NDP shadow cabinet

People act like this originated with Mulcair, when this is a west (I'm counting Northern Ontario as part of the West for this purpose) vs. East divide that preceded him. Both sides can be very rabid over the LGR.

An alternative to the LGR won't be found over night, it will take time and more time to make sure it is more palatiable to antiLGR elements. Mulcair is far more moderate on this issue then most of the cacus is, yet people act as if its Mulcair whose being a bully.

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.

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.

We can all point fingers, but none of that changes anything, were do we go from here?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ 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.

 

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.

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

 

Only a fringe minority actually supported doing away with the long gun registry. 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.

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.

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

6079_Smith_W wrote:

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.

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.

@ 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.

3 things...

1) Look at the Orange colours on this Map.. you will see its significantly rural, unlike the Liberal Red.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/

2) The Blue Areas are whats needed for growth.. also significantly rural.

3) Look at how toxic this issue is with 3 threads diverted to talk about the Registery.

Quote:

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.

You're the one who brought up the Liberal Registry. But in any case, this comes back to the simple fact that there's going to be some sort of new Registry proposal come 2015. Hence, I find it odd that when Mulcair is asked a hypothetical question about whether or not a new registry ought to be introduced, the typical response of the opponents of the Liberal Registry was to tilt at the straw man of the hypothetical registry and apply the characteristics of the Liberal one to it as a reason for not having a new one. As such your "team" bases their defence of Hyer on this basis - that someone the very idea of even bringing in a new registry is bad and shouldn't even be contemplated and contemplating is somehow insensitive to rural New Democrats. It's an interesting, albeit tiresome, rhetorical trick to get what one wants when one is in the minority.

dp fu

If people want to show WHAT a new LGR might look like, and HOW we are going to handle it.... I'll take a look. There may be a way. I'll think about it.

But that is not what we are getting, or EVER have got.

But thankfully, Nathan Cullen has a position of influence that will demand sense be DEMONSTRATED, not just stated as a fait accompli that all you smart asses just KNOW is going to work for us.

quizzical wrote:

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

 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.

what? talking when ya don't seem to know much is a little off putting.

all people who own guns in Canada must have a PAL and a fire arms acquisition permit  they're the 'drivers' license that you seem to think gun owners don't have. the right comparrison is a vehicle having to be registered  and licensed before you drive it on public roads. if you can make a compare at all. 'cause ya can still own vehicles and never drive 'em.

Contrary to popular belief guns weren't invented to shoot antique cans. When you have something more interesting to say than a flawed comparison between cars and guns, I'll get back to you.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

@ Van

 

Though I might ask, based on your last sentence, what your position is on tyranny of the majority, as opposed to doing what is equitable.

 

Irrelevent. Owning a gun isn't a right. It isn't comprable to something like gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, language, etc. It's embaressing that you'd even pose this. A policy issue, such as this, isn't something that applies to the 'tyranny of the majority' philosophy.

Edited to add: Nor do I even think it's an issue related to freedom from tyranny, like the right to due process, a reasonable level of freedom of speech and association, etc. Actually, I'd say without a registry gun owners are closer to inflicting a certain tyranny of the minority on the majority, than non-gun owners inflicting a registry on gun owners are.

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

quizzical wrote:

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

 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.

what? talking when ya don't seem to know much is a little off putting.

all people who own guns in Canada must have a PAL and a fire arms acquisition permit  they're the 'drivers' license that you seem to think gun owners don't have. the right comparrison is a vehicle having to be registered  and licensed before you drive it on public roads. if you can make a compare at all. 'cause ya can still own vehicles and never drive 'em.

Contrary to popular belief guns weren't invented to shoot antique cans. When you have something more interesting to say than a flawed comparison between cars and guns, I'll get back to you.

wtf? you're the one who made the  drivers license compare not me. see my quote of your own quiote for evidence. i was the one taking exception to your flawed fucking compare. though i am happy to note you now see it is a flawed compare. if there can be a happy position amongst your condescending crap.

l'il pissy because ya didn't know gun owners were already licensed are ya? too bad for you the air is gone from your sails but an acceptance you're now wrong on several accounts shouldn't be hard for ya.

Why not simply have a policy of having a national long gun registry that provinces can choose to either opt in or opt out of - that way if Quebec wants all guns in Quebec to be registered, the feds will help thme to do it and if Sask wants nothing to do with a gun registry - they are free to opt out - that way everybody's happy!