Gun Registry Part 5

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture
Gun Registry Part 5

from here

KenS

You are a glutton for punishment. Smile

No Yards No Yards's picture

KenS wrote:

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?

 

remind remind's picture

discriminated against gay youth?

Maysie Maysie's picture

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.

 

KenS

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.

No Yards No Yards's picture

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.

 

No Yards No Yards's picture

KenS wrote:

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.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

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.

remind remind's picture

oh so this is a bash NDP catchall thread was my point.

 

No Yards No Yards's picture

It's relevant to the "whip/vs no whip" policy of the NDP which is releveant to the registry argument.

 

 

KenS

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.

KenS

remind wrote:

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.

remind remind's picture

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.

No Yards No Yards's picture

KenS wrote:

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.

No Yards No Yards's picture

KenS wrote:

remind wrote:

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.

KenS

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?

No Yards No Yards's picture

Another NDP MP recognizes the PMB for what it is.

 

Quote:
Nickel Belt's Claude Gravelle announced Friday he will vote against Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner's private member's bill to scrap the controversial long-gun registry later this month.

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."

Stockholm

Three down and nine to go. I predict that the next "show to drop" will be Carol Hughes from Algoma.

KenS

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.

Fidel

I think the NDP should start abstaining from votes in protest of the shananigans.

Stockholm

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?"

Sean in Ottawa

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.

 

Stuart_Parker

Stockholm wrote:

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.

No Yards No Yards's picture

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 Tongue out 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?)

 

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

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.

 

 

Wilf Day

Stockholm wrote:
Three down and nine to go. I predict that the next "show to drop" will be Carol Hughes from Algoma.

Logical, as she is now alone among the five northeastern Ontario NDP MPs.

But to make it interesting, I'll bet on Malcolm Allen.

Stuart_Parker

MUN Prof. wrote:
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,

This is lame. When has the presence or absence of actual policy made a difference in a situation like this in the past?

 

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

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?

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

Stuart_Parker wrote:

MUN Prof. wrote:
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,

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?

Stuart_Parker

MUN Prof. wrote:

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.

KenS

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.

KenS

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.

Pogo Pogo's picture

If there is no clear party policy and there is no caucua consensus then how can a vote be whipped?

KenS

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.

No Yards No Yards's picture

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.)

 

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

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.

Aristotleded24

Debater wrote:
Stockholm wrote:
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.

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.

Stockholm

"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.

Pogo Pogo's picture

KenS wrote:

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).

No Yards No Yards's picture

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.

Quote:
She seems to be ignorant of that fact that there is a poetntailly far greater price to pay if they DO whip the vote.

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.

 

 

Stockholm

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.

Wilf Day

Wilf Day wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
Three down and nine to go. I predict that the next "show to drop" will be Carol Hughes from Algoma.

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.

Polunatic2

Quote:
 Welland MP Malcolm Allen confirmed Monday at the NDP’s caucus retreat in Regina that he will be reversing his earlier support for a Conservative private member's bill to scrap the controversial program.

From the above mentioned article. Allen is #4 to commit to switch his vote. 

Stockholm

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.

No Yards No Yards's picture

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?

Stockholm

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."

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Stockholm wrote:

...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.'

Stockholm

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.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

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.

Eupraxsopher

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.

Pages

Topic locked