Donald Trump had three significant meetings this past week in the Oval Office; only one created a global crisis. However, the American President’s meeting with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer should be reviewed by those in Saskatchewan currently attempting to make a dent in U.S. policy.
Starmer genuflected deeply in an effort to secure one promise: an American security guarantee for the territorial integrity of Ukraine. He offered a massive increase in UK defence spending (paid for by gutting Britain’s overseas aid programs and widely viewed as a betrayal of the world’s poorest.)
These gifts were received, but had no impact. Starmer got nothing for his troubles, save for a cabinet resignation
So, like all good politicians, Starmer pivoted. On the fly, in the wake of the Zelensky meeting, the Prime Minister began working on organizing a coalition of the willing. He saw the political terrain shifting beneath his feet and rapidly came to the realization that new strategies were required.
Saskatchewan’s political leadership should take note of this. The particular absence of strong condemnation of Trump’s actions by Premier Scott Moe is troubling. Nonsense talk about pre-approving any pipeline work in Saskatchewan is a) needlessly provocative and b) pointless, since he doesn’t have that authority.
It’s time for our Premier to listen to the quiet voice inside his head: things are changing. The status quo is evaporating. The United States will not be a reliable trade or political partner for the next four years, or perhaps even longer.
Attempting to appease the current US administration is a fool’s errand. Commitments made and undertakings agreed to on Wednesday lie shattered on the floor by Wednesday.
Channel the UK response. Pivot, adapt, re-tool. Cut your losses and start building stronger relationships with Europe and Asian trading partners. We’ll all be better off.
Many places in this province had temperatures above zero today. That which looked like cement hours ago is softening and collapsing. Much like our current world order.
As always, if you’re looking for a metaphor, prairie weather is generally a good one.
For the life of me, I can’t seem to sort out the aggregate political benefit behind Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s tepid reaction to Donald Trump’s introduction, withdrawal (and potential re-introduction) of tariffs against Canada and Mexico.
Politicians are many things, but they generally transactional on the whole. They will seldom take stupid positions that cost them votes. By failing to mirror the rapid, decisive and significant measures introduced by his Council of the Federation colleagues in other provinces, Premier Moe may be maintaining his right-wing base. However, he risks alienating a groundswell of Canadian nationalism and those Saskatchewan voters fond of putting their province first. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.
As Mr. Mandryk points out, the very notion of attempting to appease Donald Trump is folly:
The Premier’s chief apologists attempted to deflect critics of the tepid tariffs response by highlighting Moe’s efforts to diversify the province’s export markets.
….on the one hand, these efforts started well before Moe’s residency in Rm. 226. On the other hand, these efforts under Moe’s supervision have not been all that successful:
So, the fundamental question remains: Scott Moe has shown no hesitation to come off the bench on various and sundry issues. Why not this, particularly given the conspicuous political advantages of a more aggressive response? I have two potential answers: one from an expert in UK politics, the other is my own.
Polly Mackenzie was a Chief of Staff to Nick Clegg in the coalition government with the Conservatives. In a recent Times of London podcast, Mackenzie had an important reminder to political observers: Politicians don’t think like normal people. They are fiercely tribal, and party loyalty means more than anything. In this context, Moe may believe his loyalty to the Saskatchewan Party’s dominant narrative, his loyalty to the Premier of Alberta and his hatred of the federal Liberal government are simply more important than throwing his lot in with those advocating a more aggressive response. According to Mackenzie, the issues matter quite a bit more to ordinary voters while loyalty beats all other considerations for political leaders.
Most of politics is dominated by hyper-partisan thinking. Tribal loyalties matter more than the substantive issues…I think it’s fundamental to all observers of politics to note how important tribal loyalty is. And I think for voters, the issues matter quite a lot more”.
(How to Win an Election Podcast, 04 Feb 2025. Times of London, 23 min mark.)
My possible answer may be less prosaic but arguably equally worthy of consideration. The current Premier of Saskatchewan may have simply checked out. The job is onerous. He may actively be considering departure sooner as opposed to later. Given that, he just may not be interested in expending the energy and political capital on one more big fight. The tepid response may be just a symptom of fatigue.
Something to consider.
Despite the 30 day suspension, the tariffs story is far from over. We will be dealing with this story–or ones just like it, again and again over the next few years.
To end on a positive note, at least this week has highlighted Canada and Saskatchewan’s importance to US agriculture and the energy sector. Even Senator Chuck Grassley ( R-IA) was awakened from his normal geriatric slumber long enough to conclude potash was important to corn producers in the great state of Iowa and maybe he should be asking for a tariff exemption.
After three circuits of the local park, I can say without fear of contradiction that it is not like riding a bike. The new technology has not compensated for the deterioration in skills. But it was fun !
The new skis are far easier to control. The new boots and bindings are far better than old school equipment. However, balance comes with practice.
After 20 minutes, bits of it were coming back. And I will keep at it. I’m adopting an iterative approach; set the goals low–don’t injure yourself and enjoy. The skills will return, eventually.
Many hours of my political life were spent pondering Question Period. In Opposition, you’re looking for that one, concise phrase that cuts through the government’s rhetoric and makes your proposal or point of view more compelling and engaging. In Government, you’re looking for that clean, crisp, logical narrative illustrating your values and compelling voters to adopt your point of view. It’s fun when it works, not so much fun when it crashes.
Have a look at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in the UK to see the art form playing out at its highest level. When the UK Parliament is in session, The Prime Minister must answer questions from members for an hour every Wednesday. But there’s a bit of a break: Unlike the rules in Saskatchewan and other Canadian legislatures, the UK Prime Minister gets a few friendly questions from his own party members (Does the Prime Minister agree his government is doing a great job….).
It’s no surprise that PMQs get a tremendous amount of media attention. This becomes amplified when new players are introduced, like the new Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch. Recently, The Guardian’s Andrew Sparrow noted several right-wing media commentators were less than enthusiastic with Badenoch’s previous two PMQ outings. She is being criticized for performances in PMQs that have been something less than compelling.
The Guardian, 27 November 2024
To use communications jargon, Badenoch wasn’t cutting through. She wasn’t saying anything memorable or offering a clear vision that can compete with the government’s official narrative.
Sparrow offers an interesting analysis as well as a recipe for improvement for Badenoch. And when applied more broadly, Sparrow’s points could be constructively applied to any situation where someone has to communicate a point of view to an audience — whether it be in the media or any other setting.
Know what you want to say.
Sparrow’s first criticism of Badenoch is that she doesn’t seem to have worked out “where she wants to land”. I saw this frequently in my career: messaging seemed vague or confusion because no one was absolutely sure exactly what the message was. This is poisonous. If you don’t know what it is you are trying to say, it’s incredibly difficult to developing clear and coherent key messages. And, as is often said in communications, if you have six messages, you don’t have any message. Often, political actors finished an interview only to be mystified by the quote that was picked. Well, if you pick a bunch of different options, don’t be surprised by the final choice that’s made. Or, stick to one basic message and find several different creative ways of articulating that message.
Saying too much all at once.
This is such a common problem. When asking or answering a question or giving a presentation, people speak way too quickly. They try to get everything out as rapidly as possible. In an interview situation, there is a tendency to answer every potential question in the first response, perhaps feeling you won’t get a second chance. You likely will, so just slow down, listen to the question and attempt to answer it as best as you can in a forthright manner.
In the context of Question Period, I’ve been the poor staffer that provides the politician with five or six questions along with the admonition to listen and adjust the questions in light of information contained in the answers. Sadly, this kind of thinking on your feet is a rare skill. However, people improve with practice.
Going over the top
After a few weeks in government, it soon becomes obvious you require a different set of skills than those which caused you to prosper in opposition. For example, the phrase “we will never…” should likely be banned. As Joe Biden discovered, having your handlers say you will never pardon your son isn’t helpful when you decide to pardon your son. It’s corrosive, and damaging to your long-term credibility. While absolutes provide temporary comfort, they are damaging in the long haul. At most, you can default to phrases like “I can’t imagine a set of circumstances where I would…” but even that permanently closes some doors you may wish to open later. And always remember: you are stuck with what you said publicly for as long as you are in public life
The Guardian, 27 November
Tone is important
As Maya Angelou famously said “It’s not what you say that people remember, it’s how you made them feel”.
You convey some of your message using words, some with tone. If you sound patronizing, people will feel patronized. If you sound angry, listeners will think you are angry. An old trick in media training is to have someone look at one of their recent interviews with the sound off. Invariably, you will pick up signals that suggest tone or mood. Your posture will betray you if you feel anger. Your shifting eyes and shuffling will suggest nervousness. Leaning forward and offering direct eye contact to your inquisitor will convey sincerity. Tone is as important to strategic political messaging as content. The problem is people anguish over content and pay no attention to tone or appearance.
Invariably communicators improve over time with lots of practice. Natural skills will only get you so far when delivering a narrative, political or otherwise. However, you need to be mindful of tone. You need to have a clear sense of what it is you want to say, and how best to articulate your message. You also need to consider how your opponents will respond and how best to calmly and rationally meet those concerns.
In many federal briefing notes, I’ve seen content under the heading “Desired Media Headline”. It’s good to know what the target was/is, even if you’re not going to get there. The renowned nature photographer Ansel Adams used a process he described as “pre-visualization” before he tripped the shutter. What will this photo look like? What do I want it to look like? What adjustments in position/exposure/lighting could be made to achieve that goal? Political messaging would improve if the messengers adopted a similar practice.
Those attempting to deliver an important message in politics, parenting, business or any other relationship would be wise to remember Mr. Sparrow’s sound advice. Think about what you want to say. Think about the best way to say it. And think about how people will respond. Think about tone. Don’t go over-the-top. And be mindful of tone. Make people believe you are actually interested in the problems they face and that you come equipped with some workable solutions.
Ian Hanna 