Tories throw opposition some bones

So the Triple Entente is still on. The advance word on yesterday’s Speech from the Throne was that we should “expect no surprises.” (Well, of course: see, the thing about a surprise is that you don’t expect it.) It fell to the opposition parties to provide the element of surprise, in the form of some unseasonably mild post-speech remarks. Well, the Liberals were still willing to sing the old songs, finding the speech “thin gruel” and attacking the government for “raising” income taxes -- that is, for rolling back cuts that were never effected, which it has yet to do in any event. But they were very much the odd man out, as in fact they have been since last fall, when the three opposition parties first combined to bring the government down. We are beginning now to see how fundamental was the shift in NDP strategy on that occasion; the historic decision to tilt away from their traditional allies, the Liberals, in favour of the Conservatives. That decision would have held, in my opinion, even if, in the ensuing election, the Tories had failed to win a plurality: there was simply no way that the NDP -- or the Bloc -- were going to prop the Liberals back up in power, having just voted to remove them. But with the Tories in fact in possession of a strong minority -- strong, in the sense that they can govern with the support of any one of the opposition parties -- there is no particular reason for the other two parties to leave the alliance, and every reason to stay. That doesn’t mean they will vote with the government on every occasion. But the Prime Minister does not need them to. Rather, he can play them off against each other, offering more to one party or the other depending on their willingness to work with him. There is plenty of evidence of that in the Speech, notably in the direction of the NDP. The Five Priorities have become at least seven, gusting to twelve: reshaping fiscal federalism and repairing our defence and security alliances were always part of the government’s agenda, but when did electoral reform and reducing greenhouse gas emissions become Conservative priorities? Oh, and don’t forget seniors. Also “our vital natural resource and agriculture industries.” (Not to be confused with those other, dispensible industries.) As the agenda has broadened, it has also ... shallowed. Most striking was the language around the Tories’ daycare plan. After restating the party’s case for funding parents, rather than daycare centres (“This Government understands that no two Canadian families are exactly alike. Each has its own circumstances and needs. Parents must be able to choose the child care that is best for them.”), the speech then goes on to do the opposite: “In collaboration with the provinces and territories, employers and community non-profit organizations, it will also encourage the creation of new child care spaces.” Creating spaces? In collaboration with the provinces? Wasn’t that the Liberal plan? True, the Tories had also allocated some funds for “creating spaces” -- as if putting another a couple of billion a year in parents’ hands would not have the same effect -- but the provinces were never part of the bargain. Indeed, the Tories campaigned on a promise to withdraw the previous government’s offer to fund provincial daycare plans. Is the way being prepared for some sort of vastly expensive fudge: money for parents and money for provinces? The other noteworthy passage in the speech was the lengthy ode to giving Quebec a role in foreign affairs. To be sure, this is the only example the government has offered to date of what on earth it means by “open federalism.” But to date that is all it has needed to offer. The Bloc is reeling, sinking again in the polls and deprived of the lifeline the sponsorship scandal had provided it. And whereas Mr. Harper has some reason to want to prop up the NDP -- the better to steal votes from the Liberals -- he has no investment in the Bloc, except as a Plan B, should the Dippers get too greedy. Quebec, he will court for or all it’s worth. The Bloc, not so much. For all that, it is a remarkably modest speech: just 2500 words, to 4600 in the Martin government’s last Throne speech -- and 6300 in its first. The contrast in tone is even more noteworthy. It’s a cliché by now, but the Martin government really did want to do everything, where it did not boast of having already done it. Aboriginals, for example, rate a mention in the Harper speech. In Martin’s, they got a chapter. But then, so did everything: a new deal for cities, building a 21st century economy, lifelong learning, sustainable development, the Martinites had dozens and dozens of proposals, plans, blueprints, agendas, none of them realized. On the surface, the Harper government may seem to be in a weaker position: just 125 seats, to the Martin government’s 135. But in fact it is much stronger, not least because no one, but no one, wants another election. The Martin government, in hindsight, was probably doomed from the start, fatally weakened by the sponsorship scandal and facing an opposition determined, after 12 years, to bring it down. All that talk of transformative change and destinies to behold may have been born, not of arrogance, but of desperation: with the odds against it in Parliament, the Martin government may have felt its only chance was to keep talking, and hope something would come up. There’s a saying in the negotiating trade: If you’re talking, you’re losing. You’ll notice Harper is not doing a lot of talking.