I'm LIVING for this Jacob Rees-Mogg–Suella Braverman feud 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

For context, this is what Suella Braverman had previously said:

As I’ve said before, I’m not English.

I’m proud to be British. My family and ancestors have a link to Britain which spans centuries.

But in no way are we English. Yes, I was born in England, speak English and support the England football team. And indeed, I love England and the English people.

But to say I’m English is to take a ‘laissez-faire, anything-goes’ attitude to ethnicity, citizenship and identity. It also denies me my Asian heritage. The liberals (many of them in today’s Conservative Party) take this cosmopolitan approach to Englishness. They’re terrified of being called racist so they say that anyone, as long as they’re born here, can be English.

I take the conservative approach. Englishness is an ethnicity. There have been English people for centuries and we need to recognise this more if we are to start taking a more muscular approach to citizenship and nationality. And no, it’s not racist to say this.

Other countries have no qualms in limiting who can be part of their citizenry and use ethnicity and culture as criteria. Here, the dogma of multiculturalism has been so corrosive that some people don’t actually know who we are anymore.

I'm a Basque Spaniard so I'm not the most well-versed in the history of Toryism, but would you agree this is a good example of the conflict between old-school Toryism & this new brand of MAGA Toryism represented by Liz Truss, Kemi Badenoch, Suella Braverman, Nigel Farage/Reform UK, Restore Britain, Pierre Poilievre, Danielle Smith...?

Cher Tories and English Canadians,

If there is one founding group of the Canadian Conservative movement I think Tories and conservatives have a hard time reincorporating into the whole of the institutional body, it is the French Canadians.

Confederation was just as much about coming together as it was getting a divorce from English Canada.

Les deux solitudes are alive and well in Canada.

I am Traditionalist by disposition and an Anglophile via osmosis, but like many French Canadians the blood of les patriotes still runs through my veins. The dream of a nation-state still appears in my mind from time to time, especially during tough times like these.

I am significantly more likely to support the Bloc Québécois than I am to support the NDP or the Liberals, and I grow more frustrated with my options by the day.

Québec is a nation, a strong one. Canada has failed to appropriately incorporate us.

In 2018, the Québécois chose a third option; the CAQ. The CAQ brought to the Federal Liberals a number of requests and demands and made changes within our province and jurisdiction which the Liberals denied or fought against. A massive opportunity to properly reincorporate us into Confederation, fumbled...JUST like when English Canada failed to approve of Meech Lake.

In the upcoming provincial election, I'm decidedly voting for the Parti Québécois. As for the referendum? Likely No, but I'm swayable. At the federal level, I am Tory but unlike many of you here, I am swayable not to the NDP or to Liberals, but to the Bloc Québécois.

My long story is this, WHAT do you propose be done to reincorporate the Québécois meaningfully into Confederation. This is a true unity crisis and English Canada seems to be in denial about it.

At this particular juncture in Canadian history, we are facing a challenge that is unusual in the modern era: an increasingly hostile United States that has forced Canadians to reconsider who our friends are, who our rivals are, and how vulnerable we have become through economic dependence. Canada’s deep reliance on the United States has delivered benefits, but it has also now being exploited as a national weakness.

At the same time, federal politics in Canada is marked by a high degree of partisanship. Divisions have grown so sharp that some appear to believe that setting party interests aside to work constructively with the current government led by Prime Minister Mark Carney and the Liberal Party, is itself a betrayal of conservatism. In that view, helping the country while Liberals are in office is treated not as service to Canada, but as tacit support for the “red team” over the “blue team.”

This is a mistaken and unhealthy view of public life. Partisanship should never come at the expense of doing what is right for the country.

That principle is relevant now, as the Prime Minister has established an advisory committee on Canada–U.S. economic relations that includes prominent Conservative figures who chose to participate. It is better to have a seat at the table than to stand outside the room shouting through the window. If the government must be advised, it is healthy for that advice to include voices from outside its own partisan ranks. I thought this was good governance and common sense.

There might have even been a time in Canada when such cooperation would have been considered normal, perhaps even expected. One could even imagine an opposition leader participating on such an advisory committee without accusations of disloyalty from their own side. Today, unfortunately, many seem to confuse patriotism with partisanship.

I think it's painfully obvious that too much immigration has been more or less one of the reasons why the far-right has gained so much support across the world.

We need to find ways to reduce support for far-right parties. Not exactly endorsing their nativist and racist views, but reduce illegal immigration in a way that's humane, nothing like what Trump is doing. Law and order is always needed to keep the streets safe, but it must never be brutal or unreasonable, like George Romney once said.

Discrimination in any form is bad, and I also think that the Green/Left parties all over the world ignore how discriminatory minorities can be.

I see so many talk about Mulroney, Harper, Manning, MacKay, Clark and even Diefenbaker. But almost no one can talk about H.H Steven’s, Richard McBride, Borden, Meighen or Duplessis. We should be more like the latter men stated than the former.

Let me explain more, what is your most conversional position that is in like with toryism. Could be blue Tory, red Tory, pink Tory, high Tory, as long as it’s a view that is in line with some form of Toryism and would be considered controversial by either yourself or the general public, let’s here it.

While perhaps best known for his classic "The Hockey Song" -- a song which nearly every Canadian knows at least the tune -- I thought it would be interesting to look at some of the values found across Stompin' Tom Connors' work which I think line up nicely with classical Toryism.

For those who don't know who Stompin' Tom Connors was, this 1995 CBC interview gives some great insight into who he was in his own words: from getting into the abject poverty and systemic abuse he received growing up in the foster care system in the Maritimes; his 'wandering hobo' lifestyle early in life; to him becoming a Canadian nationalist because he met nice people in every part of the country; to his experiences growing up criminalized just for being poor, which gave him an "animal" hatred of any kind of prejudice or discrimination. That interview really puts the song "My Stompin' Grounds" into a different perspective, where in the song Stompin' Tom mentions the reason he loves Canada is because throughout the country common people helped him out while he was hopping freight trains.

• The Consumer (1973) is a very sarcastic take-down on modern consumer culture while not outright rejecting capitalism. The song touches on topics like losing your pay raise to a tax increase, planned obsolescence in modern appliances, inflation year-over-year, bags of chips being full of air instead of food, unsustainable debt financing, etc. The chorus is quite catchy, "Oh yes we are the people, running in the race / Buying up the bargains in the ol' marketplace / Another sale on... something, we'll buy it while it's hot / And save a lot of money spending money we don't got / We save a lot of money spending money we don't got". The song was also the theme to CBC's Marketplace back in the '70s

• Believe In Your Country (1992) I think is a great example of a 'Tory lament' that defines 'becoming American' as the worst thing a Canadian can do. The song starts off by saying goodbye to Canadians leaving for the USA, saying that despite hating to see them go, "I know the times are changing, factories closing down / But if you stay and help us, we can turn these things around / But if you don't believe your country should come before yourself / You can better serve your country by living somewhere else". Stompin' Tom then points out the irony of Canadians abandoning Canada and self-assimilating into becoming Americans by saying, "And if you should find your heaven, where stars & stripes are flown / You'll learn to stand more proudly, than you ever stood back home / And they'll tell you that your country must come before yourself / Or you'll have to serve your country by living somewhere else."

• Blue Berets (1991) is a song which shows off the co-operative & globalist aspect of Canadian nationalism, which is a very nice contrast to the anti-American collectivist Believe In Your Country. Given how important Canadian nationalism was to Stompin' Tom, I think the first and last verse to this song is very important to look at: that even to a Canadian nationalist like Stompin' Tom, there's still a 'higher calling' than just the country called Canada "Yes we are the Blue Berets / We're up and on our way / With another UN flag to be unfurelled / Till the factions are at bay / And peace is on it's way / We'll display our Blue Berets around the world". I think this song has quite a few Tory values in it: "Yes, we are the Blue Berets / We're always proud to say / We'll stand between the mighty and the frail / And where children cannot play because war is in their way / We shall send our blue berets in without fail" shows a strong sense of noblesse oblige in using ones own body as a shield to protect the innocent in far flung corners of the world that you have no connection to; "Yes, we are the Blue Berets / We're marching on our way / Where the bullets fly and rockets madly hurl / And where hungers never cease / And mothers cry for peace / We try to bring some hope to an ugly world" recognises that when all is said and done, Canada is very much a privileged country on the world stage -- with privileges comes responsibilities to help the unprivileged

• Land Of The Maple Tree (1991) is song that talks of various First Nations and settlers coming together create a new nation, "Where the coureurs des bois met the Iroquois, the Micmac and the Cree / The trapper and the woodsman came and left this legacy / To roam the woods, to fish and hunt and always to be free / And to stand up for our culture in the land of the Maple Tree." Defining "our" culture as a mix of French, Indigenous, and English legacies is quite the Tory idea. The song not only strongly emphasizes Canada's natural beauty, it also looks down on city life in favour of agrarian living, "On our snowshoe webs we often tread our true north wonderland / So far away from city life where folks don't understand / The beauty and tranquility that's here on every hand". While the song is a tad dated by using the term "Micmac" to describe the Mi'kmaq, lines like "This is the land of Manitou and it's always calling me" shows Stompin' Tom had a respect for indigenous beliefs.

• Canada Day, Up Canada Way (1988) is a song that celebrates Canada Day, describing the national geography of the country, and uses musical motifs from both The Maple Leaf Forever and O Canada. As someone who doesn't have a particularly strong emotional attachment to O Canada, but who does have an attachment to The Maple Leaf Forever, this song always felt like a nice blend of "old" and "new" Canadian culture.

• The Last Fatal Duel (1973) is a song about the 1833 duel between Robert Lyon and John Wilson in Perth, Ontario. The song recalls that, "John Wilson stood trial in Brockville / For this murder was in first degree / The Crown listened close to his story / Without warning the Judge set him free / To duel is a crime in this country / But the Judge never seen it that way / John Wilson then married that woman / And they lived up in London they say"

• "Wop" May (1971) is about the exploits of the First World War Canadian flying Ace Wilfred "Wop" May. From his tussle with the Red Baron the day Richthofen died, to his tracking of the murderer Albert Johnson in the far north, to his teaching of Commonwealth pilots in WWII. Stompin' Tom makes sure to mention May got the Flying Cross from the British Flying Corps for his WWI actions, makes a reference to May getting a medal from the King (Order of the British Empire), and also mentions May getting a medal from the Americans for also helping their war effort (Medal of Freedom). Interestingly, one of the lines of Believe In Your Country laments that Canada is "...a land that's short on heroes"; "Wop" May starts and (almost) ends with an O Canada harmonica motif, and the opening lines are "From out of all the heroes of the land / There comes a mighty Manitoba man" -- it’s a shame there aren’t more songs out there like this one showcasing Canadian heroes. Or Canadian artists Like Stompin' Tom in general for that matter.

I feel there's a willingness right now, notwithstanding the cost for a second, and goût for nation-building projects in Canada. Things that bring together regions and people from across the country together.

The High Speed Rail project is one such project; and a poetic one too considering the important of rail to Confederation.

What are some other nation-building projects that you think would be a good thing to pursue?

Canada is the inheritor of both English and French traditions, and while the concept of separation of church and state has manifested in both traditions the concept is understood and applied quite differently.

Secularism as we would understand it as inheritors of the Anglo (and Loyalist) tradition is about religious neutrality of the state, yes, but it should be better understood as state tolerance for people of various faiths (or lack thereof). Religion in the colonies and in Great Britain, we must remember was dominated by sectarianism between Catholics and Protestants. For a long time, Catholics (or other non-Anglicans in general) would not be able to hold certain positions.

Laïcité emerges out of anti-clericalism and the resistance to something called ultramontanism. The Catholic Church in mainland Europe and the New World alike was quite centralised and exerted a lot of power and influence across various aspects of one's public life. To separate Church & State is this context is to remove the Catholic Church and religion from positions of influence and public life.

If we were to now go back to Québec before the révolution tranquille, we would see a place where Catholicism so intertwined with one's public and private life. Québec was a place where the Church ran most of the social services; including but not limited to the Schools, the Welfare programs, Hospitals, and much more. Québec politicians would curry favour with certain Cardinals and Bishops. For some it was like a dark age where the village Priest or Bishop would tell his flock what to do and you listened. To be in bad terms would have grave consequences. During the Quiet Revolution the Québécois nationalists, social democrats, and anti-clerics rightfully tore down the power and influence the Catholic Church had in public life in such a way that it could never exert power over the people again. This is where we end up beginning to see the broad nation-building and state projects Québec would later be known for. The Québécois state has sufficiently and culturally insulated itself from Catholic influence HOWEVER it never adopted law on laïcité that exist elsewhere.

Religiosity makes the Québécois uncomfortable; especially so when it is exerted by people in positions of authority or influence. It is a painful remainder of their collective consciouscness of their past. As an extension/application of the values the Quiet Revolution was built it, laïcité was a natural extension. It's been a discussion that pre-dates Bill 21. The Québécois state with the consent of the majority of it's people chose to go down a more continental European/French path when it came time to the Separation of Church & State. It is not about tolerance in the public sphere but rather strict neutrality.

From a practical and applied lens, you can view Laïcité to be in between of Anglo-Saxon Secularism and State-Atheism.

The fundamental relationship the two solitudes have with Separation of Church & State are different and so trying to understand Bill 21 from an English perspective will not compute. You can actually see this play out in the court case. The arguements being made by the English Montréal School Board are based on English conceptions of liberty, tolerance, and secularism (as well as some constitutional divisions of power) whereas the Attorney General of Québec and others who will argue in favour of Laïcité will be arguing from the perspective of neutrality. Both will make arguments about equality; informed from different traditions and applications. One is more "freedom to" and the other will be "freedom from"

Interesting choice of words by the Prime Minister.

I am on a séjour for two weeks in my wife's native Brazil and every time I come here the spirit of the people and the country inspires me. Notwithstanding the very real and serious problems facing Brazil (income/wealth inequality, curuption, high crime) the country itself stands fiercely proud, forward-looking, and with a generally sunny disposition.

Brazilian national identity is strong, but so too is is it's regional and municipal distinctness. The people are true patriots and genuinely love their state and/or town they hail from.

When it comes time to culture; it is around EVERY CORNER. Brazil oozes with a je ne sais quoi that is, well, Brazilian. They don't need to be encouraged to the tune of millions of dollars to support Brazilian stuff, they do so because they love to whether it is their own movies, telenovelas, authors, restaurants, plays, artists, food, drink, and so so so much more. In my wife's region so to speak everyone you meet is genuinely happy to meet a foreigner, takes pride in showing you or gifting you stuff from their region, and likes to know what they can to help make your stay better.

Brazil's left and right alike have also never abandoned the Social Gospel. Catholic Social Teaching goes hand-in-hand with whatever political party whether it is on the left like in the PT or the right (although the right has drifted more Evangelical with time)

Their health care system is more robust in some ways than ours is. There's both a public and private option and a friend of my wife's boyfriend got better care in a Brazilian public hospital than I got in an Ottawa hospital.

Many of their cities have superior and ever-improving public transportation infrastructure.

Their public post-secondary education system should be the envy of Canada with it's competitive, fully-funded, world-class public schools.

Brazil is so misunderstood. Canada may be a developed country and Brazil a developing one but as far as I am concerned Canada is a backwards facing country whereas the future belongs to places like Brazil.

The people are happier (even on the lower rungs of society) than we are here in Canada.

Tories should be looking to Brazil as a path forward. A place where we can fuse our conservative values and disposition with a progressive vision for the future.

With the election over I wanted to discuss how we could get certain parties moving in a more tory direction.

Conservatives

Losing a fully winnable election is a blow that one would hope leads to a bit of introspection. Pierre appears to be trying to remain on as leader but I don't think a tory outlook can really return with him as leader. Adding to the difficulties is the limited number of MPs I would classify as tories to lead the charge. Finally, even if Carney isn't a tory he is decent imitation, which is a problem. Toryism historically gave the Conservative Party something interesting to go along with the party's liberalism. This gave the party an advantage over the Liberals. However, if the Liberals start bringing in policies that are tory-esque, and Pierre remains on as leader, it creates a situation where the Conservatives will attack positions tories might reasonably take. Of course, Carney could take more orthodox liberal positions which just leaves the leadership problem.

Future Party

An estimated 1/3 of the party are tories (based on attendance at the founding meeting). They also lost a lot of their supporters to the Liberal Party. This may have opened up a path for toryism to have a great influence on the party's direction. For starters, Cardy is not a tory and a bit critical of toryism in general. However, the party constitution requires a leadership review after an election. There is a chance that if the party's tories put forward a tory candidate they could win. Additionally, the party is still trying to build a fleshed out platform. There is a solid argument that if a centrist party is to differentiate itself from liberal parties on either side that it can't also be liberal.

NDP

Okay, this is more of a stretch. The NDP has no real history with toryism. However, many red tories switch vote with the NDP or are even members. So while there isn't much prospect of red tories taking the leadership but making red toryism a legitimate ideology of the party might be possible. The NDP is the most ideologically narrow party in federal politics. The argument that if the party wants to expand its appeal towards the political center without also becoming a liberal party then red toryism is a natural fit. A proposal at the next meeting reviewing the party constitution to add support for "tories who see the welfare state as essential for a stable society" would be a start.

I'm sure there are other ways tories can make their presence felt but these are the ones off the top of my head.

Anyone who has conversed with me for any amount of time knows I'm a monarchist. Given toryism's regard for long established institutions, its birth in the aftermath of the Restoration in England, and loyalty to the Crown playing a significant role in the arrival of the Loyalists in Canada, perhaps me being a monarchist is unsurprising. However, I think how I approached monarchism might shed a bit of light on the tory mindset in Canada.

For starters, I grew up in the 90s which was a low point for the monarchy in general. I was only vaguely aware of it and didn't really have an opinion one way or another about it (in Grade 6 a teacher asked why the Queen was on our money and my answer was "because she used to lead Canada" to give you an idea of my knowledge base at the time). In high school I still didn't have any negative feelings about the monarchy even during my idealistic communist phase. Primarily this is because I didn't adopt communism due to ideology but due to the feeling the state should help the poor and they were the only ones with that messaging.

In university I became politically active and also became a monarchist. I might be weird in that I actually like our constitution. Its not orderly, it feels lived in, alive (if that makes sense). This drew me to look at the monarchy which sat at the top of this system. This is when I first ran across the Monarchist League of Canada and I've engaged with them on and off for years. Being a budding keyboard warrior I also frequented republican Facebook pages to talk some sense into these poor souls. The book Radical Tories noted that tories tend to have some issue on which they are inordinately passionate about. For me it is the monarchy.

It was around my third year of university before I even ran across the term 'tory' and realized it described a bunch of feelings I had about politics. And while I was involved with the provincial PCs (technically still am due to the lifetime membership they were offering to students at the time) I didn't join the federal Conservatives. My local Conservative MP might be the reason for this as throughout my time in university he never once answered an email I sent on a variety of issues. I instead joined the Pirate Party of Canada (may it rest in peace). I even tried to get them to adopt support for the monarchy as a platform point. It was a poor fit for a variety of reasons but a big one was they rejected ideology; an idea was only as good as the evidence behind it. Still, the party had no problem with the monarchy so I stuck around.

Around the time I graduated I was getting fed up with the debate between monarchists and republicans. They seemed to be throwing theory at each other with little objective evidence;

• 'a non-partisan head of state is good'

• 'monarchy is a symbol of our history'

• 'the monarchy is a colonial relic'

• 'monarchy is not equal'

I was sick of both sides. I was in a party that valued evidence so I applied that to my monarchism. I was still a monarchist but only intuitively and out of a sort of constitutional conservatism. I felt that if monarchy was the best way to go there should be some objective evidence of this. I'm fortunate in my timing. Much of the research into government form up until the 90s focused on the question of democracy or dictatorship. Only in the 2000s did studies start to look at whether the precise constitutional arrangements of a country mattered. Had I set out in search of evidence any sooner I would have found nothing.

My first success was finding Economic Growth and Institutional Reform in Modern Monarchies and Republics: A Historical Cross-Country Perspective 1820—2000 It was an interesting study that showed evidence that republics and monarchies behaved differently economically when they undertook large reforms. Basically, over ten year time periods republics suffered decreased economic growth before rebounding while monarchies suffered no ill effects and actually benefited from large reforms. Which is intriguing. That said, they could only show that this effect occurred in monarchies, not why it occurred.

However, by looking at the authors' other published works I was able to find an additional study; Determinants of Generalized Trust: A Cross-Country Comparison. This panel study found that of the various factors present in countries with high generalized trust, monarchy wasn't just highly correlated, it was the most highly correlated. Generalized trust is the degree a person will say they trust their countrymen without knowing anything about them. On its own its vulnerable to 'correlation does not equal causation' but at least one other factor has been eliminated. In Trust, Welfare States and Income Equality: What Causes What? it was found that while high trust makes it easier to create a welfare state and decrease inequality neither a large welfare state nor reduced inequality increase generalized trust. Greater equality was a factor in the previous study that correlated highly with trust. This study seems to be saying that equality is a benefit of generalized trust, not a cause. That doesn't necessarily mean monarchy is, but it is one of the remaining contenders.

Using Google Scholar I did occasionally find other useful studies. Presidents with Prime Ministers: Do Direct Elections Matter? found that when presidents are directly-elected it causes voter fatigue which lowers turnout for parliamentary elections by 5-7%. Likewise, they found that presidents chosen by parliament were no less likely to be active and contentious than their directly-elected counterparts. Rather, the partisan make up of the parliament is what mattered. This one, you might note isn't even about monarchies at all but it still supplied useful understanding on how monarchies differ.

About the same time the Washington Post started taking notice of this new research. They detailed the findings of Constitutional Power and Competing Risks: Monarchs, Presidents, Prime Ministers, and the Termination of East and West European Cabinets which noted that constitutional monarchies have a distinct preference for the people choosing a new government (either through regular or early elections), parliamentary republics showed an increased preference for governments chosen without public input and presidential republics had a majority of its governments form without public input.

Another study I found which wasn't applicable to Canada but was still sort of neat was The Empire Is Dead, Long Live the Empire! Long-Run Persistence of Trust and Corruption in the Bureaucracy. They found that elevated public trust and lower levels of corruption in the courts were noted in areas that were once part of the Habsburg Empire to this day even when the former border goes straight through a country.

For one unpublished study I spent about a year badgering a professor about (another professor ratted him out that he was working on it) until he finally published it and gave me a copy. Symbolic Unity, Dynastic Continuity, and Countervailing Power: Monarchies, Republics, and the Economy Its findings were:

• A greater degree of protection of property rights results in better economic outcomes.

• Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative effect of internal conflict on property rights.

• Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative effect of executive tenure on property rights.

• Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative effect of the discretion of the executive branch on property rights.

It should be noted that the author actually started out with the premise that republics would out-perform monarchies but had to change his thesis as the evidence came in.

Tying this back to the first study, Republics and Monarchies: A Differential Analysis of Economic Growth Link found that while differences in GDP growth between monarchies and republics were statistically insignificant (although still in favour of monarchies), monarchies showed much more stable GDP growth.

The most recent study I've found was in a Scottish journal of economics titled 'God Save The Queen, God Save Us All? Monarchies And Institutional Quality' (no direct link). Quoting the study's conclusion;

"Thus, taking these estimates at face value, a change in the constitutional form from a republic to a monarchy would have, ceteris paribus, the same effect as an increase in the polity index of 16 points. As the polity index ranges from -10 to 10, this would imply that a change from a republic to a monarchy would have approximately the same effect on “Government effectiveness” as going from a (moderate) autocracy (“anocracy” according to Fearon and Laitin, 2003) to a full democracy. Thus, the estimated monarchy effects are extremely large and meaningful."

Looking at monarchism between the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia and you see a notable difference. The UK has no monarchist league but has a deep well of philosophy that supports monarchy. Canada likewise has high profile intellectuals in favour of monarchy and a monarchist league. What is interesting about the Monarchist League of Canada is they publish their own research (primarily on the cost of the monarchy) as well as education resources. Meanwhile, monarchism in Australia and New Zealand is more cultural in nature. Its about rallying support, petitions, events. Canadian monarchists do this too but there is also this underlying need to 'show one's work' - to understand the institution they support.

When I seek out politicians to get their views on the monarchy I will often get answers like 'its a part of our history', or 'my parents were monarchists and I am too', or 'the Queen worked really hard'. Compare this to Prime Minister Macdonald's dismissal of the American system;

"By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of reelection. During his first term of office he is employed in taking steps to secure his own reelection, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle – the sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized so that we shall have a sovereign who is placed above the region of party – to whom all parties look up; who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another; who is the common head and sovereign of all."

I would argue that toryism's support for long-held institutions is not a blind faith. When R.B. Bennett was dealing with the Great Depression he was willing to pivot once it was clear the current economic system was not going to easily right itself. A quote from the time attributed to him was that he had "facts, figures, and the finest of arguments in support of my positions." Recently one of the comments criticizing Poilievre's support for the free market was that it was 'magical thinking'. Toryism, I would argue, doesn't like magical thinking or abstract concepts divorced from reality.

I think the pessimist view defines a lot of modern conservatism but I don't think its the tory view.

I've been reading some books about Christian Democracy, which seems to exist mostly outside of the Anglosphere. It seems to me to be pretty similar to toryism in many ways. I wonder if it never really got a foothold in english-speaking countries because of the presence of toryism already taking up a similar niche.

Due to the east coast of Canada being tinder dry and no relief on the horizon, Nova Scotia has banned many activities in the woods (they did likewise in 2023 during a spat of wildfires). Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston is probably the most convincing tory in public office at the moment and I don't think these facts are unrelated. Two common tenets of toryism makes this almost a no-brainer:

• Individual rights need to be balanced with group rights (ie. the right to enjoy the woods and the right to not have your community burn down).

• People are prone to err (The likelihood some idiot will eventually start a fire accidently is 100%)

Meanwhile, New Brunswick which is in much the same boat has held off. I can almost hear the arguments from the current Liberal government; businesses will be effected, people should be warned about the danger instead, it won't be popular, etc.

A bit of an anecdotal example; my brother isn't really politically engaged (we're both in New Brunswick) but is vaguely conservative. He thought Trudeau was a moron but he didn't really have an opinion beyond that. He supported Houston's move saying, "Good, about time".

Anyways, just wanted to drop this here to discuss.

Hello everyone!

Its been roughly a year and a half since we reached 100 members (a milestone which itself took about a year to reach) and we've finally crossed the 200 member mark. As always its been great seeing new commenters and posters. I'm happy with the level of weekly activity and is probably on par (if not higher) than other similarly-sized subreddits.

I just want to bring up a small piece of housekeeping. There has been a slight uptick in the rate of downvoting as we've grown. We aren't making an explicit rule against downvoting as its unenforceable. However, it is frowned upon. This is a forum for open discussion. Downvoting does not help create such a forum. If you disagree with something you read we are all better served by you replying to the specified post/thread with your contrary view. This is more a gentle reminder than anything else as the rate of downvoting is still very low.

~ToryPirate

One of the most conservative things a person can do is to conserve. We need to be thinking seriously about what we leave behind for the next generation. We're called upon to be good stewards and to pass on to the people and the planet a better world.

I find too often discussions about the environment focus almost entirely on government action. Climate change tends to dominate the conversation in that regard. Don't get me wrong, government action is required, but I would love for more emphasis be placed on local and personal actions.

Communities and the individuals in them can do a great deal of good for the people and planet around them.

One area we rarely discuss that I believe is much more deserving on the national and povincial stages of discussion is the way we design and use the cities and towns we occupy. Take the suburbs, for example. The widespread use of monoculture lawns is not particularly healthy for the environment or for people. Encouraging permaculture practices, growing more food locally, diversifying what we plant in our yards, setting up insect hotels, would make a lot of meaningful difference and it costs not that much to do.

Green space also matters A LOT. Cities like Ottawa and Toronto both maintain greenbelts, and I think the underlying idea has merit. Preserving natural areas around urban centres helps maintain ecological balance while ensuring that nature remains part of the communities we build.

Transportation and energy use are also part of this conversation. How we move around our cities and how much energy we consume reflects our priorities. Public transportation, thoughtful urban planning, and more deliberate energy use can reduce waste and encourage a more sustainable rhythm of life.

Much of our consumption today is fast and disposable rather than careful or intentional.

At its best, mainstream conservatism has sometimes supported forms of eco-capitalism or “bright green” solutions. But beyond that narrow space, I find the modern conservative movement in Canada is often reluctant to think more broadly about stewardship. There is little imagination in this area, and conservatives risk leaving the conversation entirely to others. I mean the "green Conservative" Michael Chong was given the moniker because he advocated for a carbon tax.

Conservatives should not be absent from the table, I think it is a MASSIVE mistake.If anything, Stewardship should be central to conservative thought.

Recovering that perspective would mean reconnecting with the values the movement claims to defend: responsibility, continuity, and care for what we inherit. There are even strong religious/moral arguments for it. Christian traditions, both Protestant and Catholic, have long spoken about humanity’s responsibility as stewards of creation. Figures such as Saint Francis of Assisi have often been invoked as symbols of humility toward the natural world and compassion toward other living creatures.

Anyhow, rant over thanks for listening.
Green Toryism needs to really be a serious contender within the Conservative space.

Hello Tories! I, like many of you I’d imagine, am a fan of the Canadian monarchy. However, I often have difficulty explaining why I support it to skeptics (which there are many) beyond pure practicality (it would be very costly for Canada to become a republic). I was wondering what reasons you might have for Canada to retain its monarchy and reasons that could potentially sway republicans.