That’s a novel take. Broadly speaking I agree that, with some very notable exceptions, the world is becoming more respectful of equality and justice. But Mr. Obama lost three-and-a-half million votes in 2012 after a first term in which he didn’t close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre; authorized the assassination of Osama bin Laden, and of both foreign and American citizens abroad using drones; implemented an enormously complex package of health-care reforms from which any other “progressive” nation would flee in terror; and generally governed in a way that Canadian progressives would abhor were it transposed on to Parliament Hill.

And hang on: Are “equality, sustainability and justice” exclusively progressive values? Since when?

[related_links /]

The Broadbent Institute is generally seen as a reaction — an overdue one, some argue — by the Canadian left to the Manning Centre, which is “dedicated to building Canada’s conservative movement … by strengthening the knowledge, skills, ethical foundations, and networks of political practitioners.” Unfortunately, the reaction seems to be equal and opposite.

In its 2011 “barometer” poll, conducted by Harris-Decima, Manning put a series of position statements to respondents. Among the most “conservative” responses were the following:

• 80% agreed that “when trying to find solutions to problems, it is a good idea to learn from what has worked in the past” — as opposed to, say, asking a capuchin monkey to spin a solution wheel.
• 74% agreed that “we need to promote entrepreneurship in this country” — as opposed to promoting, say, late-period Albanian-style communism.
• 67% agreed that “government is too concerned with what is going on in the world and not enough with taking care of things here at home” — which could just as easily be an isolationist progressive position.
• And my favourite — 60% agreed that “there is a right and wrong, and it is not all about individual perception.”

You get the idea. The Manning Centre wanted to prove (as the report put it) that “the ideological ‘centre’ [had] shifted to a new conservative orthodoxy.” So it called a bunch of thoroughly mainstream positions conservative, and declared the resolution proven.

Now, back to the Broadbent Institute, for which Environics surveyed urban and suburban Canadians. The survey presented respondents with two statements on a variety of different topics — one progressive, the other less so, in their view — and asked which came closer to their opinion.

Turns out Canadians want more government services, universal health care, support for seniors, poverty and income disparity reduction, action on climate change, peacekeeping, equalization and health regulations to keep us safe. They also say they’re willing to pay for most of this lovely stuff — the true measure of one’s conviction, surely — which is where I get a bit skeptical. But anyway, no surprises there. Broadbent has a much easier case to make than Manning.

Who in their right mind believes that the global financial crisis was ’caused by forces beyond anyone’s control’? Was it divine intervention?

Still, the Broadbentians can’t help overreaching. Based on the data in their report, they declare that “Canada is progressive and becoming more so” — except this is the first time they have run these specific questions. Anyone can cherry-pick data to bolster a case for a more right-wing or left-wing Canada. But Environics’ Focus Canada project suggests Canadians’ core values are pretty stable: Pride in being Canadian was exactly the same in its 2012 survey (71% very proud, 22% somewhat) as it was in 1994; the major bases of that pride, likewise, are broadly similar; and there has been little change in what people consider the most important Canadian symbols — health care, the Charter, the flag, national parks. (Oddly enough, the RCMP has dropped markedly.)

Most amusingly, the Broadbent report notes that 77% agreed that “the root cause of the [2008 financial] crisis was a lack of government oversight of the banking sector,” and therefore an argument for tight regulation, as opposed to that “the crisis was caused by forces beyond anyone’s control.”

You can tell Canadians they’re more progressive or more conservative than they used to be all you like. It doesn’t seem to be true

First of all, the federal Conservatives can’t stop boasting about our well-regulated banking system; hell, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has lately been phoning in mortgage rates. Second of all, who in their right mind believes that the global financial crisis was “caused by forces beyond anyone’s control”? Was it divine intervention? Did God package up and sell all those bad mortgages?

You can tell Canadians they’re more progressive or more conservative than they used to be all you like. It doesn’t seem to be true, and I don’t much see the point of the exercise anyway — especially if, as polls currently suggest, we’re all liable to stampede to the guy with the nice hair and not very many ideas. Successful Canadian governments govern from the middle, because that’s where most Canadians are. That shows no sign of changing.

National Post

Chris Selley: • cselley@nationalpost.com | cselley

Furthermore, it says that Canadians’ tax bills have gone up almost 1800% since 1961 – and that the balance between taxes and necessities has changed dramatically in the last half century. They claim that food, clothing and shelter accounted for 56.5% of the family budget back in 1961 and taxes took up just 33.5%.

The conservative think-tank, which often comes up with such alarming statistics, also says their numbers don’t include government deficits, which aren’t covered by taxes today but will have to be paid off somewhere down the road.

Scary stuff, for sure. And it makes it sound like life was pretty rosy back in the early 1960’s.

But, hold on for a second. Before you get your bags packed for a trip in the “wayback machine,” you might want to check out a counterpoint offered by the left-wing Broadbent Institute, run by former federal NDP leader Ed Broadbent. In rebutting the Fraser Institute’s claims about the exploding 1800% tax bill, Broadbent says, “While that’s a clear exaggeration that ignores inflation, what is astounding is that their numbers don’t even remotely hold up.”

Broadbent says the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development indicates Canadian tax bills are a bit over 38% of GDP and that, rather than increasing, the percentage has actually dropped from a high of about 45% back in the late 1990’s.

As well as failing to take inflation into account, Broadbent also reminds us how different life was back in 1960 when there was no universal health care, no Canada Pension Plan and paltry Old Age Security benefits. Additionally, his report says access to post-secondary education was mostly limited to the rich and there was a massive wage gap between men and women.

Broadbent also questions why it’s considered a good thing that 56.5% of a family’s income went to basic necessities back in 1961, while it’s only 37% now. He makes a good point. When you add up the totals, 90% of income went to taxes and necessities in the old days, while only 80% is allocated now. That leaves a larger chunk of disposable income for the average household, on top of the fact that we have universal health care, a national pension system, more security for seniors, better access to education and a host of other social services already being factored into our tax dollars.

The Broadbent Institute concludes, “The fundamental point is that we are much richer as a society than we were back in 1961. Not only do we have more to spend on consumer goods today, we also choose to spend a bigger slice of the pie on social programs, education, and public services.”

Looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses or bending numbers to make things look better is nothing new. It happens all the time. When people talk about “the good old days,” they’re often just remembering the positive points about the past, while conveniently sweeping all those pesky negatives under the rug.

Life today certainly isn’t perfect. If you want to, it’s not too difficult to compile a massive list of all the bad things about the world we live in. But, if you honestly believe you’d be better off living back a half-century ago or in some other long-past era, maybe you should take the time to start an alternate list of how much better life is today. Once you do, chances are you’ll cancel your plans for that trip in the wayback machine. As Broadbent says, “The Fraser Institute can stay in 1961 if they want… but I’m happier to be living in 2013.”

On the other hand, since the U.S. election the press here has been filled with admiring commentary on how the Republicans could learn a thing or two from Stephen Harper. Didn’t he purge his party of any vestige of “ideology,” ruthlessly suppressing those MPs who did not stick to the party line — namely, that they had none?

[np-related /]

And not only the Conservatives. The NDP is also praised for having moved to the centre (“where elections are won”), steering well clear, under its new helmsman, of any stray icebergs of principle that might impede its voyage to power. When the Broadbent Institute, a party think tank, issued a report on what it called the growing problem of inequality in Canadian society, party insiders were applauded for their shrewd disavowal of interest.

As for the Liberals, well, we know what fate awaits them, if they don’t smarten up: “third party status.” Could anything be more ghastly? The sooner the party picks someone popular as its leader, the better. Should some pedants insist on first debating what the party stands for, they will only get what they deserve. For we all know what happens to parties that stand for something — something, that is, other than the status quo, or whatever the other parties stand for, or both.

Scratch beneath the surface of much political coverage, and you find the same unstated assumptions at work. The purpose of a party is to seek power. All else is secondary. Unless it is in power, or close to it, it is nothing. Everything, therefore, must be subordinated to the single objective of winning power.

The reason the Republican position on gay marriage, for example, finds fewer takers may simply be on the evidence

Policies, in particular, are not to be valued in themselves, nor is it a party’s role to advocate for any specific set of ideas. Rather, they are simply the means to an end, to be adopted or discarded strictly according to whether they draw the party nearer or farther from power.

Thus the Republicans are urged, not merely to change their tone or personnel, but to abandon key policies: on immigration, on gay rights, on abortion, but also on taxes and spending. The people who make these arguments may personally believe these are bad policies — indeed, as a matter of observation they typically do — but that is not the reason they present for the about-face they urge upon the party. Rather, it is asserted that this is what the party needs to do to win.

This may well be true. And indeed this is one way to think about the purpose of politics: as the pursuit of power, and power alone. I merely want to suggest this is not the only way to think about it. An alternative approach would ask, not whether a policy is likely to make a party more or less popular, but is it right?

As it happens, I think some of the Republicans’ policies are wrong. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest their unpopularity with the voters might not be unconnected with that: that they are unpopular because they are wrong, and therefore that it is not necessary to think of the two, power and principle, as inevitably opposed.

The reason the Republican position on gay marriage, for example, finds fewer takers may simply be on the evidence: more and more states have legalized it, and neither marriage nor the world has ended. Before gay marriage was a reality, it was possible to conjure all manner of terrible harms that would follow. Now that it is here, the conservative critique is collapsing.

Of course, a party that stubbornly hews to discredited policies may yet be judged harshly

But suppose you sincerely believed it was harmful: that it would do dreadful damage to a vital institution, with who knows what further consequences for society. Would you not have a moral obligation to say so, and not only to say so, but to give it an emphasis in line with its seriousness? Would that duty not hold, not in spite of public opposition, but because of it? Is it not possible for a party to make a contribution, not by winning power, but by changing minds?

The same might be said of the NDP. I don’t agree with the typical New Democrat’s views (which the Broadbent Institute was only expressing) on income inequality, any more than I agree with the Republican position on gay marriage. But I’d hate to see either party abandon these positions solely because they didn’t think they could get elected on them. I’d rather they did so because they became sincerely convinced they were wrong.

Of course, a party that stubbornly hews to discredited policies may yet be judged harshly: it has an obligation to be right, not just sincere. And yes, a party that wishes to be heard has an obligation to be relevant. You only have a limited window to make your case to the public, and so it is probably wise to address yourself to a few priorities: the public’s, or others you think the public is missing. Last, a party has an obligation to be persuasive: to avoid extreme rhetoric or personal nastiness, and to weed out those candidates who seem incapable of expressing themselves otherwise.

But none of these oblige a party to abandon policies it believes to be both right and relevant, merely because this might make it easier to win power. It might suit certain people within the parties to think that is all there is to politics, but that’s no reason the rest of us have to.

Postmedia News
Twitter: @acoyne

The paper, released to Postmedia News on Monday, argues that developing a comprehensive policy agenda — which could include affordable housing, improvements to Employment Insurance, “fair” taxes and a national prescription drug program — is needed to address the problem.

What’s concerning is that inequality is getting worse instead of better, and while Canada has the financial means to turn this around, those steps aren’t being taken, said former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, the founder of the left-leaning institute.

“We’ve had this policy of slashing taxes, and particularly disproportionately, slashing the taxes of the rich. It’s time we reverse this,” Broadbent said.

“It’s not as if we don’t have the wealth, but it’s the distribution of the wealth that really matters.”

Income inequality, sometimes known as the shrinking of the middle class, occurs when there is a large polarization between the top and the bottom of society in terms of their share of economic resources, according the institute.

The Conference Board of Canada and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have both recently pointed out that Canada is becoming more unequal, more quickly than most other countries in the OECD, Broadbent said.

For instance, the Conference Board of Canada reported in 2011 that, between the mid-1990s and the late 2000s, Canada had the fourth-largest increase in income inequality out of 17 peer countries. Canada was ranked 12th out of those countries, a slip to “below the average.”

One of the effects of this is that there’s less upward mobility, Broadbent said, adding that there’s “overwhelming” evidence that an unequal society decreases the opportunity for climbing.

“Most Canadians grew up with the expectations that their son or daughter could be whatever they want to be, whether it’s a hockey player or a brain surgeon … now the reality is, if you want to live the ‘American dream’, you should move to Sweden,” Broadbent said.

And beyond economic indicators, income inequality affects everything from health to political participation to crime rates, Broadbent said. And what people need to understand is that this affects everybody in the population – not just the poor, he said.

Several recent studies have found that more “equal countries,” such as Germany and Sweden, do better overall than “unequal countries” such as Canada and the United States when it comes to indicators such as life expectancy, the incidence of mental illness, obesity and homicide rates, the institute’s paper noted.

“Yes, the poor suffer. And we know that, and we have too high a level of poverty, but the really serious thing that we should be aware of is that, with this degree of inequality, everybody suffers,” Broadbent said.

There is no “single magic bullet,” to achieve greater equality, the paper said, and urged that a comprehensive policy agenda must become a core political commitment. And while a commitment to equality must come from all levels of government, leadership must come from the feds, the paper said.

“The federal government has many of the key levers — especially income security programs, a progressive tax system, and transfers to the province — needed to combat inequality,” the report said.

The report, Towards a More Equal Canada, is part of the Broadbent Institute’s Equality Project, which was launched earlier in 2012.

At a time when the NDP has slipped, just slightly, in public opinion polls and just weeks after the party’s new leader Thomas Mulcair came under fire for comments about Alberta’s oilsands, friends and loved ones are reaching out to Canadians as part of efforts to mark the death of the former NDP leader who led the party to official Opposition status for the first time in Canadian electoral history.

On Wednesday, organizers will launch DearJack.ca, a website aimed at honouring Layton’s deathbed letter to Canadians urging them to create a better world by being more “loving,” “hopeful” and “optimistic” — and on Aug. 22, the actual anniversary of his death, a live tribute will take place at Toronto’s Nathan Phillips Square.

“The idea is essentially to allow Canadians to express in some way, whether it’s (through) video, photos, Twitter messages or Facebook posts, how they see Jack’s vision is still alive today,” said Kathleen Monk of the Broadbent Institute, the left-leaning think tank spearheading the initiative.

“It’s reflecting on the letter that many Canadians thought was a very powerful piece of writing.”

But since the letter was also a “call to action,” Monk said organizers hope the website will ultimately become a forum where people can share their own vision for a better Canada and showcase the actions they’ve taken to get there.

While many of the friends and loved ones behind the tribute are indeed New Democrats and it’s likely NDP MPs will participate, Monk said it’s ultimately a “non-partisan” initiative and she’s not worried that some might view the effort as a political attempt to capitalize on Layton’s legacy.

“The family was really clear that they wanted to express their gratitude to Canadians for their help in the grieving process in the past year,” she said.

“I think the family and friends of Jack Layton have driven this project and I think we’ll see from how the website develops how Jack’s legacy lives on. I’m not concerned.”

Toronto city Coun. Mike Layton said people were already talking about how to mark his father’s legacy within weeks of his death. At the time, many were suggesting an annual “re-chalking” of the sidewalks outside Toronto City Hall which were covered in colourful tributes in the days after Layton’s death.

He expects that will happen, but also describes the website as a more durable version of the chalk tribute.

“What we saw a year ago wasn’t just because of Jack, it was because people do have that hope and I think they want to be reminded of it as much as we want to be reminded of his impact on Canadian politics,” he said.

“By going through this, it gives an opportunity for Canadians to celebrate efforts around that shared vision for a Canada that has greater equality, greater justice and greater opportunity for everyone. I think that’s something that would happen naturally. We just wanted to have a discussion about how we might capture that more effectively.”

Queen’s university political science professor Kathy Brock said the tribute is fitting for somebody who has served the public as long as Layton did and died in office at what many call the “pinnacle” of his success.

“I guess a cynic would say it’s political opportunism but I would regret describing it as that alone,” she said. “Too often in Canada we don’t celebrate our leaders and the people who have served the public interest and it’s nice when we do. It gives people a sense that politics is about something important.”

Layton’s untimely death sparked a huge outpouring of support from across the country. Some 2,500 people, including about 800 members of the public, attended his state funeral while thousands more lined the streets to watch his hearse roll by.

About 11,000 people came to Parliament Hill to pay their respects while he lay in state there. Another 7,300 later did the same at Toronto City Hall, and many also scrawled chalk tributes to the popular leader outside.

tcohen@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/tobicohen

tcohen@postmedia.com

www.Twitter.com/tobicohen

Ali Dar with Kathleen Monk, Carleigh O’Connell and Akihiko Tse of Centennial College journalism, after an interview at the CBC.

Toronto –   Struggling to find words to describe the robocall scandal that has shaken Canadian politics, Kathleen Monk could only characterize it as “really sad”.

The former New Democratic Party political aide and current director of the Broadbent Institute, told a group of journalists that the situation was unfortunate because it supressed the votes of Canadians, something she strives to change.

“Numbers in terms of voter turnout is so important. We don’t want to suppress the vote. We want more people to be engaged, not less. And that’s why it’s really sad,” Monk said in an interview at the CBC in Toronto, where she was preparing to tape a segment for The National.

Monk stated that she believes most individuals enter politics for good reasons and that she doesn’t want “all politicians to be painted negatively” because of what’s happening in the media.

The CBC Insider was speaking to a group of journalists regarding her thoughts on the current political setting of Canada and her life as a political aide.

Monk voiced her displeasure but tried to shift the focus to the positive work that can be done on Parliament Hill. She did admit that negative news overshadows the positive work that politicians do every day.

“It certainly does taint a lot of politicians and doesn’t contribute to Canadians perception about how we operate in Ottawa.”

She made it clear that an investigation into the origins of the scandal is necessary to restore the confidence of Canadians in the electoral and political process.

“I think it’s our job as communicators and people who are involved in politics to show that we’re all not nasty and how you do that, frankly, is get to the bottom of this and that’s why I think the calls for a judicial inquiry are important,” Monk said Tuesday.

The topic of Jack Layton also arose during Monk’s conversation with the journalists.

Monk was the NDP’s director of communications during Layton’s stunning victory as Canada’s official opposition in the 2011 federal elections. She maintained that role until his death in August 2011, of cancer.

She was candid with her thoughts on her former boss, a person she says who was very special.

“He was a very unique politician. I think that some people say to be a politician you have to be tough and you have to be mean, and you got to have thick skin and you have to be calculating and that wasn’t true of Jack.”

Holding back tears, Monk recalled her inability to grieve at the time of Layton’s death. She noted that during her career as a political aide, her job was to “serve her leader” and she said that she did exactly that until the very end for Layton, even going as far as planning his funeral.

A graduate from the London School of Economics and Trent University, Monk had been a journalist prior to her exploration into politics, which she refers to as “life shortening work”. She called it crazy, in retrospect, to leave journalism for politics.

Her newest job as the director for the Broadbent Institute, a progressive think tank group, has allowed her have more time to herself and to focus on her family. It has her based in Ottawa, where she lives with her husband, James Fitz-Morris, of CBC Radio and their two sons.

According to the survey,

Almost two-thirds (64 per cent) of Canadians are willing to pay slightly higher taxes if that’s what it would take to protect our social programs. A majority of Conservative voters (58 per cent) are willing to pay more taxes to protect social programs, while Liberal and NDP voters are even more supportive: 72 per cent of them would pay more.

Interestingly, even high-income earners are as willing as the rest of Canadians to pay slightly more in taxes. It’s only our governments that are offside.

An overwhelming majority of Canadians favour increasing income taxes on the wealthiest — those who make $250,000 to $500,000 or more. Our research shows most Canadians support the introduction of a new 35 per cent inheritance tax on any estate valued above $5 million.

And, finally, the majority of Canadians want corporate Canada to play its part too, supporting the idea of returning corporate tax rates to 2008 levels.

Not to diss Ed Broadbent or his Institute, but there might just be some credibility issues involved in a brand new left-wing organization that conveniently discovers Canadians are actually mad keen on big government. Especially one that has somehow found that almost 60% of Conservatives are on board with tax hikes.

If I recall correctly, there was a Liberal premier in B.C. who had to quit his job after he dumped a surprise HST program on the electorate just after getting elected with no mention of said program. What was his name …  Campbell something? The program itself was subject to a successful recall vote, which forced Campbell’s successor (who isn’t much more popular) to repay $1.6 billion to Ottawa. Funny way to signal an openness to new taxes.

The obvious problem with the Broadbent poll is … everything. According to Mr. Broadbent, Canadians are open to higher taxes “if that’s what it would take” to protect social programs. But run for office on that premise, and he might just discover that most Canadians don’t really think “that’s what it would take.” They’d more likely think improved efficiency, less bureaucracy, and more control on costs and salaries would do the trick.

It’s also evident, from the questions relating to an inheritance tax and corporate taxes, that Canadians are in favour of higher taxes when they only apply to other people. Tax corporations? Sure, go ahead. Tax rich people? Yeah, great idea. Tax me? Hey, wait a minute buster.

The Liberal party tried a similar strategy when it concluded, thanks in part to polls, that Canadians overwhelmingly favoured much greater efforts to protect the environment. Stephane Dion bundled it into a national strategy called the Green Shift, bet his leadership on it, and got walloped. Because Canadians really do favour more environmental protection. They just aren’t willing to pay for it with taxes, lost jobs or serious inconvenience.

I invite the Broadbent Institute to sell its higher-tax strategy to the new NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair, and convince him to make it the basis of his next federal campaign. I suspect he won’t get far. Maybe that’s why Mr. Broadbent worked so hard to prevent Mr. Mulcair from winning the leadership.

National Post