Gun Registry Part 6

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS
Gun Registry Part 6

because its inevitable

Maysie Maysie's picture

Ken.

1. When you start a continuing thread, post a link to the previous one

2. No. This will not, in fact, be a continuation of bashing the NDP, making up stuff about people who critique the NDP, general name-calling, and all other assorted nonsense.

I strongly suggest you, and everyone, DO NOT attribute thoughts and ideas to other babblers. Saying, "[Essentially: "if he cared."]" for example is mindreading and projecting what No Yards meant. Don't do it. Why? It increases the animosity, starts a tangent of "you said this"   "no, I said this, but YOU said this."

I truly don't understand what content or substance could possibly be said in a 6th thread that hasn't been said already. Other than news of what's actually happening now, and thoughts/opinions on that.

Oh right, and more of #2. Which is not going to happen.

writer writer's picture

#2 is poo.

Edited to add: I wrote poo. Tee hee.

KenS

Maysie wrote:
Maybe, just MAYBE the next thread, as I know there will be one, will actually speak to the ISSUE. How's about that?

There was actually some turning to the issues now that the situation seems to have changed. A fair bit of that being in the closed duplicating thread.

And until Jack Layton was looking better 'those' who most voiciferously expressed unqualified support of the registry, had at least some of the time been addressing the substance.

ETA: cross-posted with Maysie, as is probably apparent.

Maysie Maysie's picture

KenS please stick to the issue, and not the endless, not particularly helpful talking about the issue at the meta level. I don't usually give these kinds of directives, but this is the 6th thread, 7th if we count the duplicate one started yesterday. 

writer, enough with the drive-bys. Tongue out

 

KenS

And writer, you've been very sensible on this. Probably have read some of the comments I was referring to about where this issue is going. And have some thoughts of your own.

No Yards No Yards's picture

wage zombie wrote:

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.

There is nothing inconsistent in that position ... you can be both unprincipled and make a poor political decision.

There is no question that Layton is not "principled", and that's not necessarily a horrible thing in politics, that's just how politicians are, especially politicians that are known for their ability to "compromise" on issues (heck, "politician" is almost the definition of "unprincipled")  ... problem comes when they start compromising on important principles such as equality (for example the NDP support of discrimination against gay youth with their support of the Cons omnibus tough on crime bill .. which btw, no matter how many times someone makes this point no loyal NDP supporter will ever bother to address ...  or the censuring of Libby.)

The "bad political decision" was in attempting to play the issue as one of paying lip service to the pro-registry side and simply allowing the minority of NDP MPs to vote down the registry ... they weren't expecting the blow-back that arose over that strategy and had to make a hasty retreat ... a retreat that in the end puts the NDP in a much better position and puts the pressure on the Libs to make sure they do have all their votes whipped, and the Cons to now show that they actually are concerned with addressing the issues of the firearm registry rather than simply using it as a wedge issue.

 

Quote:

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).

Yes we did ... both Wilf Day and myself had posts that showed both that some of the anti-registry MPs ridings were either not rural, or were in safe NDP ridings, and where some other close NDP ridings might be in danger of going to the Libs if the NDP were seen as being responsible for killing the registry, and other ridings where the NDP were a close second and might lose ground for killing the registry.

The point being that being seen to save, or being seen to have killed the registry both had their potential to hurt the NDP (the 'lose lose" situation some speak of) .. they only option was to save the registry in such a way as to have the responsibility pushed onto the Libs and/or Cons (win win)... saving the registry (through whipping, or convincing enough MPs,) and offering to work to address the registry issues was really the only real option, especially after the pro-registry side stood up and explained to Layton that there would be a cost to letting the registry die.

Layton was able to take the "convincing" route, a route I admit I didn't see as being a likelihood .. but I wasn't alone in that, it was a given, even with the anti-shippers that without a whip the bill would pass. I'll give Layton some credit for pulling this off, but the vast majority of credit goes to the pro-registry side and the pressure they put on the NDP to revise their stance on the issue.

Quote:

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.

No, my point was misunderstood ... I said that most of the anti-registry backlash in the media was of the "gun grabbing, police busting down my door and stealing my guns, new world order" kind ... the vast majority of this was coming from people who would never vote NDP EVER ... I accepted there were reasonable people with valid issues with the registry, I just questioned whether this group of people were likely to vote against the NDP if the NDP saved the registry and made a real attempt at getting the issues addressed though some other manner than simply killing the registry ...  the unreasonable people with unreasonable issues can go take a long hike off a short pier, they are not progressive, nor are they, or will they ever be, NDP supporters.

Quote:
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?

No, I don't. Although the reason given for the MPs to change positions was a pretty simple and straight forward one ... "the Cons are using this issue as a wedge issue to divide Canadians" ... seems to me that was an obvious truth, one that could have been easily grasped last years as it was this year.

Quote:

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...

No, they are politicians, they work based on what's good for their political careers ... obviously the issue for changing the vote has not changed since last year, what has changed is that they were shown that everyone else could now see the real issues and told them in no uncertain terms that their stance of "passively" allowing the registry to die, and voting with the Cons, was not acceptable.

I'm under no illusion that the NDP are saving the registry because it was "the right thing to do" ... they are doing this because they know that this is a Cons wedge issue; don't want to be seen as voting with the Cons on a wedge issue; and they heard from their base and know that they have as much, maybe even more, to lose if they didn't pay attention.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

I'm part of "the base" that moved away from the NDP because of their shift to the right ... I used to be a member, and donated to the NDP ... I no longer am a member, and I don't donate ... I did hold my nose and voted NDP the last election, but had there been no attempt to save the registry that would have changed as well.

Maybe if this issue can teach the NDP executive a lesson and they stop "compromising away" progressive principles, maybe some day I can renew my membership and start donating again.

Quote:

This time the NDP "royalty" 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.

Quote:

I don't even know what this means.

It means that there are some NDPers with direct connections in to the NDP party "machinery". Their advice is always based on agreeing with whatever Jack decides and/or pushing him to make decisions based solely on how many votes it gets ... closer ties and support of Apartheid Israel? Sure, that's ok ... discriminate against gay youth and vote with the Cons on a "tough on crime bill"? Again, that no problem for them ... claim they support the registry but have no issue if the NDP simply pays lip service to the pro-registry side of the debate and allows it to die? Yeah, that's fine, votes are more important than saving lives.

(and that's not to say all anti-registry posters are included in this group ... matter of fact I don't think any of the anti-registry posters are anything less than authentic .. I'm referring to the posters who claim to be for the registry but saw allowing the registry to die as the "right thing to do" .. until the shit hit the fan, then they didn't, and who would again change their position if something else happened and they saw more votes in "compromising" and allowing the registry to die.)

It's those people who I am referring to .. this time the "unwashed masses" of NDP and former NDP constituents spoke up and told these Liberal-lite wannabes to take their strategy of "compromising" away principles and shove it ... I'd like to see a hell of a lot more of that ... drive the Liberal wannabes to the Liberal party where they belong, and take back the NDP.

 

KenS

Maysie wrote:

No. This will not, in fact, be a continuation of bashing the NDP, making up stuff about people who critique the NDP, general name-calling, and all other assorted nonsense.

I did not make up stuff about 'critics' [the critic] or name call.

I did answer stuff continually drawn out of thin air. And at least tried to stick to the logic of what was said, and not trivializing it by pushing the logic to its extremes.

I do realize that is both fruitless, and never ends up being helpful. So in the end, point taken. I might has well have joined in the name calling and misrepresentation of positions.

ETA: I see Maysie- you've been reading over my shoulder. Seeing "never ends up being helpful" and taking advantage of my slow dial up connection to say it first. Wink

And now that I think of it, if you hadnt taken advantage of it at the end of the last thread, closing it while I was editing that awful formatting, I would never have brought my poo to this thread.

See its all your fault.

And I am angellic. Tongue out

remind remind's picture

Life, the universe wrote:
It seems Layton's patient leadership has delivered.  He is publicly saying that he has enough votes from the NDP rural caucus to defeat the Hoepner bill, or I suppose technically support the motion to not continue with the bill.  Once again Layton proves that yelling and hectoring is never as effective as patient dialogue.

The Liberals have staked a great deal on painting the NDP into a corner and have lost.  What happens now if Ignatieff doesn't get the votes, or some of his MPs suddenly find themselves with a few hour flu on the 22nd?  Is he toast?

So far all of the discussion has focused on the NDP.  I think this merits a seperate thread as Ignatieff may be in trouble if he loses even more than he already has by trying to use this issue so nakedly for partisan gain.

Just excellent news, and now we will see if the Liberals will pony up and support the much needed changes the NDP is putting forward in the  new private members Bill. Frankly I doubt it, as really, IMV, they were/are trying to use this as a political wedge issue, as much as the Cons were/are.

 

One wonders if some of  those who were pressuring the NDP, other than those here who noted there needed to be changes made and the registry kept, who will be pressuring the Liberals to support it?

writer writer's picture

Quote:

Layton was able to take the "convincing" route, a route I admit I didn't see as being a likelihood .. but I wasn't alone in that, it was a given, even with the anti-shippers that without a whip the bill would pass.

Way back a million years ago, in a sensitive post that seemed to touch many, I wrote that I thought something was happening amongst the NDP MPs and Layton that we wouldn't have access to, and couldn't see at the time, but that I suspected we would see down the road - before / during the vote.

But shouting and jumping up and down and running around mulberries is so much more appealing than giving thought to subtlety, and seems dull when compared to being so sure we are all masters of the universe. Both sides. I really do hope that folks take Maysie's advice and stop with the Punch-and-Judy show.

It's the reason I bowed out of this slugfest. And I won't be back if it continues.

No Yards No Yards's picture

Quote:

I [unfortunately] joined this discussion to defend the legitimacy of people who take an anti-registry position against the way No Yards shamelessly misrepresents and dismisses them. [And its worth noting that for the most part, those who had joined him in that have long ago stopped.]

Funny you should mention the posters who have "stopped" ... I have a couple of PMs that explain why they have stopped, and it has nothing to do with my position ... matter of fact ... well, you get the point.

writer writer's picture

I stopped, not because of your position, but because of your aggressiveness. Which I addressed directly. But not just yours, No Yards. I think "both positions" can share responsibility for dragging the slugfest on and on.

Please. Stop.

remind remind's picture

KenS wrote:
...whether the NDPs stated intent to introduce a new private members bill for improving the registry can actually be put into play. Unless it can actually be tabled, just as something to talk about, its not going to have legs. How much it would be liked and wanted by people around here doesnt translate into having legs. But if it can get legs, then it will both be good substance; and blunt the Conservatives continuing to use the evil regitry as a wedge in the West.

Meanwhile, once this goes out of the news, the Conservatives will only do a little to prepare the way for juicing the issue again. Then going quieter for will just be holding their fire for when they can do maximaum damage with the re-polarization wedge

This is why it would be incumbent upon people, especially Liberal boosters, to start pressuring the Liberals the minute the NDP Bill is tabled, but I have absolutely no confidence that they will. Thus the Cons will just play the wedge over and over.

Maysie Maysie's picture

remind wrote:
 will just play the wedge over and over.

That's exactly how I feel about this topic, and this thread.

Oops, was that just a drive-by?

Cool

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

Need help:

MP Miller has a message out to overwhelm survey in favour of scrapping registry. http://bit.ly/cbBgVn

This is our local radio station and his tactic is to do unscientific surveys and make them "fact" so we're playing his game....

Please help!

No Yards No Yards's picture

writer wrote:

I stopped, not because of your position, but because of your aggressiveness. Which I addressed directly. But not just yours, No Yards. I think "both positions" can share responsibility for dragging the slugfest on and on.

Please. Stop.

 

I wasn't referring to your PM ... there are others who have stopped posting to this thread ... even stopped posting to babble, not because of my criticism of the NDP, but because of the bullying from the NDP insiders against anyone who has a criticism of the NDP.

KenS

ETA: Just in case it isnt clear writer [and some others]. When I said that long ago in the discussions all but one person had for the most part stopped trivializing and misrepresenting registry critics, I was aware that respectful critics has also dropped out of the picture.

Thats unfortunate and I'll take my share of the blame for the conditions that caused that.

If I'm good will some of you come back?

____________________________________________________________________________________

Some thoughts on where this is going.

1] I still dont have any idea whether the NDPs stated intent to introduce a new private members bill for improving the registry can actually be put into play. Unless it can actually be tabled, just as something to talk about, its not going to have legs. How much it would be liked and wanted by people around here doesnt translate into having legs. But if it can get legs, then it will both be good substance; and blunt the Conservatives continuing to use the evil regitry as a wedge in the West.

2] The Liberals wont be getting what they wanted out of this. At best, Iggy will have to at leat share some of what glory there is with Jack Layton coming off looking good. And since this was all about making the NDP look bad and poach votes there, and was not at all about competing with the Conservatives, it has failed for them.

3] The Conservatives have got what they wanted. Its still a wedge issue for them. And so far at least, the NDP is still very vulnerable in the West. Except for the yahoos who can never be pleased, the Western swing voters who wanted the registry scrapped, will probably give Jack the benefit of the doubt. But thats right now, when in real time Jack is looking like the conciliator people want to see. ["I dont have to agree with someone who I think is trying."] But during an election campaign and the run-up to it is another matter. And this is what the NDP putting into play a reformed registry would blunt. But all the announcing of good intentions in the world wont be sufficient for putting the alternative into play, so we'll see on that. Meanwhile, once this goes out of the news, the Conservatives will only do a little to prepare the way for juicing the issue again. Then going quieter for will just be holding their fire for when they can do maximum damage with the re-polarization wedge.

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

When we caught wind of this news survey yesterday morning it was 91% for scrapping, so we've gotten a lot of support in the past 24 hours, but more is needed!

Thank you thank you thank you - want more on our MP...go to the Aboriginal board for his latest...*shakes head*

remind remind's picture

Actioned RF

6079_Smith_W

rural - Francesca wrote:

Please help!

 

Done.

No Yards No Yards's picture

Done as well, but since it's an "unscientific online poll" it really is statistically meaningless and the results should be ignored ... but, perception counts sometimes.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

rural - Francesca wrote:

Need help:

MP Miller has a message out to overwhelm survey in favour of scrapping registry. http://bit.ly/cbBgVn

This is our local radio station and his tactic is to do unscientific surveys and make them "fact" so we're playing his game....

Please help!

Voted. It's still 70% for scrapping the long gun registry. I didn't see my comment posted but here is what I wrote:

On-line surveys are pretty much useless and hopefully will never be used to create public policy (RIP long form Census).

Anyway, perhaps you should have asked, do you support Canadian legislation drafted by the NRA's Canadian arm?

Yes, the US understands our amendment rights, including our right to bear arms.

No, I think our Canadian government should sponsor a formal government bill and all parties should work together to improve the Long Gun Registry.

George Victor

Maysie, wish you would address No Yards in the same fashion that you warned Ken off the "non news" content in this thread.

With No Yards pissing all over it again, I don't understand why the thread is still alive.   This guy is a real humdinger of a pit bull, without even the justification of novelty in rant.

Maysie Maysie's picture

George, you don't get to call No Yards names. Stop.

No Yards, we get it, the NDP has let you down. On many issues, for many years. Enough already. Stick to just this one issue. 

That's allowed, by the way, critiquing the NDP. And it's allowed to be a proud member of the NDP who supports what the NDP does.

Jebus.

If this thread doesn't improve, including the bullying that writer mentioned, I will close it.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

God this Biblical "eye for an eye" thing is tiresome. Just get on with it. If a poster writes a longwinded "rebuttal," ignore it. Maysie's comment at #2 was directed at everyone, as is perfectly obvious. It's clear to me that most of the posters who think this topic needs 6+ threads actually like the lengthy, tedious "point"-by-"point" refutations. But if you're waiting for Maysie or I to step in and say "this side is right" and "this side is wrong," you're in for disappointment. The only thing this thread has succeeded in doing is make me care very little about a very important subject.

So, to reiterate Maysie at #2:

Quote:

2. No. This will not, in fact, be a continuation of bashing the NDP, making up stuff about people who critique the NDP, general name-calling, and all other assorted nonsense.

I strongly suggest you, and everyone, DO NOT attribute thoughts and ideas to other babblers. Saying, "[Essentially: "if he cared."]" for example is mindreading and projecting what No Yards meant. Don't do it. Why? It increases the animosity, starts a tangent of "you said this"   "no, I said this, but YOU said this."

I truly don't understand what content or substance could possibly be said in a 6th thread that hasn't been said already. Other than news of what's actually happening now, and thoughts/opinions on that.

But as usual, a fat lot of good that will do.

ETA. Cross-posted with Maysie.

KenS

Fair calling or not Geprge, there hasnt been any pissing lately. So how about we leave it be?

[ETA: cross-posted with Maysie.]

thorin_bane

I stopped reading in thread 2...I only came back to see if had decided to talk about what the NDP where doing...nope and I just added to the heap that will be known as the Long gun registry debate from grade 10 debating classes.

Sorry just tired of the back and forth as well.

Like I mentioned in the polling thread. I am glad Layton managed to evade the political trap laid by the libservatals. It wasn't about the registry anyways but the two old line parties trying to take votes away from a divided NDP...seems it worked.

No Yards No Yards's picture

Did they teach you that debating tactic in grade 9 debating class?

 

You know, the Mods may have to drop in once and a while and offer some moderation ... others who are bored of the debates in the firearm threads are free to be spend their time more productively debating the issues they are interested in ... if anyone tried to force you into a thread then I suggest you contact the mods and complain to them.

KenS

I wish I could see the viewing rates of these threads in discussions I have partipated in that are all wholesome and constructive, with people disagreeing but grappling to understand and find common ground.

thorin_bane

No Yards wrote:

Did they teach you that debating tactic in grade 9 debating class?

 

You know, the Mods may have to drop in once and a while and offer some moderation ... others who are bored of the debates in the firearm threads are free to be spend their time more productively debating the issues they are interested in ... if anyone tried to force you into a thread then I suggest you contact the mods and complain to them.

Wasnt that productive, maybe you woiuld like to comment on the rest of my post or just continue to be a pain in the ass.

No Yards No Yards's picture

Quote:
Wasn't that productive, maybe you woiuld like to comment on the rest of my post or just continue to be a pain in the ass.

 

Sorry, I figured that was just a throw away comment used to justify breaking in with an insult to the people who posted in the firearm registry threads.

I've no big problem with the last part of your post ... I'm glad you're glad, and I agree the real issue was more vote grabbing by the politicians (on all sides) than anything to do with public safety or registry overreach. Matter of fact the debate in the last 2 or 3 firearm threads was largely in regards to "what the NDP were doing". Not sure what thread you were referring to?

 

BTW, "pain in the ass" is all relative ... it took me many posts to reach that status, others can reach it in one post.

writer writer's picture

Yes. Bullying is a problem all around. Not just in this thread. I believe I've been writing about it for years. And I mourn each and every person who has been driven out by it, and am saddened when a regular goes into rationalization and denial about it, and tries to minimize how damaging it is. I wish we would figure this shit out. Really, it's not so hard.

KenS, you don't seem to get it. Just stop. All the time. Stop. Promises to stop are not persuasive. It's like a textbook case of abuse. Apologies and promises to improve behaviour in the future.

Stop. Now. And going forward. Stop.

rural - Francesca, I voted, with this comment:

Quote:

Media playing chicken with issues like this - driving in wedges instead of building bridges. Disgusting.

"Surveys" like this one are meaningless, unscientific, knee-jerk, and simply drive people apart, rather than explore ways to work together and understand / address each others' issues.

You can and should do better. Grow up.

The vote is 70% in favour of scrapping the registry. I encourage anyone who is interested to vote how they feel, and add a comment about the effectiveness of these surveys, and the way this issue has been used.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Well, well, well...

Quote:

Speaking earlier Tuesday, Liberal House leader David McGuinty would not say whether all members of the Liberal caucus would show up for the Sept. 22 vote.

So not surprised.

h/t - Accidential Deliberations

 

thorin_bane

Like I said I got tired of sniping from all sides in the first couple threads so I skipped to this one..which at first glance didn't look too productive. I am happy with the outcome because it is the best way of going about this. The registry could be bi-annual or every 4 years like a license renewal on a car and get rid of some of the questions or combine it with the pal. When gettin a new gun it would go under your pal license number and be integrated into the registry. Something better and give that sense of security.

Scrapping it is a waste of the moeny that was used to set it up and gives the urban people the jitters even if it provides little in actual benefit to the average suburban couple with their 2.1 kids and thier dog. There MAY be some benefit to protecting the few good cops left in the rotten barrel, and it was mostly used as a wedge issue with the cons. If they had not been stirring the pot about it every single year, most gun owners would grumble but do their civic duty and register it. Same as we do for our cars and dogs. We don't like it but we do it. Canadians are passive, even gun totting ones.

It really is a lot more about money raising by the two other parties than about their commitment to any principal. The NDP waflled on it for the simple reason, it isn't a purely ideological issue. I think the mental health issue has a lot of merrit. But that just inflames the anti-registry cons that say "look they will come for your guns" which is an NRA talking point. If you are under a suicide watch they take away your shoe laces, I would think if they know you have guns(Any) it would also be a good idea.

I  know people can kill themselves with kitchen knives by going "up street" but there is more room for saving them then with a gun which is pretty effective.  Personally I think jumping out of a plane is the best way...at least you get a rush on the way out. But thats me.

wage zombie

Hi No Yards,

Thanks for demonstrating to me that you can be civil and polite when addressed in that fashion.  It makes me more likely to engage you in the future. :)

It sounds to me like people want to get away from the he-said-she-said NDP meta.  While I could address some of your responses, I will pass at that out of respect for the flow of the thread.

The one thing I will address.

No Yards wrote:

I'm part of "the base" that moved away from the NDP because of their shift to the right ... I used to be a member, and donated to the NDP ... I no longer am a member, and I don't donate ... I did hold my nose and voted NDP the last election, but had there been no attempt to save the registry that would have changed as well.

Once you leave, you're no longer part of "the base".  It sounds like you'd like to happily vote and donate to the NDP, if the party could be more inspiring, and that until then you're willing to grudgingly vote NDP as the least of the evils.  I think there are a lot of people like you, and I think the NDP would do well to try to win you over.  But you are not part of "the base".

I could write more about this, and would be willing to take it to PM or another thread.  I don't really have much time right now and I want to get this post in before the thread gets closed.

thorin_bane

Great just as layton said yesterday. How many libs will get the flu next week. OK iggy bring on the whip. And some robatusin.

Stockholm

Breaking news: According to Nationalnewswatch.com PETER STOFFER is now going to vote to keep the registry. If this is true - Jack really managed a hat trick!!

KenS

That IS truly amazing. Because I know that until very recently Peter has thought the registry sucks. Period. IE, before we even get to party politics.

Peter can also be something of a hard row to hoe, when it comes to deferring to consensus. He'll say what he needs to say for party unity. But when it comes to 'internal politics'- which is a lot of the dynamic here- he takes longer to convince to do something so that it doesnt alienate other people, and things like that.

So I would take Peter's change as an indicator there is a pretty strong consensus in the Caucus.

My guess is that some of those changing their votes, you wont see them doing it until the day of, or at the vote: let the issue be maximum cooled down before the consituents know how you will vote. Some who are vulnerable will take the 'heres my stand' approach, others will figure it is better not to let the pot be stirred around you. But Peter Stoffer doesnt have to concern himself with his standing in the riding.

Life, the unive...

Let's just hope the comments to have these NDP MPs backs if they supported the registry wasn't a lot of hot air, because make no mistake the heat on them will be heavy and they may very well be the difference between a Conservative government or not since the Liberals are also rans in many of those ridings.

Stockholm

Of all the 12 MPs who wanted to scrap the registry - Stoffer was the one with the most supersafe seat and the one where the Tories are not really a factor and where the number of constituents with strong feelings about scrapping the registry is likely very small. His opposition to the registry was totally his own beliefs.

Here is the link btw:

http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=2758489

No Yards No Yards's picture

Two possibilities as I see it, probably a combination of both:

1) he decided that opposition to the registry was not as important as not falling for the Cons wedge issue politics and being seen voting with the Cons.

2) He indeed did listen to his constituents who told him that they supported the registry.

 

No Yards No Yards's picture

wage zombie wrote:

Once you leave, you're no longer part of "the base".  It sounds like you'd like to happily vote and donate to the NDP, if the party could be more inspiring, and that until then you're willing to grudgingly vote NDP as the least of the evils.  I think there are a lot of people like you, and I think the NDP would do well to try to win you over.  But you are not part of "the base".

I could write more about this, and would be willing to take it to PM or another thread.  I don't really have much time right now and I want to get this post in before the thread gets closed.

 

Thanks for the recognition WZ,

As for being part of the "base" ... I just used that word for lack of a better one. Whether you want to call me part of the pissed-off "base", or "someone that the NDP could count on to hold my nose and vote for them", doesn't much matter to me ... the point is that yes, as long as they don't do pull any more stupid anti-progressive nonsense like vote with the Cons, they can more or less count on hearing an earful when they come around, not receiving any donations, and not off-loading any lawn signs with me ... but I do vote, and baring a better alternative it's likely going to be for the NDP.

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

No Yards wrote:

 ... but I do vote, and baring a better alternative it's likely going to be for the NDP.

 

From what I understand about Bill C-391, Harper, and the suggested intentions of certain Toronto Liberal birdcage liner scribblers, we'll likely have to deal with the registry issue a few more times before we get to vote for an MP again.

Practice makes perfect!?!

 

George Victor

No Yards wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Once you leave, you're no longer part of "the base".  It sounds like you'd like to happily vote and donate to the NDP, if the party could be more inspiring, and that until then you're willing to grudgingly vote NDP as the least of the evils.  I think there are a lot of people like you, and I think the NDP would do well to try to win you over.  But you are not part of "the base".

I could write more about this, and would be willing to take it to PM or another thread.  I don't really have much time right now and I want to get this post in before the thread gets closed.

 

Thanks for the recognition WZ,

As for being part of the "base" ... I just used that word for lack of a better one. Whether you want to call me part of the pissed-off "base", or "someone that the NDP could count on to hold my nose and vote for them", doesn't much matter to me ... the point is that yes, as long as they don't do pull any more stupid anti-progressive nonsense like vote with the Cons, they can more or less count on hearing an earful when they come around, not receiving any donations, and not off-loading any lawn signs with me ... but I do vote, and baring a better alternative it's likely going to be for the NDP.

 

Thank the Lord...may we be truly thankful. 

KenS

.

 

No Yards No Yards's picture

You really should stick to the official NDP script ... when you ad-lib it you just end up sounding small and petty.

George Victor

It was an attempt to be respectful in the presence of an enormous ego!  :)

Wilf Day

The Guelph Mercury's editorial, or column by Michael Bondy, is remarkably full of praise (without a subscription, I had to get it from Googlecache, so no link):

Quote:
Liberals falter, NDP triumph on gun registry

GuelphMercury.com - EditorialOpinion - Liberals falter, NDP triumph on gun registry

It's not been a good run for the loyal opposition. Though Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff made a solid showing on his summer barbecue tour and now leads a Liberal party that polls at parity against Stephen Harper's Conservatives, he's also led his organization into a political misfire and ceded precious political space to the NDP.

The national long-gun registry, a Liberal legacy project introduced in the 1990s, has run over budget by a cool billion and according to opinion polls most Canadians want it scuttled. Canucks are fed up with the costs and invasiveness of the program, and still aren't clear on what the thing is supposed to accomplish since violent criminals aren't prone to registering their weapons.

That's at least been the Reform/Alliance/Conservative line for nigh a decade, and Tory backbencher Candice Hoeppner's bill to scrap the system recently passed the Commons and is due back for a decisive vote next week.

Last time Hoeppner's bill came to the lower House, it passed with the unanimous support of the Tory caucus, along with eight Liberals and 12 New Democrats. But with the defeat of an iconic Liberal national program looming, Ignatieff has ordered those eight MPs back into party formation.

Mr. Ignatieff's heavy handedness has peeved his caucus, alienated rural voters and handed authorship of the political narrative over to Jack Layton and the NDP, who now get to exercise the balance of power in the Commons.

Having been thrust into the spotlight, NDP leader Jack Layton has quite frankly graced the stage.

His position on this private member's bill has always been clear: he wants the Commons to reform the registry to make it less invasive and offensive to rural and aboriginal Canadians while preserving its benefits for law enforcement. But he has also consistently endorsed his caucus colleagues' right to vote their consciences.

Following Mr. Ignatieff's decision to strip his colleagues of their democratic rights, Layton immediately went to work proffering his compromise position to Canadians and engaging his dissenting MPs in private, persuasive dialogue.

After weeks of sustained effort, on Tuesday afternoon Layton proudly announced he'd convinced enough of his formerly dissenting rural MPs to support the registry, meaning the firearms database will likely survive next week's crucial vote.

Layton has achieved a parliamentary and political masterstroke that should leave his peer leaders chastened and impressed.

The NDP leader has preserved democratic norms in his caucus; protected caucus unity by bringing his team around organically to a decisive consensus; and successfully withstood media and advocacy-group pressure to whip his parliamentary team. He opted instead for cool, patient persuasion and consistent, common-sense messaging.

Layton has achieved his objective of saving the gun registry while sending the right conciliatory messages to his party's crucial rural supporters in northern Ontario and the prairies.

And perhaps most importantly from a political perspective, he's kept the NDP in the news and looking like a reasonable, responsible opposition party.

On this one, Michael Ignatieff was outplayed by both Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton. The prime minister came out a winner because his key wedge issue and money-raiser is in tact for another election campaign. And Jack Layton won because he gave Canadians a glimpse of what a constructive, competent and democratic opposition party is supposed to look like.

Mr. Ignatieff, however, lost the narrative, lost the initiative and deprived his MPs of long-standing democratic rights.

When you shot yourself in the foot, Michael, I hope the gun was registered.

ottawaobserver

I stopped posting in the first or second thread, but popped back in to take a well-deserved "I told you so".  If you ask me, Layton has the patience of Job, and his party doesn't deserve him.

ETA: Wow, Wilf!  That was an amazing editorial from Guelph !

No Yards No Yards's picture

@george victor #46

Yeah, I know what you mean ... maybe next attempt will meet with some small measure of success Tongue out

I do apologize though for not realizing that I should be thanking the NDP for accepting my vote ... if I can afford whatever it is they are charging these days for being allowed to voting NDP, maybe next election I'll fill out an application to see if I can have the honour of voting for them again.

thorin_bane

OO I agree that is a great article in a small paper. Its too bad that wasnt carried by a major daily or maybe the at issue panel on thursday. Perhaps that is the non media opinion on it and if so that is good for the NDP. If people start to look at how the NDP is for the most part trying to get parliamnet to work, they woudl recognize the benefit of more MPs. I know that sounds partisan, esp when I have never held a membership, but I can not undertand how the other two parties are seen as reasonable.

Pages

Topic locked