NDP MPs disciplined for long-gun registry vote

So does the NDP have anyone left sitting on the front bench critics roles who isn't a greenhorn MP?

algomafalcon wrote:

So does the NDP have anyone left sitting on the front bench critics roles who isn't a greenhorn MP?

The times they are a'changin'.

Unionist wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

algomafalcon wrote:

So does the NDP have anyone left sitting on the front bench critics roles who isn't a greenhorn MP?

What a stupid question, considering how many were re-elected and how many veteran MPs are running.

I think algomafalcon's question is what we generally term "disingenuous".

Sorry, I can't see why it is a disingenious question. Noone has actually answered it yet I notice.

So how many veteran MPs ARE currently left sitting in front bench critic roles? Or does anyone really care?

lil.Tommy wrote:

OK... of the 35 MPS who were re-elected in May (Martin and Maloway losing); 34 minus Jack himself

2 got slapped on the wrist for breaking ranks (Rafferty, Hyer)

4 are running for Leader (Mulcair, Nash, Cullen, Ashton)... the others are either not MPs (Topp, Singh) or were elected this year (so newbies) (Chisholm, Saganash)

from my count there are still 28 MPs who are "veterans", 08 or older who are/can hold critic portfolios. Hardly anything to worry about. And this is an opportunity for those newbies to step up to the plate and show us what they got :)

Sound about right?

Ashton hasn't declared yet has she? And disengenuous is better.

Policywonk wrote:

Ashton hasn't declared yet has she? And disengenuous is better.

What is disengenuous?

Paul Gross wrote:

If you really cared, you coud easily answer the question yourself with a quick google. Here, I will do it for you.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=ndp+shadow+cabinet

http://www.ndp.ca/shadow-cabinet

I don't care much whether an MP is a "veteran" or a "rookie", only how effective they are in their role. By my count, 22 (not counting Boivin who is a veteran MP but rookie NDP MP) out of the 32 veterans are in shadow cabinet.

I cross-posted with Tommy. Tommy omitted that Bill Siksay did not run again (the NDP held the seat with a new MP) and that Winnipeg North was lost in a by-election, so there were 32 returning MPs, not 34.

Thanks for the links. It does look like quite a lot of rookies in the shadow cabinet. I do agree that the key question is how effective they are in their critic roles, but I'd have to figure that it is quite a challenge for an MP to really get up to speed as an MP, particularly if they have not had previous experience in any major elected office (such as MNA, MLA, or city/town councillor). 

algomafalcon wrote:

lil.Tommy wrote:

OK... of the 35 MPS who were re-elected in May (Martin and Maloway losing); 34 minus Jack himself

2 got slapped on the wrist for breaking ranks (Rafferty, Hyer)

4 are running for Leader (Mulcair, Nash, Cullen, Ashton)... the others are either not MPs (Topp, Singh) or were elected this year (so newbies) (Chisholm, Saganash)

from my count there are still 28 MPs who are "veterans", 08 or older who are/can hold critic portfolios. Hardly anything to worry about. And this is an opportunity for those newbies to step up to the plate and show us what they got :)

Sound about right?

So you are saying that before the leadership race, the entire front bench was filled with veteran MPS?

In case you haven't figured it out, I don't know the answer. Sometimes a question is just a question.

But I have to remark that the new NDP caucus does not seem to be much like the caucus that served under Layton. Frankly, I am not at all impressed by this or by the way that the NDP came out with this hare-brained proposal to give Quebec a guarenteed percentage of seats in the House of Commons. But I notice that everyone now seems to be pretending that never happened (mostly referring to the MPs and media - I have no idea if the public has forgotten).

 

I never said that, Jack did a pretty decent job of giving rookies with experience in other fields front bench positions... i was just pointing out its not the second string or the infamous mcgill 5(which is still unfair since that would have never been said about a Liberal or was said about novice tories elected) sitting in the front bench shadow cabinet. and that more than 2 dozen returning MP's are still doing there job.

Well Jacks death caused a leadership race so ofcourse those who want to be leader will have to quit there post... so ofcourse the portfolios are not the same as when jack was around, give the caucus time to settle and adjust, this has been a pretty intense few months on the party. The left seem to eat our own don't we. Like i said, this is an opportunity for those rookie MPs to step up...

Anyone know who might take those portfolios held by Nash or Chisholm? (oh in the Star, its reported Ashton is on the hunt for signatures... i just added her into the mix)

What do you have against giving quebec its due share? so with that thinking you would ofcourse support taking seats away from the atlantic provinces, the territories and SK/MAN since they are over represented then? If you look at the CBC link you will see that with the 3 new seats for PQ they have the same rep-by-pop as Alberta does (about 96k per 1 MP)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/house-seats-redistribution/

Paul Gross wrote:

I cross-posted with Tommy. Tommy omitted that Bill Siksay did not run again (the NDP held the seat with a new MP) and that Winnipeg North was lost in a by-election, so there were 32 returning MPs, not 34.

Oh christmas, thanks! i forgot poor bill...

lil.Tommy wrote:

What do you have against giving quebec its due share? so with that thinking you would ofcourse support taking seats away from the atlantic provinces, the territories and SK/MAN since they are over represented then? If you look at the CBC link you will see that with the 3 new seats for PQ they have the same rep-by-pop as Alberta does (about 96k per 1 MP)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/house-seats-redistribution/

Did I say I was in any way against ggiving Quebec its due share? Which, by the way is the position of the Harper government, not the position of the NDP which argued for giving Quebec a guarenteed minimum percentage of House of Commons seats. Which effectively guarentees that the rest of Canada does not get ITS share. But who in the NDP caucus is actually going to stand up for the rest of Canada? I haven't heard of any MP who opposed this measure.

No I am not in favor of taking seats away from the territorries. That is a matter of the practicality of a single MP being able to serve the needs of a small population spread over a vast area.

Yes, I would be okay with taking seats away from Atlantic Canada and Manitoba and Saskatchewan (however, that would actually require a change to the constitution). Its called "representation by population", which is exactly what the Harper government has given to Quebec!!! Representation by population is the essential expression of the idea that all voters should be treated equally (one person, one vote), rather than giving higher weight to voters based on their lanuage, religion, ethnic group, etc.

The NDP proposal for a floor percentage of House of Commons seats is a proposal taken from the Charlottetown Accord, which was defeated in a national referendum - including a major defeat in the Province of Quebec.

Although the new distribution is a big improvement over the previously announced bills, BC, Alberta and Ontario will still be under-represented according to this info in the National Post:

 • Ontario: Will have 121 seats and 36.12% of seats in House of Commons with 38.91% of Canadian population. Under current seat distribution, it has 106 seats or 34.75% of seats in the Commons.

• Quebec: Will have 78 seats representing 23.28% of seats in Commons with 23.22% of population. Under current seat distribution, it has 75 seats or 23.28% of seats in the Commons.

• British Columbia: Will have 42 seats and 12.54% per cent of seats in Commons with 13.31 per cent of population. Under current seat distribution, it has 36 seats or 11.8% of seats in the Commons.

• Alberta: Will have 34 seats and 10.15% per cent of seats in Commons with 11% of population. Under current seat distribution, it has 28 seats or 10.15% of seats in the Commons.

I believe this was a very grevious error on Turmel's part, along with a rather solid slap in the face to many rural New Democrats.

There were a great many candidates who ran on the tacit understanding that there was no offical positon on the registry.  Yes, Jack put a lot of pressure on people to come to his side, but it was left open to candidates and MP's to sort this out at their local level.  To then pull that tacit agreement back and punish those who stuck with their views and the perceived wishes of the constituents leaves a very sour taste.  I am profoundly disappointed that this action was taken, and I believe strongly that if Jack was still with us he would not have behaved in this fashion. 

To me this was a big error and a pretty clear lack of understanding of New Democrats outside large urban centres.  Really, really disappointed.  It is going to take some time to repair the damage in ridings we must win to become government.  And I say this as someone who came around to Jack's view that the problems could be dealt with and fixed and the registry kept in place.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

To me this was a big error and a pretty clear lack of understanding of New Democrats outside large urban centres.  Really, really disappointed. 

You should know better than most people on this forum that there is a large disconnect between the rural and urban NDP. Are you really surprised at the outcome?

If its "urban/rural" how come the two NDP MPs who voted to scrap the registry are from ridings that are mostly made up of people in the CITY of Thunder Bay, while all these MPs from seriously rural ridings voted the other way (check out all the rural ridings with NDP MPs in the rest of Northern ontario, all over Quebec, Acadie-Bathurst, severla in BC etc...

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I believe this was a very grevious error on Turmel's part, along with a rather solid slap in the face to many rural New Democrats.

There were a great many candidates who ran on the tacit understanding that there was no offical positon on the registry.  Yes, Jack put a lot of pressure on people to come to his side, but it was left open to candidates and MP's to sort this out at their local level.  To then pull that tacit agreement back and punish those who stuck with their views and the perceived wishes of the constituents leaves a very sour taste.  I am profoundly disappointed that this action was taken, and I believe strongly that if Jack was still with us he would not have behaved in this fashion. 

To me this was a big error and a pretty clear lack of understanding of New Democrats outside large urban centres.  Really, really disappointed.  It is going to take some time to repair the damage in ridings we must win to become government.  And I say this as someone who came around to Jack's view that the problems could be dealt with and fixed and the registry kept in place.

Very well stated. I really wish this was an issue which had been handled in a less divisive and more consensual manner by all parties. It obviously was an issue which more or less divided Canadians on rural and urban lines (although obviously there are some Canadians in rural and northern areas who supported the registry as well as some Canadians in urban areas who were opposed to the registry). I personally supported the registry, but I wish we had come to some solution that might have been more broadly accepted and supported. I don't know if that was possible, but it seems that opportunity has now past. 

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I believe this was a very grevious error on Turmel's part

Yup. As an appointed leader, does she even have the mandate to do that? Even if Jack had whipped the vote, at least he would have done so on a proper, democratic mandate from the party.

Stockholm wrote:

Rafferty supports Mulcair for leader and Mulcair is one of thje biggest proponents of the LGR and of whipping the caucus to support it - so go figure!

Interesting. I have been curious about what is brewing tbehind the scenes on this. Apparently, John Rafferty is claiming that he was told this was not going to be a whipped vote. (It might simply boil down to a misunderstanding).

However, on his website,he released this statement:

Statement from John Rafferty
2011 11 03 - Statements

November 3, 2011.

As the Member of Parliament for Thunder Bay – Rainy River I have decided to leave Ottawa a few days early ahead of the upcoming break week to consult my constituents on several important issues that are presently before parliament. 

I encourage any and all constituents of Thunder Bay – Rainy River to make their voices heard – in person, by phone, or email – regarding any issue(s) they may be concerned about or wish to share an opinion on. 

As always, your voice will be heard and your wishes respected as I carry out my duties as your Member of Parliament in Ottawa.

Sincerely,  John Rafferty, MP.

(To me it looks like there are some pretty hard feelings here, no matter what the actual politics are beyond our eyes and ears)

Most of his constituents wanted the registry removed. This is representative democracy and Layton allowed a free vote previously.

I think the punishment should we dropped, theres no need for such a dividing issue to create holes in the NDP. I don't want to see him become an independent.

Why not let it be a free vote anyways? The Tories have a majority and the bill will pass regardless. It was different before when the PMB failed by one vote after Jack spent a vast amount of time convincing MPs to switch sides on the issue

Yep, looks like lots of confusion going on in the party right now. Wish I knew who was pulling the strings.

ottawaobserver wrote:

I miss Jack. A lot.

Me too.

You know unionist, I recall when this issue hit the last Parliament, and you adamantly claimed that the NDP would suffer in Quebec because of being "soft" on the gun registry, so I don't know if I can trust your characterization of how it will play out. And for all your talk about "party democracy," it is absolutely stunning that you take an absolutist position that the gun registry is good and that the views of those who have issues with it are not worthy of consideration. Yes, the Conservatives want to loosen up gun controls in Canada so they are more in line with the US. Nikki Ashton, who voted with Hoeppner's bill to the end, was very critical of the Conservative tactics. But the absolutism with which the Liberals insisted that all of their members should vote the opposite way was just as bad. Speaking of the Conservatives, I find it stunning that you will insist that the NDP will lose Quebec if it votes the wrong way on this issue, and at the same time deny that the all-or-nothing approach gives the Conservatives a hammer with which to hit the NDP over the head in rural areas. You know, those rural areas that tend to vote for the Conservative MPs we need to defeat in order to defeat Stephen Harper?

Furthermore, on a basic matter of internal party democracy, what right does an appointed leader have to discipline caucus members for voting a particular way when it wasn't even all that clear there was a party policy in the first place?

Unionist wrote:

Do you have a better/different/any old explanation as to why this vote was whipped? Does anyone?

I don't, and I'm not sure anybody else does either. I would hope that someone can clarify.

Unionist wrote:

I have put forward my views on this issue here for years - primarily, that individual gun ownership should be banned, that no firearms should be permitted within appropriately defined radius of a municipal area, that firearms should be rented/leased for purposes such as hunting and sport, with exceptions for indigenous peoples who have hereditary rights in this regard, etc. The registry was the Liberal Party's minimal gesture in response to the Polytechnique massacre.

Yes, that is clear. Many people disagree with that.

Unionist wrote:

The most significant view one hears from NDP MPs is, "My voters will kill me if I vote to keep it!" Doesn't do it for me.

Ah yes, the voices of the voters themselves on this issue don't count. Silly me, what was I thinking that MPs are to be advocates of the people who elected them?

Duplicate post

But I repeat, theTories have a majority. The bill will pass EASILY regardless of whether the NDP does or does not punish two MPs for supporting. In 2015, if anyone actually cares one way or the other that the LGR is no longer there, they will be mad at the Tories for scrapping it. Why would any remember or give a hoot that 100 NDP members voted against scrapping the LGR and an inconsequential two voted the other way. Who cares?

As far as i know, weren't both Rafferty and Hyer dropped from the shadow cabinet back in June - so its not as if either of them has any critic protfolio to lose!