Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
You are a glutton for punishment.
And No Yards you missed LTU's point, it was about what there might be free votes on. That there would never be a free vote on rights issue, does not mean that on policy issues there is always going to be a free vote. A pretty easy distinction to pick up, if you are trying.
There arent many free votes period. They might happen, as in this case, when the Caucus is deeply divided: that either way you go there are not going to be just the run of mill one or two that are ticked off. Instead, a few that after all the discussion and Leader telling them how they should vote and why, still feel it should not be rammed down their throats. Thats when you might have a free vote. Its simply not going to happen over an issue like abortion, and everyone knows it.
I see, so you're saying then that equal treatment despite ones sexual orientation is not an issue of rights, which is why Layton was able to whip the party to support the Cons Omnibus bill that discriminated against gay youth?
discriminated against gay youth?
FYI, I've changed this thread title, and the previous one, to indicate numerically where we're at. This is for the future archives and searchability.
I am not going to get into arguments about how many angels there are on the head of a pin.
As well: someone who is not teying to gratuitously turn up the heat would not add the supurfluous preface "So you are saying then..."
But if you said it in a more even handed way like the obvious "Do you think that..." then you get the answer I already gave. But who knows, without the poke in the eye first, I might have looked at question differently.
You weren't aware that the NDP whipped the vote (and punished Siksay for defying the whip) that applied different consent laws to straight and gay sex?
Of course, after how they treated gay youth at the at the party convention it's hardly surprising in how they voted.
I am not going to get into arguments about how many angels there are on the head of a pin.
I didn't expect you would want to discuss NDP hypocrisy, but I never figured you'd suggest that equality for gays would be an "angles on the head of a pin" argument.
Just a question:
I understand that the registry as it is is doomed and there are not enough votes to save it.
I also understand that if you add those who would like it no matter what with those who want changes you get a majority.
Why then is there not a stronger push to reform it?
I understand that there are two key issues opponents keep telling me:
1) the privacy issue of declaring your medical/mental state
2) the difficulty with finding a person you may have had a relationship with in the past to ask either for their endorsement or provide to the police to notify them of your desire to get a gun.
If indeed these are the two main ones (I can't see any others in looking at the form and from what people have told me), then why can't we fix them and go on to kep the registry:
1) by eliminating any declaration on the form and instead requiring a doctor to make an assessment of fitness-- that doctor would be aware and have access to medical treatment records that are already kept private.
2) by eliminating the need to locate exes instead having a system that they could access to search if the person applied to get a gun and an objection process. If they have lost touch and are unconcerned then no problem but if the former partner was concerned then perhaps it is better to have a system they could check -- online -- for that person to see if they applied. Further they could register a request to be notified and if a person applied and there was no request that would mean nobody was concerned and they could move on.
I think those who want a gun cannot have it both ways: on the one hand if you want to keep your application private then notification to interested parties would be reasonable but it would also be reasonable just to process it and then allow people to do a search or register to be notified if an application was filed.
The search could be registered and a person allowed only a maximum of say 2-3 names per month so people could not go fishing.
Do gun owners think that a registry of their ownership of guns ought to be private? If so why? Especially if that registry contained nothing more than the existence of the application which itself would not be shared but would contain nothing more than medical consent to have a gun. There would be no record of denied applications.
Would this be the compromise that could make this work?
I realize it is less in some ways but sure better than nothing and perhaps that is where we could go.
It is also less trouble if you accept the complaints I have heard.
Maybe there is a miscalculation on the part of those who want to keep the registry that the best thing is to advocate to keep it without any changes knowing it will be defeated.
Perhaps others would come up with better solutions but I am sure solutions can be found to answer objections and that the simple ditching of the registry is wasteful, dangerous and sends a bad message to those expecting that the state provide them some security.
oh so this is a bash NDP catchall thread was my point.
It's relevant to the "whip/vs no whip" policy of the NDP which is releveant to the registry argument.
Go back to my point that there is no whip / no whip policy. Its all context, and always about divisions within the NDP. [And a couple MPs disagreeing does not consitute division.]
You can talk all you want about inconsistency- plenty of room for that. Buts inherently a discussion of shades. Pretending that there are cut and dried rules is making things up.
Even the 'always free votes on private members bills' has a background context that is relevant. As a simple statement, you cant really argue with that. But no one ever imagined that something like this would be a private members bill. And so it would go with any "simple principle" on this you want to pick on this question, whatever side you want to take.
oh so this is a bash NDP catchall thread was my point.
Obviously Remind knows there is more to the issue. But you do a bloody good job of making it look like thats what it is really about. With some help of course.
This is such an exercise in futility.
I already spend more time than I should in threads where people actually listen to each other- imagine that- and where there is evidence of people exercising their minds for more than the kicks of seeing their hot air out there.
Agreed kenS there is, however, I have been drug back into this topic because of spurious quotes of mine put up by another, about other topics completely, and do not even state/indicate what said person was trying to indicate that they were supposed to have stated. All of which constitutes a personal attack, IMV. As pretending I hold a position I do not, has been an issue through out this topic, and I am sick of it.
It smacks of behind the scenes activities and nothing but playing crass patriarchial politics, while pretending it is all about the poor women don't cha know.
Go back to my point that there is no whip / no whip policy. Its all context, and always about divisions within the NDP. [And a couple MPs disagreeing does not consitute division.]
You can talk all you want about inconsistency- plenty of room for that. Buts inherently a discussion of shades. Pretending that there are cut and dried rules is making things up.
Even the 'always free votes on private members bills' has a background context that is relevant. As a simple statement, you cant really argue with that. But no one ever imagined that something like this would be a private members bill. And so it would go with any "simple principle" on this you want to pick on this question, whatever side you want to take.
And the context here then is that you don't think the vote should be whipped and I do. Now that the question of whether NDP policy on whipping is resolved to show that there is no real policy that can't be ignored (ie: the statement that the vote has to be whipped, vs can not be whipped is really a question of "should" or "shout not" be whipped,) then it comes down to whether there is merit to the registry itself and, if you are a creature of vote counting, whether supporting the registry or not is better for the NDP in terms of votes.
oh so this is a bash NDP catchall thread was my point.
Obviously Remind knows there is more to the issue. But you do a bloody good job of making it look like thats what it is really about. With some help of course.
Disingenuous claptrap .. the firearm registry issue, even as it relates to just to the NDP, has many facets to it, when someone wants to address one specific aspect of the debate it is not necessary to recount every single other facet of the larger issue as well ... you don't do it, so don't fucking expect that anyone else has to do ... that's not even a clever attempt at limiting the debate.
But focusing on what is one aspect of an argument of others, can be part of trivializing the larger argument.
So whether I'm right or not, you cant just rule out my point. It is not just "responding to an aspect of an argument".
I made it clear that I though Stuart's contribution in particular was that kind of trivialization [leaving aside it was also a vert strained argument]. You do a lot more of the trivializing, so even though this particular kick at can in this thread was brief, I responded.
But one reason that also is an exercise in futility is because theres no getting to the bottom of "was this just trivializaing" or was it legitimately focusing on one aspect of an argument. So about we leave it as sufficient mud has been flung back and forth?
Another NDP MP recognizes the PMB for what it is.
He's the third New Democrat from northern Ontario in the past few weeks to switch sides and support the registry.
snip ...
"While I planned to further my discussions with caucus colleagues in Regina and announce my plans in Nickel Belt, the mounting rhetoric and divisive debate egged on by Conservative MPs has convinced me that I needed to make a decision sooner rather than later,” Gravelle said from Revelstoke, B.C., in a news statement released Friday.
He said he had hoped there would be a real opportunity to improve the bill and fix the registry at committee.
“Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Conservatives had no interest in working collaboratively with other parliamentarians because they had intended all along to use this bill as a fundraising tool, and as a cynical way of dividing rural and urban Canadians,” Gravelle said. “I will therefore be voting against Bill C-391."
Three down and nine to go. I predict that the next "show to drop" will be Carol Hughes from Algoma.
Recasting the debate in public- that it is not so black and white- makes it easier for each individual MP to shift position.
Leaving it as black and white makes would make it unlikely they will.
I think the NDP should start abstaining from votes in protest of the shananigans.
Andrew Coyne is 100% correct on this issue (a broken clock is right twice a day)
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-registrys-value/
"I had some fun at the top of this column with the NDP’s position, or positions, on the issue. But in fact the party is handling it exactly as it should. This needs to be said, and should be repeated every time this comes up: there’s nothing wrong with a caucus being “divided” on a vote. That is simply another name for MPs doing what they were elected to do: represent their riding, either as their conscience or their constituents dictate.
The gun registry shows up nowhere in the NDP’s 2008 platform. The party did not run on it, and MPs cannot be said to owe their seats to the party’s stand on the issue. So there’s no failure of leadership here. Layton may not have much choice—the NDP has many more dissenters in its caucus, proportionately, than do the Liberals, so any use of the whip risked inciting a revolt—but he’s doing the right thing all the same. You take a stand as a party where you have a consensus as a party. If there’s no such consensus, what is the point of pretending there is?"
further to that-- the NDP is not divided over legislation that they created or anything in theory. They are divided over a registry set up by Liberals and opposed by Conservatives.
The NDP is not divided on the need to invest in prevention of violence. They are divided on this particular means as presented in this particular way.
I am blown away that this is taken as some kind of failing of the party even though I personally do support the registry in spite of its flaws.
Three down and nine to go. I predict that the next "show to drop" will be Carol Hughes from Algoma.
This forum would be a lot more fun if we had wagering software, especially for byelection and poll threads.
Wow, by the time the 22nd rolls around I will probably be convinced that this was all about stopping the Cons from playing the "wedge issue" card, and that killing the Cons bill was the idea of Kens and Stockholm
Oh well, as long as the registry is saved I can certainly accept a little "walk-back" and spin.
Good work so far Layton.
Does Coyne realize that not a single one of the "converted" NDP MPs are now voting to "represent their riding, either as their conscience or their constituents dictate"? At least not according to the narrative we were originally given to us as to why these MPs were going to allow the bill to pass. He's not a "broken clock" Stockholm, he's just your regular conservative hack he's always been that thinks democracy is only concerned with the will of the majority (except of course when "conscience" aligns with his own political convictions ... MPs should speak for all their constituents according to their conscience, but a party leader cannot speak for all their MPs according to the leaders conscience?)
One important point that seems lost here is that, aside from the fact that the NDP does not have an official policy on the registry, when the Liberals originally moved to set it up the NDP caucus (all 9 of them at the time), with one exception (Svend), voted overwhelmingly against the registry.
Since then the political ground has shifted, yes. The annual cost of the registry (despite the usual excessive Liberal spending in the initial years) has proved to be negligible on a per capita basis, yes. And, yes, the registry has proven its value.
That there are 12 dissenting NDP MPs, instead of one, this time around is a function of the party's electoral success and democratic principles.
Logical, as she is now alone among the five northeastern Ontario NDP MPs.
But to make it interesting, I'll bet on Malcolm Allen.
This is lame. When has the presence or absence of actual policy made a difference in a situation like this in the past?
I've raised this in an earlier thread, but I don't believe anyone responded. So I want to raise it again.
According to the Liberals, there are now 150 MPs voting to keep the registry, 152 against, and two on the fence.
The Liberals are assuming every single one of their MPs will vote to keep the registry. But I heard Yukon Liberal MP Larry Bagnell on the radio about 10 days ago openly saying he was still thinking of voting against the registry. Are there other Liberals thinking of breaking ranks? And if they do, what will that do to the 'credibility' of Ignatieff on the issue.
Sure he's whipped the vote, but what are the consequenses to MPs who don't follow the whip? Is it expulsion from caucus, or a slap on the wrist? Assuming the numbers above are correct, it would only take one or two Liberals breaking ranks to give Harper his margin of victory, especially with more NDP MPs moving toward supporting. After all the Liberal rhetoric on the issue, what assurances does Ignatieff have that he won't end up with egg on his face after this vote?
This is lame. When has the presence or absence of actual policy made a difference in a situation like this in the past?
Situation like what?
Situation like what?
Most national issues on which our party responds are issues on which the party has not specific policy. And even when we do have a specific policy, the party's response often has precious little to do with it.
Imagine if we declared free votes on all the other crime bills on which we had no specific policy.
I agree there is only an indirect relationship between offical [more or less] party policy, and what is in practice in play at any given time.
To an important degree it has to be that way. The official process is both way too slow, and not remotely comprehensive enough. Caucus has the role of doing and putting into play real time.
But on top of that necessary difference, the actual practice is that Caucus does policy; and official policy is advisory to that, when there is any official policy, and its not ridiculously out of date.
That in no way stops critics of the NDP from alternately flagellating the party for not following official policy, and then completely ignoring or downplaying official policy, whichever is more convenient to the situation at hand.
Nor do defenders of the party in general and/or a specific position have a problem doing the same.
Almost no one in or around the NDP treats the body of policies as a sacred cow in its own right.
You could say the same for how people talk about the rightness or not of free votes. when free votes happen is objectively complex and difficult to nail down in the first place. All the more room for people to play with in discussion games.
If there is no clear party policy and there is no caucua consensus then how can a vote be whipped?
You can whip without either. Though without a Caucus consensus would be the most straining. And even "clear party policy" would evolve- Jacks position on the registry is just such an evlution. The fact it is not anchored in [official] policy does not mean it isnt clear. And that a particular policy/position is not derived from [official] policy does not necessarily mean it contradicts it- though it does in this case.
Not sure I understand the question, because they are two seperate things: one being the ideas put out there, the other [whipping] being about parliamentary mechanics. Roughly speaking of course.
Correct, so then we can ignore NDP policy as in this case there is no official policy.
The correctness of the use of the whip vs free vote is also not a direct issue, as they are simply tools to an end ... and end that has to be decided on some other basis.
So, the questions become:
1) Is the registry a good thing or a bad thing?
2) What does it do to the NDP to be seen supporting the registry or causing its demise?
3) Is there a way to be both for and against the registry at the same time.
I'm of the opinion that the answer for #1 is yes, others are not. As far as any real studies go the answer seems to be yes as well. Some say that popular opinion leans towards "no", but the most recent poll shows a 48/38 split in favour of keeping the registry.
Concerning #2, along with the poll above, other recent polls seem to suggest that the current NDP strategy of potentially allowing the registry to be killed is dropping the NDP in the polls (from over 20% now down 16%.)
Concerning #3, there are two ways I see to play that:
one way would be to do what Layton is doing now, announce that there will be a free vote and work to change the existing 12 anti-registry MPs to vote with the majority, but in the end allowing the registry to fall if that's how the votes come down ... this strategy has the danger of of not looking like a real attempt at saving the registry if the MPs don't come around, but if it succeeds it makes Layton look very good. (the other disadvantage is that it wastes time lining up your own MPs when that time could be better spent putting pressure on the Cons to address the real issues concerning the registry, meaning that saving the registry will probably end up saving it in its current status, allowing the Cons the opportunity to easily use the registry as a wedge issue in the future.)
The other way would be to simply whip the vote to save the registry right now and spend the rest of the available tim eputting the pressure on the Cons to address the real registry issues. This of course has the danget that the MPs will not honour the whip and the registry dies anyway, but the big advantage is that it puts the pressure back onthe Cons, possibly even forcing them to address the registry issues and preventing them from easily using the registry as a wedge issue in the future.
Personally I see the second option as being the best overall option, with the opportunity of saving a useful program, potentially making it better, and removing a Con wedge issue ... but since Layton seems to be going with the first option I guess it's something I can live with, but I see it as being more concerned with internal party politics than actually addressing what's best for Canadians in the long term (although I do see that there is a path to the same end with the first option, it's just a lot longer path, and less likely to succeed IMO.)
Andrew Coyne is 100% correct on this issue (a broken clock is right twice a day)
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-registrys-value/
"I had some fun at the top of this column with the NDP’s position, or positions, on the issue. But in fact the party is handling it exactly as it should. This needs to be said, and should be repeated every time this comes up: there’s nothing wrong with a caucus being “divided” on a vote. That is simply another name for MPs doing what they were elected to do: represent their riding, either as their conscience or their constituents dictate.
The gun registry shows up nowhere in the NDP’s 2008 platform. The party did not run on it, and MPs cannot be said to owe their seats to the party’s stand on the issue. So there’s no failure of leadership here. Layton may not have much choice—the NDP has many more dissenters in its caucus, proportionately, than do the Liberals, so any use of the whip risked inciting a revolt—but he’s doing the right thing all the same. You take a stand as a party where you have a consensus as a party. If there’s no such consensus, what is the point of pretending there is?"
This is the same argument Andrew Coyne made on t.v. Thursday night when the At Issue panel returned. But as Chantal Hébert told Coyne, if the NDP doesn't whip the vote, they risk losing urban votes to the Liberals, including in Quebec.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-registrys-value/
"I had some fun at the top of this column with the NDP’s position, or positions, on the issue. But in fact the party is handling it exactly as it should. This needs to be said, and should be repeated every time this comes up: there’s nothing wrong with a caucus being “divided” on a vote. That is simply another name for MPs doing what they were elected to do: represent their riding, either as their conscience or their constituents dictate.
The gun registry shows up nowhere in the NDP’s 2008 platform. The party did not run on it, and MPs cannot be said to owe their seats to the party’s stand on the issue. So there’s no failure of leadership here. Layton may not have much choice—the NDP has many more dissenters in its caucus, proportionately, than do the Liberals, so any use of the whip risked inciting a revolt—but he’s doing the right thing all the same. You take a stand as a party where you have a consensus as a party. If there’s no such consensus, what is the point of pretending there is?"
By "urban," she specifically means Toronto-Montreal-Vancouver and is oblivious to the fact that people in the other urban centres don't necessarily think the same way she does. Let the Liberals take T-Dan, Trinity-Spadina, and Outrement, the NDP has potential to win far more seats than that. From my vantage point in the City of Winnipeg, I just don't sense a deep desire that the gun registry has to be kept.
"But as Chantal Hébert told Coyne, if the NDP doesn't whip the vote, they risk losing urban votes to the Liberals, including in Quebec."
She seems to be ignorant of that fact that there is a poetntailly far greater price to pay if they DO whip the vote.
Not sure I understand the question, because they are two seperate things: one being the ideas put out there, the other [whipping] being about parliamentary mechanics. Roughly speaking of course.
My point is that it is basically impossible to turn this into a whipped vote. I am not sure how the caucus decision making goes, but I see two possible routes: a caucus decision or a decision imposed by the leader. A caucus decision requires something approaching a consensus for it to be inforceable and this is not the case.
The leader could perhaps try and impose a decision, but there would need to be justifications greater than "I have a deeper understanding of the truth". JS Woodsworth was a passionate pacifist, but he didn't require his caucus to vote with him against participation in WWII.
On a side note I am amazed at how people who are so eager to blame the NDP for vote chasing, are now so willing to hold up the threat of urban vote losses (though they are more than willing to kiss off the rural votes at the same time).
That's not the case though ... the goal should be to have a strategy that makes an attempt at fixing the registry so that both sides (reasonable people on both sides, not the idiots that we hear in the media making the usual ignorant charges about the registry ... gun grabbing, criminals don't register firearms, etc, - who would never vote NDP anyway) can come away feeling like the NDP is listening .... Letting the registry fall doesn't make that attempt. Saving the registry and making a strong attempt at fixing the issues that NDP firearm supporters (again, no the gun nuts who would never vote NDP anyway) have with the registry would be a much better approach IMO.
That's highly debatable ... there are several close ridings that could swing to the Libs if the NDP are seen as killing the registry, and there are several more that the NDP were close in last election that could move out of reach for the same reason ... the latest polls also indicate that the NDP is losing popularity with their current stance of letting the registry fall ... and not to mention all the groups that provide support to the NDP that are strongly urging them to support the registry. If they decide that it's not worth supporting a party that will ignore their combined wishes so easily, that too could spell disaster for the NDP ... I know you've stated you "believe" that no harm will come from killing the registry, but your "beliefs" are hardly what I'd call a reasoned argument.
Its all hypothetical speculation what the electoral impact is of the NDP doing this or that on this issue. Who really knows. The next election is likely many months if not years away - and I can guarantee that the central issue of that election is very unlikely to be the gun registry. Right now the NDP has the best of both worlds - if you live in in Outremont - you are represented by an NDP MP who supports the registry. If you live in Western Arctic you have an NDP MP who opposes it - what's not to like? Meanwhile, bit by bit Jack is convincing his caucus one by one to come around to his position without having to resort to dictatorial Stalinist tactics that would show disrespect for rural Canada and would likely lead to a caucus revolt and a schism between the federal NDP and its Saskatchewan and Manitoba chapters.
I was watching Layton on Question Period today - I have to that I almost fell out of my chair when Craig Oliver led off his interview by stating "surely there is no principle more sacred to the NDP that keeping the gun registry...". I would be a bad politician since if i were Jack I would have rebutted that in an instant - but i know that its best not to try to respond to these "when did you stop beating your wife?" type preambles. For the record, the gun REGISTRY has NEVER EVER been NDP policy or principle. It was opposed by 8 out of 9 NDP Mps when it was introduced in the 90s and it was opposed by the Manitoba and Saskatchewan NDP every step of the way. Maybe you might be able to argue that it OUGHT to be a "sacred principle" - but the fact is it wasn't in the past, isn't in the present and won't be in the foreseeeable future. Message to Craig Oliver - I that support for public health care is a principle that is infinitely more "sacred" to the NDP than the principle of salvaging a crappy Liberal gun registry.
Incidentally, Jack really looked great on QP, right back to how he looked before the prostate cancer. (I'm sure that must come as a terrible disappointment to the Liberal blogosphere!)
I'd also like to point out that when Layton first ran for the NDP leadership and for years afterwards - the knock against him was always that he was too "downtown Toronto" and would ignore rural concerns etc... as it turns out nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if Jack was really an self-interested opportunist - the easiest thing to do would be to take a damn the torperdoes approach and ram the gun registry down the the caucus's throat - it would certainly ingratiate him the most with a sub-segment of "opinion leader" living in the ridings of him and his wife.
Logical, as she is now alone among the five northeastern Ontario NDP MPs.
But to make it interesting, I'll bet on Malcolm Allen.
And I was right, as it happened.
From the above mentioned article. Allen is #4 to commit to switch his vote.
The Liberals must be freaking out that their motion to stop the PMB might actually pass - that would be the worst possible outcome for them.
Then I don't see why you objected to killing the PMB in the first place since it will hurt the plans of the Libs ... were you trying to protect the Libs?
I never objected to killing the PMB. I hope it does get killed off so we can get this useless issue off the table - but I'm not asking Layton to use Stalinist strong-arm tactics to make that happen.
BTW: Look at all the "big plans" the Liberals have if their motion to save the gun registry loses. I don't get it - the latest count suggests that the vote is now a tie and more NDP Mps may yet switch - if that happens that the gun registry survives - yet the Liberals seem to be counting their chickens before they've hatched and are already assuming their motion will be defeated. All these Liberal plans will be wasted. I can't help but notice that all the NDP MPs' they seem to be "targetting" are people who support the gun registry in the first place? Why don't they send Iggy to Thunder bay to attack the two NDP MPs there who want to see it scrapped??
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/09/the-gun-registry-tour....
"The Liberals are holding their first Ignatieff town hall "Open Mike" series next week, the day after the vote on the gun registry.
It's being held in Montreal's Outremont on Sept. 23... that's Thursday, time and location TBA.
They see it as a grand opportunity to stick it to NDP MP Thomas Mulcair, who they say is "bleeding" over the gun registry issue.
Outremont, which includes L' École Polytechnique, is Mulcair's riding. Although Mulcair has said he will vote to keep the registry, with some suggested changes, the Liberals believe he could be victim to the fallout from his party's indecision on the gun registry issue.
The Liberals admit that they will probably lose the upcoming vote on the long gun registry on Sept. 22 by a couple of votes. So, they're looking at their town hall events as a chance to win some votes from the public."
...the latest count suggests that the vote is now a tie and more NDP Mps may yet switch - if that happens that the gun registry survives
It's only a tie if all 75 Liberal MPs vote against the bill. And as I've mentioned before, there is at least one Liberal MP (Larry Bagnel) who has told the media he may break ranks. And he indicated a couple of other Liberals might join him.
At that point, Ignatieff's political cred goes 'poof.'
If the Liberal motion loses by one vote and two Liberals are absent - Ignatieff would literally have to expell them from caucus and tar and feather them to have any credibility left. But didn't i see Bagnell quoted as saying that he would "follow the leader" on this vote? Its harder for a Liberal to justify wanting to scrap the LGR since it was a Liberal bill to begin with.
Hmmm, looks like I should have done some research before posting. Bagnel is in fact saying he will follow Iggy.
Sorry, I could have sworn he was on the radio a couple of weeks ago saying something different.
The $1.5 to $4 million per year figure was a fallacy: The new RCMP report admits to $23 million per year.
"BP just put out a BP report on the BP oil spill. BP thinks their efforts are effective and the costs to coastal residents and ecosystems are minimal."
Just more of the same thing the Auditor General excoriated in her last registry audit. Determining the actual costs of long gun registration is like playing whack-a-mole.
Do you have a link to that information? I have the RCMP report and I didn't see anything about $23M.
Do you have a link to that information? I have the RCMP report and I didn't see anything about $23M.
I thought it was from a letter here:
http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20100907/KAMLOOPS0303/309079998/-1/KA...
Memory didn't serve me well as he simply said "over 20 million". I must have read that $23 million figure somewhere else.
Can you link me to the actual report? I will google if not. Then I'll download the report and read it for myself to see where he's coming from. Perhaps Dr. Mauser is adding up parts of the report to arrive at his final tally.
Well as one of those silly, misguided women who believe in the effectiveness of the gun registry, I had this to respond to the NDP/Jack Layton appeal for donations:
We’ll see what happens on September 22nd. Should the registry cease to exist, my $$$ and vote will go elsewhere.
I copied my messages to Jim Maloway and Niki Ashton to Jack and my MP Pat Martin. Only Pat had the decency to respond.
Do you have a link to that information? I have the RCMP report and I didn't see anything about $23M.
I thought it was from a letter here:
http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20100907/KAMLOOPS0303/309079998/-1/KA...
Memory didn't serve me well as he simply said "over 20 million". I must have read that $23 million figure somewhere else.
Can you link me to the actual report? I will google if not. Then I'll download the report and read it for myself to see where he's coming from. Perhaps Dr. Mauser is adding up parts of the report to arrive at his final tally.
Here's the link, but the "secret" is "subtraction", not "adding" ... the cost of the registry is only a portion of the overall Canadian Firearm Program. In addition, the "registry section" does more than simply "register firearams" ... Eliminating the "registry" would only eliminate the cost of registering firearms (funny how that works, eh?) The portion of the CFP consisting of the "registering firearms" process of the Firearm Registry" is only in the range of $1 to $4 million.
What Mauser did was to take what the RCMP call the "registration costs" portion of the total cost to run the CFP, but failed to take into account that the services provided by the "registration" section includes may other services than just "registering firearms" There's a long list in the report itself. ... the RCMP had independent sources determine the actual saving that would be had by scraping the registration portion of the services and they determined that only $1 to $4 Million would be saved.
Well as one of those silly, misguided women who believe in the effectiveness of the gun registry, I had this to respond to the NDP/Jack Layton appeal for donations:
We’ll see what happens on September 22nd. Should the registry cease to exist, my $$$ and vote will go elsewhere.
I copied my messages to Jim Maloway and Niki Ashton to Jack and my MP Pat Martin. Only Pat had the decency to respond.
You don't have to 'believe in' anything. Either the registry has been effective in saving lives or it hasn't. Why not take a tour around Stats Canada's reports on homicide and domestic violence, and see for yourself? I'm sure you'll see that, since 1977, licensing may have played a role in the continuous downward trend of firearms-mediated death, but registration at mid-point didn't change the trend at all. The reports themselves confirm this in writing.
Stats Canada "Deaths Involving Firearms":
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/af-fdr.cgi?l=eng&loc=pdf/4194126-eng.pd...
Stats Canada "Homicide in Canada 2008":
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2009004/article/10929-eng.pdf
"Family Violence in Canada: A statistical profile 2009":
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2009000-eng.pdf
"Family Violence in Canada: A statistical profile 2008":
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2008/statcan/85-224-X/85-224-XIE20...
Here's the link, but the "secret" is "subtraction", not "adding" ... the cost of the registry is only a portion of the overall Canadian Firearm Program. In addition, the "registry section" does more than simply "register firearams" ... Eliminating the "registry" would only eliminate the cost of registering firearms (funny how that works, eh?) The portion of the CFP consisting of the "registering firearms" process of the Firearm Registry" is only in the range of $1 to $4 million.
What Mauser did was to take what the RCMP call the "registration costs" portion of the total cost to run the CFP, but failed to take into account that the services provided by the "registration" section includes may other services than just "registering firearms" There's a long list in the report itself. ... the RCMP had independent sources determine the actual saving that would be had by scraping the registration portion of the services and they determined that only $1 to $4 Million would be saved.
Thank you for the link. I'll have a go at it in my spare time.
In the interim I question why the union representing the Mirimichi employees had a demonstration in front of the office about 'massive job losses' if long gun registration were cut. To the point where the government had to promise to repurpose them if the long gun registry was discontinued.
They appear to want to play this both ways, and it doesn't pass the smell test. Either the CFC employees do myriad other tasks and would hardly notice if registration were terminated (since the cost of registration is a miniscule 1-4% of the CFP), or there will be massive job cuts. Which one is it?
I also question your explanation that "registration costs" include all sorts of other things than registration, which balloon "registration costs" out a factor of four. If that is the case, then why keep those tasks under a "registration costs" section at all?
Perhaps you mean something different. If you don't then you should be specific. I don't like wooden nickels.
$1 - $4 million can still mean a lot of jobs ... but speaking of "smell test", if the Feds say they are repurposing those jobs anyway, then there will be no savings at all (or very little) from killing the firearm registry.
$1 - $4 million can still mean a lot of jobs ... but speaking of "smell test", if the Feds say they are repurposing those jobs anyway, then there will be no savings at all (or very little) from killing the firearm registry.
The savings were to be in repurposing those employees into a leaner and more productive payroll department, as it has long been known that Federal payroll needs a revamping. This would be analogous to corporate restructuring to make a public company leaner and more effective.
Incidentally, I recall seeing calculations of what the 200-odd employees would have to make given the RCMP report that were laughably under minimum wage. Of course, I'm not an accountant, so I can't speak to the numbers' veracity. As an investor and a corporate citizen I'm painfully aware of the machinations that accounting and other departments will go to to justify continuation of a program they subsist on, rather than be repurposed or retrenched.
Don't get me started on sunk costs fallacies: Cheap isn't cheap if it doesn't work, or if it diverts focus or time from other effective activities. In my opinion, registration has lead to focus on non-criminals while the death in urban Ontario continued unchecked. The TPS Guns and Gangs unit ran around confiscating the guns of old legal owners rather than attacking gangs and drugs head on. Opportunity costs and officer time spent lolligaging away from the scenes of real crimes has an opportunity cost in real human life. But it looks like they are doing something, right?
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/758486--fiorito-is-toronto-safer...
Call me wistful, but the decades-old gun control movement is missing the point. "Yes, it cost $1-2 billion to set this thing up, but prohibition is CHEAP now!" So what?
What isn't cheap is the human cost of putting the paperwork for 3 million non-criminal citizens of Canada into Criminal Code, subjecting them to invasive, arbitrary searches and inspections, and mass confiscation/prohibition of their legally-bought property. All to no demonstrable benefit or a demonstrable public safety deficit as we harass the wrong demographic. It might be cheap to put a camera in everyone's house to make sure they obey the law, but would it be right?
As gun control activist and registry proponent Beverly Akerman puts it, "You're all so law-abiding - until you're not!".
As an aside to some of the early posts above: Some of my friends are gay, and I can tell you that I'm unimpressed with the antics of every political party in Canada. Perhaps politicians need better exposure to the gay community. Good on any MP that grows a spine for equality. Whips are for slave drivers and sex games. They have no place in a proper government. Let's replace the party whip with reason, logic and evidence!
But it's a naive desire on my part. Politics is about face, control, and desire for power, not truth or individual rights and freedoms. Collaborative aims of unions, NGOs and political parties are still more important than Canadian citizens. The few in power are still willing to sacrifice the rights of the individuals they are supposed to be serving. G20 is living proof of that.
Governance by whim and proxy. It's disgusting to see this happen in Canada.
Just a question:
I understand that the registry as it is is doomed and there are not enough votes to save it.
I also understand that if you add those who would like it no matter what with those who want changes you get a majority.
Why then is there not a stronger push to reform it?
Bill C-391 keeps licensing with its owner psychological and criminal screening, peer and spousal approvals and safety training intact. The bill simply removes the requirement for licensed owners to register each rifle and shotgun they own. They still get checked. They still have to comply with storage and transport regulations.
I understand that there are two key issues opponents keep telling me:
1) the privacy issue of declaring your medical/mental state
2) the difficulty with finding a person you may have had a relationship with in the past to ask either for their endorsement or provide to the police to notify them of your desire to get a gun.
Again, these are complaints about the licensing requirements. They have nothing to do with registration of long guns by licensed owners. Firearms owners are complaining that the government is using registration for invasive inspections and mass confiscations of legally-bought and peacefully-owned firearms (Liberal prohibition of half of all registered firearms in 2002, Paul Martin's attempt in 2007). They are also complaining that their paperwork is in Criminal Code rather than regulatory code, so they become criminals subject to search and seizure when their licenses expire (Toronto's Project Safe City).
They don't object to licensing on the whole, aside from some of the more Big Brother invasive questions.
1) by eliminating any declaration on the form and instead requiring a doctor to make an assessment of fitness-- that doctor would be aware and have access to medical treatment records that are already kept private.
2) by eliminating the need to locate exes instead having a system that they could access to search if the person applied to get a gun and an objection process. If they have lost touch and are unconcerned then no problem but if the former partner was concerned then perhaps it is better to have a system they could check -- online -- for that person to see if they applied. Further they could register a request to be notified and if a person applied and there was no request that would mean nobody was concerned and they could move on.
I think those who want a gun cannot have it both ways: on the one hand if you want to keep your application private then notification to interested parties would be reasonable but it would also be reasonable just to process it and then allow people to do a search or register to be notified if an application was filed.
The search could be registered and a person allowed only a maximum of say 2-3 names per month so people could not go fishing.
Do gun owners think that a registry of their ownership of guns ought to be private? If so why? Especially if that registry contained nothing more than the existence of the application which itself would not be shared but would contain nothing more than medical consent to have a gun. There would be no record of denied applications.
Would this be the compromise that could make this work?
I realize it is less in some ways but sure better than nothing and perhaps that is where we could go.
It is also less trouble if you accept the complaints I have heard.
Maybe there is a miscalculation on the part of those who want to keep the registry that the best thing is to advocate to keep it without any changes knowing it will be defeated.
Perhaps others would come up with better solutions but I am sure solutions can be found to answer objections and that the simple ditching of the registry is wasteful, dangerous and sends a bad message to those expecting that the state provide them some security.
Again, your proposition is to 'fix' the licensing part of firearms ownership. This has little or nothing to do with registration of each long gun by already-licensed people.
Gun owners generally took little umbrage with the old RCMP FAC licensing system, which actually screened out more applicants than the current system.
Registration is IANSA's tool of incremental prohibition, as they demonstrated in UK and are demonstrating in Australia and South Africa. First get everyone to provide a list of property, then reclassify the property to prohibited status and hand out the registration revocation notices. This occured with 600,000 firearms in Canada in 2002, was thwarted in 2007, and now is back on the books as part of IANSA's continued effort in Canada. First short-barreled pistols, then semi-autos, then repeaters, then all rifles which shoot more than 100 meters (IANSA Director Rebecca Peters).
Canadian firearms owners got wise to the program after watching the same process in other countries.
Listen to the Canadian authors of registration:
"I came to Ottawa...with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers." - former Liberal Minister of Justice Allan Rock 1994
"It's true that the judgement of what firearms should be prohibited will be decided by the government of the day - and shouldn't it be that way?" - Justice Minister Allan Rock, the Globe and Mail, 1994 December 1.
"The registry is the key to Canada's firearms strategy"-Alan Rock
"Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the World." - former Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy 1998
"...disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda." - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.
"C-68 has little to do with gun control or crime control, but it is the first step necessary to begin the social re-engineering of Canada." - Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs 1996
"I believe in a civil society we should do as much as possible not to have firearms in any guise, but obviously they are a necessary function of policing." - David Collenette, Transport Minister 2002
"No studies have been done to link gun legislation to declining firearms-related deaths,'' says Ms. Rathjen, "but you can draw your own conclusions.'' - Heidi Rathjen, Coalition for Gun Control 1999
Jack says he has won over enough rural NDP Mps to save the registry! The Liberals must be having a temper tantrum over this!!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/jack-layton...
"
NDP Leader Jack Layton says he has persuaded “an overwhelming majority” of his rural caucus to vote next week to defeat a Conservative private member’s bill on the gun registry.
This means there should be enough votes next Wednesday to defeat the initiative of Tory MP Candice Hoeppner, whose private members bill, C-391, would end the long gun registry.
Mr. Layton made the announcement in Regina, where he is meeting with his NDP MPs in advance of the fall session of Parliament.
So far, only four of the 12 rural NDP MPs who had previously voted against the registry have announced they would switch their vote. Mr. Layton’s remarks suggest that at least three more will make similar announcements when they return to their ridings after the Regina caucus.
Brad Lavigne, the NDP’s national director, suggested the development now puts pressure on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to ensure he is able to deliver on a promise to have all of his MPs in the House to vote in favour of defeating the Conservative legislation.
Stockholm, the question some people may ask the NDP is why did they suddenly find the correct number of MP's to keep the registry?
From that Globe article:
"The NDP plans on introducing its own private member's legislation next week, which will propose changes to the registry that alleviate rural concerns."
I didnt know the substance of changing the registry could even possibly be put into play that quickly. Whether it gets passed or not, it will help build bridges.
And if it is possible to put it into play fairly soon, the better the substance, the more the Liberals will squirm.
The Liberals along with the Conservatives have worked at 'owning' the issue. They dont want any compromises messing up their posturing games.
But its unlikely they could diss this proposed bill, without big costs.
The Conservatives have said they will not allow any changes being made to the Bill, so I'm not sure how far Layton is going to be able to go with that.
This has nothing to do with changes to the PMB - the Hoeppner bill will be dead anyways. This is about a new NDP bill to make changes to the gun registry - one that incorporates all the changes that the NDP and the Liberals claim to want. Now the Liberals will have to decide whether or not to vote for a bill that is full of things they claim to support.
Whether or not a bill can be made binding, it will put compromise on the table. Both the Conservatives and Liberals will sneer at their peril.
There is cause to be hopeful, but I'd wait until after the 22nd before uncorking the champagne.
This has nothing to do with changes to the PMB - the Hoeppner bill will be dead anyways. This is about a new NDP bill to make changes to the gun registry - one that incorporates all the changes that the NDP and the Liberals claim to want. Now the Liberals will have to decide whether or not to vote for a bill that is full of things they claim to support.
Are these the changes the Liberals tried to propose back in the Spring but that at that time the NDP didn't want to support?
@Debater #65
Then that may turn out to be the Cons undoing on the registry issue causing them to lose votes (probably no Cons will turn to another party, but they may decide not to show up to support the Cons.)
If the Cons refuse to move on addressing at least some of the issues with the registry now that they have the chance and the bill is defeated, the other parties can then tell the Con firearm supporters that the CPC are not interested in anything but using the issue as a political wedge issue, and many of the Con firearm supporters may actually believe it this time.
The message can go out to the firearm supporters that there is only two ways now to address the registry issue:
1) Keep voting for the Cons and wait for a generation or two (maybe longer) for when the Cons get a majority; or
2) Vote for any other party since any other party would at least be willing to address some of the more serious issues regarding the registry.
Then that may turn out to be the Cons undoing on the registry issue causing them to lose votes (probably no Cons will turn to another party, but they may decide not to show up to support the Cons.)
If the Cons refuse to move on addressing at least some of the issues with the registry now that they have the chance and the bill is defeated, the other parties can then tell the Con firearm supporters that the CPC are not interested in anything but using the issue as a political wedge issue, and many of the Con firearm supporters may actually believe it this time.
The message can go out to the firearm supporters that there is only two ways now to address the registry issue:
1) Keep voting for the Cons and wait for a generation or two (maybe longer) for when the Cons get a majority; or
2) Vote for any other party since any other party would at least be willing to address some of the more serious issues regarding the registry.
You make some good points. I think the gun registry could turn out to be a loser for the Cons if they aren't careful about the way they handle it from this point forward.
Several political analysts have been trying to make this point lately as well (eg. the At Issue panel on CBC last week).
"Are these the changes the Liberals tried to propose back in the Spring but that at that time the NDP didn't want to support?"
Its's the other way around - the NDP wanted to bring in amendments to the PMB in committee but the Liberals refused - they refuse to try to improve anything - their argument - is "just give usd a majority in the next election and THEN we will do the right thing".
I don't get it Debator - I would have thought that you';d be jumping for joy at the news that the registry will be saved? Instead you seem decidedly non-plussed.
I made this point back in Aug, the only difference was that I wanted Layton to whip the vote to cause this result ... assumin he has the votes actually lined up, Layton seems to have been a better leader than I gave him credit for (at least in this case when the political consequences were obviously serious and the need to have the NDP support the registry was equally obvious, unlike his lack of leadership when he hung Libby out to dry for making an accurate historical statement regarding Israel.)
Are these the changes the Liberals tried to propose back in the Spring but that at that time the NDP didn't want to support?
Specify or referr to these changes.
That's right Stockholm- the Liberal approach has been one of my way or the highway from the very introduction of the registry.
No attempt of any kind to work with others or address legitimate concerns. Any pretence otherwise is just Liberal spindoctoring.
I made this point back in Aug, the only difference was that I wanted Layton to whip the vote to cause this result ... assumin he has the votes actually lined up, Layton seems to have been a better leader than I gave him credit for (at least in this case when the political consequences were obviously serious and the need to have the NDP support the registry was equally obvious, unlike his lack of leadership when he hung Libby out to dry for making an accurate historical statement regarding Israel.)
Ah yes the typical backhanded compliment. Try this on for size.
To those babblers I attacked for believing whipping the vote would cause a failure - sorry I was wrong.
@LTU #76
No apology coming ... I am under no illusion that Layton did not expect the kind of outcry from the pro-registry forces, and without such pressure he would have gladly let the registry die, and even taken credit for its "democratic" demise.
I'll give 80% of the credit to the pro-registry forces that stepped up and told Layton to fix this or be prepared to be kicked out of the cites. I'll give Layton 10% credit for being able to pull his own ass out of the fire, and 10% credit to the MPs from the group of 12 that saw the writing on the wall and suddenly found the political smarts to recognize the issue as one of the Cons playing the "wedge issue card" with a fake PMB.
What a joke you are. While people like you wanted to throw rural Canada under the bus and take actions that would have all but guarenteed a Conservative majority in the next election, Layton showed a level of leadership few of us could aspire too. This had nothing to do with the Liberal inspire pro-registry brouhaha, but everything to do with finding a compromise between legitimate concerns ignoring the extremists on both sides which you have represented so well.
Maybe they would be kicked out of Toronto and Montreal (ooh, 3 seats, what a large loss) but Toronto and Montreal don't constitute "the cities." From my vantage point here in Winnipeg, few people have keeping the registry as a top concern, and I imagine it is the same in other urban centres.
What a joke you are. While people like you wanted to throw rural Canada under the bus and take actions that would have all but guarenteed a Conservative majority in the next election, Layton showed a level of leadership few of us could aspire too. This had nothing to do with the Liberal inspire pro-registry brouhaha, but everything to do with finding a compromise between legitimate concerns ignoring the extremists on both sides which you have represented so well.
When did I want to throw rural Canada under the bus? I said I was for changing the registry to address the issues of rural Canada ... supporting the demise of the registry is throwing urban Canada under the bus as much as ignoring rural Canada's complaints and demanding that the registry remain unchanged.
Layton was content to let the registry die, other wise he could have talked to his 12 MPs last year, instead he waited until days before the bill would be killed, when he suddenly realized the urban NDPers were not going to stand for his inaction before he decided to get off his ass ... once he was forced off his ass he did a good job, I'll give him that.
Look, Layton is a politician, not a freaken god. I don't get where anyone could be fooled into believing he is anything but a politician, he's been one for decades and he does what politicians do ... politicians only do things based on the votes they can get out of it, especially politicians that are known for their ability to come to "compromises" .. what else is a compromise than simply having the ability to ignore your principles in order to get something done?Had ther ebeen what he though was an advantage in letting the registry die, that's exactly what he would have done, just as he decided that letting the law discriminate against gay youth was worth whatever he thinks he got from supporting the Cons "tough on crime" omnibus bill.
Layton is not a politician that puts much stock on his "principles", matter of fact here you are praising him for not standing by his "principles" (the registry saves lives.)
Oh, and I seriously doubt it was any "Liberal" pressure that persuaded Layton, it was the pressure from his own "supporters" (all the angry mail and falling from in the polls from somewhere in the 20's to 16% made him nervous,) pressure from people and groups far to the left of where any Liberal would ever get, that made his sit up and take notice.
Oh, and calling someone a "joke" is considered a personal attack ... if you wish, call the concept of Layton not being some kind of saint "a joke" .. that will keep the Mods off your back.
I am under no illusion that Layton did not expect the kind of outcry from the pro-registry forces, and without such pressure he would have gladly let the registry die, and even taken credit for its "democratic" demise.
I'll give 80% of the credit to the pro-registry forces that stepped up and told Layton to fix this or be prepared to be kicked out of the cites. I'll give Layton 10% credit for being able to pull his own ass out of the fire, and 10% credit to the MPs from the group of 12 that saw the writing on the wall and suddenly found the political smarts to recognize the issue as one of the Cons playing the "wedge issue card" with a fake PMB.
The highlighted part is an assumption: that Jack prefered to let the registry die, presumably for the cynical political benefits you see in that [which dont even make logical sense to me, but the alternatives for your thinking make even less sense].
This is your assumption, based on what?
Its hard to see that it is based in anything more than a dislike of Jack Layton, and/or a zeal to shit on the NDP in whatever fashion you can get to look reasonable.
Even if you dont like Jack Layton and the NDP... as in merely just dont like them.... even a cursory look at what drives Jack Layton, you'd have to expect him to prefer the gun registry be saved. So then, maybe a person could think that political calculation would keep him from saying that.
But No Yards didnt just suggest that. You said Jack "would have glady let the registry die." And you could hardly retreat to arguing he would have done it for calulated political gain, since you've countless times talked about how much the NDP is going to pay for [allegedly] killing the gun registry.
Unless you can pull some rabbit out of the hat, you have no basis for saying that Jack would have gladly killed the registry if it had not been for the snapping jaws of the pro-registry sharks.
Maybe they would be kicked out of Toronto and Montreal (ooh, 3 seats, what a large loss) but Toronto and Montreal don't constitute "the cities." From my vantage point here in Winnipeg, few people have keeping the registry as a top concern, and I imagine it is the same in other urban centres.
And few people have killing the registry as their top concern either:
Gun registry not important to Saskatchewan residents: NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter
snip ...Having spent the summer zig-zagging across the province, Lingenfelter thinks he has his ear to the ground and he isn't hearing about the gun registry. He maintains bringing up the issue is simply an attempt by the prime minister and the Premier Brad Wall to divert attention.
"That is what they want the issue to be. They want change the channel from what people are talking about," said Lingenfelter.
"The local people on coffee row in the rural areas and the cities -- that is not what they are talking about," said Lingenfelter.
You're listening to anti-registry voices that are no more NDP than Preston Manning is, a bunch of right wing nut bars writing stupid letters to the editor claiming the government is going to disarm them and then drag them off to the gas chambers ... Layton heard from his NDP constituency and there were two positions from them ... one position was "we really don't care about the registry just as long as whatever you do gets us more votes", and the other position was "you let the registry fall, and you fall with it".
Guess which side the politician took? The right wing nut bar side? The side that really didn't care about the registry except for the votes it might win or lose? Or the side that voted for him and normally supports him during campaigns?
Nice to know though that you think so little of Toronto and Montreal though ... two cities with lots of progressive potential votes ... that would be a great move ... simply ignore these cities and piss off any chance the NDP ever had of growing their party in the two largest cities in the country.
The highlighted part is an assumption: that Jack prefered to let the registry die, presumably for the cynical political benefits you see in that [which dont even make logical sense to me, but the alternatives for your thinking make even less sense].
This is your assumption, based on what?
Its hard to see that it is based in anything more than a dislike of Jack Layton, and/or a zeal to shit on the NDP in whatever fashion you can get to look reasonable.
Even if you dont like Jack Layton and the NDP... as in merely just dont like them.... even a cursory look at what drives Jack Layton, you'd have to expect him to prefer the gun registry be saved. So then, maybe a person could think that political calculation would keep him from saying that.
But No Yards didnt just suggest that. You said Jack "would have glady let the registry die." And you could hardly retreat to arguing he would have done it for calulated political gain, since you've countless times talked about how much the NDP is going to pay for [allegedly] killing the gun registry.
Unless you can pull some rabbit out of the hat, you have no basis for saying that Jack would have gladly killed the registry if it had not been for the snapping jaws of the pro-registry sharks.
My assumption is based on the fact that Layton actually said he was personally for the registry, said that it saved lives, then did nothing since the bill was introduced, even announced he was going to let his MPs vote to kill the registry ... until the shit started to hit the fan.
Yeah, it's an "assumption", what's your "assumption"? That he planned to wait till the last second to save the day? That he didn't notice the storm of pro-registry critics telling him to smarten the fuck up, and it's all just a happy coinscidence he started pressuring his MPs at the same time the criticism started?
I'm all ears, let's hear the "assumption" from an insider then.
Layton was content to let the registry die, other wise he could have talkedto his 12 MPs last year, instead he waited until days before the bill would be killed, when he suddenly realized the urban NDPers were not going to stand for his inaction before he decided to get off his ass ... once he was forced off his ass he did a good job, I'll give him that.
So, proof is that Layton didnt talk to his 12 MPs last year. In the first place, he did. But even if you were to fall back to the [somewhat] more reasonable sounding position "made sure last year they were going to change their votes."
You are sucha strategic genius. And smart enough to use the 'fact' the NDP didnt use these self evidently better stragies as 'proof' of god knows what.
Jack did have a strategy to get what he needed. I'm not saying it was brilliant. But it was an actual strategy, not a game you play in your head with your toy soldiers. And its pretty apparent what it was. He finessed the situation. Played the compromiser and voice of reason, gradually opening up cover for enough of his 12 MPs to change their position. Took the sting out of any backlash they would face [at the same blunting the NDP paying a broader price for helping save the registry].
Went pretty well I would say.
Easily beats the game you made up in your head. Now what was that proof of again?
Look, Layton is a politician, not a freaken god. I don't get where anyone could be fooled into believing he is anything but a politicianOh, and I seriously doubt it was any "Liberal" pressure that persuaded Layton, it was the pressure from his own "supporters" (all the angry mail and falling from in the polls from somewhere in the 20's to 16% made him nervous,) pressure from people and groups far to the left of where any Liberal would ever get, that made his sit up and take notice.
I didnt know he was a politician, or that he wasnt a god.
And where are these straw people who think waht you characterise?
Nor is there any actual drop in the polls beyond the same old horse raise short term changes, within the flat-lined band where things keep coming back to. Again: you attribute a motive to Jack and the NDP that has no basis.
As to Jack sitting up and taking notice: he was already committed to the strategy with the cards he eventually played, before the reactions started. [Not to mention that while it may not have been the Liberals there was heat from, the heat started when the Liberals got the media eagerly on the get Jack Layton bandwagon.] Jack Layton was committed to the strategy before the reaction started- not as you portray it, hastily ad libbing.
You're listening to anti-registry voices that are no more NDP than Preston Manning is, a bunch of right wing nut bars writing stupid letters to the editor claiming the government is going to disarm them and then drag them off to the gas chambers ... Layton heard from his NDP constituency and there were two positions from them ... one position was "we really don't care about the registry just as long as whatever you do gets us more votes", and the other position was "you let the registry fall, and you fall with it".
Guess which side the politician took? The right wing nut bar side? The side that really didn't care about the registry except for the votes it might win or lose? Or the side that voted for him and normally supports him during campaigns?
Can we please not go down this road again?
@KenS #84
Ah, yes, so 12 months of "convincing" going on behind the scenes and the 12 MPs remained unchanged in their position until just a week or so, right after the shit hit the fan ... just a coincidence that a couple of rouge, "obviously completely wrong" polls came out showing a significant drop in NDP support ... ok, you win, the last two weeks never happened, there was never any pressure from pro-registry people and groups on Layton to save the registry ... you win. Obviously this was all Jacks doing, he doesn't pay attention to his constituents or any of the groups he counts on for support during election campaigns, he always knows what's best for everyone and once Jack tells them (unwhipped of course) to get in line, the MPs just fold and do as they're told... heck, not sure why we even need candidates, MPs, parties, or government ... Layton for Emperor.
Look No Yards, you have put Yards of text into minimizing for us how few votes the NDP stands to lose in rural areas if it helps to save the registry. Then you try to use as your big 'proof of how Jack wanted to let the registry die, the 'motive' of all the votes there are to be had in rural areas.
You cant have it both ways. But that didnt stop you from repeating after you were called on it. [If that shovel is getting dull I can find you another.]
And I'm not going to grace with a reply your latest misrepresentation of what I actually said.
Quit while you are ahead.
@Kens #87
There is no inconsistency in me believing that there are no large number of urban votes to be obtained for killing the registry and assuming Layton believed there was ... if that was indeed what I had proposed in the first place, which it wasn't.
My case was that there was something to lose in urban ridings that was more or less equal to what would be gained in rural ridings by killing the registry (of course I may have been mistaken there if Dwain Lingenfelter is to be believed, and there actually is not a lot to be lost in rural ridings by saving the registry.)
Look down on us "Layton haters" all you want, but if I recall correctly your "grand strategy" was to simply accept that the 12 MPs were going to vote with the Cons; Jack was going to publicly say he supported the registry and vote against the bill; The registry would die; and everybody would walk away happy ... now, instead, because of people like me, the rest of the "Layton haters", and progressive group after progressive group, writing letters to the NDP MPs letting them know we were outraged at their lack of support for the registry and there WAS a price to pay in urban centres if they let the registry die, the NDP has a good chance of coming out of this looking pretty damn good. Yeah, I wanted Jack to whip the vote, as did many other "Layton haters", and the effect of those demands was to put the 12 MPs that were going to vote with the Cons on notice that there was more to lose than they originally though. Do you really think that had there been no large public backlash against letting the registry die that Jack would have been able to change the other MP's minds? After 12 months of absolutely no success to that point?
The NDP has suffered enough from the pile of sycophant yes-men telling Jack it's okay to ignore the base, and not to worry about compromising principles for votes ... it's time the real NDP left stood up to the Liberal-lite wishy-washy NDP insider contingent that couldn't care less about a social agenda as long as someone waved a vote in front of their noses.
This time the NDP "royality" bullies were told to go take a hike ... I couldn't be any happier about it .. maybe a few more cases like this where the rank and file NDP force the "leaders" to take a real stance in support of good policy and I can renew my NDP membership.
You mean like the rank and file NDP members I met in Manitoba who oppose the gun registry?
No, I have no problem with rank and file NDP members having valid issues they want to stand up to strongly support ... my problem is with NDP "insiders" who could care less for you or me and our concerns. They simply pick the side that they believe has the most votes attached with it.
You think someone Stockholm or KenS would be in favour of a "free vote" if they though doing so would lose the NDP a seat?
Just popping in here to say to everyone, but nobody in particular: keep the insults, mind-reading and name-calling to a minimum.
Please resume the mulberrying.
Mulberrying is simply the practice of rubbing dark grainfiller into the open grain and upturned fibres of naturally yellow or yellow-dyed curly or burr wood.
Mulberry Toys:
First love:
Okay, I don't get it.
@Kens #87
There is no inconsistency in me believing that there are no large number of urban votes to be obtained for killing the registry and assuming Layton believed there was ... if that was indeed what I had proposed in the first place, which it wasn't.
My case was that there was something to lose in urban ridings that was more or less equal to what would be gained in rural ridings by killing the registry (of course I may have been mistaken there if Dwain Lingenfelter is to be believed, and there actually is not a lot to be lost in rural ridings by saving the registry.)
Look down on us "Layton haters" all you want, but if I recall correctly your "grand strategy" was to simply accept that the 12 MPs were going to vote with the Cons; Jack was going to publicly say he supported the registry and vote against the bill; The registry would die; and everybody would walk away happy ... now, instead, because of people like me, the rest of the "Layton haters", and progressive group after progressive group, writing letters to the NDP MPs letting them know we were outraged at their lack of support for the registry and there WAS a price to pay in urban centres if they let the registry die, the NDP has a good chance of coming out of this looking pretty damn good. Yeah, I wanted Jack to whip the vote, as did many other "Layton haters", and the effect of those demands was to put the 12 MPs that were going to vote with the Cons on notice that there was more to lose than they originally though. Do you really think that had there been no large public backlash against letting the registry die that Jack would have been able to change the other MP's minds? After 12 months of absolutely no success to that point?
The NDP has suffered enough from the pile of sycophant yes-men telling Jack it's okay to ignore the base, and not to worry about compromising principles for votes ... it's time the real NDP left stood up to the Liberal-lite wishy-washy NDP insider contingent that couldn't care less about a social agenda as long as someone waved a vote in front of their noses.
This time the NDP "royality" bullies were told to go take a hike ... I couldn't be any happier about it .. maybe a few more cases like this where the rank and file NDP force the "leaders" to take a real stance in support of good policy and I can renew my NDP membership.
Not much of a rebuttal to this post, I see.
No-no, we don't want the NDP to lose a single seat to either of those two Bay Street parties in Ottawa. That's the whole point behind this gun registry diversion. It's a diversion because the Liberals were the ones who botched it in the first place, and now both of the two same-same parties are trying to pin this legacy issue on the NDP. The two of those parties represent a de facto majority for the ReformaTories, and the two oldest parties still can't get anything done and are trying to drag the NDP in to this gun registry fiasco sooner than do thei jobs they were elected to do in Ottawa. Throw them out of Ottawa not the NDP!
What we have here are a few people accusing some NDP MPs and their constituents of being reluctant to support a shitty gun registry botched by the Liberals, because the shitty, obsolete electoral system will likely punish the NDP for what was a bad set of rules attached to the registry and which the NDP had nothing to do with since inception of the botched Liberal government gun registry.
Not much point in offering a rebuttal, actually.
I'll take a stab at it Cueball.
@Kens #87
There is no inconsistency in me believing that there are no large number of urban votes to be obtained for killing the registry and assuming Layton believed there was ... if that was indeed what I had proposed in the first place, which it wasn't.
My case was that there was something to lose in urban ridings that was more or less equal to what would be gained in rural ridings by killing the registry (of course I may have been mistaken there if Dwain Lingenfelter is to be believed, and there actually is not a lot to be lost in rural ridings by saving the registry.)
It seemed to me like over the last few weeks you have asserted both:
1. The NDP and Jack Layton are unprincipled, because rather than whipping the vote to do what they know is right (save the registry), they are thinking about seats and chasing votes.
2. The NDP and Jack Layton are making a poor political decision, and would lose progressive voters and current supporters.
To me these two points seem inconsistent--my apologies if I have your position wrong.
Perhaps you thought they would lose more supporters than they would gain--ie. that the votes they were chasing just weren't there to be had, whereas the votes they were losing were in important ridings. If this was the case, you didn't show it (ie. by talking about specific ridings and numbers).
What you did do was imply that the votes being chased (rural voters, western voters, voters who do not support the registry) were lesser value votes--that they weren't as progressive as the urban supporters of the registry. That seemed to me like the argument that you were making--that the NDP was again selling out the progressive left to try to win over non-progressive voters (who would probably never support the NDP anyway). This resolves the inconsistency--clearly it's not worth losing higher value votes to gain lower value votes. But, you were saying this to progressive voters, who are NDP supporters (which you're not)...and I think some of them naturally took offense.
At least that's my take.
Look down on us "Layton haters" all you want, but if I recall correctly your "grand strategy" was to simply accept that the 12 MPs were going to vote with the Cons; Jack was going to publicly say he supported the registry and vote against the bill; The registry would die; and everybody would walk away happy ... now, instead, because of people like me, the rest of the "Layton haters", and progressive group after progressive group, writing letters to the NDP MPs letting them know we were outraged at their lack of support for the registry and there WAS a price to pay in urban centres if they let the registry die, the NDP has a good chance of coming out of this looking pretty damn good. Yeah, I wanted Jack to whip the vote, as did many other "Layton haters", and the effect of those demands was to put the 12 MPs that were going to vote with the Cons on notice that there was more to lose than they originally though. Do you really think that had there been no large public backlash against letting the registry die that Jack would have been able to change the other MP's minds? After 12 months of absolutely no success to that point?
You think Layton's spent the last 12 months talking to MPs about the registry? You think Layton spent even half an hour per MP talking about the gun registry in the frist 6 months of this year?
When do you think fence sitting politicians decide which way to vote on an issue? When they are on vacation with their family? When they are in their ridings dealing with local issues? When they are in session discussing some unrelated issue? Or do you think they decide which way they're going to vote when the bill comes up in the house, and the national spotlight is on which way they're going to vote?
If you see both sides of an issue, are you going to decide 6 months before the vote? Or two weeks before the vote? Hmmm...
The NDP has suffered enough from the pile of sycophant yes-men telling Jack it's okay to ignore the base, and not to worry about compromising principles for votes ... it's time the real NDP left stood up to the Liberal-lite wishy-washy NDP insider contingent that couldn't care less about a social agenda as long as someone waved a vote in front of their noses.
The NDP lost your support years ago...so you don't really have much claim to being part of "the base".
Again you're bringing up the vote chasing, as if you didn't go on and on about how much support the NDP was going to lose.
This time the NDP "royality" bullies were told to go take a hike ... I couldn't be any happier about it .. maybe a few more cases like this where the rank and file NDP force the "leaders" to take a real stance in support of good policy and I can renew my NDP membership.
I don't even know what this means.
There's a new party in Canada, the NTNDPP. It's a clever acronym for The Anti-NDP Party. They have no platform or principles laid out in writing anywhere. They just react in knee-jerk fashion to anything and everything the NDP ever says or does. And every one of their concerns just so happen to be those of NDP voters. And they say we are far too loyal to the party and that we should consider joining the ranks of the disinterested and politically neutral non-partisanis jaded with anything that walks or crawls in general but especially the NDP.
Someone please put this 999th anti-NDP thread out of its misery! Gawd! For those who claim not to care enough to vote or support any of the dozen or so registered political parties in Canada, they sure are opinionated about the NDP.
Fidel: "Someone please put this 999th anti-NDP thread out of its misery! Gawd! For those who claim not to care enough to vote or support any of the dozen or so registered political parties in Canada, they sure are opinionated about the NDP.
"
One wouuld assume they would at sometime come to understand that theirs is the drone of cranks.
Well I must say it's not much of a post. Just a lot of hate-filled anti-NDP rhetoric designed to inflame certain babblers. He claims to have been an NDP supporter before, but now he's not. Typical.
Wilf, please see Catchfire's post at #56 for a concise definition of mulberrying.
I'm closing this, mostly because my head is exploding. Also my post will tip it over into 100. Unless someone sneaks in as I'm writing this.
....
And HEY!
It looks like the registry will be saved. Maybe, just MAYBE the next thread, as I know there will be one, will actually speak to the ISSUE. How's about that?
I knew that would happen.
In the new thread, there will be no more he said-he said, you said this, you never rebutted my excellent point.
And no name-calling, jeez.
Why?
Because we already have 5 threads like that!!!!