Connect with us

Opinion

FORBES: Tories will be tempted to sacrifice the West to win Toronto

If Wexit continues to grow, the federal Tories have chosen the worst possible time to pivot their attention to Toronto.

mm

Published

on

Canada’s federal Tories are looking for a new direction for the 2020s. The party brass has announced that they will select a new leader on June 27 at a convention in Toronto. Yes, the Toronto where the Tories also selected their last leader. The decision to keep the convention in Toronto is symbolic of the party’s desire to “broaden the tent” by appealing to the vote-rich urban centres. They obviously need to do this, but if they are not careful, the party risks further alienating the West and undoing whatever little inroads they could ever hope to make.

First, let’s look at how we got to this point. Now that outgoing party leader Andrew Scheer has been thrown to the wolves, many among the party faithful seem to be clamouring for a major change in direction. Playing it safe was the old strategy that got Scheer to the leadership back in 2017, as the candidate preferred by the party’s establishment. After a decade of power under Stephen Harper, the party had hoped to repeat their success by choosing a “Harper with a smile.” Even Scheer’s federal election campaign looked like a re-run from the Harper years, offering voters a few micro tax credits and hoping that the latest bout of Liberal scandals would allow them to sail through to Ottawa. It was an uninspiring strategy, perhaps, but it had worked before.

Former Conservative leader Andrew Scheer campaigning in Toronto in October 2019 (Source: WikiCommons)

With the failure to topple a scandal-ridden Trudeau in the 2019 election, however, some of the party’s leading voices are not interested in business as usual. Many seem to envision this leadership race as part of a broader transformation, with calls for more foundational change in party policy, branding, and strategy. Conservative commentator and former Harper staffer Andrew MacDougall, for example,wrote in the Ottawa Citizen that the party needs a “root-and-branch reform” to overcome its reputation for being too “traditional” and “old.”

That’s the assumption, but is it true? After all, the party was apparently not too “traditional” for the West, including the major urban centres of Calgary and Edmonton. There are a lot of potential reasons why the Tories failed to connect with voters: Scheer’s lack of name recognition compared with Trudeau’s, an uninspiring platform, etc. The answers will come out in time, starting with John Baird’s expected report. In the meantime, who exactly are they trying to impress with all this talk about a new progressive direction?

The answer is simple: Toronto. Matt Gurney’s comments in the National Post seem to sum up Conservative Party thinking these days:“If the Tories are ever going to form a national government again, they’re going to need to dramatically improve on their performance in and around Toronto (doing better in Quebec would be nice, too).”

On the surface it seems like a sound strategy. After all, every party needs to move beyond their base to achieve nationwide support. And the GTA is the most vote-rich part of the country, with 25 seats in Toronto alone and 30 more in the surrounding 905 region. With this population base, relatively small region of the country controls more seats than Alberta and Saskatchewan combined.

Massive crowd of people gathered for “We the North Day” in downtown Toronto (Source: WikiCommons)

Westerners should be cautious of endorsing a plan for the Tories to suck up to the GTA even more than it currently does.

Firstly, there is a low chance that this Toronto-focused strategy will even work. The current Conservative share of the vote in most Toronto area ridings is as pitiful as the Liberal vote is in most Western Canadian ridings. Do the Tories really think a leader who loves the carbon tax and waves a pride flag will make up for these dismal showings and bridge the gap? That’s like Liberals saying they will win Calgary if they just take a few more selfies at the Stampede. It’s not going to happen.

Even when Harper was able to take many 905 seats in the 2011 election, it had less to do with strategy than with circumstances. The Tories benefitted from a strong NDP collapsing the Liberal vote. Most of those seats went right back to the Liberals as soon as the NDP itself collapsed in the post-Layton period. The CBC’s Eric Grenier explained this dynamic as follows: “When the NDP is struggling, the Liberals have a high likelihood of winning. When the NDP is doing well, the Conservatives tend to have the edge.” The Conservative majority in 2011 was not about fundamentally reforming the party, it was about being at the right place at the right time.

Former NDP leader Jack Layton at a campaign rally in Toronto in 2008 (Source: Matt Jiggins, WikiCommons)

But major changes in the Conservative Party could do something far worse: it could further alienate an already volatile West. Consider how Western conservatives will respond if a Laurentian Red Tory gets elected on a platform designed primarily to appeal to Toronto and Quebec. In the 2017 Tory leadership race, Michael Chong ran on expanding the vote in urban centres by focusing on climate change and promoting immigration. When he declared his support for the carbon tax, however, he was roundly booed in Edmonton. Chong ultimately came in fifth place with 9.14 per cent of the vote. Leadership contenders should take that as a warning that Western Canada’s support must not be taken for granted.

Best case scenario for a Tory Toronto strategy: they swing a few seats in the GTA and disgruntled Westerners hold their nose to vote for an Eastern Tory. This isn’t a given, as many Westerners will begin to look elsewhere to have their voices heard. In the last election the upstart People’s Party (PPC) was only able to pick off 1.6 per cent of the popular vote, but Patrick Cain argued on Global News that even that small vote share may have cost the Conservatives up to six seats. If small-‘c’ conservatives continue to get the impression that the Tories are moving to the left to appease Toronto, that number will grow, negating hard-won growth in the GTA.

Whereas Maxime Bernier’s PPC has so far only made a small splash on the national scene, a Western independence party at the federal level could be a different matter altogether. The PPC has the challenge of spreading its limited resources across all 338 ridings and finding a message that appeals to voters in every part of the country. Consequently, there is no particular region where they have yet achieved a breakthrough.

WEXIT organizers are working to register just such a party at the federal level. If they – or another Western sovereigntist party – can build up a strong regional base like the Reform Party, they have the potential to be a real game changer.

Wexit rally in Calgary (source: Facebook)

Time will tell if Wexit’s rallies and social media following can translate into effective political mobilization. Wexit is as yet a political movement with significant support, but not viewed as a viable political engine. This weekend’s Wexit rally in Edmonton may be a good indication as to whether the movement will continue to gain steam and become a credible political force in the 2020s.

If so, the federal Tories have chosen the worst possible time to pivot their attention to Toronto. If they want to avoid another major rupture on the right, they would be wise to tread carefully in their courtship of the GTA.

Western Canadians have proven time and time again that we are willing to turn on the establishment parties and throw our support behind parties that will stand up for our interests.

The Tories have been warned.

Continue Reading
4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. ปั้มไลค์

    January 10, 2020 at 3:13 pm

    Like!! Thank you for publishing this awesome article.

  2. Shaun

    January 11, 2020 at 8:01 pm

    The writing is on the wall. Independence is our only option. We are an afterthought at best to all the federal parties

  3. K2shifter

    January 12, 2020 at 1:34 am

    This is showing once again our failed political system where a centralized population takes precedence over the needs of other places in the country who have nothing in common with the provinces the politicians seek support from. It really isn’t anything personal but for our own survival and prosperity the west must read the writing on the wall and understand the experiment called confederation is over. The need for independence outweighs any sentimental feelings we may have because we went to the Montreal jazz fest and had some poutine 15 yrs ago and always meant to go back..

  4. MISG

    January 14, 2020 at 8:49 am

    Honestly I hope this happens to the West perhaps then the majority of Western Canadians will see how badly we are ignored.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

NAVARRO-GENIE: Want to help Harry and Meghan? Leave them be.

No matter what we think, they are entitled to personal autonomy and they alone must be responsible for the array of consequences their decisions bring.

mm

Published

on

Personal autonomy and the exercise of individual conscience are cornerstones of western civilization. We expect mature individuals to accept that personal autonomy includes embracing the consequences of independent decisions. We have entrenched these values in the canon, from Magna Carta (1215) to Canada’s Constitution Act (1982). So, when Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, announced they no longer wish to have official royal duties, our generous inclination is to support their desire for greater autonomy. 

Plenty of ink is being dedicated to the former Sussexes, but little has focused on an important consequence of their decision:  they have renounced their public duty. 

Dropping the bombshell publicly before advising Her Majesty the Queen showed an absence of good judgement, the main standard of public duty. In addition to being the family matriarch and their grandmother, the queen is also the reigning monarch and head of state. Any of these roles individually commands dutiful respect.

The crass action has public implications beyond the disrespect to our Monarch, and the most immediate for Canadians is our prime minister announcing his willingness to have Canadians pay for Harry and Meghan’s steep personal security costs, should they decide to settle in Canada.  

Prior to the invitation, came rash speculation backed by a flash opinion survey asking whether there is support for Harry to become our governor general. 

Both ideas are senselessness raised on stilts. 

The governorship general idea is tone deaf to the couple’s wishes. They have rejected public duties, wishing to be autonomous. How disrespectful is it to offer someone what they have just rejected? Do you stubbornly offer dog meat to someone wanting to be vegan?

However much Harry might know about Canada, the highest political office in the land should be reserved to someone who has the fortitude to perform his public duty –a standard also applicable to the present occupant at Rideau Hall, one might fairly say.  

The principal issue is that Harry and his wife are not interested in, or have the resilience for, performing public duties. Putting aside the question of ability, consider his judgement and disposition. Despite being raised in a royal household, prepared for a life of service and duty, Harry demonstrated anemic judgement in handling his exit from duty. 

However generously we wish to look at his exit, Harry reneged on duties he was trained to perform and unwisely embarrassed his people and his country, his grandmother and his monarch. 

And there is the rub!  We now want the former Duke of Sussex to come to perform in Canada for Canadians, in the stead of his queen and grandmother, greater duties with more consequence than those he rejected in the United Kingdom?

What kind of affront would this be to Her Majesty for Canada even to submit Harry as Canada’s choice for GG? (Let’s not forget the queen has the last word on who represents her personally). And if Harry and wife wish to demonstrate autonomy, how many shades of hypocrisy could we spot on Harry embracing Canadian public duties having rejected lesser duties at home? 

What is more, are there assurances that the former Sussexes would perform and stick with Canadian duties for the same Sovereign they rejected? Would Harry be more diligent and loyal in performing duty to strangers in a strange land than in his own country of birth?  

Provided they satisfy our immigration laws and regulations, the former Duke and Duchess of Sussex are welcome to come and stay in Canada, in accordance with their stated wishes.  But in keeping with their wishes, they ought not be treated as royalty. That’s how we can help!

They have not asked for financial help with their security costs. Absent any state duties, they are not Canada’s responsibility.  Offering to pay for them condescendingly insults their wish for autonomy as much as does offering them public duty they rejected. 

So let’s leave them be! If the former Duke and Duchess want to evade their royal kin in the United Kingdom, we can be for, against or neutral. No matter what we think, they are entitled to personal autonomy and they alone must be responsible for the array of consequences their decisions bring. 

Let us not push on them to receive monetary aid we claim we cannot afford for veteran Canadians, who have loyally and bravely performed their duties to queen and country. 

Marco Navarro-Génie is a Columnist for the Western Standard, the president of Haultain Research Institute and a senior fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Continue Reading

Opinion

LITTLEJOHN: A provincial Alberta is landlocked. A national Alberta not so much.

Albertans need to decide if they want to be a landlocked province without the ability to do much about it, or a nation with the leverage to reach our potential.

mm

Published

on

Opponents of Alberta independence believe that they have a trump-card in convincing Albertans to remain a subject of the federation: it would be landlocked.

On the surface of it, they have a point. It doesn’t require a cartographer to look at a map to realize that an independent West without BC would lack a coastline.

The argument goes that without direct coastal access, a vengeful rump-Canada would have a veto over all of Alberta’s affairs, and energy exports in particular. As difficult as it is to deal with other provinces now, it would be virtually impossible if Albertans were foreigners without recourse to the courts. This side claims that British Columbia’s leverage would grow, along with their ability kibosh pipelines.

Unlike rich landlocked nations like as Switzerland, Austria and Luxembourg – whose commodities can be transported without pipelines – Alberta’s economy would tank, rendered subject to the whims of our neighbors. This is a major reason why many Albertans believe that their standard of living would suffer as an independent state.

Premier Jason Kenney shares this view.

“Landlocking ourselves through separation is not a solution. The green-left has been leading a campaign to landlock our energy. Why would we give them what they want?”

Kenney and the federalists ignore the elephant in the room: Alberta is already landlocked. 

After the passage of bills C-69 and C-48, it is highly unlikely that any private investors will bother to even attempt to build a new interprovincial pipeline. The Trans Mountain Expansion appears likely to proceed, but it is hardly a ‘future’ pipeline, given that it has been pumping oil since 1953. 

As a province, Alberta is bound by the constitution to respect the federal government’s powers over interprovincial trade. From milk, to beer, to oil, Ottawa has proven itself highly reticent to exercise these powers against offenders, giving an effective veto to politicians in Quebec and British Columbia. Even without a formal veto, these politicians have successfully intimidated potential investors with their pernicious rhetoric and threats of endless lawfare.

Alberta may eventually win long, dragged out fights in the courts, but the victory is a pyrrhic one. 

Without the ability to inflict real damage on other jurisdictions blocking its right to trade freely, Alberta is bringing a spoon to a gunfight. 

As a country, Alberta would have its hands untied, with the ability to retaliate in kind. Trade wars are almost always harmful, but the real threat of one is necessary. As Lawrence Solomon points out, “If Alberta were independent, its newfound bargaining power would certainly cause the Rest of Canada to capitulate, and speed to completion any and all pipelines Alberta needed to either ocean.”

An independent Alberta would indeed rely on imports and exports crossing foreign borders, but not without hugely expanded leverage. Threats of cutting Alberta off are hollow for the simple reason that Alberta would have an even greater ability to cut British Columbia off from the rest of Canada, and vice-versa. 

If B.C. attempted to landlock an independent Alberta, she would quickly find herself a modern East Prussia, cut off from access to the mother country. All the trucks, trains and planes carrying Eastern commodities to and from B.C. ports, and Toronto-Vancouver flights, would be forced to route either through the United States, or the Arctic.

The vast majority of Alberta’s energy trade is north-south. While it would hurt, Alberta could survive even a total embargo from a rump Ontario-Quebec state.

By contrast, the vast majority of British Columbia’s trade is with the rest of Canada. Those keen to point out that Alberta has no costal access on the map, should also note that standing between British Columbia and Ontario, is Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. A trade war would cut B.C. off from the Rest of Canada, and the Rest of Canada off from the Pacific. 

B.C. would have little incentive to turn off Alberta’s pipelines, knowing that Alberta could shut down the roads, railways and airways that keep B.C. alive. 

A war of tariffs and tolls would hurt everyone, but not equally. Alberta would be injured, but British Columbia risks being decimated. More realistically, British Columbia and the federal government would opt for a genuine free-trade agreement with Alberta than a devastating trade war. 

A vengeful rump-Canada might wish to wound Alberta, but doing so would punish British Columbia, and potentially drive it into the hands – oddly enough – of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Out of mutual self-interest, it’s most likely Canada would negotiate. 

Canadian provinces hardly have free trade as it is. Just as it is easier for sovereign nations in Europe to trade with each other than for Canadian provinces, a Canada-West trade agreement might actually free our economy to a greater extent than it is right now. 

Alberta would almost certainly obtain better access to the American market than as an appendage of Ottawa. As an independent nation, Alberta could negotiate for its interests alone, instead of horse trading to protect Ontario steel and Quebec dairy. Alberta has no need for protectionist side-deals, and could negotiate the most radically open free-trade deal it wanted. If successful, the remaining leverage of B.C. and Ottawa to landlock Alberta evaporates. 

Alberta is already landlocked. Albertans need to decide if they want to be a landlocked province without the ability to do much about it, or a nation with the leverage to reach our potential. 

Continue Reading

Opinion

FILDEBRANDT: America would (already) be at war if Clinton was president

While Trump rises to the bait of insults on Twitter or Saturday Night Live, he has not risen to the bait of war.

mm

Published

on

While his detractors chase the shiny things from his daily Twitter feed, US President Donald Trump has revolutionized American foreign policy.

More than a century of the interventionist-warfare state than began under Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson appears to be on the retreat – at least for now – under a president that few believe has any guiding principles.

Much to my surprise, US President Donald Trump quietened down the drums of war from beating out of control. After the first conventional, peace-time attack on a US military base since Pearl Harbour, Trump had cases belli for war with – or at least major strikes against – Iran. As much as Trump claims Iran “blinked,” it was in fact his decision to take a pass at a retaliation that he must have know would spiral into a regional war.

Trump’s decision to pass up a (somewhat) justifiable cause to go to war marks perhaps the clearest sign yet that he is unlike any president since Herbert Hoover in pursuing a non-interventionist, or non-imperial foreign policy.

Every American president from both both parties since the Second (and almost First) World War have fallen into two camps: dove-interventionists, and hawk-interventionists. For the most part, the former have been Democrats, and the latter Republicans. While Democrats pay more lip service to peace, they have shown little hesitation in projecting American power at the behest of a military-intelligence-industrial complex that traditional Republicans have heeded (just with more jingoistic bravado).

Trump falls into a camp more closely resembling presidents before the First World War. What he calls “America First.” Rather than a dove-interventionist or a hawk-interventionist, he is a hawk-non-interventionist. He believes in a robust military to defend American interests, but has little time for playing the role of World Policeman so adored by George Bush Sr.

Fateh-110 Missiles (source: WikiCommons)

This radical shift in foreign policy was unlikely to come from the traditionally more warlike Republicans, but it did not begin with Trump. It began (mostly) with Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 Republican presidential campaigns. Paul ran not as an “America Firster,” but as an isolationist, as the backers of F.D.R. would call him. Paul campaigned not just on levelling the size of America’s domestic government, but in dismantling the military-intelligence-industrial complex outright. This was perhaps too radical even most anti-war supporters, and was probably a major reason that his campaign did not succeed.

But his radical foreign policy did change the conversation in the longer-term, especially for Republicans. By 2015, it was no longer seen as unpatriotic for conservatives to oppose the warfare state and America’s endless foreign entanglements. Trump picked up this mantle and ran with it.

While less influential in the long-term than Paul, the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot in 1992 re-planted the seeds of an anti-interventionist in the Republican Party, and more closely resemble the America First policy of Trump today.

Fighting the foreign policy establishment in both parties, Trump remolded Paul’s radical non-interventionism into a more palatable America First, militant-non-interventionism. This policy has cost him a long list of traditional Republican advisors and cabinet members; most notably, super-hawk John Bolton.

In contrast, few major party candidates for president have ever been as beholden to the American establishment as Hilary Clinton. She showed few hangups about supporting the Second Iraq War in 2003, and changed her position only as public opinion made it untenable for a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

Her record as Secretary of State saw foreign US interventions in Syria and Libya to remove (or attempt to remove) rouge regimes, without being willing to fill the power vacuums they created.

Iran’s actions over the last two weeks have given the United States (and now possibly Canada and Ukraine) at least some justification for war. It is highly probable that if Hilary Clinton was president today, that the US and its allies would already be bombing Tehran.

Donald Trump may have blinked first with Iran, but he seems satisfied that the missile attacks on its bases in Iraq were not damaging enough to warrant further retaliation; a retaliation that would most likely lead to a large, regional war.

Photo credit: Muhammad Lila Twitter

Strong evidence pointing to the destruction of a civilian 737 from an Iranian missile attack hours after the Iran ballistic missile strikes was about as surprising as learning that the security cameras outside of Jeffery Epstein’s cell were temporarily out of order.

While tragic, it would have been at least understandable if an Iranian anti-air defence unit mistook a plane flying into its borders from Iraq or Afghanistan, and pulled the trigger too eagerly. Iran was probably on the highest alert at that hour for an American retaliatory strike.

But this plane took off from Iran’s main airport in Tehran, and was destroyed minutes after taking off. It is hard to believe that this mass murder of civilians was anything but intentional.

The embassy-drone strike-missile attack, tit-for-tat between the US and Iran, could have been relegated by the Western and Sunni Arab allies as the usual American power play. The murder of 176 civilians makes this an attack on the international community, and gives Trump another cause for escalation, if not war.

But – as yet at least – he has not taken Iran up on its death wish. While he rises to the bait of insults on Twitter or Saturday Night Live, he has not risen to the bait of war. If Iran continues to bait the United States (and now its allies), Trump may yet have a breaking point, and reasonably so. But that point appears to be much less trigger happy than that of his recent predecessors, or Hilary Clinton’s.

Trump’s detractors may finally start to figure out what many of us have understood about him for a long time: his bluster is an intentional and entertaining distraction from his revolution of American policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard owned by Wildrose Media Corp.