will necessarily be for a limited period of time, with a risk that Justin Trudeau will see an opportunity to call an election early no matter what time period is agreed on. And that means whatever concessions the NDP can win will need to be capable of implementation within a period of a year-plus. That likely rules out anything which would require starting any major program design or public consultation from scratch without a fairly well-understood end goal. And so while a basic income or electoral reform would make for worthwhile demands on the merits, they may not be practical as core components of a supply agreement. 
• Durability - That said, there's also reason for concern if any agreement fails to have a lasting impact. For example, while improved pandemic benefits are rightly an important consideration for now, there's surely little value in committing to support a government past the point when they may cease to be necessary. This may be where the NDP's past success in pushing for Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan and Petro-Canada serves as a precedent as to what's possible. And while there may be limits on the structural change the Libs are willing to accept, the NDP should be keeping an eye on ensuring that the effects of any agreement last beyond the Parliament in which it's reached. 
• Acceptability - Of course, any demand made by the NDP is futile if it's beyond what the Libs can be pushed to accept. And while the Libs aren't setting up any particularly strict lines at the moment, there's a real risk that they'll see options to stay in power by other means (particularly by daring the Cons to bring them down) if the price for a supply agreement is seen as too high.
• Differentiation - By the same token, however, the NDP surely wants to be able to claim justified credit for the results of any agreement, rather than facing any plausible argument that the Libs would have done the same if they'd had a majority. And there may be particular value for the NDP in being able to claim to have pushed the Libs to action in an area where they'd otherwise proven reluctant to live up to their promises or stated principles. 
• Progressivity - Finally, different isn't necessarily better - so it matters which types are chosen for emphasis. While platform development always includes some effort to be everything to everyone, the terms of a supply deal will be taken as the ultimate declaration of the NDP's priorities. And it would be a waste of the balance of power to use it to pursue policies which tend toward political gimmickry rather than the expression of supporters' values.  

Not surprisingly, the main goals mentioned by Jagmeet Singh since the election (action on housing, dropping litigation against Indigenous children/providing compensation, and climate action) can meet each of the above criteria depending on the steps chosen. But even on those topics, the nature of any agreement may make a world of difference: indeed, a housing plan oriented toward subsidies for purchasers could easily fail the public benefit, differentiation and progressivity tests. 

Conversely, the best option may be one which isn't at the forefront of Singh's current messaging. The Libs have already put some effort into determining what a national pharmacare program could look like, meaning that it's as "shovel-ready" as any national benefit program is likely to be. But they've abandoned any commitment to following through or funding it, presumably due largely to industry pressure. 

That means the NDP can be the driving force behind a crucial national program which would carry both individual and systemic benefits, and which the Libs would have little reason to oppose directly (even if they haven't been willing to spend their own political capital implementing it). 

With pharmacare (ideally coupled with public-sector pharmaceutical capacity) along with a substantial contribution to a climate change plan (say, redirecting the value of fossil fuel subsidies to the NDP's proposal for a Civilian Climate Corps and green infrastructure investments?) as the centrepieces, there would then be room to add further elements which are either more limited in duration, or more distant in implementation. 

It remains to be seen exactly how willing the Libs are to pursue a more formal arrangement. But there's room for both the NDP and the country to benefit immensely if they can be pushed to do so - and after an election campaign where an immense amount of energy was spent to accomplish very little, it would be for the best if some well-selected pressure now can remind people what effective cooperation can achieve. 

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Helen Ward et al. discuss the work that needs to be done to respond to long COVID on a global scale, while CBC News reports on Rachel Notley's needed call for Alberta to begin taking the long-term effects seriously. And Reuters reports on the Netherlands' move toward additional public health measures as another wave sweeps across Europe.

- Meanwhile, Chris Hurl and Leah Barrett Werner point out how private consultants have been put in charge of the COVID response across Canada - and how the public has been ill served by putting people focused on generating profits in charge of public health.

- Umair Haque writes that we're grossly underestimating the dangers of a climate breakdown and the scope of work needed to avert it. Tom Ambrose discusses scientists' warnings that the omission of military entities from emission reduction targets leaves a massive blind spot in any effort to develop and apply carbon budgets. Sarah Johnson reports on WaterAid's call to include the water crisis in global discussions of climate change, while Ivana Kottasova and Amy Cassidy write about the push by youth for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.

- Finally, Aaron Huertas discusses the need for progressive activists and politicians to be willing to take action (including where it involves some risk of less-than-ideal coverage), rather than hoping for talking points alone to attract attention and persuade the public.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Ricky Leong discusses the complete lack of any reasonable explanation for the UCP's failure to protect the health of Albertans in the face of the fourth wave of COVID-19. And Murray Mandryk comments that the Sask Party likewise insists on doing too little, too late even as people suffer as a result of their negligence.

- Adam King writes that the Pandora Papers offer just the latest reminder that any refusal to fund the society we want is a matter of choice rather than lack of resources.

- Matt Bruenig points out the U.S.' dangerous combination of gratuitously-slashed unemployment benefits and a lack of new employment. And Lysa Lloyd offers her perspective on the precarity and drudgery that come with surviving on social assistance. 

- Sandy Carrier discusses how a general disability benefit in particular would provide a desperately-needed basic standard of living. And Andre Picard writes that all parties should be able to agree on the need to ensure people with disabilities aren't trapped in poverty.

- Angela Smith interviews Jessica Whyte about the neoliberal movement's use of human rights language to impose cruel capitalist structures. 

- And finally, Alan Finlayson discusses the need to present progressive politics based on concrete proposals and demands, rather than nebulous values which are easily distorted by opponents while offering little of substance for potential supporters to draw upon.

On echoes

Plenty of commentators have pointed out the symmetry between this year's election and that of 2008 in terms of low voter turnout and general dissatisfaction with the outcome on the part of all parties. But it's worth noting the similarities between the two campaigns and their aftermath on the part of the NDP in particular.

2008 was treated as a golden opportunity for Jack Layton and the NDP to improve their standing. But even with the most popular leader among the national parties, a well-run campaign, and seemingly uninspiring or downright self-destructive competitors, the NDP ended up with...a small increase in the percentage of the popular vote due to declining overall turnout; a slightly improved seat count which fell far short of the party's number of targeted ridings and left it in fourth place in the Parliamentary standings; and punditry which questioned Layton's strategy of running for the position of Prime Minister, and asked whether he might have hit his ceiling as the party's leader. 

Sound familiar?

Needless to say, it was for the best that Layton was able to continue applying his experience and popularity to the cause of building the NDP for another election cycle. And any attempt to treat the replacement of a generally popular and able leader as a cure-all is as misguided now as it would have been in 2008. 

Indeed, the next election cycle may well match 2011 as one in which a leader with strong recognition and approval is a particularly potent force. 

The Cons look to be deciding whether or not to push Erin O'Toole out the door for making even token efforts toward moderation. And any review process and leadership campaign on their end raises a real possibility of schisms within the party, an extreme shift to the right which could disqualify them as a perceived alternative government, or the Cons' version of Michael Ignatieff's saviour complex and lack of self-awareness. 

Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau's negative impressions figure to be thoroughly baked in at this point, meaning that voters may be primed for change by the next (hopefully non-pandemic) election. Yet unlike some commentators, I'd have to see it as unlikely that he'd be pushed without wanting to leave - or that he'll choose to leave government without pursing another shot at a majority as long as there's any hope of winning one. 

To be clear, there's plenty the NDP needs to reckon with as a result of the campaign. Among others, those include the need for clearer and more ambitious policy (an area where I'll again point out COVID response as an obvious lost opportunity), as well as concerns being raised about a centralized campaign which spent plenty in the pursuit of a relatively small number of ridings, yet had difficulty converting those into seats. 

But the fact that there's room to learn lessons doesn't mean it's time to throw out the work the NDP has already done. And it shouldn't come as any surprise if the path of slow progress leading to a breakthrough is one the NDP can navigate again. 

[Edit: fixed typo.]

On narrow targets

At this stage of the federal election campaign, the seemingly wide range of outcomes is entirely an artifice of a first-part-the-post system with multiple parties contending for seats. Barring a drastic change in the last week of the campaign (which will likely need to overcome votes already locked in as well as significant inertia), we figure to see the Libs and Cons relatively close to each other in the popular vote, with the NDP a relatively strong third in what would be a minority Parliament in all but the most extreme possible outcomes.

The most significant point of uncertainty looks to be the Bloc - which seemed to have fallen from its earlier support levels earlier in the campaign, only to have ticked upward more recently. And as the campaign has played out it's worth wondering whether the NDP may have limited its ability to capitalize on opportunities - in Quebec in particular, and to some extent across the country.

On the Quebec front, the NDP has been explicit about limiting its focus to 6-10 ridings. And while it might be understandable not to launch a high-resource offensive into all of the terrain included in the 2011 Orange Wave, it has to be a disappointment to treat even seats which the party held in 2015 as secondary considerations.

After all, the result is that voters who have supported the party under multiple past leaders will perceive the lack of attention even after party finances have stabilized. And even in the ridings which are specifically targeted, the sense of limited aspirations from a strategic standpoint is particularly dangerous for a campaign based on asking voters to dare to imagine more than the status quo. 

Moreover, there's reason for concern about the same phenomenon playing out across the country and setting a ceiling on party support which caps the plausible seat count in double digits (again lower than levels the NDP has already reached), and limits the prospects of pushing aside either of the Libs or the Cons.

There is reason for optimism that the NDP is back on its 2000s trajectory of building from one election cycle to the next, including by being able to close its campaign strongly in close seats. But if the NDP wants to be able to put its ambitious platform into effect, it needs to be no less daring in the seats it contests - and it will be a severe disappointment if an opportunity to make far larger gains is lost to an overly cautious campaign plan. 

[Edit: fixed typo, wording.]

#Elxn44 Roundup

Links, notes and comments up to and including the first week of Canada's federal election.

- Shannon Proudfoot reports on Innovative Research's polling into how voters perceive the federal parties - with the noteworthy findings including the fact that the NDP is the only national parties seen as likely on balance to make life better for voters. And Darrell Bricker takes note of the reality that the Libs are seen as the party with a hidden agenda.

- tcnorris offers a reminder that minority governments' gambles on being promoted to majority status may not be as safe as they appear. Christo Aivalis discusses both the opportunity and the need for the NDP to play a key role in keeping the Trudeau Libs from an undeserved false majority. And Dru Oja Jay examines how the NDP has used the balance of power for the benefit of Canadians in the past.

- Luke Savage examines the prospect of an NDP surge (which seems to be playing out at least through the campaign's early stages). And Andrew Perez looks at a few of the factors in Canada and around the globe which were feeding into the party's momentum even before the campaign began, while Lisa Van Dusen discusses the authenticity which provides Jagmeet Singh with an important contrast against the other federal leaders. 

- Meanwhile, Jen Gerson discusses the importance of giving leaders more than one election to grow into the role, rather than throwing them away in the hope that someone newer and shinier will avoid the work of actually building a party and movement. 

- Finally, Maria Della Mattia offers suggestions as to how to make a party's values and ideas stick with the voters who stand to benefit from them.

On time-shifting

There's been some discussion about parts of Canada's federal election campaign which are surfacing somewhat earlier than usual - ranging from party platforms (with the notable exception of the Libs'), to typical late-campaign scare tactics. But it's worth noting that there's obvious reason to make closing arguments from almost the beginning of the campaign - as well as a need for parties to consider what the means as the campaign progresses. 

The provincial elections held in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic have generally seen both a continuation of the trend toward increased advance voting, and a substantial increase in the use of mail-in ballots. But by the time the votes have been counted, the overall turnout hasn't been all that strong.  

And that combination of increased early voting and decreased election-day turnout raises important considerations for campaign. 

First, it means that persuasion in the opening days of the campaign will actually serve to lock in votes early - or conversely, that a failure to reach people by that stage could put them out of reach for the duration of the campaign. And so even to the extent a party might otherwise be tempted to hold off on messages or platforms to reduce the time in which they can be picked apart, the balance tilts strongly in favour of ensuring that early voters have a chance to see what's on offer. 

By the same token, the events which would normally be seen as shaping the outcome of an election - from debates to gaffes to movements behind a particular leader - are all likely to have comparatively less effect than in previous elections due to the votes which have already been banked by the time they would take place. 

At the same time, while those most motivated to vote need to be reached with persuasive messages early in the campaign, the voters left to be accessed on election day are then likely to be those who have put relatively little thought into how to vote as a matter of both partisan support and process. (This factor looms particularly large given the prospect of a COVID wave increasing the risk of attending any remotely busy polling station.)

That doesn't reduce the need to be perceived building momentum in the course of the campaign, or eliminate altogether the prospect of a late-campaign shift. But it does mean that the message for election-day voters may need to focus more than usual on making the case for people to vote at all - while at the same time taking into account the risk that relatively unmotivated voters may be tired of the campaign by then. 

We'll find out in time whether the federal campaign follows the pattern set at the provincial level. And it may be that a national-level air war leads to somewhat different results. But we shouldn't be surprised to see an "always be closing" principle applied in a campaign where potentially decisive votes may be cast long before election day.