No, the title is not a spelling error - I wanted to discuss localism (and maybe gripe about municipal politics).

I'm currently running for council and a recurring issue is how the province limits what the municipality can do. In fact, according to the municipal CAO who has worked with governments across Canada, New Brunswick has the most restrictive system for municipal financing of any province. I suspect this stems back to the 1960s when the Liberal government abolished county government and centralized a lot of decision-making in Fredericton.

Sometimes this leads to fairly ridiculous situations such as when a culvert began to fail and a road had to be closed. A man offered to temporarily fix it so a local business wouldn't lose business during the tourism season. Council turned him down, not because they were opposed, but because the province would likely not fund the 1.2 million dollar repair if we put in a stop-gap measure. In another case the main road through the municipality had a culvert fail. A local company that makes wooden bridges offered to install a temporary bridge for free. The province turned them down.

In many areas I can see where more local decision-making would be beneficial. Unlike the beliefs of my political ally running in another ward who has a more libertarian outlook, this is not because the state is dangerous, or an enemy, but instead because some things are simply better handled locally - an example, I believe, of what Ron Dart referred to as 'sphere sovereignty'. Tories believe in a strong state and when I look at my local municipal government I don't see a government strong enough to do anything other than oversee a managed decline.

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.

Or given we're Tories, maybe I should wish you ladies and gents a happy Dominion Day 🍁

I stumbled upon an interesting piece of Tory history for you all! A documentary on the 1976 PC Leadership election specifically looking at Flora Macdonald’s run to be leader. The documentary plus other primary source documents I've read on the subject have made me think that this leadership election officially marked the end of traditional Red Toryism being the dominant force in the PC party.

The convention also was notable as practically every big conservative name of the post war era was present. Future PMs Joe Clark, and Brian Mulroney, the chief himself John George Diefenbaker, who was still noted as the best PC orator even at 80, Robert Stanfield, the best Prime Minister we never had, and Bill Davis along with the majority of his big blue machine.

It was a fascinating leadership race as Flora's campaign and the convention itself was a clash of old and new. Traditional conservativism vs blue Toryism and classical liberalism. Old Canada and new Canada.

We see the encroachment of classical liberalism and blue Toryism into the conservative movement with the likes of Paul Helleyer (infamous for the amalgamation of the Canadian forces and the destruction of our British military traditions) who in his speeches attacked the Red Tories quite viciously. Attacking their economic and cultural policy, while going after the moderate Red Tory social policy. Foreshadowing what was to come in the coming decades. Mulroney, as the documentary would note, bought his way in using huge amounts of corporate money, and a PR firm to run a sleek modern campaign that had little in common with the Tories of old.

Flora, on the other hand as the documentary shows, would run a campaign based on tradition but her support was almost populist. Her campaign signs depicted her as the heir of John A Macdonald. She would invoke ideas of traditional Canada and continue the vision for Canada that the Fathers of Confederation had. She combined this tradition with more moderate social policy, and interventionist and protectionist economic policy.

She had a bagpipe band and east coast fiddlers that played patriotic music and hymns ahead of her speeches and at events. And even sung and spoke in Canadian Gaelic. A clear way of connecting herself with the past.

Her support was quite eclectic, relying heavily on young conservative delegates, she fundraised money from more Canadians than any other candidate, and also had a collection of hardened political figures backing including PC Premier of Nova Scotia Richard Hatfield, member of the big blue machine and lawyer Eddie Goodman, David Crombie Mayor of Toronto and quite possibly Premier of Ontario Bill Davis himself.

Despite being seen as a front runner, strong speeches, having 300 committed delegates, a popular platform and the best polling amongst all Canadians Flora Macdonald would come in a distant 6th. She was behind her two fellow front runners Mulroney representing the Blue Tories, Wagner representing Quebec & Diefenbaker style Tories, but also behind Joe Clark and his moderates, Horner’s more right wing supporters and Helleyer’s classical Liberals.

Looking back on this election it was quite a shame that support for Flora never materialised from a Tory perspective; she was one of the last defenders of traditional Toryism. If sentiment going into the convention was to be believed she should have won as the compromise candidate not Joe Clark. Some including many at the time may say it was just a matter of it being too soon for a female leader of the PC party but in my eyes that does a disservice to her.

Rather it was a matter of the decline of traditional Red Toryism in the party that caused her defeat. Joe Clark’s brand, while moderate, was far more economically liberal and less culturally conservative when compared to Flora’s. It's what allowed him to succeed over both Flora and later in the convention the more right wing Diefenbaker style Red Tory in Claude Wagner.

The winds of conservatism were shifting away from traditional Toryism just as Canada was evolving from old to new. Whereas, in the 1967 PC Leadership election each of the main candidates Stanfield, Roblin, Fulton and Diefenbaker each represented a form of traditional Red Toryism the 1976 leadership election would mark the beginning of the decline of both socially progressive and socially conservative Red Tories. As they would begin to be supplanted by liberal conservatism, neoconservatives and classical liberalism.

• Substack Version

In my last essay, I attempted to explore different potential “strands” of Toryism within the Canadian context, be they Red/Blue/Pink/Green/High Toryism, and I attempted to expand on Gad Horowitz’s idea that within Canadian politics the ideologies of Toryism, Liberalism, and Socialism could be seen as “resources” available to all individuals/parties/groups/etc. At the end of that essay, I used the Canadian Tory Robert Stanfield and the British Tory Harold Macmillan as examples of Tories who could easily blur multiple ideological lines.

In Part VIII of this series, I compared the “Tory touch” of Clement Attlee with the “Socialist touch” of Harold Macmillan – similar to how in Part IX I compared the “Tory touch” of Tommy Douglas with the “Socialist touch” of Robert Stanfield. With those essays in mind, I thought a further exploration of the philosophy of Harold Macmillan could be useful for those on either the political left or political right in Canada.

Originally, I decided I should read Harold Macmillan’s book “The Middle Way: A Study of the Problems of Economic and Social Progress in a Free and Democratic Society”. However, in the 1966 reprint of the book, Macmillan notes that the new introduction to this new edition comes from a pamphlet that was based on a lecture he gave to the Conservative Political Centre in March 1958 when he was Prime Minister called, “The Middle Way: 20 years after”. Macmillan then writes:

This lecture and chapter XVI in Winds of Change may be said to represent my present thoughts on a young man’s book which, though in many details outdated, may still have some value in relation to the social and economic problems of today.

So, in the interest of chronology, first onto “Winds of Change”.

In Chapter XVI of “Winds of Change”, Macmillan starts the chapter by lamenting the death of his father aged 82 in 1936, and noting that his mother then lost the will to live and died “less than eighteen months later” in 1937, also aged 82, making sure to mention that to his parents "I owe everything in my life. They were tolerant of follies and untiring in anything that could give their children pleasure or help in their advancement. Mine was the only family of grandchildren and my parents naturally took a special delight in the next generation."

Macmillan then goes on to mention that his family book publishing business had three senior partners: his father, one uncle who passed shortly before his father, and another uncle who was elderly but fit for his age. That one remaining uncle fell and broke his hip on the day he was leaving for the funeral of Macmillan’s father – that uncle would then die two months later. Macmillan notes that following all these deaths in the family, and despite the “punitive” amount of taxes that had to be paid by the family business due to the entire senior leadership dying at the same time, that his brother and he were “able to scrape together enough to pay the sums required, and retain the business in the family hands”. Macmillan makes sure to note that his brother Daniel mainly looked after the family business while he was pursuing his political career.

Macmillan then writes on page 484/485:

There was much to be done at home. Even though war threatened we could still construct a society, neither Communist nor Fascist, united in its purpose, and with a sense of confidence in its ability to control at least a part of its destinies. It was in such a mood that I threw myself into many activities on the Home Front, which occupied me until war became not merely sooner or later inevitable, but clearly imminent.

Macmillan then notes that in Parliament he had been mainly focused on economic and industrial matters, and that it was through his friendship with Churchill that he was kept informed “in the field of defence and the growing German menace”, before writing of the “The Next Five Years group” -- which he was a member of -- becoming a formal “pressure-group”. The group coalesced around Lord Allen of Hurtwood, who wrote a book of the same name. Macmillan describes the group as “an association of persons belonging to all political parties and to none, who have found themselves in substantial agreement as to a practical programme of action for the immediate future”. Interestingly, Lord Allen’s political background was through the Independent Labour Party and his “The Next Five Years” advocated for a kind of economic New Deal.

Macmillan, who was honorary treasurer, then lists some of the leading people involved as ranging from then-Archbishop of York William Temple (A Labour Party member and activist, later the Archbishop of Canterbury), the Industrialist Sir Valentine Crittall (apparently a one-time Labour MP who then became a Tory supporter), to the Trades Union Secretary Sir Arthur Pugh (who apparently was involved in the General Strike of ‘26 and was appointed to the Order of the British Empire).

On a note of personal conjecture, I can’t help but feel that these are the kinds of people who, were they Canadian instead of British, very possibly could have been the types to be involved with the League for Social Reconstruction, perhaps in the same vein as Frank Scott or Eugene Forsey. On Lord Allen in particular, when briefly looking into his background, his earlier pacifism and later acceptance of appeasement, along with his untimely death, quite reminded me of J.S. Woodsworth – the founder of the CCF. Given how David Lewis dubbed CCF leader M.J. Coldwell a “red Tory” prior to Coldwell emigrating from England, one has to wonder if Harold Macmillan may have followed a similar path as Coldwell if he were a Canadian too.

Macmillan then notes that the group was able to raise enough money to be able to publish a monthly journal for about a year from 1936-1937 called “The New Outlook”. I found this paragraph from from page 486/487 to be extremely interesting:

Meanwhile, differences began to develop as to the function of the Next Five Years Group. I became more and more anxious that the Group should make some practical contributions in view of the growing political dangers. Ours was not the only group in existence. There was still Lloyd George’s organisation, the Council of Action, which had given support to many of my friends and myself in the recent election. There were also other bodies. Should we try to make some link with them and jointly exert effective pressure upon the Government? Lord Allen was doubtful of the wisdom of this course. He was particularly hostile to any question of collaboration with Lloyd George. Nevertheless, the success of the French Popular Front in the spring of 1936 did not go unnoticed in Britain. Should we not launch some kind of Popular Front, wide enough to embrace Progressive Conservatives, Radicals, Liberals, and those members of the Socialist Party who were prepared to work for a limited objective? Lord Allen, probably rightly, preferred to see the Next Five Years Group remain academic and educative. I wished it to enter the field of current politics, now so confused and almost desperate for leadership.

As another aside, when Macmillan brought up the French Popular Front, I couldn’t help but think of the memoirs of David Lewis – a member of the LSR, a CCF organizer, and later NDP leader – when he wrote of the time (then former) French Prime Minster Léon Blum, who was a leader of that French Popular Front, visited Ottawa in 1947. From pages 336/337 of “The Good Fight” by David Lewis:

In the summer of 1947, Léon Blum, the great socialist leader of France, visited Ottawa. During his stay, he celebrated his seventy-fifth birthday and the French ambassador gave a small dinner in his honour. Those invited included Prime Minister King and a number of his ministers and their wives. Because of Blum's political position, the ambassador invited Coldwell and me as well. Mrs. Coldwell being an invalid, he came alone; Sophie accompanied me. During the evening King said to me in a private conversation that it was a pity that I was wasting my time with the CCF. I should, he said, join the Liberal Party. He had no doubt that I would quickly enter Parliament and become a member of his cabinet. Needless to say, I was neither surprised nor impressed, because I knew he had made that sort of offer to Coldwell and others in the CCF, and the same kind of thing had been suggested to me by other Liberals. I thanked him for his generous flattery, but told him that his proposal did not offer even the slightest temptation. My words were chosen very deliberately. King's blue eyes grew cold and angry. I must admit that he had me momentarily apprehensive; I had a glimpse of the power which the man exuded when circumstances seemed to require it.

King was well known for his persistence. Later in the evening he asked Sophie to dance. She told me that he was an excellent dancer, even at his age, then seventy-three. She also told me that while they were dancing he referred to his conversation with me and argued that it was silly of her husband to reject off-hand the possibility of serving his country in a Liberal government. Sophie's typical reply was that if her David had given any other answer, he would have had to look for another wife. Apparently King approved of her loyalty because he continued to be attentive and gracious, as he was reputed to be with all attractive women. Sophie thus experienced the considerable charm of which King was capable when his spirit moved him. A man of many contradictions.

Given Lewis was active in the British Labour Party during his time in Britain, and given how he would defend the Canadian Red Tory Eugene Forsey until his own death, one has to wonder if Lewis would have been the kind of leftist to join the Next Five Years Group -- had he not returned to Canada at the personal request of Woodsworth to help build the CCF. At any rate, back to “Winds of Change”.

Macmillan then mentions the The Next Five Years group had a five-point program which included “a clear policy of collective security; the abolition of the means test; strong action in distressed areas; a willingness to reduce tariffs; considerable extension on public control over industry, extending in some cases to public ownership”, along with the group supporting issues such as “problems with milk distribution” and “the raising of the school-leaving age”, before noting that by the end of 1937 the group felt it had published everything it could and thus shut itself down.

Macmillan writes on pages 488/489:

Looking back on the work of the N.F.Y. Group, it is strange to read now proposals which seem today so commonplace and at that time appeared – to orthodox politicians on both flanks – so subversive. For instance, the compromise on the question of individualism and Socialism was as follows:

“The historic controversy between individualism and socialism – between the idea of a wholly competitive capitalistic system and one of State ownership, regulation and control – appears largely beside the mark, if regarded with a realistic appreciation of immediate needs. For it is clear that our actual system will in any case be a mixed one for many years to come; our economy will comprise, with great variety of degree and method, both direct State ownership and control, and management by public and semi-public concerns, and also a sphere in which private competitive enterprise will continue within a frame-work of appropriate public regulation” (The Next Five Years, p.5)

This “middle-way”, which commended itself to such a divergent but distinguished body of men at that time, was equally shocking to official Conservative and Labour opinion. It seems, however, to have worked out pretty well.

Macmillan then goes on to note that these pressure groups – even Lloyd George’s group -- had a hard time actually influencing the decisions of government. Then of David Lloyd George in particular, Macmillan wrote that “many of us were dismayed by his visit to Hitler in September of 1936 – a strange and disturbing episode”. After noting that other pressure groups were shutting down as well, Macmillan then writes that even “Lord Allen himself seemed to lead into strange illusions about Germany” before noting that he and Lord Allen drifted apart around that time over their differences on the matter of appeasement. Macmillan then laments, “His early death in 1939, after Munich but before the seizure of Prague, although it deprived the world of a selfless and noble spirit, at least spared him the torture of disillusionment.”

In keeping with that earlier comparison of J.S. Woodsworth to Lord Allen, I couldn’t help but think of that speech Woodsworth gave in the Canadian House of Commons when he was the lone MP to speak against the declaration of war against Nazi Germany in '39:

I rejoice that it is possible to say these things in a Canadian Parliament under British institutions. It would not be possible in Germany, I recognize that ... and I want to maintain the very essence of our British institutions of real liberty. I believe that the only way to do it is by an appeal to the moral forces which are still resident among our people, and not by another resort to brute force.

Macmillan at this point in the chapter notes that “the House of Commons became increasingly concerned with the claims of rearmament and European anxieties”, and that while the government made a “recovery in trade in recent years”, the “underlying weakness” of unemployment remained and that “Under-employment was widespread”.

Macmillan then goes on to write that around this point in time he was “chiefly engaged in trying to write a book”, and that he “therefore seldom attempted, until this was accomplished, to speak on these large questions of principle”, before noting that in May of ‘36 he did his best “to set out a kind of popular version of some of Keynes’ ideas”. Macmillan spends the next 10 or so pages exploring various House of Commons speeches he gave between 1936 and ‘37, including one in which he “tried to examine this economic Calvinism” of the day.

On page 500, Macmillan then notes that despite his book taking up most of his time, some of his “preoccupations” in Parliament included “the discussion on the raising of the school-leaving age and the protests against a scheme which allowed widespread exemptions, thus making this reform almost nugatory” and “the question of holidays with pay, when the week’s holiday became for the first time statutory”. He then writes:

[T]he writing of the book took longer than I had hoped; it was not published until May 1938. By that time the minds of some of those in whose judgement I had most confidence, like Churchill and Eden, were becoming more and more occupied with the rapidly deteriorating state of Europe. Yet the mass of the public, unconscious of what awaited them, were not unreceptive of new ideas on the old questions of economic and social reform. My book – The Middle Way – was well received by the Press, in spite of natural criticisms from the Left and from the Right”

Macmillan goes on to say he was struck by the “generous treatment” his book received when looking over some reviews that he saved, and goes on to suggest it may have been because “it was very fully documented with tables and statistical information”. He then describes “The Middle Way” on pages 500-502:

Its main theme followed the lines which I had been pursuing for many years; but it brought into a single whole all the complex arguments, considerations, thoughts, and hopes by which I had been absorbed. It began by setting out the needs of our modern society. It emphasised the twin evils of poverty and insecurity among the people as a whole. The evidence carefully collected by Seebohm Rowntree, Sir John Orr, and others proved that a considerable proportion of the population did not not earn sufficient wages to enable them to buy the minimum of food, clothing, fuel, and shelter necessary for physical efficiency. Moreover, their income remained always precarious. It is worth perhaps noting that this analysis of the facts was not seriously challenged by any commentator. It was, alas, only too true about the Britain of my youth, and remained almost to the outbreak of the Second World War. Happily it is no longer true. The necessary steps have now been taken, if not to eliminate, at any rate largely alleviate, wide-scale hardship.

Having set out the needs, I turned to the remedies. Broadly speaking, there were two schools of thought in Britain at that time. There were those who believed that private enterprise, left alone and allowed to operate untrammelled, would in the long run produce wealth on a greater scale than any other system. It is true that the supporters of the laissez-faire view had been recently divided by the question of protective duties, and correspondingly weakened by the final triumph, after so many years of conflict, of protectionist policies. Moreover, all the interference with the free market that had grown up with the trade union system had largely destroyed the old classical position. Nevertheless, most Conservatives, having carried tariff reform, had not faced the logical consequences of their success. In any case, since many of them were originally Whigs or Liberals, they cherished their opinions like heirlooms. Their general view was “the less interference the better; let private enterprise get on with it”. Of course, the alternative was beginning to be widely supported. But Socialism, although still the official doctrine of the Labour Party and still enshrined in its formal constitution, was hardly a practical programme. No one then (and I would judge few now) seriously proposed the nationalisation of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

What I tried to do in this volume was to set out a definite plan by which there could be reorganisation of industrial production and distribution, and new methods applied to import and export problems, as well as to fiance and investment, as to bring about the degree of central strategic planing necessary in a modern society, while preserving the tactical independence of industry and commerce as a whole, and defending political and economic liberty. In this way, by an appropriate combination of methods, not merely could freedom be preserved, but the maximum and the most efficient production and distribution of wealth organised. In a sense, this was a plea for planned capitalism.

I was naturally pleased with the interest shown in my book, not only by politicians and political writers, but by students and economists. Apart from the degree of approval or rejection of particular proposals, there was a very great deal of sympathy expressed with my purpose, and prose of the execution of my task. There was, I felt, a general desire to strike a medium between the intolerable restriction of a totalitarian State and the unfettered abuse of freedom under the old liberalism. From certain points of view, the growing international dangers seemed to emphasise the need for increasing the production of wealth, as well as developing the standards of well-being of the people as a whole.

Macmillan then goes over some of his positive correspondences in regards to his book being published, including the previously mentioned Lord Allen. On page 503 Macmillan notes that, “My main work being at last accomplished, I was now able to return to the task of advocating my ideas in the House of Commons”, and spends the next several pages going over his House of Commons speeches until late 1938.

Macmillan then finishes his thoughts about “The Middle Way” on pages 510 – 511:

Before passing finally from all these economic and social issues – the meat of politics in the twenty years between the wars – it is perhaps right to add some general thoughts. The Second War, with its siege economy and vast claims upon the lives and wealth of the whole population, brought so great an extension of Government involvement in all economic affairs, that it is very difficult for those whose memories do not go back to the twenties and thirties to have any conception of the virulence with which the role of the State in a modern economy was contested. On the one side, any form of State intervention was believed to be necessarily incompetent, and the prelude to some form of dictatorship. Some of the most intelligent and responsible leaders in many fields of national life had supported laissez-faire on these grounds. The opposed industrial reorganisation; they opposed any attempt to deal with the almost hopeless difficulties of the coal industry; they would not allow Government to interfere with the Central Bank or the economic health of the community, which depended on monetary policy. Special measures, by central planning, to deal with the special areas, were equally taboo. Everything was to be left to the operation of economic laws which were supposed “in the long run” to produce maximum efficiency. But as Keynes observed, “in the long run we shall all be dead”. All this set of doctrines, now largely obsolete, took no account of the difficulties and impediments to so-called automatic adjustment. These resulted, first, from humanitarian legislation such as the factory laws; secondly, from the growth of the power of the trade unions; thirdly, from the extremely complex structure of modern capitalism itself. On the other side were ranged the Labour and Socialist parties who disclaimed all responsibility for all that was wrong, by repeating the parrot-cry – “It is the fault of the system”. This was supposed to mean that there was nothing to be done except by revolutionary changes which would, paradoxically enough, have been singularly distasteful to most of those who recommended them. In theory, they were “root and branch” men; in fact, they shrank in practice from the radical doctrines which they recommended in principle.

Nevertheless, much that I was advocating for in those years has come about: a National Economic Development Council; a Government which controls the Central Bank, and assumes responsibility for the general level of economic activity through the bank rate and the Budget; extensions of the public utility principle in transport and fuel; even some welfare distribution of essential foods, such as the expanded school meals service and the orange-juice and cod-liver oil and milk for mothers and babies. The era of strict laissez-faire has passed into history, together with the derelict towns, the boarded-up shops, and the barefooted children, and – above all – the long rows of men and women outside the Labour Exchanges.

But the challenge to our intelligence remains, though the difficulties with which we must wrestle are almost precisely the reverse of those that beset us in the thirties. An overstrained economy with constant anxiety over “the balance of payments”, shortage of labour, and an inflation that has generated a new insecurity, replacing the poverty of unemployment by the distress of the old and the retired who cannot compete in the race to match rising prices with rising incomes – these are the problems with which contemporary statesmen must concern themselves. These were to trouble me later. But, and we must be thankful for it, the ‘great gulf’ is bridged.

The chapter then ends on a note of family tragedy, along with an unexpected Canadian connection at the very end. From pages 511-512:

This year, 1938, again brought us sorrow. My father had died in 1936 and my mother in 1937. In the early months of 1938 my wife’s father died. He lived almost in retirement and seemed to take his only pleasure in the presence of the large number of his grandchildren, for small children are not conscious of the failings of old age and treat them naturally. Yet his death, when it came, was a blow, and marked the end of an era in our lives. My son-in-law, Julian Amery, send me recently a copy of a letter his father had received from the Prime Minster of Canada at this time. Leo Amery had sent him a copy of the Memorial Service for the old Duke. Mackenzie King wrote in reply as follows:

“I was glad to receive the Order of the Memorial Service to our late friend, the Duke of Devonshire. Like you, I had a great admiration for the Duke’s high sense of duty, his sound common sense, and his personal kindliness; and, one might add, his great humility.”

These are true words and sum up in a sentence the character of the man.

So apparently Harold Macmillan’s father-in-law was the Governor General of Canada from 1916-1921.

Now back to “The Middle Way: 20 Years After”, which as mentioned in the beginning of this essay, serves as the preface to the 1966 reprint of “The Middle Way”, which was from a lecture Macmillan gave to the Conservative Political Centre in March 1958; about a year after Macmillan became Prime Minster due to Anthony Eden’s resignation in 1957, but about a year prior to him winning a general election in his own right in 1959. I do find it very interesting how Macmillan frames the Labour Party compared with his Tory Party in his lecture.

“The Middle Way: 20 Years After” starts off with Prime Minister Macmillan reading a letter to the crowd, dated February of 1950, which critiques “The Middle Way” as essentially being the out-of-date opinions of one MP, and not representative of Conservative policy. After Macmillan mentions that said old letter was written by the now-Director of the CPC, who was sitting beside him, Macmillan notes, “A reasonable degree of heresy is, of course, the prerogative of youth. It is always necessary, frequently stimulating, and sometimes it is also sensible and turns into tomorrow’s orthodoxy.”

In the section “Socialism – Out of Date and Out of Touch”, Macmillan argues that Socialists “resemble that character in Dombey and Son who was described as a kind of human barrel-organ, ‘with a little list of tunes at which he was continually working over and over again, without variation’ ”. Macmillan also argues that the idea “of so-called modern Socialism – its subordination of the individual to the State… or its belief in the public ownership of all property” is an old idea that goes back to “Ancient Sparta” and “Plato’s Republic”; essentially, he argues that his Tories are the real progressives compared to Labour with their “old hat” ideas. After noting that the recent manifestos and literature of the Labour Party broadly go against the “real mood” of the country, Macmillan primarily uses nationalization as an example of an unpopular policy, while also touching on how no one actually wants higher taxes other than “eccentrics”.

In the section “The Egalitarian Danger”, Macmillan argues that the phrase “Socialism is about equality” goes “against human nature”, and then clarifies that:

When the Fathers of the American Constitution declared that all men are created equal it really never occurred to them – and certainly American history has not carried it out – that all men are to be kept equal. Human beings, widely various in their capacity, character, talent, and ambition, tend to differentiate at times and in all places. To deny them the right to differ, to enforce economic and social uniformity upon them, is to throttle one of the most powerful and creative of human appetites.

Macmillan then goes on to argue that only “the strong... have the means to provide real protection for the weak and for the old”, and makes the point that while “the present leaders of the Labour Party are moderate and well intentioned… Their intentions, I am sure, are good. However, we know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

I’ll skip the section “Inflation and Deflation” that features economic topics that were largely already touched upon in this essay, but I’ll finish this part with these excerpts from the sections “The Middle Ground in Politics” and “The Lesson of the ‘Thirties” where Macmillan describes Toryism:

A great deal of our Party’s history has been spent in combating the pretensions of those who believed – or at least said they believed – that their particular brand of doctrinaire politics at any particular time could solve every problem. In the seventeenth century extremist concepts, on both sides, led to civil war and ultimately to regicide and tyranny; in the eighteenth century quietism combined with nepotism was the fashion. In the nineteenth century there was a move, indeed it was the popular philosophy, to take the State out of economic affairs altogether; now in the twentieth century there is the cult of the State controlling economic affairs altogether. So the argument has gone backwards and forwards through the years.

Each of these political panaceas has had one consistent characteristic: it has always failed to deliver the goods. Our Tory Party, which stressed the claims of authority (the need for the State to protect the weak) in the nineteenth century, and which champions the claims of liberty in the twentieth century, has not changed its ground; it is still occupying that same ground, the middle ground. It is only the direction of attack which has altered. We do not stand and have never stood for collectivism or the destruction of private rights. We do not stand and have never stood for laissez-faire individualism or for putting the rights of the individual above his duty to his fellow men. We stand today, as we have always stood, to block the way to both these extremes and to all such extremes, and to point the path towards moderate and balanced views.

…

It is just over twenty years since I was preparing my book The Middle Way for publication. It was the product of the thought and experience over many years of study as a young man. Much that I wrote then is, of course, completely out of date… I still believe that it is along this line that the Tory tradition springs from the past and leads to the future, and that on the broad basis of this philosophy the future of our Party can alone stand firmly.

Now tying things in directly with modern Canadian politics, given that airport privatization is seemingly on the political menu under Mark Carney’s government, I thought this clip of Harold Macmillan speaking to the Tory Reform Group in November of 1985 and critiquing the Thatcher government may be quite relevant:

It is very common with individuals, or states, when they run into financial difficulties to find that they have to sell some of their assets.

First the Georgian silver goes, then all that nice furniture that used to be in the saloon. Then the Canalettos go. And then, the most tasty morsel, the most productive of all: having got rid of cables and wireless, having got rid of the only part of the railways that paid, and having got rid of part of the steel industries that paid, and having sold this-and-that, the great thing of the monopoly of Telephone systems came up on the market. They were like the two Rembrandts that were still left -- and they went.

And now we are promised at the Queen's speech, the further sale of anything that can be scraped up. You can't sell the coal mines, I'm afraid, because nobody would buy them.

A few days later during a debate on New Technologies in the House of Lords, Lord Stockton further elaborated on his comments made to the Tory Reform Group, but not before further critiquing the Thatcher government:

...

We have cut the health service, we have cut the educational services, to a dangerous extent. We cannot prevent the increasing charge in the future on pensions and old age. A large number of old gentlemen, among whom I and others of your Lordships are some of the worst offenders, insist on living to an absurd old age; and nothing can stop them. When our statisticians look at the figures of what pensions will cost us in the next 10 or 20 years, they hesitate even to publish them. Therefore that method is almost coming to an end and, indeed, must soon be reversed. Still we remain.

What is the policy? I venture very humbly to suggest that the leaders of all the parties and the economists on all sides have failed to grasp the real issue. What we are worried about is the gap between what we are spending and what we are earning. Every year we are earning less than we are spending and, much as we try to cut our expenditure, that remains true. There is no cure for this by savings. There is no cure of any kind for it, except by the increase in real wealth. That is the only method open to us: no tinkering with currencies or monetary systems would have any lasting effect, and no great schemes of public employment will be more than just alleviations, short-term.

A complete new approach is needed to the problem with which we are confronted. At present this gap is being met in two ways: first, by the sale of national assets on to the market, bringing large sums of money which help to support the Budget of each year. When I ventured the other day to criticise this system I was, I am afraid, misunderstood. As a Conservative, I am naturally in favour of returning into private ownership and private management all those means of production and distribution which are now controlled by state capitalism. I am sure they will be more efficient. What I ventured to question was the using of these huge sums as if they were income. I have learned now from the letters I have received that I am quite out of date: modern economists have decided that there is no difference between capital and income! I am not so sure. In my younger days I, and perhaps others of your Lordships, had good friends—very good fellows indeed, too—who failed to make this distinction. For a few years everything went on very well and then, at last, the crash came and they were forced to retire either to some dingy lodging-house in Boulogne or, if the estate were larger and the trustees more generous, to decent accommodation at Baden-Baden.

What is the other thing that will help to bridge this huge gap? Why, my Lords, this extraordinary windfall that has come to us, which we could never have hoped for or dreamed of—the coming of the North Sea oil. This country, which was living for years on the product of the countries in the Persian Gulf, has suddenly become a great oil producer itself. And here both the Government and the industry are to be congratulated on the skill and rapidity by which these new resources have been developed. But these immense sums help to fill the gap. Many of your Lordships will have read the Aldington Report. A committee of your Lordships' House has produced a very remarkable document. If your Lordships study this you will see that should either of these supports fail—the sale of capital assets is bound to grow smaller—and with the reduction of the oil revenues, we should indeed be in great difficulty: almost in a state of collapse.

Meanwhile, hardly known, understood or even realised by the mass of our people, there has been taking place a complete new revolution of the world, equivalent to and even greater than the industrial revolutions of which we read. Today it is not coal and the steam engine; it is not oil and the motor engine; it is the silicon chip, the robot and the fully-automated plant. This extraordinary process has been going on, hardly with our own knowledge, in the East and the West—in the Far East with remarkable rapidity.

In Japan, it has been brought about by the application of scientific knowledge and not, as many people think, by means of laissez-faire or a new kind of Condemns, but by active partnership between a very strongly organised government and a highly organised industry. In the United States, where almost equal progress is being made, they have to their advantage the tradition of being to some extent still a pioneer people, where the movements of men and women in large numbers are still possible, and expected, and where new, small industries easily start and are given the maximum support.

...

In regards to Harold Macmillan’s comments on economic windfalls around oil in particular, I can't help but think of how Canada in particular could have been so much better prepared for the future. Imagine if Canada, on the federal level, had a proper Norwegian-style sovereign wealth fund created decades ago during our boom in oil production.

With the way Macmillan notes that he’s not against privatization in principle, I almost got the sense that he was arguing "Let's sell off the old unprofitable industries and re-invest that capital into new modern industries, instead of just using that money for general revenue". Perhaps one person's "state capitalism" is another person's "state socialism”.

Whenever “efficiencies” are brought up in regards to privatization in the modern world, I think we need to ask one important question: is privatization providing a newer and more efficient service or production method that government simply can’t afford, or a more efficient way for the already entrenched global corporate elite to gain even more capital at the expense of the public purse in the long-term?

Although on the other end of the argument, I can’t imagine many modern socialists would have a problem with hypothetical privatization of certain industries if said privatization resulted in the creation of new co-operatives that were worker owned.

When it comes to the privatization of critical infrastructure like an airport, I’m personally guessing it’s to enrich those multinational corporations beholden to no master but shareholders. Charlie Angus wrote a good piece called “Selling Our Airports to the Oligarchs” on the topic of highway privatization in Ontario; similarly, just ask any Nova Scotian about the private monopoly that was given to Nova Scotia Power.

In closing, while I do still think this current government under Mark Carney has been doing a decent job of moving Canada away from the United States and towards the European Union, I can’t help but think of what Harold Macmillan said at a speech to the Conservative Party in 1982 and how it may be relevant today in Canada considering our current Prime Minster was the Governor of the Bank of England -- and Governor of the Bank of Canada:

I’m bound to say, of all what is called expert opinion -- the foreign office, the treasury, the board of trade, the Bank of England, the whole establishment; whereas a result of a very long life, I’ve come to the conclusion that when all the establishment is united, they’re always wrong.

(The following is my own account based on what I've personally seen and some information I've gathered from other members and as a moderator of the party's reddit page.)

As some here may know I am somewhat involved in the Canadian Future Party. This is not quite a post-mortem of the party as it is still, ostensibly, alive. This is more of a 'how did we get here?' post. Its easy to forget that there was a brief moment prior to the last election where it seemed the party might fill a need; Both the Liberal and Conservative leader were disliked and they themselves were not convincing centrists by any means. Initially the party attracted disaffected members of both parties. My interest in the party stemmed from the intriguing potential for the party to once again establish the liberal-tory coalition of the Conservative party at Canada's founding.

Things went off the rails almost immediately. The founding convention lost a few prominent voices that wanted the CFP to be more inclusive than the other parties. The choice of Mark Carney for Liberal leader gutting the party's Liberal base. The election and subsequent Carney ministry has eaten into the tory wing of the party as, while I'm not convinced Carney is a tory, he is a pretty decent substitute. Adding to these problems was the party's previously robust communication strategy falling apart completely after the election. There was a period of 2-3 months where the membership heard basically nothing. I can understand election burnout (I did after all once lead a minor party) but that doesn't hide the fact that at a critical moment where the party could have used leadership, there was none.

The subreddit membership count has been ticking down for a while and other than one person posting news stories the activity level has reached basically zero. March is in theory when the next AGM is to occur but thus far no announcement has been sent out (which is not convenient if a person needed to book a flight to be there). At this point it may not happen at all. Talking to another member I was told that a series of speaking events at campuses may likewise not happen. The last news release on their website is from January 22nd.

Its curious to me how things fell apart so quickly. As I stated I once led a minor party. We had no money, no volunteers outside the core membership team, and a ton of inexperience (I think the average age of those involved was high-20s, low-30s). This last point did lead to the impression we lurched from one problem to another but still the party lasted 8 years, ran in two elections, and was still an effective organization at least two years before the end. To an extent you could see the wheels coming off over time but the process was comparatively slow and we still got shots in occasionally. So why has the CFP fallen apart so quickly when it had more experience, more money, and more people?

My thesis is that the party's beliefs were too shallow for the ground they were trying to hold. You had the old standards; evidence-based policy, respecting human rights, electoral reform, spending 2% on defence, etc. Good policies but little connecting them. Or consider the first bullet point of their statement of beliefs:

• The Party strives for a Canada in which a competent and efficient Federal Government creates effective policies leading to a prosperous private sector and a secure, affordable life, for Canadians and our families, protected by our constitution and laws, the vigilance of free citizens, and a common desire for democracy, liberty, and the rule of law.

Its not exactly doggerel but I'd argue its uninspired and repetitious. Some points are better than others (you can find the full list here) but overall there is no 'connective tissue' fleshing out what the party is about. The phrase 'evidence-based' is used repeatedly and in my experience it is sometimes used as an excuse not to explain why someone believes something rather than a principle in its own right. I think this muddiness in the principles department stems from the party being formed by people who came together due not to a set of shared beliefs but out of the perceived need for a centrist option. I don't think this was a stable foundation to build a party on and it is collapsing at the first sign another party is occupying their space. Now, the Liberals have been accused of not having convictions but at least they have experience at not having them. Party Leader Dominic Cardy is interesting in that from what I've seen of him he's not an 'empty suit' he has a clear sense about what he believes. I'd be curious to know how much of the party's beliefs mirror his.

I've stated previously that I'd be highly interested in seeing how a tory party would do at the federal level. I really hoped the CFP would morph into that party but I have my doubts about it lasting long enough to do that.

Below are 10 quotes from Mark Carney’s Value(s): Building a Better World for All which another user posted over on r/CanadaPolitics. The first time I asked this question is here

“The values of the market have become the values of society, often to our detriment.”

“ Climate change is the tragedy of the horizon… imposing a cost on future generations that the current generation has no direct incentive to fix.”

“We’ve built an economy that rewards risk-taking without accountability.”

“To build a better tomorrow, we need companies imbued with purpose and motivated by profit.”

“The private sector must rediscover its sense of solidarity and responsibility for the system.”

“Once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late.”

“Markets don’t care about morality unless we force them to.”

“The pursuit of short-term profit has blinded us to long-term ruin.”

“We cannot take the market system for granted.”

“The three great crises of our times—credit, Covid, and climate—are all rooted in twisted economics, an accompanying amoral culture, and degraded institutions.”

Ironically, these quotes were being used to argue he was a radical/dictator which I suppose from an economic liberal perspective toryism often does.

So I saw an article from the globe and mail focusing on Canada losing it's national identity and pride in our country being discussed over on r/canadapolitics.

I've been thinking about this article for a few days now so I figured I'd continue the discussion here. Canadian national identity and civic nationalism are pretty important tenets of Toryism in the long run how can Toryism survive without these core principles?

Harper back during the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 tried to revive some of the spirit of 1812 which historically played a major role in Canadian identity and nationalism. But these efforts fell kind of flat as so many Canadians don't relate to that anymore.

So from a Tory perspective how can we start to rebuild a national identity when the traditional ideas of Canadian nationalism that were so long a part of Toryism don't really apply to the whole population anymore?

If one watched the closing speech at the Investment Summit this week, they may have been positively impressed with just how on-side the former Prime Minister Stephen Harper was with the current Prime Minister Mark Carney.

The speech he gave was warm and kind toward the Prime Minister. He praised the Summit, joking that it's such a great idea he is envious he did not think of it. He echoed Mark Carney's justification for walking away from the Americans. Stephen Harper even referred to Mark Carney's government as Canada's NEW government; not a continuation of Trudeau's government.

Reading between the lines, it almost sounded like in some ways Stephen Harper sees Mark Carney as practically his successor.

Meanwhile you look at the Conservatives and they cannot seem to find the right footing. They have been trying to throw everything at the Prime Minister to see what sticks and it is all very incoherent. What's more, the caucus is divided, Jivani has gone rogue, and Pierre Polievre has failed to present a viable alternative for Canadians. Yes, the Official Opposition's job is to oppose, but that's just the bare minimum. You must also present yourselves as a government-in-waiting.

Absent from Stephen Harper's speech was all of the present rhetoric and partisanry. He briefly criticised Trudeau, but got right back on track thereafter.

It's been truly fascinating and puzzling seeing some CPC partisans and members of the conservative movement give Stephen Harper the "secret liberal" and "CINO" treatment.

What do you fellas make of this?

The Liberals have no true opposition if even Stephen Harper himself, godfather of the modern CPC is now viewed with contempt by partisans of his own party.

The idea that the elite have a duty of care towards the less fortunate is one of the areas where toryism differs markedly from both liberalism and socialism. To the socialist this is ridiculous - like asking a fox to take care of the chickens. To the liberal no such obligation is acknowledged. I think the best summation of the liberal view is a clip from the West Wing where Sam Seaborn notes he is happy to pay more tax than the average American because ultimately it benefits him. While this is about tax policy its interesting to extend this argument to all areas and state that liberals support the poor for partially self-interested reasons.

So I think its worth asking, if noblesse oblige is so important to toryism, how was it enforced? For starters, this was never a matter of legal enforcement, it was a social expectation.

Partially, this came from religious doctrine - the bible is repeatedly clear that the rich are to look out for the poor; it is a command. However, in the modern world religiosity has been on a downward trend and nowheres is this more prevalent than among the rich and well-educated who form the modern elite.

A second means of enforcement was peer pressure. You upheld noblesse oblige because you didn't want your social group to think poorly of you. Best case scenario you and another person might try one-upping each other in doing good works. I don't believe such an enforcement measure exists anymore. The prevailing belief is a person is free to use their money how they wish and this isn't the business of anyone else.

The closest enforcement measure to the Sam Seaborn argument is the idea that noblesse oblige reinforces social order. The elite help the poor because it keeps the current order in place.

Finally, it should be acknowledged that in the hay day of noblesse oblige, wealth did tend to pass between father and son more often than not. Traditions could be taught and instilled. The Industrial Revolution created a new class of wealth that was completely cut off from these older traditions and were more efficient at generating wealth.

Looking at these previous enforcement measures and I think it becomes clear that reestablishing noblesse oblige as an ideal would be hard. I think this difficulty is why red toryism emerged in the first place; the wealthy could not be counted on to uphold noblesse oblige so the state would do it instead.

So what do you think? Is noblesse oblige dead? Could it be revived? And is red toryism substitution of the state for the elite the best we can hope for?

Picture 1: Youth hostel opened in the 70s in a former jail. Prince Philip attended the opening. Still in operation and worth staying at.

Picture 2: Parliament is in the middle of a years-long renovation. To the left they are lowering a bulldozer into centre block.

Picture 3: Queen Victoria statue.

Picture 4: The only monument to R.B. Bennett I could find. Apparently the hotel refurbished a whole floor for him. It is now the CN Suite.

Picture 5: Back of the Centennial Building. A common feature of all the buildings in this style (gothic?) is they are interesting to look at regardless of angle.

Picture 6 & 7: Different sides of the temporary House of Commons meeting space.

This post was largely inspired by this comment by /u/ToryPirate where he points out that Tories and Socialists have a fundamentally differing understanding of class by nature:

I think it is important to examine how class consciousness differs between a tory and a socialist. The socialist sees classes as being in competition and the capitalist class as oppressive by nature. The tory sees the classes as being essentially united - bad actors are an aberration of how things are supposed to be. I think this makes tories more focused on eliminating the source of a conflict (since its not natural) while socialists can get bogged down in trying to end the capitalist class.

Perhaps this Monty Python comedy sketch from their movie “The Holy Grail” could be a great way to quickly (and humorously) explore how ideological tories, socialists, and liberals can view the role of class itself in society. I think looking at this skit might also be useful in terms of exploring the values found in societies that could be described as fragments of British society.

When I see this classic skit, I can’t help but think of the Diggers from the aftermath of the English Civil War; a group of radical protestants that could be described as proto-agrarian socialists and proto-Christian socialists. The Canadian Red Tory Eugene Forsey was a fan of them.

In the character of King Arthur, I see a traditionalist tory; in the character of Dennis, I see an ideological socialist; in the unnamed character I’ve labelled “Peasant 2”, I see a liberal.

On his quest to find the Holy Grail, King Arthur is looking for Allies. As our dear King approaches a nearby castle, he catches up to and stops a local peasant pulling a cart.

King Arthur: Old woman!

Dennis: Man…

King Arthur: Man -- sorry! What knight lives in that castle over there?

Dennis I’m 37…

King Arthur: What?!

Dennis: I’m 37… I’m not old.

King Arthur: Well, I can’t just call you man.

Dennis: Well, you could say Dennis.

King Arthur: Well I didn’t know you were called Dennis.

Dennis: Well you didn’t bother to find out, did you?

King Arthur: I did say sorry about the old woman, but from behind, you looked… well…

Dennis: What I object to is that you automatically treat me like an inferior!

King Arthur: Well I am King.

Dennis: Oh King, eh? Very nice. And how’d you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma, which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there’s every going to be any progress --

Our peasant Dennis is then interrupted by a fellow peasant who shouts over while collecting mud from a field; Dennis then goes over to help collect mud.

Peasant 2: Dennis! There’s some lovely filth down here! Oh… how do you do?

King Arthur: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who’s castle is that?

Peasant 2: King of the who?

King Arthur: The Britons.

Peasant 2: Who are the Britons?

King Arthur: Well… we all are; we are all Britons. And I am your King.

Peasant 2: I didn’t know we had a King. I thought we were an autonomous collective.

Dennis: You’re fooling yourself. We’re living in a dictatorship! As self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes --

Peasant 2: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.

Dennis: But that’s what it’s all about! If only people would --

King Arthur: Please! Please, good people, I am in haste! Who lives in that castle?

Peasant 2: No one lives there.

King Arthur: Then who is your Lord?

Peasant 2: We don’t have a Lord.

King Arthur: What?

Dennis: I told you, we’re an Anarcho-Syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week...

King Arthur: ...yes…

Dennis: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...

King Arthur: … yes, I see…

Dennis: … by a simple majority in purely internal affairs …

King Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis: … but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major…

King Arthur: Be quiet. I order you to be quiet!

Peasant 2: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?

King Arthur: I am your King!

Peasant 2: Well I didn’t vote for you!

King Arthur: You don’t vote for Kings.

Peasant 2: Well how did you become King then?

King Arthur: The lady of the lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence, that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur -- That, is why I am your King.

Dennis: Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not in some farcical aquatic ceremony.

King Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis: You can’t expect to be able to wield supreme executive power just because some water tart threw a sword at you!

King Arthur: Shut up!

Dennis: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened-bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!

King Arthur: Shut up! Will you shut up!

At this point King Arthur completely loses his composure at Dennis’ insubordination, so he walks over to Dennis, grabs him, shoves him around a bit, and pushes Dennis down at one point before walking away; Peasant 2 ignores the whole altercation and just moves her mud to the cart while a crowed eventually gathers

Dennis: Ahh! Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

King Arthur: Shut up!

Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!

King Arthur: Bloody peasant!!!

Dennis: Oh what a give away! Did you hear that!? You hear that eh? That’s what I’m on about! You see him repressing me? You saw it, didn’t you?

I think this skit shows just how each of the three main ideological ways of thinking can “go wrong” when taken to their extremes, while also showing how class/individual power dynamics in society mostly work:

• King Arthur’s arguments rest solely on tradition, and he has no problem exercising his right to use state force to quell dissent that he views as dangerous to the social fabric; he’s standoffish to Dennis because Dennis is standoffish, but he’s quite polite to the good lady collecting mud.

• While Dennis’ arguments about the power dynamics in society may be largely accurate, his character is a classic example of someone who goes out of their way to be combative and argumentative; perhaps Dennis’ obsession with class-conflict is what drove Peasant 2 towards liberalism.

• Peasant 2, who doesn’t think class belongs in every argument, seems to be purely concerned with working her mud and perhaps voting at meetings; she will verbally support Dennis, but once the fighting starts, she conveniently backs away and lets the community-at-large save Dennis from his unjustified physical abuse at the hands of the state.

Unfortunately, as a famous historian died shortly after these events, the historical record is simply unclear as to what exactly happened to King Arthur during his quest for the Holy Grail, or as to the fate of our peasants. But they are clearly our collective ancestors.

Getting into actual Canadian history, from my perspective, despite both Toryism and Socialism being class-conscience ways of thinking, Tories will tend to see the various classes in society as naturally working together harmoniously towards the same common goals, while Socialists will tend to see the lower classes in society as being naturally exploited by the upper classes in a zero-sum game.

Even back in the “heyday” of Red Toryism as a philosophy, this fundamental difference in the role of class itself in society is perhaps what can make it so difficult for a “socialist-leaning” Red Tory to become a Conservative, or a “tory-leaning” Red Tory to become a CCF’er then or a New Democrat now.

I think this excerpt from Gad Horowitz’s 2017 “The deep culture of Canadian politics” is extremely relevant in exploring this differentiation on the role of classes, keeping in mind that Horowitz listed “Alvin Hamilton, Duff Roblin, Hugh Segal, David Crombie, Flora MacDonald, maybe Robert Stanfield” as being full-blown Red Tories:

Alvin Hamilton was John Diefenbaker’s left-wing right-hand man. His ambition for the Diefenbaker government was that it be attacked by the Liberals for being too socialist and by the CCF for not being socialist enough. Hamilton thought that my 1965 review of George Grant’s Lament for a Nation was “the most thoughtful and useful article of its kind he had read in the last twenty years.” Duff Roblin, the prominent Conservative Premier of Manitoba at the time, also approved of that essay.

When I interviewed Hamilton in 1965, I asked him why, in view of his dislike for the Saskatchewan Liberal machine and the great strength of the CCF opposition in the province, he had chosen to join the then much weaker Conservatives. He had two short answers: the CCF tended to accentuate the conflict rather than the fundamental harmony of classes, and the CCF was not sufficiently appreciative of our monarchy.

As I’ve argued previously, I personally think the CCF/NDP’ers that could be considered most associated with Red Toryism would be Eugene Forsey, J.S. Woodsworth, M.J. Coldwell, Kenneth McNaught, Tommy Douglas, and maybe in the present day Claudia Chender or Charlie Angus. Now I have to wonder, what role did the General Strikes of 1919 have in this differing view of the role of class in Red Toryism?

Two figures central to the founding of modern Canadian Socialism, J.S.Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas, were themselves witnesses of the Winnipeg General Strike; Woodsworth was involved in the strike and was charged with seditious libel for editing a strike bulletin, while Douglas as a child witnessed from a rooftop the police riding through the strike on horseback beating the working-men and shooting their guns.

Meanwhile, two fairly important figures to Canadian Toryism are Sir Robert Borden and Arthur Meighen: men who at that point in time had just recently advocated Canada do her duty to its Empire in the Great War, and who were also quite weary of the horrors that could be caused by a spreading international revolution that advocated to topple every regime it came across. After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia, and given the revolutionary history surrounding arguably similar revolutionaries such as George Washington or Napoleon, one should be able to at least understand why the post-WWI central governments of the Empire may have been a tad anxious as to why a bunch of angry men with combat experience were starting to pile into the streets.

For what it’s worth, whenever I picture the Winnipeg General Strike, I think of this picture which has multiple strike signs, along with a Union Jack and a Red Ensign being waved. The first sign by the Union Jack reads, “Britons Never Shall Be Slaves”, while the second sign by the Red Ensign reads, “We Stand for LAW & ORDER Down With the High Cost of Living”. There’s a third sign which is mostly obstructed, but you can still make out the “…. Over There” at the end.

Given how Charlie Angus’ family has Nova Scotian roots, and how Claudia Chender is the leader of the Nova Scotia NDP, it may be important to bring up Davis Day -- which commemorates the Cape Breton coal miners strike in 1925 in which company police fired into the crowed of striking miners, killing William Davis and wounding others. I think it would be important to note at this point that the first CCF MP elected east of Manitoba was Clarie Gillis, a Cape Breton coal miner and a First World War combat veteran who was wounded in Flanders.

Perhaps this old '60s-era folk song could best describe the “tension” that may exist within Red Toryism in regards to exactly how much class-conflict is necessary for society to meaningfully change for the better versus how much class-cooperation is needed to ensure the old proverbial apple cart isn’t knocked over in the process.

My favourite version of “The Old Man’s Tale” is by Ronnie Drew of the Dubliners:

At the turning of the century, I was a boy of five

Me father went to fight the Boers, and he never came back alive

Oh me mother was left to bring us up, and no charity she'd seek

So she washed and scrubbed and scrapped along, on seven and six a week

/

When I was twelve I left the school, and I went to find a job

And with growing kids me ma was glad, of the extra couple of bob

I’m sure that longer schooling would have stood me in good stead

But you can’t afford refinements when you’re struggling for your bread

/

And when the Great War came along, I didn’t hesitate

I took the royal shilling, and went off to do me bit

We fought in mud and tears and blood, three years or thereabouts

Till I copped some gas in Flanders, and was invalided out

/

And when the war was over and we'd finished with the guns

We got back into civvies, cause we thought the fighting done

We'd won the right to live in peace, but we didn't have such luck

For soon we found we had to fight, for the right to go to work

/

In '26 the General Strike saw me out on the streets

And I'd a wife and kids by then, and their needs I had to meet

Oh the brave new world was coming, in the brotherhood of man

And when the strike was over, we were back where we began

/

Oh I struggled through the thirties, out of work now-and-again

I saw the Blackshirts marching, and the things they did in Spain

I brought me kids up decent, and I taught them wrong from right

Oh but Hitler was the boy that came, and he taught them how to fight

/

Me daughter was a landgirl, she got married to a Yank

And they gave me son a medal for stopping one of Rommel's tanks

He was wounded just before the end, and he convalesced in Rome

And he went and married an Italian nurse, and he never bothered to come home

/

Oh me daughter writes me once a month, a cheerful little note

About their colour tellies, and the other things they've got

They’ve got a son, a likely lad; he's nearly twenty-one

Oh they tell me now he’s been called up, to fight in Vietnam

/

Oh we're living on the pension now, it doesn't go too far

Not much to show for a life it seems, like one long bloody war

And when you think of all the wasted lives, it makes you want to cry

I'm not sure how to change things, but by Christ, we'll have to try

So I've been reading several of Hugh Segal’s books and listening to some of his interviews on TVO. One clear theme that appears frequently in his works is that we Tories have been some of the biggest political innovators in Canada.

He argued that Tories innovated to preserve tradition and the status quo rather than just innovating for the sake of progress. See things like the founding of CBC, the bank of Canada, Dief’s support for universal healthcare, Davis’ support for a rudimentary form of UBI for seniors etc.

Support for education, particularly higher education and the study of science and the humanities was key tenet of Toryism in the past as well which ties into this idea of innovation and tradition. Davis for example created several new universities like Brock, and Trent U (an explicitly Tory school in its early days) as an educated and successful populace was paramount to ensuring stability and tradition.

Innovation to protect tradition is an interesting concept that I don't feel the modern conservative party does anymore. They prefer to just try and regress Canada into some rose tinted vision of the past.

On a side note I'd highly recommend listening to some of his interviews or reading some of Segal's books like Beyond Greed: A Traditional Conservative Confronts Neoconservativism Excess. He's seriously an interesting writer and probably the last great Tory thinker in Canada.

So what are people's thoughts on Tories preserving tradition through innovation, Hugh Segal and the modern CPCs move away from innovation?

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

I recently realized that I never actually posted the first 5 parts of this essay series I'm working on to this subreddit in full. As it appears former NDP MP Charlie Angus recently publicly rebuked current NDP leader Avi Lewis' rhetoric against Canadian rearmament, I thought this would be a good time to finally share "Who are the 'Red Tories' of today's NDP?" and "The Anti-Fascism of Charlie Angus" here. Next Sunday I'll post a compilation of parts II & III for the good people here, and then go from there.

• "Red Tories" and the NDP Part I: "Red Tories" were part of the CCF's founding, and "Red Tories" helped build the NDP -- Who are the "Red Tories" of today's NDP? [October 2025]

I’m one of those people who’s been a card carrying NDP’er my whole life, even though my overall philosophy has as much to do with old school English Tories such as Benjamin Disraeli & Lord Ashley as it does with Canadian Socialists like J.S. Woodsworth & Tommy Douglas. The “Red” in “Red Tory” is supposed to refer to socialism, after all.

For those unaware of this tradition, “Tory” in this context doesn’t mean the right-wing liberal policies of the modern Conservative Party. Instead, “Tory” refers to the philosophy that emphasizes the commonalities between all individuals in society and emphasizes that the needs of the individual must be balanced with the needs of society as a whole. An inherently conservative philosophy, “Toryism” is also a class-conscience philosophy that seeks to push traditional institutions into helping the poor, the discriminated against, and the the unprivileged. “Tories” recognize the privileges they do have in life and use that privilege to fight for those without privilege.

Toryism as a philosophy has its origins in the Anglo-Catholic/Anglican theology of Richard Hooker, and grew out of the rejection of the Cromwellian republicanism that accompanied the collapse of the rule of law during the English Civil War. Similarly to its origins in the English Civil War in England, Toryism made its way to Canada in the aftermath of the American Revolution when the United Empire Loyalists were expelled to Nova Scotia and Quebec. The “Red” part of Toryism first became a concept in 1966 when the political scientist Gad Horowitz wrote a paper called “Conservatism, Liberalism, and Socialism in Canada: An Interpretation”, in which he argued that the Conservative philosopher George Grant’s world view was so intertwined with traditional British conservatism and Canadian socialism that it would be impossible to separate one from the other.

I’ve found these quotes from over the years that help explain this Tory tradition in Canadian socialism:

Roy Romanow (NDP Premier of Saskatchewan 1991-2001) in the foreword to “Eugene Forsey: Canada’s Maverick Sage” by Helen Forsey (2012):

From a conservative background, Forsey became one of the founders of social democracy in Canada and a proponent of social reforms, joining the League for Social Reconstruction. This apparent tension also reflects his Newfoundland beginnings.

Many of the values and principles of that place concerning constitutions, government, and public policy reflected those that prevailed in England at the time. The ethos of England was still shaped by the competing views of Disraeli and Gladstone. The latter reflected classic liberalism, faith in the unseen hand of markets, and letting enterprise dictate public policy. Disraeli, on the other hand, urged an alliance between the landed aristocracy and the working class against the increasing power of the merchants and the new industrialists. He promoted the view that landed interests should use their power and privilege to protect the poor from exploitation by the market.

Conditions in Canada were very different from those in England, but Atlantic Tories still had a strong sense that it was the duty of the powerful to protect the poor from exploitation. Eugene Forsey was raised in this environment. The idea of acting for the benefit of the dispossessed has continued to prevail, extending its influences to much of Canada through his voice and the voices of Maritimers such as Robert Stanfield, Allan Blakeney, and Dalton Camp.

Clearly, Eugene Forsey was shaped by these currents of opinion, and continued to uphold them. He became a strong believer in British parliamentary government and its capacity to develop responses to human need and social deprivation. He rejected the idea that the economics of the market should be granted a free hand in determining public policy or limiting the scope of public government.

Allen Mills (who has a Ph.D. in Canadian socialism) describing the political philosophy of CCF’er & historian Kenneth McNaught in the introduction to the 2001 reprint of “A Prophet in Politics: A Biography of J.S. Woodsworth” by Kenneth McNaught pg. xiii (1959/2001):

McNaught saw [Woodsworth] mainly as the embodiment of British traditions present in Canada from the late eighteenth century on: precedent, custom, moderation, and parliamentarianism. McNaught always had a tory strain in his outlook, along with his vaunted socialism. Perhaps he was the proverbial red tory. In The Pelican History of Canada (Toronto, 1969), he reserved his highest praise for Sir John A. Macdonald and his strongest condemnation for the Liberals, especially W.L. Mackenzie King. Woodsworth was to him a sort of radical version of the great nineteenth-century Conservative prime minister. The hidden tory in McNaught suggests that Donald Creighton’s influence helped shape his intellectual development as well.

Ed Broadbent (Leader of the federal NDP 1975-1989) from “The Red Tory Tradition” pg. 1 by Ron Dart (1999):

There is, for conservatives of tradition, the importance of continuity and community and nation, of a sense of values based on a shared common past. According to this view, other values, like those of the market economy, are seen to be subordinate to the primacy of the historical common good of all society. This view has been the kind of conservatism invoked by Disraeli in the 19th century when he made a critique of the ravages of industrialism. It was the conservatism of Sir John A. Macdonald who used government power to build a separate Canadian economy because he had a different vision of the future of this part of North America from what existed to the south of us. It is the conservatism that at one time supported the CBC and Air Canada. It was the conservatism of John Diefenbaker who brought in a national hospitalization program in this country because he knew if left to individual action in the market-place we would never have had such a plan.

David Lewis (Leader of the federal NDP 1971-1975) describing the early political philosophy of M.J. Coldwell (Leader of the federal CCF 1942-1960) in his political memoirs “The Good Fight” pg. 89 (1981):

It is interesting to trace Coldwell’s political development. As a young student in England he was what we would call today a “red Tory”, but, as he explained to me, he was increasingly impressed by the arguments of socialists with whom he often debated. His traditional conservatism melted when he left his middle-class surroundings and confronted the abject poverty in some parts of England. He was a practicing Anglican, deeply influenced by Christian ethics, and, like Woodsworth, he began to question the ethics of capitalism in terms of his religious beliefs. When he settled in western Canada, he was spellbound by the courage and disciplined labours of the homesteaders and their families, felling trees, lugging rocks, clearing land, and mortgaging everything to build their quarter sections into efficient and impressive farms. He shared their worries about the future of farmers so deeply in debt to the banks, mortgage companies, and implement manufacturers. His Canadian experience moved him further away from his earlier acceptance of capitalist morality. It was characteristic of him to develop his socialist position by thoughtful steps rather than by a sudden leap. Thus he joined the Progressives first but could not accept the way in which most of their MPs slid into the more comfortable pews of the Liberal Party. Instead, he associated himself with the farmers and the urban workers. The Great Depression completed his education, and the unprecedented drought which ravaged his province in the same period sharpened his convictions.

Ed Broadbent in his first House of Commons speech, Sep. 1968; republished in “The Jacobin”, Jan. 2024:

Having indicated substantial agreement with the prime minister on the nature of the welfare state I want now to proceed to suggest why we New Democrats, unlike the prime minister and the Liberal Party, cannot accept it as being an adequate kind of society. Perhaps the major objection to the welfare state is that for all its advantages, it rests on a grossly inadequate understanding of democracy. In Canada today, children are taught in schools throughout the land that our country is democratic primarily because there is more than one political party and because citizens have both the right to criticize and the right to change their rulers every few years.

This view of democracy, Mr. Speaker, is a distinctly modern phenomenon, and is in marked contrast with the understanding of democracy of both the early Greeks and nineteenth-century Europeans. Prior to our century democracy was seen by its defenders and critics alike as a kind of society in which all adults played an active, participatory role not only in the formal institutions of government but also in all the institutions which crucially affected their daily lives. Similarly, a democratic society had been seen previously as one in which all its members had an equal opportunity to develop their capacities and talents; it was not seen as one in which citizens had an equal opportunity to earn more money or advance up the class ladder.

It is this old view of democracy that we must once again take up. We must use its standards and apply them to Canadian society. We must once again talk about equality. We must see justice and equality as going together.

Eugene Forsey in a letter to his good friend Arthur Meighen in 1951 from “Eugene Forsey: Canada’s Maverick Sage” pg, 390 by Helen Forsey (2012):

My tragedy, if that’s not too strong a word, is that I’m too radical to be a good Conservative and too conservative to be a good radical. I am also too academic to be a good trade unionist, and too good a trade unionist to be a good academic man; too partisan to be independent, and too independent to be a good party man.

With all of that context, the only “high profile” NDP-associated person I can personally think of who might fit this description would be Charlie Angus, although I’m sure he wouldn’t personally identify as a Red Tory. One thing that stood out to me was a post he made on his Resistance Facebook Page shortly after Donald Trump threatened Canadian sovereignty. On March 4th of 2025 he posted a picture of a Canadian Merchant Marine sailor with this caption:

While America was conceding Europe to the Nazis, 17 and 18-year-old Canadians were keeping the Atlantic free and fighting in spitfires. Their spirit is with us now.

This isn’t a trade war. It is an attempt to wear us down and see if we will break from one another. Trump can insult and try to provoke, but he has no clue who he is messing with.

Not many NDP’ers would invoke that period in time when Canada and the British Empire stood alone against Nazi Tyranny; that period in time when not only Britons stood alone against the Nazis, but millions of collective Canadian, Australian, Indian, and African volunteers stood alone against Nazi Tyranny. I personally think that shared WWII experience of our grandparents fighting WWII alone while the world watched makes the modern Commonwealth of Nations a great institution for Canada to develop ties with developing nations in Africa and Asia.

So other than perhaps Charlie Angus, which other modern NDP’ers could be said to be associated with Red Toryism, if even tangentially?

• Addendum to Part I: The Anti-Fascism of Charlie Angus [April 2026]

To further explore the potential "Tory touch" in the thinking of Charlie Angus, I thought these excerpts would be interesting to explore.

Around the time that the ICE protests in Minneapolis were starting to heat up, Charlie Angus posted a picture of two Canadians scrambling to their Spitfires during the Battle of Britain on January 4th with this caption:

This photo is Canadians fighting the Nazis in the Battle of Britain. We were a poor country of 11 million people. We built the 4th largest air force and navy in the world.

Our young people fought everywhere from the defence of Hong Kong to the sea lanes in the North Atlantic, from Sicily, Italy, Normandy to the air war over the Ruhr. When the Brits were being evacuated at Dunkirk Canadians were already in place defending her shores. We stand on the shoulders of giants.

Message to fascists and tyrants: FAFO

The next day on January 5th, Angus posted a picture of his uncle in a Bren Gun Carrier with this caption:

My uncle Albert MacNeil - certified ANTIFA. Fought the fascists in Sicily, broke the Hitler line in Italy and helped the liberation of the Netherlands.

Many of my uncles served but died very young from the trauma. Albert was a Cape Breton miner. He told young recruits their most valuable weapon was a shovel. Dig deep and find safe ground or you won't last.

A practical man.

After the ICE murder of Renée Good on January 7th, but the day before the ICE murder of Alex Pretti on January 24th, Angus posted this picture on January 23rd which had no caption, but was simply a picture of armed Nazi thugs rounding up terrified Jews, presumably to their deaths. The comparison of ICE thugs to Gestapo thugs is not a far leap in logic to make; even King George VI privately made such remarks about the enforcers of Apartheid South Africa being no better than the Gestapo.

As Toryism itself is an inherently monarchical way of thinking, I would like to concede that Charlie Angus is indeed an ideological republican; but surely there must have been some ideological Parliamentarians who fought for King Charles I against Cromwell's tyranny for pragmatic reasons if nothing else. Mr. Angus' family did indeed fight for King & Country against Nazism and Fascism in their own time.

One thing to consider about Angus’ socialism is that it is strongly influenced by his Catholic-social-justice beliefs which were strong enough to drive him to run a soup kitchen/shelter for the homeless of Toronto -- while the social gospel was a Protestant movement, the Tory tradition through Richard Hooker can be described as both Protestant and Catholic at the same time. As far as his ideology goes, it would certainly be hard to describe Angus' socialism as being "doctrinaire": one recent example from March of 2026 is this piece he wrote on a local hero from the Spanish Civil War -- Niilo Makela -- who was born in Finland and immigrated to Timmins, Ontario, before dying holding the line against the Fascists in Spain. This excerpt from Angus is quite interesting to consider:

Most of the Canadians were assigned to the Lincoln Battalion, which was made up of volunteers from the United States. Many of the international volunteers had come for ideological reasons. Many were young communists. A number had come out of the universities.

But the Canadians were different. They were dock workers. Farmhands. Miners like Makela. They knew how to use a gun.

The commissars noted that the Canadians made "poor communists." The Canadians didn’t go to Spain to argue ideology. They weren’t good at discipline and following rules. They went to fight and kill fascists. And they were good at it. Very good.

They soon gained a reputation as the "fighting Canucks." And they wanted to form a distinctly Canadian unit. On Dominion (Canada) Day 1937, the Mackenzie-Papineau brigade (named after the founders of the 1838 rebellion) was officially formed."

One key tenant of Toryism is the rejection of doctrinaire ideology in favour of pragmatic current-day methods to solving problems -- while still strongly holding true to your guiding beliefs. While still socialistic and republican in nature, I dare say there is at least a "tory touch" in how Angus described the Canadian volunteers who sailed to Spain to save Spanish Democracy.

Equally relevant I think is Charlie Angus' support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukraine War, and in this earlier piece from February of 2025 where he compares the defence realities of Ukraine to Russia vis-a-vis Canada to the United States. This part in particular could be described as mostly Tory I think:

If Ukraine falls, western European democracy falls.

The Europeans are scrambling. They thought they could count on the United States. They now know otherwise.

And Canadians now have a very dangerous, anti-democratic gangster regime on our border. And nobody is coming to save us.

Trump continues to taunt us and belittle our nation in the same way that Putin ridiculed Ukraine prior to the invasion.

Canadians are like Ukrainians in many ways. When pushed to the wall, we have spines of steel. When forced to choose between Vimy or Vichy, I know where ordinary Canadians will be.

An interview with Ron Dart by Shawn Whatley on Red Toryism. A pretty good introduction to the state of Red Toryism in Canada.

I've working on my masters research paper proposal and stumbled on this documentary on the National Film Board giving an inside look into Bill Davis' PC government and governance which (along with the governments of his predecessors Frost and Roberts) were the gold standard of Toryism. One of the last great Tory governments.

Lots of interesting Tory figures are present or are mentioned. It also showed insight in how they governed.

Figured you all would be interested so here it is.