Latest news with #Ruritanian
Yahoo
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Sorry, Mark Carney. America doesn't need your workshy, defenceless country
'America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country', declared Mark Carney in his victory speech, after Canada's general election this week delivered his Liberal Party a plurality of seats in parliament. 'These are not idle threats. President Trump is trying to break us so that America can own us', Carney continued, promising that Trump's oft-repeated plans to absorb Canada as America's 51st state are 'never, ever going to happen'. Trump's apparent designs on Canada, which appeared to begin with a social media post calling Carney's predecessor Justin Trudeau 'governor Trudeau', weighed heavily on the country's election. The Conservatives still polled their best results since the 1980s, and Carney will have to lead a minority government, but the spectacle of a foreign leader looming so decisively over the elections of a major democracy is Ruritanian to the point of comedy. Next week's meeting between Carney and Trump at the White House could well be an awkward affair. But Canadian statehood might not be such a great idea for our home and native land. Doubling the size of the country is not unknown in the annals of American history. Thomas Jefferson did it in one vast real estate deal in 1803, when he purchased the Louisiana Territory from Napoleonic France. That was before the rest of the American West came into US ownership via settlement, conquest, annexation, and purchase. Absorbing Canada would double the amount of territory America would have to defend, however, while only increasing its population by about 12 per cent. Canada's military contribution would be even smaller. According to the global firepower index, America has almost 20 times the number of active duty servicemen that Canada deploys and spends about 22 times more on its military budget. Canada, long a beneficiary of America's leading role in both Nato and North American continental defence, ranks roughly on par with Argentina and Algeria. With extended Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic coastlines, and vastly extended proximity to Russian and Chinese forays in those regions, a supersized America would have to stretch its existing resources to stand on guard with relatively little help from its new citizens. It would also face the financial burden of having to care for them. Canada's economy is in the doldrums of a long-term economic slump, with cost of living, housing affordability, and opportunities for financial advancement fading for younger Canadians. Election polling suggested that their glowing hearts cared far more about improving their lives and prospects than electing another Liberal government with little to recommend it beyond a jingoistic promise to stand up to Trump. Since 2010, Canadian growth has languished at European levels, averaging at about 1.6 per cent annually, compared to over 2 per cent for the United States, with nothing even close to US levels of high-tech innovation. Canada's unemployment rate sits stubbornly at 6.7 per cent, compared to 4.2 per cent for Americans. The mercy mission of taking over Canada's flagging economy would mean a disproportionately higher number of welfare payments going out to our new fellow citizens, with likely more to come as Canada's expensive social services are harmonised with American policies and priorities. For Trump, adding Canada's politics anywhere outside of staunchly conservative Alberta would also be a disaster. As the election results revealed, Canadian voters skew considerably to the Left of their American counterparts. This is the case even within its Conservative Party, which claims to be a 'big tent' accommodating both national populists and so-called 'Red Tories', who – in line with the British rather than the American political concept of 'Red' – lean far enough Left on economic and social issues that they would fit more comfortably within the US Democratic Party than among Republicans. If Canada were to enter the US as one large state, in other words, it would almost certainly elect Democrats or politicians aligned with Democrats to the expanded US Congress. That would mean two more Democratic senators in Washington. Matters would be even worse in the House of Representatives, where at current levels there would be one new congressman for roughly every 780,000 Canadians, or at least 51 new legislators, most if not all of whom would also likely be Democrats or Democrat-aligned. In the tight congressional balance Republicans now face, it would be like adding a second California, whose population is of roughly equal size. Trump could be having an extended joke that has seriously unnerved America's northern neighbours. But he may want to limit his expansionist goals to Greenland and Panama. Paul du Quenoy is president of the Palm Beach Freedom Institute Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Sorry, Mark Carney. America doesn't need your workshy, defenceless country
'America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country', declared Mark Carney in his victory speech, after Canada's general election this week delivered his Liberal Party a plurality of seats in parliament. 'These are not idle threats. President Trump is trying to break us so that America can own us', Carney continued, promising that Trump's oft-repeated plans to absorb Canada as America's 51 st state are 'never, ever going to happen'. Trump's apparent designs on Canada, which appeared to begin with a social media post calling Carney's predecessor Justin Trudeau 'governor Trudeau', weighed heavily on the country's election. The Conservatives still polled their best results since the 1980s, and Carney will have to lead a minority government, but the spectacle of a foreign leader looming so decisively over the elections of a major democracy is Ruritanian to the point of comedy. Next week's meeting between Carney and Trump at the White House could well be an awkward affair. But Canadian statehood might not be such a great idea for our home and native land. Doubling the size of the country is not unknown in the annals of American history. Thomas Jefferson did it in one vast real estate deal in 1803, when he purchased the Louisiana Territory from Napoleonic France. That was before the rest of the American West came into US ownership via settlement, conquest, annexation, and purchase. Absorbing Canada would double the amount of territory America would have to defend, however, while only increasing its population by about 12 per cent. Canada's military contribution would be even smaller. According to the global firepower index, America has almost 20 times the number of active duty servicemen that Canada deploys and spends about 22 times more on its military budget. Canada, long a beneficiary of America's leading role in both Nato and North American continental defence, ranks roughly on par with Argentina and Algeria. With extended Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic coastlines, and vastly extended proximity to Russian and Chinese forays in those regions, a supersized America would have to stretch its existing resources to stand on guard with relatively little help from its new citizens. It would also face the financial burden of having to care for them. Canada's economy is in the doldrums of a long-term economic slump, with cost of living, housing affordability, and opportunities for financial advancement fading for younger Canadians. Election polling suggested that their glowing hearts cared far more about improving their lives and prospects than electing another Liberal government with little to recommend it beyond a jingoistic promise to stand up to Trump. Since 2010, Canadian growth has languished at European levels, averaging at about 1.6 per cent annually, compared to over 2 per cent for the United States, with nothing even close to US levels of high-tech innovation. Canada's unemployment rate sits stubbornly at 6.7 per cent, compared to 4.2 per cent for Americans. The mercy mission of taking over Canada's flagging economy would mean a disproportionately higher number of welfare payments going out to our new fellow citizens, with likely more to come as Canada's expensive social services are harmonised with American policies and priorities. For Trump, adding Canada's politics anywhere outside of staunchly conservative Alberta would also be a disaster. As the election results revealed, Canadian voters skew considerably to the Left of their American counterparts. This is the case even within its Conservative Party, which claims to be a 'big tent' accommodating both national populists and so-called 'Red Tories', who – in line with the British rather than the American political concept of 'Red' – lean far enough Left on economic and social issues that they would fit more comfortably within the US Democratic Party than among Republicans. If Canada were to enter the US as one large state, in other words, it would almost certainly elect Democrats or politicians aligned with Democrats to the expanded US Congress. That would mean two more Democratic senators in Washington. Matters would be even worse in the House of Representatives, where at current levels there would be one new congressman for roughly every 780,000 Canadians, or at least 51 new legislators, most if not all of whom would also likely be Democrats or Democrat-aligned. In the tight congressional balance Republicans now face, it would be like adding a second California, whose population is of roughly equal size. Trump could be having an extended joke that has seriously unnerved America's northern neighbours. But he may want to limit his expansionist goals to Greenland and Panama.
The Independent
14-02-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Is there a case for bringing parliamentary procedure into the 21st century?
Antiquated', 'rowdy' and 'weak' are some of the main criticisms levelled at the House of Commons in evidence provided to the Commons modernisation committee, which is chaired by the leader of the House, Lucy Powell. A variety of interested parties, including the Hansard Society and the Commons women and equalities committee, have submitted proposals for reform that are designed to make the place more accessible, in every sense, as well as inclusive. Powell says: 'The role of an MP has changed: no longer just legislators, [we are] increasingly helping constituents with problems, being visible and active in the communities we represent. We have a greater diversity of MPs and a broader range of political parties in the Commons than ever before, but some of our processes and procedures don't reflect this new reality.' No doubt traditionalists will be horrified... Is the right honourable lady serious? Yes, it would seem so, and it is certainly true that for many members of the public, terms such as 'honourable member', 'second reading', 'debate on the adjournment', 'reasoned amendment', 'privilege', 'humble address' – and, indeed, 'leader of the house' – are opaque. Most reporting on parliament, to be fair, adds sufficient context and explanation to make sense of proceedings for the average interested member of the public, but anyone diving into the BBC Parliament channel – or, less likely, picking up a copy of the official record, Hansard, or reading it online – will find things sometimes difficult to follow. Obviously, like the Ruritanian uniforms and ornate Pugin interiors, parliamentary traditions have a long and glorious past, and such ceremonials as the State Opening of Parliament serve to remind people of the struggles for democratic supremacy in Britain. On the other hand, the country does have a problem with participation, and with confidence in its politicians. What about PMQs? For the public, this is the noisy highlight of the week – the one parliamentary moment virtually guaranteed to be on the news and clipped for social media. It's a lively event, as the main political leaders clash in this most intense of cockpits. Sometimes clear divisions open up between the parties, which clarifies public understanding; but there is also obfuscation, and MPs can at times be guilty of terminological inexactitudes. The women and equalities committee certainly finds such sessions unsatisfactory. The 'chairman' – a sexist and contested term – Sarah Owen (Labour, Luton North) complains that heckling by MPs 'must be addressed': 'Booing and jeering does not belong in any workplace, let alone one that is subject to public scrutiny, and which should be setting an example for others.' The danger, of course, is that the adversarial nature of the Commons is turned into the more restrained, and frankly boring, atmosphere seen in, for example, the Scottish parliament, the EU parliament, or the US Senate, where debates are stultifyingly boring and attract even less public interest. Anything else? Yes. Some major issues are hoving into view, not least that of MPs having second (and third, fourth, or even fifth) jobs. They cannot have it both ways, after all. Either they are too overworked and under-resourced to carry out their legislative and constituency duties properly, or they can organise their busy lives well enough to host television shows, practise at the Bar, serve as company directors or local councillors, and even make online greeting videos on request. Will Powell succeed? The forces of conservatism in the Commons, which have seen off previous attempts at reform, are usually formidable; but the turnover at the 2024 general election was so dramatic that there has been no better moment since around the turn of the century to get things changed. Powell and her colleagues will bring forward recommendations, and nothing will change quickly. There may be some useful simplification of jargon and procedures, and the minor parties and backbenchers might get some more time and attention. Given the public mood, second jobs are likely to be a little more restricted. On the other hand, most of the still generous 'expenses', perks, and astonishingly long and frequent 'recesses' (more or less holidays) will likely be left unmolested. There are limits, after all.
