Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Swing votes

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, September 16, 2010 4:10pm - 0 Comments

NDP MP Niki Ashton will disclose tomorrow how she plans to vote on C-391. Peter Stoffer, previously committed to voting in favour of C-391, says he’ll have something to say on Monday. John Rafferty, another yes vote, says his mind hasn’t changed. Bruce Hyer says he won’t vote for a Liberal motion that would effectively scrap C-391.

Tags: Bruce Hyer, C-391, firearms, gun control, gun registry, John Rafferty, long gun registry, Niki Ashton, Peter Stoffer

More by Aaron Wherry

Crit_Reasoning

I think Layton has calculated things very carefully… he'll "persuade" just enough NDP MPs to switch their votes to ensure that C-391 fails.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Or finally turn the tables on Iggy and put some heat on some Liberal MPs? I guess I'm not as convinced as most that either party has all their votes locked up.

Crit_Reasoning

Good point. There's always the chance for a surprise, though I wouldn't want to be the Liberal MP (Todd Russell?) who defies Iggy's whip.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

What's Iggy going to do? Start a pillow fight?

Crit_Reasoning

His face will turn purple and his magnificent eyebrows will scrunch together in a grimace of pure rage. He might even suspend the offending MP from caucus.
Emily

And not sign his nomination papers.
Cats

Ha!

Ignatieff would be turfed as leader if he tried to do something like that. Having a Liberal actively and openly working against him would the end of him.

Harper has ignored Geurgis like a little fly. Ignatieff would be swallowed whole.

Cats.
Emily

No he wouldn't. It's the ultimate power the leader has. This would be the MPs last sitting.

And if it was Todd Russell he'd be out of the shadow cabinet too.
Cats

MPs can vote out the leader in our system – see Australia.

ignatieff's hold on the leadership is weak. He's tanking in the polls again after briefly being tied with the government. And his personal numbers are horrible.

They'll throw him overboard if he annoys them.

Rotten fish, forgotten mice, birds flying into windows !!
Emily

No, they cannot. This is not Australia.

If you'd can the cat crap, you'd know what country you're in.
http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

Well, this has at least proven to the world that Cats isn't a closet Liberal being a Conservative provocateur, since she doesnt know anything about how the Liberals pick or remove a leader.. (tho it could be a clever smokescreen)
Crit_Reasoning

Clearly, Cats doesn't understand that the Liberal caucus coronates their leaders, as they did with Ignatieff (suspending the conventional and democratic convention process).

I completely agree with Scott Tribe that Cats probably isn't a closet Liberal being a Conservative provocateur.
Emily

No, they don't.

Do stop with this crap, surely you've been alive long enough to have seen more than one convention.

And it wouldn't matter to the public how any party picked it's leader…even names out of a hat. It's an internal party matter.
http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

CR is being a bit facetious, I expect, Emily.

BTW, I would have said it proves Cats is clearly not a PMO staffer or even a Conservative staffer.. since I would have expected even they would have rudimentary knowledge about Canada's political parties and that none of them give the MP's the power to remove their leader as they do in the UK.. but being knowledgeable about facts such as this has already been shown to not be a prerequisite in this government.. so I had to retract that remark.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Personally, I've never considered conceit and arrogance to be a winning formula in any venture, including politics. It wasn't working for Iggy. It might not work out for you, either. Just saying.
Emily

It has never occurred to me that Cats is anything but a cat….with computer access.

Certainly the posts have clearly shown pawprints.
Cats

Scott Tribe and Emily clearly don't know our system.

MPs in parliament can elect any leader they want to. The leader of the Liberal "party" as defined by the party apparatus is a separate position from the leader of the Liberal caucus.

In the same way that the Queen of Canada is different than the Queen of England.

Cats!
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I think it's hilarious how Iggy and other Liberals say they're going to run on so-called accountability when:

a) They never did whenever they had power;

b) Iggy has circumvented democracy every chance he's gotten, including how he got to to be leader.

And then you have followers of theirs here suggesting that it's none of our business. Wonderful.
Dave

Canada != Australia
sea_n_mountains

imagine what uncle stevie would do if a cpc-er actually launched a vote that broke away from the team.

Patchouli

And they have paced out the announcements very well, to capitalize and get continuous media attention for the party, leader, etc, and a platform to decry the conservative smear and scare tactics.

Good PR work, Brad Lavigne and co.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

For some people, any opposition is considered a "smear". That's how totalitarian regimes get started, no?
Richard_S_Argent

Let's not discount the huge assist they got from Garry "this is the first step towards totalitarianism" Breitkreuz. His absurd, paranoid rhetoric sure made it easy for the rural/northern NDP MPs to distance themselves from Harper.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Ah yes, it's not like the left hasn't resorted to heated rhetoric during this debate. An NRA conspiracy yesterday. An appeal to women's rights today.

I've said this before. I'll say it again. Some on here, especially on the left, act as though their opponents are not allowed to oppose. They're not allowed to talk.

Richard_S_Argent

That's a mighty fine straw man you built yourself there! :)
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

That's a mighty fine non-response you've manage to concoct for yourself there! :) Next.
Richard_S_Argent

Fine, you want a response? Well you made the blanket assertion that "the left act as though their opponents are not allowed to oppose". I think that's absurd, and obviously so.

Back to the specific issue at hand – I stand by my characterization of Breitkreuz' rhetoric as over-the-top, paranoid and ultimately helpful to the rural NDP MPs. When you come out and say things like this:

"Why are the police chiefs so strident in their quest to keep the registry in place? They won’t admit it, but it appears they don’t want Canadians to own guns. To that end, they need a database that will help them locate and seize those firearms as soon as a licence or registration expires."

you'll appeal to the creeping totalitarianism set, but turn off pretty much everyone else.

There are reasonable arguments to be made in this debate – implying that the registry is the beginning of the police state isn't one of them.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Well, let's see. The first dude there likened opposition to "smears". Again, aren't people allowed to disagree with the left-wing?

Second, the Conservatives are hardly the only ones engaged in heated rhetoric in this debate. Like I already stated, the left brings up the NRA every time they want to defend their anti-gun agenda. Or suggesting that the registry is about women's rights?

Those in glass houses…..
Richard_S_Argent

Again, you keep building straw men, and I continue to be impressed by their grandeur!

n.b. It's not "the left" that are bringing the NRA into the debate, the CBC did some of that "investigative journalism" :)
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/09…

although I suppose you're going to tell me that we should never trust anything from CBC – 'cause they're frothing Trotskyists
Jan

Yes, Dennis the revolution is going on as planned. Can't wait till they confiscate all the long guns.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Anyone is more than welcome to respond to comments I've actually made. It doesn't mean they ever will. I wonder why that is.

Emily

Cons already seem to have tossed in the towel.

Reverend_Blair

Yup, and they're as bitter as hell about it. I think they'll be doubly disappointed when nobody tries to take away their guns.

Emily

LOL they sure are….all that gloating having to be stifled again. Indigestion.
Patchouli

I wonder if Harper will miss the vote himself.
Dave

That won't stop them from mailing out appeals to Send Cash Quickly.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

If they lose this vote, it'll be another election issue for them. And they'll get to run against the coalition you keep desperately trying to run away from.

Reverend_Blair

I'd really like to see the Conservatives run with getting rid of the registry as the central plank in their platform. I'd love to see Stephen Fletcher knocking on doors in Charleswood to tell the people there that guns are too tightly controlled.

As for the coalition…I'm certainly not against one, but such an arrangement would occur after an election, not before, and then its make-up and existence would depend on seat counts etc.. It would also, by definition, be more representative than a one-party minority because it would have the input of more MPs.

More importantly, why would you want to run against parties cooperating at a time when most Canadians say they want to see more cooperation in parliament?

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I think the registry will certainly be a part of their rural platform, as well as part of their efforts to remind people that the opposition does like to gang up, especially in coalitions. As for non-rural ridings, I honestly do not think that Canadians have a love affair with the registry in the same way this country's left does. They see it as a huge boondoggle that doesn't do anything to catch actual criminals.

Hey, by all means. Run on the platform of coalition. It was so popular when tried the last time, wasn't it? The problem is that many of its former supporters, including Emily, go out of their way now to suggest it never happened and never will. Why? Why if it's so great?

Actually, the Conservative argument appears to be quite simple. We will almost certainly get stability after the next election. So, do you want it in the form of a majority Conservative government, or a coalition arrangement between liberals, socialists, and separatists? It will be interesting, don't you think?

Reverend_Blair

Why not part of the whole platform? Why not get those Quebec MPs promising fewer restrictions on firearms? Why not get the 905 candidates doing the same? How about getting Rod Bruinooge to campaign around Fort Richmond by telling all of university students and immigrants and white collar office workers that he favours unfettered gun ownership? What's this urban/rural crap? The registry affects all Canadians.

As for the coalition, perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote.

The Conservative argument seems to have been written by simpletons who don't understand how coalitions work. You have the election first, then you look and see if a coalition is necessary, if there's enough common ground for the parties to cooperate (based on their platforms etc.), and if a coalition is workable. Your argument is basically that if the Conservatives get another minority, the opposition should become the government. I'm not against that, but it's not really how our system works.

Just for argument's sake though, what would you do if the NDP won a small minority with the Conservatives finishing second? Would the Conservatives consider a coalition with the NDP…a party they have very little in common with…or would you go for a coalition with the Liberals…a party that you have plenty in common with?
Dave

I think the registry will certainly be a part of their rural platform

It's a good thing that there are no instant communications technologies available in backwoods Canada which willl allow people in rural and urban parts of the country, and the several provinces, to share information about what the parties are telling them, where, and how those messages may differ from one another.
madeyoulook

I believe the federal government pissed away tens of millions for a "rural broadband initiative" that communications companies have figured out anyways.

Chris B

Here is something I don't understand. A rural NDPer voting to keep the gun registry is "showing up and voting against the wishes of his constituents." SO how come when James Moore or John Baird (or any Qebec CIty or Montreal area MP) show up and vote to kill the gun registry, that is not the same thing? I mean, if polls show that urban Canadians want to keep the registry….

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I suspect it's because Tories in urban ridings have been consistent on their position on the gun registry. They have always opposed it. I don't think the same can be said of some rural NDP and Liberal MPs who used to be against it, but are now apparently for it. That is what they'll have to explain to their constituents, isn't it?

Reverend_Blair

Yeah, I'm sure John Baird campaigned hard on the gun registry there in Ottawa.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Who said he did?

Reverend_Blair

You implied it when you said that Conservatives have always opposed the registry. I don't remember Baird voicing that opposition in either of the last two elections though.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I never implied any such thing. I merely stated that they have not reversed their positions on the gun registry, as far as I know. The same apparently cannot be said of these rural NDP and Liberal MP's, right?
Reverend_Blair

Perhaps you should choose your words more carefully then. Saying that all Conservatives endorsed getting rid of the registry implies that Baird endorsed getting rid of it. It was the official party position, but urban and suburban candidates were very quiet about it. To them it was largely something that wasn't discussed.

Has Baird honestly consulted with his constituents on the issue now? This is a free vote, isn't it? One where the MPs are supposed to represent their constituents and not the party position. That's what the Conservatives keep telling us. Yet none of their non-rural MPs are voting to keep the registry. Are they representing their constituents? Likely not, at least not all of them.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Why should I choose my words more carefully when you're the one who is clearly reading into them claims I specifically did not make?

I suggest you stop digging.

I never made any comments about the the enthusiasm of any MPs regarding their positions on the registry. I merely stated that NDP and Liberals have flip-flopped, and the Conservatives haven't. Didn't I do this? And that the former will have to be explained, right? Or is this getting too difficult for you? I don't know.
Reverend_Blair

Ah, hiding behind absolute literalism, are you? Sorry, what you write has implications that go beyond the most simplistic interpretation. This isn't Stockwell Day's Bible study class, after all.

What I read into your statement is what you wrote, that all Conservatives oppose the long gun registry and that everybody understood that, or should have. It is incredibly unlikely that's the case though. The registry is popular in Quebec and it is popular in urban and suburban areas.

This bit about flip-flopping is not something Conservatives should get into, considering their record.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I suggest you spend less time trying to sound smarter than your opponents, and more time actually displaying it. Yes, I stand by the actual words that I write. Why would I do anything else, for crying out loud? Geez.

Jenn_

Probably as hard as my own MP, Peter Braid, did. I did receive a letter from him today, though, telling me it was *always* a Conservative Party position. Doesn't explain why I didn't hear about that in his campaigning, or explain why *he's* all for it, but it was a nice (generic, form) letter, well done.

madeyoulook

Are you suggesting that this was part of the Tories' (patent pending) HIDDEN AGENDA during the last campaign?
Jenn_

Well, I wasn't, but now that you bring it up . . .

Dave

Is Calgary rural or urban? Aw, never mind, it's not as if any Conservative MP's from that city (if it is a city) have ever changed their mindss about gun control

Graeme

The Cons are a little ahead of the Libs in the polls right now. If an election were called immediately after the rural opposition gun registry MPs stab their constituents in the back, it could be all over but the cryin' for the Libs, NDP, gun registry and anything not conservative for 4 years.

I don't know for sure and it would be close but I wouldn't be surprised if that's their play.

Emily

Canada is 80% urban.

Dave

Canada's ridings are not.

Emily

For the most part they are.

Dave

No, for the most part, they are not, not unless you count a lot of medium-sized towns as "urban". In fact, that's the only way you can say Canada is "80% urban".

Only 70% of Canadians live in Census Metropolitan Areas; the rest of the "urban" Canadians live in metropoles like Corner Brook or Brandon.

Vagaries of apportionment and redistribution mean that only about half the House of Commons consists of purely urban and suburban seats in metropolitan areas of over 100,000 population. About a hundred are purely non-metropolitan (rural, remote, or small town) ridings, and there are about 40 or 50 with both rural and urban components.
Emily

Statscan says Canada is 80% urban. What YOU count is irrelevant.

They have different concerns than farm folk
Dave

And, using figures from, um, STATSCAN, I tell you, Canada is only about 70% metropolitan urban.

The rest of the "urban" population are the 10% of Canadians who live in "urban" centres of as little as 10,000 population. And yes, they have different concerns from farm folk (although why you bring up "farm folk" is beyond me), but they also have different concerns from people in Montreal or Toronto, too.
Emily

Sorry, not so
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo62a-eng.htm

And they aren't farm folk.
Dave

Thank you for proving my point.

Did you read the note on that data? "The rural population for 1981 to 2006 refers to persons living outside centres with a population of 1,000 AND outside areas with 400 persons per square kilometre."

Here is the population of census metropolitan areas:
http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a-eng….

Collectively, they are about 70% of the Canadian population. You can only get to 80% by including a lot of very small towns as "urban", as Statscan does in that table. And sorry to break it to you, but the attitudes of "urban" Iqaluit or Athabasca about gun control are not the same as attitudes in Vancouver or Ottawa.

And seriously, what is your fixation with "farm folk"? Why do you keep mentioning "farm folk"?
Style

My impression is Emily doesn't read the resources she cites. I think she googles for the word she's using then pastes a link to a credible source, on the assumption that it agrees with her. One time, she went as far as searching searched the source for the word we were discussing and then pasted in the surrounding paragraph, even though it didn't support her point.
Cats

Ouch.

Emily got taken to task for being wrong. This adds to a pattern of bizarre statements she has made where she has been called to account.

I'm glad someone called you out on this Emily.

Hopefully you'll be chastened by it. Your hubris is a bit disconcerting.

Best fishes.

Graeme

I agree it's 70% according to that table at most. What's more don't assume that everyone in the city agrees with the registry. I live in Vancouver and when I think of the registry I start to boil over just out of a sense of fiscal responsibility and sound reasoning. You don't need to be a "gun person" to hate this policy. Also, "downtown metro" Peterborough or Barrie aren't exactly as urban in their thinking as Toronto.

Dave

Likewise, don't assume that everyone in rural areas, whether that be Nunavut, Moosomin, or "urban" Lunenburg, disagrees with the registry. You don't have to be a granola-crunching latté-sipping effete Toronto élitist to support the policy, either.

Garry Breitkreuz and Mark Holland are the same side of the intellectually challenged, or dishonest, coin, in framing the issue as rural vs. urban.

Green

I'm also keeping my eye on a few Liberals. Keith Martin won the last election by 68 votes, which was less than the number of rejected ballots in his district. And he's a former Reformer. I really can't see Iggy's pimp hand being strong enough to keep him in line. I think he'll vote in favor of C-391.

Also to watch: Wayne Easter (4.9% margin of victory and not a registry supporter personally), Scott Andrews (10.1%), Larry Bagnell (13.1%, but his riding is the Yukon). I expect these three and maybe one or two more to have major digestive upsets on the day of the vote.
http://www.trpornizle.net rokettube

en güzel rokettube videoları,
en muhteşem sex izleme sitesi
en kral rokettube yeri
kaliteli pornoların bulunduğu tek mekan
yabancı sitelerden özenle seçilmiş muhteşem ötesi porn sitesi…
http://www.sexfilmiseyret.com asicocuq

diyorum ya herkesin bir derdi var durur icinde ama para lazimsexfilmiseyretmeyin sadece bakin
sonra buraya girererek buraya da bakin