20

Reading a throne speech by its titles


 

Today we learned that the title of tomorrow’s Speech from the Throne will be “A Stronger Canada. A Stronger Economy.  Now and for the Future.” It’s a bit cumbersome, but the more compact “The Land is Strong” was already taken. We were also told the sub-titles.

The first section is called “Planning for Recovery: Returning to Fiscal Balance.” The crucial question of how big a structural deficit the Conservatives are willing to admit exists probably won’t be answered here. And of course they won’t be precise about the spending cuts they favour to eliminate it—too much detail for a throne speech and too much of a downer. Thursday’s budget might tell us more, but not everything.

The second section, “Building the Jobs and Industries of the Future,” is awkward for Conservatives who never much liked industrial policy. The movement conservative preference in this policy area has long been for business tax cuts and deregulation. But there’s no room for more tax cuts and deregulation, after 2008’s market meltdown, has lost whatever remaining luster it had. So, how far will the Tories stray into traditional Liberal territory of innovation incentives and even subsidies?

A section on “Making Canada the Best Place for Families” brings Harper’s government back onto more comfortable rhetorical territory. But having vowed no new spending, they can’t unveil another signature policy like 2006’s $100 per month payment for every kid under six. This seems like the logical place for a law-and-order section: more about mandatory minimum sentences.

Under “Strengthening a United Canada in a Changing World,” the Tories have a chance to exploit their brand advantage on defence. As well, Arctic sovereignty is likely to get a nod here, along with some description of an Afghanistan aid policy to carry on after troops are pulled out next year. Also, listen for Harper’s new plan to target maternal and child health in poor countries.

I’m even less sure what to expect under the subtitle “Standing up for Those Who Helped Build Canada,” except to note that senior citizens tend to vote.

Overall, this list of headings reminds me a bit of the famous “Contract With America,” that U.S. Republicans rode to (short-lived) victory in the 1994 Congressional mid-term elections. That briefly potent document proposed a bunch of bills with titles like the Fiscal Responsibility Act (see the first of throne speech sub-headings), the Taking Back Our Streets Act (echoed in the Tory tough-on-crime talk), the Family Reinforcement Act (family will be a key word tomorrow), the National Security Restoration Act (no real parallel in Canada, where matters military don’t loom nearly o large in politics, but there will be a taste of this in the “Strengthening a United Canada in a Changing World” part), and the Senior Citizens Fairness Act (thematically similar to “Standing Up for Those Who Helped Build Canada).


 
Filed under:

Reading a throne speech by its titles

  1. Why doesn't harper just entitile it "My Pet Gloat" and be done with it?

    • I think Scott Feschuk should give you his biathlon-themed halter top for that one.

  2. Thank goodness for the Republican party…one wonders just what the Harper crowd would actually produce if they were forced to come up with an original idea of there own?

  3. It's a bit late to be "Building the Jobs and Industries of the Future". While other countries spent their stimulus money on green infrastructure that will reduce their energy costs and create long-term jobs, Canada spent it on paving roads and remodeling bathrooms. The opportunity is already squandered. Catching up with other countries is going to cost us another $50 billion.

  4. 'What will the ministers' and committee chairs' new mandates be about? Spending restraint and a return to (relative!) fiscal probity, for one thing, but not only that. What else? “Tomorrow's economy,” a leading Conservative strategist said, and for a second it was almost possible to believe he didn't know Ignatieff is peddling the same line. “The jobs of tomorrow.”'

    http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/07/new-ideas-old-

    • and you called it…i just hope you didn't give them the idea?

      • I believe the initial choice was

        Jobs? Maybe Tomorrow.

  5. Harper trying to do a take off on an Obama theme

    what a pile of crap

    we do not need this in this country

    we just need to stand up for canadian rights and values period

  6. Susan Delacourt has pointed out that this is another possible plagiarzed speech by Howard of Austrailia

    • Not possible, leftists are incapable of referencing any country other than the USA. Closer to home, the terminology reminds me of the overly verbose bills of the Mike Harris governemnt, ie Fairness Is A Two Way Street Act.

    • Wow. Just wow.

      I thought we were past the days of making up ridiculous scandals. Shame on the Liberals for even bringing this up, and even more shame on our media for even giving the Liberals the time of day on this.

  7. The is a rip off of Howard's 2004 election platform.

  8. Even to judge by the headings, it seems Harper didn't learned his plagiarism lesson:

    “A Stronger Economy. A Stronger Australia.” vs. “A Stronger Canada. A Stronger Economy.”

    “Restoring Prosperity” vs. “Planning for Recovery: Returning to Fiscal Balance.”

    “Harnessing Opportunities From The Global Economy” vs. “Strengthening a United Canada in a Changing World”

    “Prolonging Prosperity” And “Science And Innovation” vs. “Building the Jobs and Industries of the Future”

    “Sharing The Benefits With Pensioners” And “Meeting The Challenge Of An Ageing Population” vs. “Standing up for Those Who Helped Build Canada”

    “Assistance To Families” vs. “Making Canada the Best Place for Families”

    Harper needed to shut down Parliament for 3 months for this piece of "originality" and "re-calibration"? What did they walk to the Australian Parliament to get a copy?

    • I think these titles are all generated by software these days, they probably just borrowed Howard's copy since he doesn't need it anymore.

  9. Too bad he can't blame this on his speechwriter Owen Lippert as he did before. Ooops. Maybe he can.

  10. As Stewart_Smith said i too think that these titles are just automated. But it seems to be great.Thanks for sharing.

  11. 'What will the ministers' and committee chairs' new mandates be about? Spending restraint and a return to (relative!) fiscal probity, for one thing, but not only that. What else? “Tomorrow's economy,” a leading Conservative strategist said, and for a second it was almost possible to believe he didn't know Ignatieff is peddling the same line. “The jobs of tomorrow.”'
    http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/07/new-ideas-old-

    Great comment Inkless.

  12. “A Stronger Canada. A Stronger Economy. Now and for the Future.”

    A very strong speech for Canada people.

  13. That briefly potent document proposed a bunch of bills with titles like the Fiscal Responsibility Act

Sign in to comment.