Pipeline approval won’t help the Liberals

If the federal Liberals were as popular as the Trans Mountain pipeline, they would win the upcoming election in a landslide.

image: City News, Edmonton

The problem for the Liberals is that the pipeline is most popular where voters are least likely to vote Liberal and least popular where voters traditionally vote Liberal.

According to an Angus Reid poll, the strongest support for the pipeline is in Alberta and Saskatchewan, 85 and 71 percent respectively (ArmchairMayor.ca, June 21, 2019). That’s where Liberal support is weak. Only a total of five seats were won by the Liberals in the combined provinces. Meanwhile in Quebec, 40 percent disapprove. That’s where the Liberals won 40 seats.

While support for the pipeline in B.C. is 54 per cent, that average doesn’t reflect the difference of opinion between the Lower Mainland and the Interior. People in the Interior generally support the pipeline because of jobs and financial incentives offered by Trans Mountain. An informal poll by Kamloops This Week showed 80 per cent approval. The Lower Mainland opposes the pipeline because of potential spills.

Conservatives are placed in the awkward position of approving of the pipeline while disapproving the Liberals. Cathy McLeod, Conservative MP for Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo, doubted the government’s ability to finish the job:

“I’m not all that optimistic that this government can get it done,” McLeod told Kamloops This Week. Her statement aligns with the Angus Reid poll where 40 percent of respondents didn’t think the pipeline would be built.

Another perceived hurdle is Bill C-69, passed by the Senate last week, which critics say will ensure that the pipeline will never be built.

Bill C-69 imposes more requirements for consulting affected Indigenous communities, widens public participation in the review process and requires climate change to be considered in the building of any development.

The Alberta-based Pembina Institute is cautiously positive of Bill C-69:

“This bill was never about individual projects, but rather a reform of the entire decision-making and assessment process. It is about creating tools and processes to ensure natural resource development decisions, whether about a mine or a dam or a pipeline, are made in a fair way (press release, June 14, 2019) “

If pipelines don’t determine how people vote, what does? Pollster Michael Adams has noticed something new in the way people view immigrants. Twenty years ago, anti-immigrant sentiment was evenly distributed among all three major parties. That’s changed, say Michael Adams, Ron Inglehart, and David Jamison in their article:

“Conservative supporters are more likely to agree with statements strongly hostile to immigration. For example, 50 per cent of Conservatives strongly or somewhat agree that “Overall, there is too much immigration. It threatens the purity of the country.” Fewer than a third of New Democrats (31 per cent) and Liberal supporters (24 per cent) share this belief. This relative concentration of xenophobic sentiment in one party is a new phenomenon in Canada (Globe and Mail, June 14, 2019).”

The researchers are careful to point out that the Conservative Party is not anti-immigrant: they just attract people who are.

Researchers call this the “authoritarian reflex,” a reaction caused by uncertainty and characterized by increased hostility toward “the other,” regardless of whether they are “deviants” in society or foreigners.

The contagion of populism that has been animated by the authoritarian reflex in the U.S. has spilled over into Canada. It will determine the way people vote in way not seen in recent history.

 

Advertisements

Immigration is shaping up to be an election issue

Immigration could be a toxic issue in the upcoming October federal election.

image: realtimetrump.com

Just the talk of anti-immigration by politicians is enough to trigger attacks on some of society’s most vulnerable members.

When presidential candidate Donald Trump campaigned against immigration, the effect was immediate. Thugs took to the streets. Hate crimes went up 20 per cent in Chicago, 50 per cent in Philadelphia, and 62 per cent in Washington DC. After Trump’s election, the hate crimes continued (hate crimes include attacks against all identifiable groups, not just immigrants.) According to a study from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism from California State University, the effect persisted after the election with a 13 per cent increase in hate crimes across America’s ten largest cities.

The Conservatives are gearing up the anti-immigration issue. After the Parliamentary Budget Officer warned that asylum-seekers walking across the Canadian-U.S. border at “unauthorized points” could cost the federal government more than $1-billion over three years, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer immediately tweeted: “Parliamentary Budget Officer: Illegal border crossings cost Canadian taxpayers up to $34,000 per person.”

Scheer ramped up the talk further by saying he strongly opposed Mr. Trudeau’s intention to sign a UN agreement on a multinational approach to migration, saying – ominously but incorrectly – “it gives influence over Canada’s immigration to foreign entities.”

Frank Graves of EKOS and Michael Valpy from the University of Toronto wonder who’s buying this talk: “So why is this happening? For whom is Mr. Scheer beating the drum? (Globe and Mail, December 18, 2018).”

There has been a shift in public opinion on immigration, perhaps fuelled by anti-immigration anger in Europe and the U.S. and rage-about-everything on social media.

Frank and Valpy are puzzled: “On the suddenly inflammatory topic of immigration, Canada has become a paradox.”

In ordinary times, Canadians support immigration. But peel away the anti-immigration rhetoric and you find racism at its core. EKOS research indicates that on the surface, rationales are sensible. Canadians favour immigrants that arrive in an orderly fashion, as opposed to those who arrive unannounced at borders or walk across the border, by ten percent. Not a great difference when you consider the attention that border-crossers get. However, when researchers asked whether they’d prefer to live beside a white newcomer from Europe or brown or black newcomers from somewhere else, “the differences balloon to 200 to 300 percentage points.”

Conservatives tapped into this irrational fear of the other when they ran an ad depicting a black man walking toward the border with his suitcase on little wheels from the U.S. They withdrew the ad but the message lingers: dark-skinned immigrants are scary.

Will racism disguised as anti-immigration bring the Conservatives to power? They will have to tap into fear in supporters from other parties. As it now stands, 40 per cent of Canadians think there are too many visible minorities being admitted to Canada. Of those, 65 per cent identify as Conservative supporters, 20 per cent as New Democrats, and 13 per cent as Liberals.

Perhaps the Conservatives can recruit the fear-mongers organized on Facebook under the banner of “Yellow Vests Canada” which has 107,000 members.

 

The psychology of B.C. voters

At first glance, it looked like the split between interior and lower mainland voters was along the usual lines of social values.

   image: Macleans

Cities tend support liberal social values such as gay marriage, women’s rights, support of immigration, treatment for drug addicts, and poverty reduction. Rural dwellers support conservative values such as the integrity of the conventional family, individualism, and a no-nonsense approach to addiction.

An electoral map illustrates the divide between conservatives (BC Liberal) and progressives (NDP-Greens) with the interior coloured red and the coast and lower mainland orange and green.

This time the split was something else. Closer inspection of swing ridings indicates that something other than social values was at play. The south-east corner of B.C., including the Kootenays, is typically progressive. However Columbia River/Revelstoke swung from NDP to BC Liberal. It’s unlikely that those voters stopped being socially progressive. The Fraser Valley turned orange. It’s unlikely that the farming communities of the valley stopped being socially conservative.

There’s a close correlation between employment and how people voted. The lack of jobs creates a sense of uncertainty, whereas job growth creates optimism.  The interior has not recovered from jobs lost in the Great Recession of 2008. In 2016, the interior lost jobs while the lower mainland and Vancouver Island gained jobs. The Kootenay area was hard hit with a job loss of 2.3 per cent. The lower mainland had a job growth of 4.7 per cent while Vancouver Island had a growth of 2.6 per cent.

Shannon Daub, a director for the CCPA, believes he has the psychology of voters figured out. After talking to resource-sector workers for years, he has seen how government cutbacks in social services create insecurity. It erodes the social safety net and enforces the sense that governments can’t create jobs; that only the resource extraction industry can. And the notion of jobs in a green economy seems vague and remote.

Yet it was the BC Liberals that helped create that uncertainty in the first place. In the early 2000s, the BC Liberals cut public service jobs unevenly across the province with reductions to the interior being about twice that of the lower mainland in terms of percentage. In small communities, one of the top employers is often public service jobs. The loss of even a few well-paying jobs has a greater impact there than in urban areas where the economy is more diversified.

In addition to cuts in public services, the BC Liberals failed to restore jobs lost in the forestry sector to the pine-beetle disaster and deregulation of the industry. The government could have created jobs through value-added products, use of wood waste, and greater reforestation.

Rural B.C. voted for the BC Liberals despite the fact that the Clark government contributed to their uncertainty. Voters see resource-extraction jobs as their only hope and that’s just what the BC Liberals promised with pipelines and dam construction.

Also, energy corporations have been promoting resource-extraction jobs which offer hope. Enbridge has placed full-page ads in The Walrus and on TV Life’s moments, made possible by energy. My Facebook and Twitter feeds have regular ads from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers featuring a heartfelt discussion between a son and dad about cleaning up mining sites once they close.

Conservatives can increase chances by decreasing happiness

The antics of some Conservative leadership hopefuls are pathetic. Chris Alexander at a rally bobs his head in rhythm to the chants “lock her up” in reference to Premier Rachel Notley, tone deaf to the toxic implications; Kellie Leitch calls for immigrants to be tested for “Canadian Values” even though no such test exists and if it did, she would probably fail.

Huffington Post

Huffington Post

Trump-style populism into will not succeed because Canadians are not ripe for such politics –we need more inequality and the resultant unhappiness for this approach to work.

Inequality creates a sense of injustice and anger that manifests itself in a variety of ways. Jan-Emmanuel De Neve and Nattavudh Powdthavee researched the effects of inequality for the Harvard Business Review (January, 2016). They found that anger and stress increased in countries where the richest 1 per cent controlled the greatest share of wealth.

“In societies where the richest hold most of the country’s income, people were more likely to report feeling ‘stressed,’ ‘worried,’ or ‘angry’ on the day before the survey.”

Angry politicians appeal to angry voters. Trump’s anger is what propelled him into power; that’s why his racist and misogynistic views were largely overlooked. He was as mad as hell and wasn’t going to take it any more.

It’s not just anger that is affected. As anger went up, life satisfaction went down.

“We examined data from the Gallup World Poll and the World Top Incomes Database and found that the more income is concentrated in the hands of a few, the more likely individuals are to report lower levels of life satisfaction and more negative daily emotional experiences.”

Life satisfaction exacerbates unemployment. For every 1 per cent increase in the share of income of the top 1 per cent, unemployment rises by 1.4 per cent. There are a couple of factors involved –exporting jobs to areas of cheap labour increases profits; unhappy workers tend to be less productive, take longer sick leaves, and quit their jobs.

At the other end of the scale, greater wealth also creates unhappiness. Nobel laureates Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton calculated that day-to-day happiness peaks at an income of $75,000 a year, after which it plateaus. Inequality creates unhappiness at both ends of the wealth spectrum.

Canada is the sixth most happy country in the world according to the World Happiness Report behind the Scandinavian countries but ahead of the U.S. at thirteenth. Can you guess how these counties rank in equality? Right, the Scandinavian countries are the most equal followed by Canada and then the U.S.

Inequality is rising fastest in the U.S. where the top 1 per cent increased their wealth from 8 per cent of total wealth to 19 per cent in just thirty years (Scientific American, September, 2016).

Equality and satisfaction of life can be increased, and anger reduced, through fair taxes and benefits to the poor: like minimum wages, child care, job security, employment insurance, and an affordable education.

Conservative leadership hopefuls can increase their chances by increasing inequality and decreasing the happiness of Canadians by lowering taxes, increasing tuition, resisting wage hikes, and reducing job security.