On historical echoes

Ontario's ongoing provincial election is presenting some interesting echoes from previous campaigns - particularly the 2015 federal election which similarly involved a seemingly vulnerable Conservative majority, an NDP official opposition and a Lib attempt to jump back into default-government status. 

At the outset, I'll reiterate my longtime view that contrary to conventional wisdom, the 2015 NDP strategy - which involved focusing largely on making the case to defeat the Harper Cons, and positioning Thomas Mulcair as a broadly acceptable option in the event voters reached the judgment Justin Trudeau wasn't ready for the job of prime minister - was neither entirely unreasonable nor unsuccessful. 

The first necessary step to achieve anything was to make the case for a change in government, and Mulcair's work prosecuting Harper and his record played a huge role in achieving that. And while Trudeau's performance was beyond the NDP's control, there was a plausible path to government if he'd failed to live up to expectations. (Of course, it ultimately helped Trudeau that dismissive messaging about him lowered the bar considerably.) 

To the extent that calculation failed to achieve all of the desired outcome, it's one that Andrea Horwath's Ontario NDP seems determined not to repeat: it's rightly keeping a focus on the continuity between PC and Lib policies as representing a series of failures that need fixing. But there are also a couple of other distinguishing factors which offer the prospect of a better outcome in Ontario. 

The first is the one which was entirely outside of the federal NDP's control: following Jack Layton's death, the leader whose popularity helped boost the party into Official Opposition status was no longer around to help it take the next step into government.

It's bizarre in that context to see commentary (mostly from Lib spinners, but somewhat from others as well) suggesting that Ontario's NDP should have jettisoned its leader voluntarily after achieving its best result in a generation. But for now, the party enjoys the advantage of Andrea Horwath's relatively strong approval ratings and consistent ability to boost the NDP's standing, while the Libs have a comparatively unknown leader who remains ripe for a campaign collapse.  

Of course, that leaves the major avoidable failing of Mulcair's federal campaign, being the lack of a strong pushback against the Libs' messages about the relative progressive positioning of the two parties. That allowed Trudeau to win over far too many voters with a claim to progressivity which was entirely unwarranted based on the parties' actual platforms. 

But while the Ontario Libs are trying to similarly claim to be challenging the NDP from the left, Horwath's team has done plenty to ensure that type of attack is neither plausible nor successful.

Indeed, if there's anything that's gone glaringly unmentioned in most coverage of the Ontario election, it's the deep policy work already done (and yes, promoted) by the NDP in areas where the Libs have spent the campaign hastily cribbing a platform for themselves. 

Want to see Canada's most populous province actually be a leader in implementing a Green New Democratic Deal? The NDP has worked out how to get there (PDF). 

Think a party's commitment to increasing housing supply should be backed by a meaningful analysis of how to get there, as well as specific plans to ensure homes are available for vulnerable groups? The NDP has it covered (PDF). 

A detailed plan to bring long-term care under public control and protect residents from the neglect set up by decades of Lib and PC privatization? That's been developed (PDF) as well.

Want to see a promise to provide universal mental health care which is actually supported by a road map to get there? That's been done too (PDF). 

In each case, the NDP's detailed plans - supported by significant research and analysis - have been copied in part by the Libs in two- to four-page platform entries. But there's little room for dispute both as to which party has the more progressive policies, and which has put meaningful thought and analysis into how to implement them. 

Unfortunately, those plans won't amount to much if the broader electorate isn't convinced to vote the PCs out and the NDP in. But that's where it's essential to let people know that there is a viable alternative - and that it's ready to fix the most important issues facing Ontario if given the chance.  

Leadership 2018 Links

The latest from the Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign.

- Devin Tasa reported on the Nipawin debate, while the Estevan Mercury covered Ryan Meili's visit. Adam Hunter reported on Trent Wotherspoon's mistaken province-wide television ad. And Alex MacPherson and D.C. Fraser's notebook continues to offer some coverage, including the latest on the candidates' fund-raising totals.

- Phil Tank compared the candidates from both provincial leadership campaigns in their plans for the Meewasin Valley Authority. And the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation likewise took note of the candidates' education plans across party lines.

- While I haven't focused much on endorsements, the most prominent recent ones include an interesting divide between Wotherspoon's support from familiar Saskatchewan NDP figures including Anne Blakeney and Cam Broten, and Meili's from the broader progressive movement including Thomas Mulcair and Harry Leslie Smith.

- Finally, Ryan Meili has released a membership pitch connecting his farm background to the importance of community support for people:

Leadership 2017 Links

One final roundup post from the NDP's federal leadership campaign - with a focus on Jagmeet Singh's first steps as the party's new leader.

- The Ribbon offers a roundtable discussion of Singh's victory. And Ryan Tumulty and Enzo DiMatteo each interview Singh about his campaign and his next steps.

- Brittany Andrew-Amofah discusses what Singh's victory means both for the NDP as a party, and for people of colour who might support it. Dr. Dawg tears into Terry Milewski's interview with Singh as an example of the media's double standard for minority leaders and guests, while Jade Saab is rightly frustrated about having to point out that there's more to Singh than his turban. And Jagdeesh Mann rightly notes that Singh isn't about to be pigeonholed into an overly simplistic view of the Sikh community. 

- Robin Seats discusses how Singh will need to build the NDP. Karl Nerenberg sees working-class voters and Quebec supporters as the keys to Singh's tenure.

- Finally, Noah Richler offers a valuable reminder of the role Thomas Mulcair played as leader - as well as how it should inform the party's continued work.

On banked support

A couple of weeks back, I examined the role of endorsements in the federal NDP's leadership race. Now, I'll take a quick look at where the current fund-raising numbers and distribution stand - and how they figure to relate to the NDP's previous leadership campaigns.

The closest comparison to this campaign is of course the 2012 leadership race. There, the final fund-raising totals for the candidates who stayed in the race ranged from Niki Ashton's $86,806.70 (from 1,163 contributors) to Tom Mulcair's $522,788.00 (from 3,482 contributors). And the contributor numbers ranged from Ashton's 1,163 to Martin Singh's 7,965. 

But of course, the final numbers weren't known when people actually voted. And there were some noteworthy changes over the home stretch of the campaign: Mulcair overtook Brian Topp as the top fund-raiser after trailing in the previous quarterly report, while Singh drastically increased his number of donors even while raising relatively little compared to the pre-convention numbers.

In general, total donations proved to be a strong indicator of voting support. (In contrast, donor numbers were far less reliable, with Singh's total serving as the obvious outlier.)

The connection between donations and votes was even stronger in the 2003 campaign: then, every candidate's vote share was within 1.5% of his or her fund-raising share. So there's certainly some precedent to suggest that NDP vote totals may closely track donations.

What's more, as I've noted, the connection between fund-raising and voting outcomes could be stronger this time out since there's far more room to convert an advantage in fund-raising capacity into campaign outcomes. 

In 2012, it's possible that Mulcair in particular could have raised more than he did. But a $500,000 spending limit provided him with no particular incentive to raise substantially more than that amount. 

In contrast, with the spending limit tripled this time around, the ability to raise more money can lead to a far stronger campaign operation. And with candidates needing to reach voters over multiple separate voting windows, a campaign's financial resources may be particularly crucial when members make their final decision.

So how much attention should we pay to fund-raising - particularly when it may conflict with some other normally-reliable indicators?

Since this time there actually is a meaningful difference in how the race projects based on various factors, I'd be surprised if the first ballot doesn't end up somewhere in the middle. 

We certainly shouldn't look at the 2003 precedent and assume Jagmeet Singh's vote share will match his proportion of funds raised, particularly given the poll results released so far. But nor should we ignore either the importance of Singh's fund-raising lead as an indicator of support, or his ability to use donations to change the course of the campaign. And that advantage may be especially important if the race comes down to the wire. 

On comparative advantages

In the federal NDP's previous leadership campaign, Tom Mulcair managed to release numerous policy proposals without offering any hint of what he'd do as leader.

Starting from the (correct) assumption that a frontrunner could likely find his way to victory simply by minimizing controversy, Mulcair released policy planks which were based almost entirely on the NDP's previous election platform.

That left little for his opponents to criticize: any direct questions about Mulcair's plans could be attacked as critiques of Jack Layton's judgment. But it also offered little information for voters who genuinely wanted to know about Mulcair's own judgment and priorities. 

This time around, there was some question as to whether Jagmeet Singh would similarly try to neutralize policy as a basis for decision rather than offering any distinctive vision. But to Singh's credit, he's making a strong effort to drive policy debate both within the NDP and in the broader political scene - most recently by releasing an income security agenda built around three guarantees.

But if Singh's latest proposal offers a valuable basis for discussion and debate, it also highlights the distinction between Singh's plans and the more ambitious ones on offer in the leadership campaign.

In particular, Singh's plans fall well short of Guy Caron's in two key ways.

First, Singh's limited guarantees leave open the implied statement that many people don't deserve a secure living, including for reasons beyond their control.

It's fair to say that nobody working full-time should live in poverty, nor any senior or person living with a disability. And Singh's plan addresses those specific circumstances.

But Caron has already offered up the much stronger - yet to my mind, also more defensible - statement that nobody should live in poverty.

In effect, Singh's plan makes the debate about poverty one which seeks to redraw the lines as to who receives support - while relying on an underlying assumption that some people aren't deserving of income security. That figures only to help other parties looking to persuade voters that income supports shouldn't be extended at all, while also offering reason for hope to far less people than Caron's. 

And even if one assumed it's better to leave some out-group on the wrong side of an anti-poverty policy, it's far from clear that Singh has drawn the line in the right place.

In particular, a wage tax benefit wouldn't seem to offer support to people who can't find traditional work due to economic or personal circumstances - meaning that the people most excluded from work opportunities might continue to be left out.

Second, Singh plans to roll more of the existing social safety net into his plan, leaving less additional supports available where they're needed based on individual circumstances.

While Caron's plan would overtake only the Guaranteed Income Supplement among existing seniors' supports, Singh's would usurp the place of several more. And Singh also explicitly plans to roll the existing Working Income Tax Benefit into his plan.

Lest there be any doubt, Singh's combined plan for improved income supports would still make for a major improvement on the status quo. And it's for the best that he's managing to get the media talking about egalitarian messages even if his policy doesn't fully give effect to them.

But it also does reflect some meaningful differences in principle and policy compared to what other candidates have put forward. And Singh will need to justify his more limited proposals in order to win over voters looking for a leader who can win on principle.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign...

- Marie-Danielle Smith reports that Jagmeet Singh is laying the groundwork to join the race. And Steve Paikin offers his take as to what that might mean for the current candidates - while also raising the (seemingly unlikely) prospect that Thomas Mulcair might join the fray.

- Meanwhile, Eleanor Davidson reports on the much lower-profile entry of Ibrahim Bruno El-Khoury. And anybody looking for some background on El-Khoury's view of the NDP can find it on the site set up when he was seeking the party's nomination in Papineau.

- Cory Collins interviews Guy Caron about both his basic income proposal, and the political strategy needed to win power to implement it. Charlie Angus writes about the need to question CEO perks (and the public policies that facilitate them) in order to ensure fairness for workers. James Kelly talks to Niki Ashton about her work to build a Bernie Sanders-like movement in Canada. And Ian Capstick's On the Road podcast features conversations with the MPs in the race about their experiences in school.

- Finally, Ed Broadbent highlights the need for the NDP to set the political agenda no matter who emerges as leader, while Kristy Kirkup interviews Broadbent about his take at the Progress Summit. Kenneth Dewar discusses what he sees as tension between strong principles and a path to power - though he doesn't provide much evidence that one is actually a barrier to the other. And Thomas Woodley wonders whether an amicable leadership campaign will allow NDP members to test which candidates can best challenge Justin Trudeau's political skills and policy choices.

Leadership 2017 Links

This and that from the NDP's leadership campaign.

- Among the coverage of the first leadership debate which I hadn't linked before, Karl Nerenberg offers both a ranking and a review. And Yves Engler asks why the first debate largely avoided foreign policy issues - though there's still plenty of campaign left in which to address them.

- Jeremy Nuttall reports on Guy Caron's plan to build the NDP's economic credibility. Althia Raj writes about Sid Ryan's possible candidacy. Dr. Dawg comments on the (overwrought) controversy surrounding Niki Ashton's reference to a Beyoncé lyric, while Jonathon Naylor rightly highlights Ashton's progressive platform and activist focus. And Cheri DiNovo is optimistic that the NDP's new leadership will provide the democratic socialist alternative Canada needs.

- Charlie Angus writes about the importance of a government willing and able to stand up for workers.

- Finally, Alex Boutilier offers a reminder as to the surprising prelude to the current leadership campaign. And Dru Oja Jay discusses the importance of also looking for opportunities to build future leaders for Canada's progressive movement - and ensuring that the NDP is the party which embodies their values.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Alex Hemingway reviews the evidence on two-tiered medicine from around the developed world, and concludes that a constitutional attack on universal health care would only result in our paying more for less.

- Marc Lee takes a look at the national climate change framework released last week and finds it to fall short in both its insufficient goals, and a lack of a clear plan to achieve them. 

- Erika Shaker examines the difficulties families face as a result of unavailable and unaffordable child care. 

- Martin Regg Cohn nicely highlights the two-faced Ontario PCs, who are denouncing social conservatism publicly while proclaiming it to be a top priority behind closed doors. And both Michael Den Tandt and Michael Harris point out that the NDP is nicely positioned to fill the federal vacuum created by a combination of disappointing corporatist Libs and ineffective Cons.

- Finally, Dave Seglins and Rachel Houlihan report on Dennis Molinaro's discovery of a secret 1951 Canadian cabinet memo authorizing RCMP spying against "subversives" in perpetuity. (And judging from the federal government's response complaining that disclosure would affect ongoing operations, there's reason to suspect that it's still being applied.)

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Roy Romanow writes about the dangers of focusing unduly on raw economic growth, rather than measuring our choices by how they actually affect people's well-being:

At the national level, the picture that emerges over the past 21 years is a GDP rebounding post-recession but Canadians literally continuing to pay the price. From 1994 to 2008, the living standards domain rose 23 per cent. Then it plummeted almost 11 per cent and has yet to recover. Gains made on reducing long-term unemployment and improving the employment rate were lost. Income inequality is rising. And, despite increases in median family incomes, millions of Canadians struggle with food and housing costs. When living standards drop, community, cultural and democratic participation follow suit. Surely, this is not our vision of equality and fairness in Canada.

(Canadians) were hardest hit in the leisure and culture domain, which declined by 9 per cent overall. We’re taking less time enjoying arts, culture, sports — even vacations — the very activities that help define us as individuals. On the eve of Canada’s sesquicentennial, household spending on culture and recreation is at its lowest point in 21 years.

To begin to narrow the gap, we can build on strengths, such as the education domain. Since domains are highly interrelated, we know that when more people graduate from high school and university, there is a positive effect on health and on almost all aspects of social, economic, and community participation. Strength in community vitality shows Canadians feel they belong and readily help one another. Collectively, we sense that action is required. There is growing support for forward-thinking programs, such as basic income and upstream health care approaches that tackle well-being issues at their roots.

- Neil MacDonald highlights some of the obvious problems with the Libs' plan to go even further down that road with an infrastructure bank. And Dru Oja Jay argues that instead of pushing to put all major infrastructure development under the control of the existing financial sector, the Libs should be working on building a banking system that works for people.

- Carl Zimmer discusses the devastating effect global warming is already having on the Arctic region. And CBC reports on the massive health benefits of eliminating the use of coal power.

- Finally, Chelsea Nash reports on Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand's observation that there are necessarily tradeoffs between facilitating voting and centralizing information in the hands of political parties - and it should come as no surprise that the Cons are trying to prevent the former by claiming their entitlement to the latter. And Althia Raj reports that Thomas Mulcair is leading the charge to restore public funding in order to reduce the influence of big money in politics.

Just so we're clear...

Making any move to push out a still-respected interim leader just as he returns to the Parliamentary setting where he does his best work would be foolish.

Abandoning a long-term base of voters who want to see sustainable choices in both environmental and economic policy in an attempt to take second place in the Most Mindless Opposition Pipeline Cheerleader Awards would be no less so.

There's plenty actually worth focusing on this fall as a matter of both principle and political opportunity - including threats to health care and civil liberties, as well as the possibility of a more fair electoral system. And party members and Canada as a whole need the NDP to live up to the challenges, rather than letting anonymous backbiting get in the way.

New column day

Last week, I wrote that the NDP should be careful about assuming that changes in leadership would necessarily help in a needed process of party renewal.

Obviously, both elected to seek out new leadership. And so in this week's column, I point out that leadership races shouldn't put on hold any answer to the broader questions about the proper structure and role of a political party. And in fact, the absence of any single person to direct a party from the top down should offer an opportunity to build grassroots involvement.

Spun out

Sadly, there are far too many half-baked outside arguments being made about the federal NDP's leadership review and how it connects to provincial-level choices. (To be clear, I contrast those against some genuine concerns being raised by members.) But let's highlight one particularly telling example of how the NDP in general is being misrepresented by the same people trying to push Mulcair out of the picture.

Here's the Alberta NDP's platform in the campaign which resulted in its historic victory last year, emphasizing a royalty review, an increased minimum wage, more progressive taxes, reversing cuts and enhancing public services.

The exercise for the reader is to assess whether this better reflects:
(a) a "rush to the centre", as Warren Kinsella says in an attempt to tar the NDP's successful campaigns with the same brush as its unsuccessful ones; or
(b) "a progressive platform consistent with the NDP's values", as I argued in pointing to it as an example worth following.

I'm not sure how anybody can conclude (a) without needing to do so in order to fit a convenient narrative. And again, we can fairly say that anybody whose main agenda includes trying to diminish the NDP's progressive victories shouldn't be paid much heed in deciding on the NDP's future.

New column day

Here, on the leadership choices facing the federal and provincial NDP - and why neither should be too quick to assume that changing leaders will necessarily help to rebuild after election disappointments.

For further reading...
- I've dealt with the background to the federal party's decision on Mulcair in a previous series of posts leading to last night's performance review, as well as this column. And plenty more people have offered varying takes on Mulcair's leadership which deserve a look (even if I don't necessarily agree) - including Nicholas Ellan, Peter Thurley, Tom Parkin, Benjamin Fox Dickerson, Bill Tieleman, Peggy Nash and Dan Harris.
- Mulcair's latest rating as a potential prime minister can be found via Nanos here (PDF). And Cam Broten's approval ratings from the provincial election campaign are here and here, showing him at a steady 39%.
- Finally, CBC offers a roundup of NDP reactions to this week's election result. 

[Edit: updated link.]

On performance reviews

Following up on this post, I'll weigh in with my own take on the federal NDP's leadership review - based primarily on the question of what Tom Mulcair seems to have taken away from the 2015 federal election, and how it will position the party in the years to come.

As alluded to in some previous posts, I'd sum up my expectations in the wake of the election to be roughly the following:
- to critically assess what happened in the previous election campaign to determine what lessons can be learned, both for better and for worse;
- to put to rest any (however implausible) question as to which is the most progressive party in Parliament;
- to prioritize MP empowerment and outreach over caution and discipline;
- to transition away from "default opposition" status toward a stronger focus on policies and values; and
- to focus on long-term and broad-based movement-building, including with a concerted effort to approach people who were excluded from involvement with the party.

And on all counts, I'd see Mulcair as having at least taken meaningful steps down the right path.

The NDP's interim report and final campaign review (PDF) has received plenty of attention. And both offer at least a useful high-level set of reflections and ideas. 

But some of the more noteworthy moves since the election also include significant issue-based initiatives by MPs, as well as a strong policy focus on inequality, precarious work and fairness for First Nations. And Mulcair's own pre-budget tour featured ample interactions with party activists and interested newcomers alike, while his pre-convention discussions have included some important recognition of the need to build from the NDP's membership base.

The most important question for me is then whether those steps should be seen as a temporary nod to the base in light of the impending leadership review, or the starting point in building the movement needed to elect a truly progressive federal government. And I see both reason for optimism that Mulcair himself recognizes the need for a change in course following the election, and another opportunity to address any continued shortcomings at the next NDP policy convention.

When the generally positive direction in a new political environment is combined with the strengths Mulcair has always brought to the table, I'm looking forward to seeing what he can work on building given the opportunity. And so I'll be voting to support Mulcair in Edmonton - with both the hope and the expectation that we'll see more sustainable party renewal without a leadership race than with one.

On evaluations

I've written previously about my view as to how NDP members should approach the review of Thomas Mulcair's leadership at the upcoming federal convention. And in the face of a blizzard of commentary which does little but to echo knee-jerk election post-mortems, I'll offer a couple of questions for discussion (before providing my own answers in a later post).

First, what should members expect and hope to see from Mulcair as leader of the third party?

And second, how have his actions since the 2015 election compared to those expectations?

While I'm interested in readers' views on those points, they can also be applied as a filter to expose punditry which doesn't deserve much attention. After all, anybody unwilling to think about what the NDP should be doing as a party - or to pay attention to what it's actually done - should probably be treated with skepticism in pronouncing judgment on either side as to Mulcair's leadership.

On threshold questions

Althia Raj is predictably dispensing Lib talking points about the potential outcomes of the NDP's leadership review. So to set the record straight, let's examine what the numbers actually mean.

There's exactly one threshold which produces a binding outcome:

3(a).v
At every convention that is not a leadership convention; a secret ballot vote will be held to determine whether or not a leadership election should be called. If 50% plus one delegate supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one year of the convention vote.

So yes, 50%+1 is indeed the standard to set in motion a mandatory leadership election process.

In contrast, any other threshold being thrown around within the pundit class is simply a matter of judgment. Any leader has the discretion to step down at any time - and talk of 70% or any other number represents pure speculation as to whether Mulcair might choose to resign his post, even though he's won in terms of the formal requirement to stay on without further review. And whatever numbers anybody else throws out, we wouldn't necessarily expect a matter of personal judgment - as distinct from voting process - to be defined in advance.

At the same time, nothing in the NDP's process suggests that a leader could lose on a majority vote, but deny the vote has any significance after the fact by claiming uncertainty about voters' intentions. Because that would just be asinine.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Claire Provost writes that corporate trade agreements are designed to make it more difficult to pursue fair tax systems:

Governments must be able to change their tax systems to ensure multinationals pay their fair share and to ensure that critical public services are well funded. States must also be able to reconsider and withdraw tax breaks previously granted to multinationals if they no longer fit with national priorities.

But their ability to do so, to change tax laws and pursue progressive tax policies, is limited, thanks to trade and investments agreements. In rapidly developing ‘corporate courts’, formally known as investor-state dispute settlement system (or ISDS), foreign investors can sue states directly at international tribunals.
...
Because control over taxes is seen as core to a country’s sovereignty, many states have included tax-related ‘carve-out’ clauses in these trade and investment treaties to limit ability of corporations and other investors to sue over such disputes. But a growing number of investor-state cases have in fact challenged government tax decisions – from the withdrawal of previously granted tax breaks to multinationals to the imposition of higher taxes on profits from oil and mining.
...
(E)ven the prospect of an ISDS case can be a powerful deterrent for states considering actions against multinationals. These cases can drag on for years, and are extremely expensive. Even if a state successfully defends itself, it often ends up facing million dollar legal bills regardless. The only safe course of action is to never challenge multinational corporations - a dangerous prospect for the public interest that could thwart necessary, progressive action for tax justice.

- Michael Winship interviews Naomi Klein about the inability of markets to deal with the threat of climate change. And Mike De Souza reports on the complete imbalance between corporate and public interests at the moment by pointing out how thoroughly Stephen Harper's National Energy Board appointees have undermined any attempt to enforce pipeline safety rules.

- Christina Pazzanese examines the connection between economic inequality and democratic disenfranchisement in the U.S. And Tom Mulcair writes about a few of the ways the federal budget could lessen inequality in Canada.

- Finally, John Oliver duly slams the spread of voter ID laws as a means of rigging elections at the expense of voting rights:

New column day

Here, with my take on the factors NDP members should take into account in evaluating Tom Mulcair's leadership.

For further reading...
- I've written numerous previous posts on the future of Mulcair and the NDP which expand on the points made in the column.
- Michael den Tandt offers his view of Mulcair. Chantal Hebert and Tim Harper serve as examples of the knee-jerk "dump the leader!" reaction which I see as calling for pushback. And while Justin Ling is somewhat alarmist about the NDP's past actions, his analysis deserves a serious look for the future. 
- Finally, I'll reiterate my view that the NDP's long-term focus needs to be grassroots-driven and inclusive rather than relying on yet more central control - meaning that limiting a review to the party's executive (or putting MPs alone in charge of assessing Mulcair's future) doesn't look to be a useful response.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- David Sirota and Andrew Perez expose Steve Schwarzman's galling complaints that his perceived lessers dare to complain about declining security and stagnating incomes. And Aditya Chakrabortty discusses how the wealthiest few people have manipulated our political and economic systems into their own playthings:

(D)ecades of burgeoning inequality – of the Davos set scooping more and more of the gains from growth – have enabled the super-rich to pretend that their narrow sectional interests are what’s good for the world economy. Policies as manifestly unfair as QE would never have happened in a fairer economy – the UK and US would have relied instead on public investment and government programmes.

Massive inequality has allowed the 1% to buy political influence as never before in postwar history. Indeed, the super-rich now practically write their own tax laws – such as the way senior executives of Britain’s biggest businesses were invited by George Osborne to advise on overhauling corporation taxes. They get to ensure that tax havens are treated with due leniency, all the better to hide their trillions in them. They buy their own politicians, as with the shadow-bankers who funded the Conservative election campaign or the billionaire Koch brothers using their fortune to tip the US presidential contest. Indeed, the more ambitious decide to become politicians. Think not just of Donald Trump but former bond trader turned media mogul turned mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg.

The great mistake made by the mainstream left and right, even by NGOs such as Oxfam, is in imagining that the super-rich, now enjoying such massive riches, are somehow playing by the same rules as the rest of us. That they are “wealth creators” providing jobs and investment for the rest of us, or that they might give up their tax havens. If that ever were the case, it isn’t now. A tiny minority has gained from massive tax cuts and legislative leniency about where they shove their money. They have siphoned off gains in salaries and profits wherever possible and enjoyed hundreds of billions flowing into their asset markets. Meanwhile, the rest of us who provide the feedstock for their revenues see our welfare states hollowed out, our wages frozen and our employers failing to invest. But none of that matters very much in Davos.

- Fram Dinshaw reports on Tom Mulcair's work to highlights the problems with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, while Sujata Day provides her own critique of another plan to transfer money and power from people to corporations. And Janyce McGregor reports that the "there is no alternative!" talk surrounding the CETA is giving way to renegotiation due to justified concerns about its dispute settlement provisions.

- Seth Klein offers his ideas for the next federal budget. And PressProgress points to Alberta's decades of conservative mismanagement as an example to avoid.

- Finally, Alvaro Bedoya reminds us that there's nothing new in governments claiming "national security" as an excuse to abuse civil rights - and that the same excuse has been regularly used to spy on and disrupt the likes of Martin Luther King Jr.

On timing

Following up on the subject of the federal NDP's leadership, I'll note that the Edmonton convention won't figure to be the only one before the next federal election - and that there might be a case to hold off for now.

The NDP's constitution provides for conventions not less than every other calendar year, meaning that another one should take place well in advance of the 2019 election. And there are factors mostly beyond the NDP's control which may influence any question as to who is best suited to lead the party.

In particular, there's likely some truth to the theory that a different electoral system might produce different incentives for political parties in general. And Mulcair may be a textbook example of a leader better suited to some systems than to others for members primarily concerned with electoral viability.

Mulcair's broad acceptability is a particularly strong asset under first-past-the-post or alternative voting systems, particularly if his relative fortune compared to Justin Trudeau gets reversed again. But in a more proportional system, somebody with a stronger personal connection to issue-based organizing might be better suited to take on the leadership role.

And there are plenty of other risk/reward considerations involved in holding a leadership race sooner rather than later. Even if one assumes a leadership race will happen at some point, the value of building a new leader's personal brand over a longer period of time can be weighed against the advantage of knowing who other parties (notably the Cons) will be putting forward before making any final decisions.

I won't presume to wade through all of the considerations which might affect a party decision as to who ought to lead it. But I do think it's safe to say there might be something to be gained by gathering more information before making any irreversible choices.