Speech from the Throne - Tories Continue "Leadership" Narrative

Nik, I can agree with all your commentary, the only comment I would like to make is on the Health component of Govt.initiatives, since that is a Provincial responsibility it seems that no Federal Govt. of whatever political stripe can do much about it.Trowing money at it is not the answer, there should be a drastic shift towards participation of mor e individuals separate from political and civil service ties.
This vixation on the Health Act is doing no favours to Canadians.Break the bonds and think outside the box.
Hopefully the present Conservative Govt, with PM Harper will continue for a long time to come , warts and all.

[updated Wed Oct 17 07:28:27 EDT 2007]

I didn't see the Throne Speech last evening nor have read it yet this morning, but from what others have said about it I would vote against it if I were Dion.
Again from what others have said he did not seriously address the most important issue, the environment. He did not make sure that every Canadian had a decent standard of living, he did not withdraw troops from Afghanistan. He did not raise taxes which would provide funds to improve health, education and social services.
One thing that Nik pointed out is the gender factor and is something I agree with.. It's something I hadn't considered before. I'll comment further when I get a chance to read the speech in its entirity.

[updated Wed Oct 17 07:45:55 EDT 2007]

The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois, by voting against the throne speech, have put all the pressure on Stephane Dion. The question that needs to be asked here is this; Is Dion a strong enough leader to persuade all the liberals to vote for the speech, and avoid an election which everybody knows, unless you've had your head buried in the sand or have been trapped in a dungeon for the past little while, the Liberals are not ready for? If all the Bloc and NDP members vote against, which will likely be the case, how many Liberal votes are needed to avoid an election. Stephane Dion is now faced with the dilemma of voting for what the Liberals believe in, causing the fall of the minority conservative government and another election and risking a possible majority Conservative win, or bowing to the pressure, thus voting to pass the speech, but at the same time showing weak leadership on the part of Dion. Whatever the outcome may be, this is going to be a very interesting day for radio talk show hosts.

[updated Wed Oct 17 08:01:55 EDT 2007]

The Conservatives don't have to do anything to make Dion look weak, in the same way the Ontario Liberals didn't have to do anything to make John Tory look weak.

Of course 'doing nothing' is far harder work than it looks, because it requires a level of disciplined blandness and limited goals that are actually met, areas in which both McGuinty's Liberals and Stephen Harper's Conservatives both excel. Bill Davis has not been forgotten.

When your opponents are self-destructing 24/7 on the news cycle the last thing you want to do is call extra attention to yourself by overreaching, including taking risks to get a reluctant women's vote. It is the Liberals that will need a Hail Mary strategy, not the Conservatives. John Tory's religious school Hail Mary failed miserably in Ontario.

Stephane Dion's Kyoto Hail Mary might well be his Waterloo.

A small Conservative majority is not out of line given that there are gains to be made in Quebec and in the suburban ridings of Ontario that swung back to the Liberals at the last minute. A pickup of fifteen seats from the BQ is certainly possible, a pickup of ten in Ontario is very likely as those ten almost went Conservative last time, and whatever seats are lost in the Maritimes will likely be countered by mopping up still more out west.

[updated Wed Oct 17 10:01:38 EDT 2007]

I believe the Throne Speech was a responsible course for the government to follow in the future. The fact that the Liberals are in disarray is not Mr. Harper's fault. It is their own doing and it looks good on them. After years of winning government by default the Liberals are now facing a strong competitor and are not looking good.

As far as the assertion that Mr. Harper does not appeal to women etc. etc. the next election is not going to be about women or crime. It is going to be about leadership. Dion has not resonated in the country and will not resonate as long as he runs around the country spouting over the top rhetoric nor placing any credible policies in the window.

Dion seems to think that the hidden agenda and right wing American Bush Republican catch lines are going to convince Canadians they should not re-elect the Harper government. Harper's record and action belie this kind of commentary and people will dismiss it as not credible.

The other issues that will impact the results of the next election is vote splitting and turnout and willingness of Liberals to support the current leader. With 3 or 4 parties on the left vote splitting will be serious and I suspect the Conservatives will come up the middle.

The problems within the Liberal party are going to continue to erode public confidence in the party with each day bringing more horror stories of how the party is disintegrating into chaos.

So given the polls numbers Mr. Dion will have to swallow hard and vote to support the throne speech. However that is only the beginning of his problems. He will be faced with confidence votes on the major pieces of government legislation as soon as parliament is back. So fight an election now or in a month's time. It is his choice.

Does anybody think for a minute that the Liberals' line... the country does not want an election would be their mantra if the polls favoured them in a coming election? We all know the answer to this one. They couldn't bring the government down fast enough. One thing about the Liberal party. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The comment in Nik's piece about setting the time line on Afghanistan to 2011 is misleading. Harper said clearly in the throne speech the panel will report next Feb. and then there will be a full parliamentary debate. Based on the results of that debate a decision will be taken about our future role in Afghanistan. The government merely stated its preference which makes sense given the Afghan Compact ends in 2011. Nobody is suggesting that our role will continue as a combat role until 2011 but critics of the Harper government will twist this comment to make it look like the government wants to continue the combat mission until 2011. Mr. Harper has got the message that Canadians do not want to abandon Afghanistan but they want the hard combat mission to end.

This is a very exciting time in politics in Canada. We have an activist government who is prepared to show leadership domestically and internationally. We have a prime minister who is not run by polls but makes sound decisions based on his own intelligence and what is in the best interests of the country. Sucks to be a Liberal these days.

[updated Wed Oct 17 10:48:18 EDT 2007]

I agree with this statement: The underlying structural problem for the Conservatives is that they are not competitive among women.

As a individual who has been an entrepreneur and small business owner (34 year) providing a service of specialty millwork and custom furniture I think that Mr. Harper and his government is not competitive with this women as he only response to "women' in the narrow perspective that is that we (women) are one dimensional and are to pacified and wooed by feeling secure in the fact that we have in the Conservatives a benevolent protector with an attitude that fathers knows best.

I am a business woman who needs to be recognized for what I am contributing to our economy, our communities and my family.

The issue is that it is a mistake to only look at individuals from the perspective of the groups they belong in general as the Conservatives seem to have perfected this approach of identifying, labeling and coming up with an approach to deal with the issues that is by and large superficial, and patronizing.

The world and the people have changed in the last 34 years, and if you were to look at the statistics in this country, women entrepreneurs are making up a large percentage of the numbers and they need to be given more credit and considerations by all politicians particularly Mr. Harper and his party.

I am concerned about crime as is everyone else, but I am more interested in how I can maintain and grow my business much more.

Most of all I am interesting in seeing some indication that running this country is more than "pissing contest in the wind" but is being governed with competence, and an attitude that labeling , cajoling or bullying people to get their vote is not working for this women and many others Canadian.

[updated Wed Oct 17 11:51:45 EDT 2007]

Hi Nic, Based on the women in my circle I think that the conservatives are doing a great job and I'm pretty convinced that if an election were called, the Liberals would struggle to maintain their position as the official opposition. The keynote of the throne speech was that Canadians have a right to expect a "clean" government. You could hear a cheer going up all along our small street in this West Island community. It just seems to me that the Liberals are imploding and in a way, I feel sorry for Stephan Dion, who I consider a very fine man (too nice to be a politician). Why does his Quebec lieutenant resign the day before the throne speech? Why does he even ask the two losers who refused him to be the new Quebec lieutenant? Why does Cretien release his vindictive book the week before the throne speech - reminding us of the depth of the corruption in the party (a few bad apples - duh)? There is obviously a conspiracy to get Dion - he just isn't enough of a snake oil salesman (the liberals don't deserve him). The throne speech, I believe, covered most of the subjects that most trouble Canadians. Harper has clearly demonstrated that he is not in Bush's pocket but he reflects the reality that the former Liberal administration just didn't seem to get - you don't go out of your way to alienate your best friend in the world and your largest customer.

[updated Wed Oct 17 12:06:39 EDT 2007]

It is quite perplexing to read that people who admit they didn't hear or read the Throne Speech are expressing opinions as to whether the Liberals should support it or not. Do not rely on the MSM for assessments, there are heavy partisan views that color the interpretations.

Isn't it refreshing to finally hear the truth that Kyoto is unrealistic and unattainable. Can we hope that the ridiculous political postering will stop--probably not!

[updated Wed Oct 17 12:32:19 EDT 2007]

""The real Conservative strategy is to continue to nurture a narrative to make Dion look weak. ""

You may be right about this stradegy Nik, but don't be surprised to see the Liberals vote against the Throne Speech to everyone's surprise.
The abuse will be too much for the Liberal brand to sustain plus this will give Dion the stage to leave as a fighter and the Liberal party to be seen as principled for the future.

Remember,you heard it here first Nik

[updated Wed Oct 17 13:08:59 EDT 2007]

It is not the areas mentioned in the Throne Speech where the Liberals and Conservatives disagree that concern me the most, but the areas where the politicians from these two parties are unified in their disconnect with average Canadians.

For myself the paragraph that most concerns me is:

"To complement this, our Government will support Canadian researchers and innovators in developing new ideas and bringing them to the marketplace through Canada’s Science and Technology Strategy. Our Government will improve the protection of cultural and intellectual property rights in Canada, including copyright reform."
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4258

This at a time when we have people receiving the Nobel prize in Economics who have stated that in some areas innovation is proved by making patent and copyright protection weaker, rather than making it "stronger".
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4260

While many parliamentarians may walk around with mobile devices like Blackberries, they appear generally unaware of what has been happening in the knowledge economy. They seem to not recognize that the Information economy isn't about making information harder to access any more than the Industrial economy was about making machines harder to access.

If the Conservatives plan to treat anything leading from the throne speech as a vote of confidence, does that mean that the Government will be passing bills to try to keep Canada in the 1980's without any real debate?

[updated Wed Oct 17 14:23:21 EDT 2007]

Politics is a blood sport that is not polite, kind, decent or above board-----refer to the current memoirs of Mulroney and Chretien. Harper is a master strategist and there is no doubt he has total control of the Conservative machine. The Conservatives have leadership which is magnified when contrasted to that of the Liberals. (The grass roots organization in my riding is dead and they have not had an Annual General Meeting in over two years). It is the platforms that may differ but who knows what the Liberal's platform may be other than the Afghan issue. The major weakness in the Conservative platform is the missing promised reduction of hospital wait times and the Afghanistan issue. In my opinion, keeping the Liberal platform secret does not present the electorate with alternatives in this cat and mouse political game.

I believe the the Liberal leadership is in the trap and presented with two choices-------hari-kari or a cup of hemlock-----they can delay but the outcome is inevitable. To cut Liberal losses, the leadership in the House should change quickly NOW with the deputy leader becoming the interim leader who maybe able to rally the troops, seize the reins for the party machine and maybe able to raise the Liberal voter appeal in Quebec. I am sure a quick clean change in Liberal leadership would be the last thing Harper would want or expect. Dion is a decent principled man but he is not cut-throat enough in the piratical game of politics.

[updated Wed Oct 17 14:57:50 EDT 2007]

Oct. 17, 2007: Looking at Harper for the length of the speech was too much for me. I learned all from the CBC News. Harper and his henchman Flaherty are doing a good job of destroying our heritage by allowing all are income trusts to be bought out by foreigners. Within a year, we will have only a handful of large companies and we will soon be asked to withdraw from the G8 and allow India or China to enter tthe group. We are dropping to a second tier nation on its way to a lower level.

[updated Wed Oct 17 20:59:11 EDT 2007]

THE LIBERAL PARTY'S 'KNIVES' ARE BEING SHARPENED FOR DION

For the first time in my political history, I have experienced a Liberal Leader missing from my t-v set with immediate comments following a Conservative ‘Speech from the Throne’.

Is Prof Stéphane Dion in over his head?

Does the Sun rise in the morning?

It appears that Canada's Liberal World is quickly disintegrating around the Party’s “4th choice” to be head honcho at their December ’06 Leadership Convention.

In the day leading up to The Speech The Lib’s "National Director", Jamie Carroll said “bye, bye” to Stéphane, with his resignation.

Then, Stéphane’s chosen "Quebec Lieutenant", Marcel Proulx hit the exit door with a “bon jour” and his resignation. To make matters even worse, Stéphane was stabbed twice again when MPs Denis Coderre and Pablo Rodriguez were invited but turned down Proulx’s job.

"Director General of Quebec", Serge Marcil didn’t just sit around contemplating his navel either. He threw in the towel with his resignation the same day.

One Hell of a week for the Prof, eh.

Five very-public stabings within 48-hours must set a new all-time record in the formerly, tightly-closed ranks of the Liberal Party of Canada.

One had got to have pity for this gentle, timid, little Prof against the monstrous, seasoned wolves of the Liberal Party machine. But, Stéphane’ is destined for their dining room tables.

Oh, but, trust our media. They keep questioning if Stéphane will or won’t be bringing the minority government of Stephen Harper down in the confidence vote and cause a federal election.

What are they smoking for Gawd’s sake?

Given what ‘is’ or ‘is not’ on Stéphane’s political plate, even a child could give you that answer: “No way, Jose”.

That being said, if the Liberal’s backroom, old guard have decided that Stéphane’s days are numbered and that they are prepared to lose one in order to get rid of him, there is a way that their Party’s backbenchers could rush Stéphane’s departure from the scene outside of his control.

It’s called a behind-the-drapes ‘flu bug’ that would keep the backbenchers from being in their House of Commons seats to vote in support of Harper’s Throne Speech against the combined NDP/BQ opposition.

Next Wednesday, we’ll hear their decision, if they are prepared to sit this one out, before ‘The Justin’ brings ‘Trudeaumania’ back to the forefront.

Postcript (before publishing thoughts of last night).

Stéphane announced that the Liberal Party will support the continuation of Stephen Harper's one-man political machine.

Stephen laughed and mocked Stéphane in the media for his totally gutless approach as Loyal Oppostion Leader.

Why not?

Can you blame him?

But, the 'forever strategist', Stephen, knows what you know as a reader of this blog and why he did it 'with confidence'.

"THE LIBERAL PARTY'S 'KNIVES' ARE BEING SHARPENED FOR DION", now, or later

[updated Wed Oct 17 22:47:35 EDT 2007]

Nik, I meant to write further on the throne speech but after wacthing yesterday's charade I'll just comment on that. I was totally perplexed by the actions of the so-called "leaders." It's pitiful to see persons in that position being so junenile, so childish even, as to act that way. They claim to be acting in the interest of Canadians, yet their only concern is themselves, their position, their party. They don't show the slightest interest in the needs or aspirations of the Canadian people. They were like chess players, moving pieces around, trying to get the best advantage or at least the best defense. No thought given to citizens, no thought given to honour or principle. No adherence to previous stated policy, just change to whatever presently saves "our" face. The whole affair showed Canadians what a bunch of self-seeking morons we are sending to Ottawa.
Dion was even worse than Harper. At least Duceppe and Layton acted honourably and held to their principles, but of course there was no pressure on them to act otherwise.

To those who think Ottawa has no role in the health, education and social services of Canadians what is a government for? Even Harper has said on several occasions the 'the first priority of the state is the security and well being of its citizens. For once Harper got it right. Unfortunately for Harper and many other political leaders they only give it lip service. When it come to seriousness, to action, the thought has been erased for the brain. If any province is not providing those services to the accepted Canadian level, then the Federal government has the right and the responsibility to step in and see that it is done. Because our political leaders could not see 140 years into the future they reached an agreement that tho maybe acceptable back then, has no relavence in todays world. Sheesh, our present politicians can't see 5 years ahead. I wouldn't want to live in a country where the central government would not ensure a certain standard of health, education and social services to all its citizens.

[updated Thu Oct 18 08:18:03 EDT 2007]

I have to disagree with your analysis of the Throne Speech and the Reply.

A review of the Reply show, to me anyway, a huge emphasis on the Law and Order issue. If I were to rate each initiative discussed I would have to say this issue ranks well above all the others together.

I don’t think Harper is looking for a death of a thousands cuts. He is looking for the one big knockout punch, Crime. This is supported by his reserving a considerable amount of text, rhetoric and the place of prominence in his speech. He is collecting the pieces of legislation into one Bill and making it a non-confidence. He is going to bring it forward first. His speech is clear that it is directed towards women.

It means one of two things. Either Harper is regressing to his old Idealogue ways. Or, he feels that this issue is well received by the groups he has targeted in his speech, in particular women. In the former, he is using the threat of an election to force through his Conservative policy. In the latter he is maneuvering for an election. No matter what I find it hard to believe that they haven’t done their “due diligence” on this issue and determined how well received these policies really are, especially with respect to the groups identified.

Either way, because this issue is much more focused in the speech it would appear he is using it to obscure his weaker positions with respect to Afghanistan and Global Warming. Both of the latter issues are treated very vaguely.

At this point it is hard to tell which it is, Idealogue or Election. My guess is that unless he felt he had it both ways, he probably would be approaching it in a different fashion. For example, the way he did in the last Parliament, one part at a time. Opinion polls on this and how they are, in actuality received by the groups identified may be useful. I would commission you myself, if I had the dough (just a little joke!).

Lloyd MacIlquham

[updated Fri Oct 19 02:17:26 EDT 2007]

I agree this is the narrative the Conservatives would like to see, but the problem with the strategy is that it is retail-politics: the creation of the "appearance" of strong leadership without actually ever providing any.

When it starts to become evident the Emperor is wearing no clothes, both "strong" and "leadership" go flying out the window. Given that past behaviour is the best indicator of future performance, looking back at the 5 priorities:

1) Accountability Act -- It was passed, but still not all of it has been implemented. Moreover, many of its provisions make it so that if the Sponsorship Scandal had taken place today, it would be even harder for the public and media to get information.

2) Choice in Childcare -- The cheques are definitely in the mail... but what about the other half of the promise to create private daycare spaces?

3) Health wait-times guarantee -- This was supposed to be a guarantee for 5 procedures across Canada but what we got was a guarantee for one procedure, and not even the same one in each province/territory, thus decreasing portability.

4) Broad-based tax relief led by a GST cut -- Promise kept with regard to the GST. That said, given PM Harper is an economist, he should know a cut to a consumption tax is regressive. Good politics; very bad public policy! Promise NOT on broad-based tax relief however. PM Harper opted for more retail-politics measures (physical activity, transit passes, etc.). These are not bad things, but all reflief has pretty much gone to families with children, with virtually little of none to single person households. Isn't the PM supposed to be the PM of ALL Canadians, not just the one with whom he agrees?

5) Cracking down on Crime -- Still not yet done, in good part because PM Harper, for political gain and expediency (to make the Liberals "appear" as if they were soft on crime), refused to accept the Liberals' offer to fast-track the bills with which it agreed. An example of strong leadership would have been to put the best interests of the citizens ahead of the best interests of PM Harper and the CPC and simply allow legislation with which the House already agreed to pass.

Though PM Harper kept repeating "promise made, promise kept", truth is, he's got a long way to go to keep his initial promises (particularly if you add in "the environment" which, staying true to his retail-politics mantra, became his sixth priority when he realized he needed to stake out turf).

On the issue of crime, PM Harper strategized that the bill would force Liberals to "capitulate", but given the omnibus bill included most of the pre-approved amendments, there was very little in it on which the parties could capitulate. Thus the use of the word is a bit disingenous right from the get-go.

Knowing this full well (say what you want about PM Harper, but he is an intelligent man), PM Harper's strategy was to group all previous unpassed bills into an omnibus bill, but to embed in it, one totally new sub-bill nobody had yet seen, declare it a vote of confidence, and tigthen the screws by accepting no substantive amendments. It was his plan that this would create a snag, thus delaying passage of the bill, thus allowing him to call the Liberals soft on crime, once again.

What PM Harper did not see coming was the fact other parties would simply make a non-issue of the embedded snag and focus their attention on the manner in which PM Harper presented the bill rather than its content, thus PM Harper's strong-arm tactics became the story.

If the PM were truly providing strong leadership and had the best interests of Canadians at heart, he would not have engineered a situation that could have caused even further delays in passage of legislation he himself referred to as "critical" in importance for the country, and this just for the sake of being able to poke a stick, yet again, in the eye of Mr Dion.

PM Harper's strategy backfired on him.

All that said, the one thing about the Speech from the Throne that bothered me, and I am surprised that nobody has mentioned it yet, was the change in wording from "Canada's new government" to "Our government".

After 20 months, PM Harper definitely had to stop saying "Canada's new government" at every turn because it was starting to provoke belly laughs and in politics, when people start laughing AT you, you're dead.

However, "Our government" causes a shiver to go down my spine. Given PM Harper's penchant for playing with words and giving words new definitions (clean air = climate change, aspirational = we're definitely doing it, never = 8 to 10 months, consensus = until I can coerce another party to vote with me) the choice of "OUR government" creates the impression that PM Harper believes the "Government of Canada" belongs to him and the CPC and not to the people of Canada.

What is SO wrong with just saying "the Government of Canada", just as been standard for decades upon decades?

[updated Sat Oct 20 13:54:33 EDT 2007]

Nik, Harper's budget has achieved its goal---cowing the Liberals. What it also has achieved is to promote Ignatieff to the Liberal leadership, sooner or later.

[updated Wed Oct 24 14:14:16 EDT 2007]

I am a financier businessman, age 64, but I do not support tax cuts when many of the government programs for people have and are being chopped. Canada has become known, and desired, as a caring Country but the conservatives are going the other way. It is shamefull the way we treat our natives, and poor. While there is talk of not being able to meet Kyoto, the conservatives are doing nothing so as to ensure that we cannot meet Kyoto. What the heck are we waiting for? The conservatives are far to cosy with the War Criminal Bush Administration. The continued push to force the SPP down our throats with no oversight by the Canadian people is unacceptable. This is not good for Canada and sets us up to being totally dominated by the USA. I feel that much of the electorate is being fooled, and will wake up to find that Canada is no longer a caring society.

[updated Thu Nov 15 14:29:58 EST 2007]