babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
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: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I'm not against bringing in gun control legislation nation-wide either.
But he made a terribly stupid and completely unnecessary political blunder. The Liberal Party's fuckup was dead until he pledged to "restore" it, rather than taking a fresh look at the issue and introducing the NDP's own firearms legislation.
Whatever his intent, he is now stuck to it.
Agreed, 6079.
Thunder Bay can by no means be taken for granted by the NDP. Just look at the provincial results. Hyer and Rafferty themselves are a big part of why they were elected, not just the NDP. I can see the Conservatives winning this, if Hyer runs as an Independent (or if he doesn't run at all).
Sorry, but I blame Hyer on this. Admittedly we are all only speculating at this point. But considering the timing we can only conclude that 1) he made his decision after the Shadow Cabinet decision came out, so 2) it looks like he's basing it purely on power, meaning 3) he cares more about his personal position in the party than anything else.
Look, the fact of the matter is that it isn't just Quebecers who want strong gun control, so to make it into that sort of an issue is ludicrous. The vast majority of Canadians want it. The vast majority of Canadians also supported the Gun Registry. The party would have to come up with something and if it isn't something along the lines of a new Gun Registry, then the party would be ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians who want strong gun control.
Being anti-Gun Registry isn't just a minority position in the NDP, it's a minority position in Canada as a whole.
For the record, I am much more skeptical about what is driving Bruce Hyer. I don't like the way the party has handled this, and that being true, beleive we needlesly courted adverse consequence. Which adverse consequences it would turn out to be is secondary.
So the fact I think Hyer does not make sense at all, that means squat to me.
Check this out:
If Hyer pursues that, and it is both consistent and easy for him to do, then it seals for him a huge loyal constituency in the riding.
If he decides to run again, it does not at all seal for him overcoming the vote splitting to beat the Consevatives. But the NDP cannot possibly win the seat under those conditions.
If Hyer is a credible constituency politician- and there is no reason to think he isnt. [Now he'll spend even more time there.] And he wants to run again, then the best we can hope for is that he gets virtually all the Liberal votes, a BIG chunk of the Conservative votes that will go his way, and the hapless NDP candidate only gets the diehards.
The alternatives to that are kiss and make up [which Mulcair's promise on gun control would seem to make imposssible]. Or Hyer isnt interested in going on and quits.
Independently of Hyer.
For all the logical sense it makes I think the idea that we can net gain on bringing back an LGR is bone headed stupid.
We'll never win on helping re-animate an LGR as an issue.
Admittedly, a game plan of neutralizing and marginalizing it as an issue would not be without costs. But those are controllable. Re-animating the LGR and handing it to the Conservatives as a gift is flat out dangerous.
But we've been over this a million times, and I seriously doubt that even the opinions on what is pragmatic ever budge an inch.
@ Brachina
Not a bully, so much as stupid.
As I said above, there was no need for him to walk right into the worst possible issue facing the NDP and plant his flag firmly on absolutely nothing. I am sure we have all heard of issues in Quebec on which the ROC are just hopelessly tone deaf. Well, this is that issue for people who live in the vast wasteland (which the NDP apparently doesn't need to gain power) between Greater Vancouver and Toronto.
Harper would dearly love to exercise his will on the abortion issue, but he is smart enough to realize that you don't get to exercise power until you are in a position to USE that power.
On the firearms issue, Mulcair should probably have kept his powder dry.
I hope the NDP can make hay against government claims of moderation with the clear evidence of its open support for extremist Wildose candidates versus moderate Alberta PCs.
Right.
So Mulclair goes into being leader with having to clear a lot of potential problems for him in the West- just because of who he is, without him saying a word.
And then he goes at the outset and plants a flag in the ground on the LGR.
Brilliant.
I'm sure this helps consolidate the NDP in Quebec. But they did we need this? I doubt it. And even if its possible we did, at least wait until then.
And no apparent thought to the net effect. It can help in Quebec and the Ontario 905. But its toxic in the west where we also need to consolidate and expand.
At a minimum: what was the rush?
That right wing blog is wrong. Libby did not vote against it she chose the chicken way out and didn't vote. Only Bill Siksay voted not to criminalize sex between gay teens the rest of the NDP caucus voted for the law or absented themselves.
Need a remind people that all Mulcair said (in response to a direct question on TLMEP) was that IF the NDP had a proposal to register guns as part of its platform in the next election - all candidates would have to go along with that policy - just as they would have to go along with the rest of the NDP platform. Makes sense to me.
Except that anyone listening to that with an ounce of suspicion is just going to hear the crack of the whip. And it will be exploited in that way.
I am just saying that until there is something on the table, any talk of enforcing support is needless and premature.
is Libby quiting?
Except that Mulcair basically said nothing, so Hyer is being completely absurd if his reasoning isn't personal power and is actually over the gun control issue. So I'm not sure why some people are so apocoleptic about Mulcair here.
And by the way, the difference with Harper here is that abortion is actually a minority issue where the fringe is not much more organized than the majority. Only a fringe minority actually supports introducing restrictions on it. Only a fringe minority actually supported doing away with the long gun registry, but the fringe is much more organized on this issue than the majority. If the majority were mobalized on this issue it would blow up in Harper's face. But apparently pointing that out means you're French, or an out of touch urbanite who sees the space between Vancouver and Toronto as a wasteland? Okay, whatever.
Bolded stuff added on edit, as I didn't make my point clear.
For the NDP's sake I hope not. Without her voice and others like her the NDP will quickly become the new LPC.
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
No, but there are far more people who see that the registry as it existed was fucked up and in need of change, even though they may support some kind of registration in principle. Sorry, but we aren't talking about a fringe.
Don't believe me. Just look at how liberal seats have dropped in certain parts of the country, and NDP seats as well (since it has been an issue used against the party, federally and provincially, since before the legislation was even passed).
And please don't make accusations about me being anti-French (not sure where you get that from) or anti-urban. I am not the one who brought up the prospect in this thread that all the NDP needs is a few more urban seats to grab the brass ring.
If anyone thinks there are no rural francophones in the west they might want to take a trip to Vic Toew's (formerly Louis Riel's) riding of Provencher.
I guess Anglo Quebeckers don't support the LGR, apparently it's a language based issue.
Exactly. Your rhetorical point, I mean.
80% of Canada is urban (and rising) - so its pretty obvious that urban Canada is where you need to win seats to win power...unless you prefer the Danielle Smith model of sweeping rural southern Alberta and being annhilated in Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer and Lethbridge
@ Stockholm
If you want to play a numbers game, fine. But if you bring in where your food, your power, your water, your resources and everything else (including the people that make that happen) come from, it is a fucked up strategy that will ultimately fail.
In a country like Canada, it is the wedge of all wedges, perhaps even more than language, since it is coast to coast.
After all, if we were talking about Native issues, no one would dare talk about the numbers. So how is this issue, in which we are talking about huge swaths of the country, any different?
There's this underlying current from many rural New Democrats that if urban ones don't go along with what they want then they're being insensitive, even if the urban position forms the majority because somehow majority ought not to rule ever. This extends to the idea of a Gun Registry, which rural New Democrats seem to want to obfusicate into oblivion.
I think it has something to do with a bizzare, misplaced belief that since urban areas are bigger and more secure, they ought to sacrifice their interests for the sake of rural interests. I think it's partially based on the NDP ideology of being infavour of the little guy, but I think it's highly misplaced. Hence, it's a reflexivley anti-urban attitude. Not in the sense of bigotry, or some weird reactionary conservative "some parts of the country [i.e. WASPy rural areas] are more patriotic than others" sense, but more so in a "give us what we want or we will shoot this puppy" sort of attitude.
To be perfectly honest I don't care what the exact details of a Gun Registry are, so if you want to go nuts against "the Liberal Gun Registry", fine. Though one ought to know that it's cheaper and easier to fix minor problems, as opposed to completly getting rid of something. Additionally, just about all Canadian police forces came out in favour of this Gun Registry as an important tool in stopping crime, but I do want one and I'll be less inclined to vote for a party that panders to gun advocates out of some forelorne hope of winning a couple of extra seats. I mean hello people, this isn't the USA. No one has an actual right to bear arms. If you have to have a licence to drive, surely you should have one for a gun. It isn't as if it's the right to own a fucking toaster we're talking about here.
Perhaps if you took the time to familiarize yourself with what people object to you might see things differently. If this were an issue in which urban people found themselves targetted I think there might be a fair bit more attention paid to it.
And since you sort of asked, currently I do live in a city - Saskatoon.
And in case you hadn't noticed, the Liberal registry is gone. It has been done away with. It cannot be changed or fixed. So if you talk about it being easier to change things, I am afraid you are the one who is dreaming.
@ VK:
Oh bullshit.
You can find strains of that of course.
But there is an actual pragmatic analyis.
Not to mention that old LGR is gone. Its NOT rehashing what we did with it, might do with it given its here, etc.
Its the politics of what we have now.
And that rural/urban sensibility divide extends very much into urnan Canada. Probably the bulk of smaller cities that are generational collecting places for the hinterlands. And even a lot of the big cities that have the same demograhic dynamic on a much diluted basis.