Beyond The Commons

 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

153-150

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, September 20, 2010 9:45am - 0 Comments

Peter Stoffer has decided to switch sides as it relates to House votes on the gun registry, which, by this unofficial count, makes it 153 votes against C-391, which, in theory, clinches defeat for the bill.

CBC has the government trying to arrive at a Plan B in the event C-391 does fail.

Tags: , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • WDM

    Any idea what time of day the vote will be?

    • MarionKl

      Either right after QP or at around 5:30 (before Private Member's Business)

      • WDM

        Thanks! Hope its the latter so i can catch it live.

  • Mike T.

    Canadians will continue be somewhat safer in exchange for a minor financial outlay.

    Police will still have a somewhat easier time tracking stolen weapons and responding to emergency calls.

    Gun owners will continue to be mildly inconvenienced to the extent of filling out a form.

    The CPC will continue to fleece the faithful for donations.

  • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

    Mr. Stoffer said 62 per cent of those who live in his riding support the controversial gun registry.

    I can't help wondering how he knows this since none of the articles I've read this morning address it.

    • WDM

      It was his own informal survey/numbers he gathered through talking with constituents.

      • s_c_f

        In other words, he's making it up, unless he has a side job as a pollster.

        • Reverend_Blair

          No. It's just that he's been keeping track of the positions taken by his constituents. As he noted in his TV appearance, the Conservative robo-calls prompted a lot of pro-registry constituents to contact him. I guess Harper's tactics kind of backfired.

          • s_c_f

            Yes, but he's refusing to give any details about how he arrived at this number. There is no proof. In fact, there was no poll at all, nor was there an appeal to all his constituents to share their views, nor is there any record of any of his calculations. He's just saying he had a few conversations.
            http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/blog/post/639826

            Here's what is really happening: he's giving himself cover to satisfy Layton's demands behind the scenes, hoping that his constituents will fall for the ruse. When the latest poll shows more people in favour of abolishing the registry, and when rural ridings across Canada are uniformly against it, somehow we're supposed to believe the unlikely scenario that his rural riding is an exception. LOL

          • Reverend_Blair

            Do you have any proof of your scenario? Of course not.

            I wouldn't even go as far as saying that "rural ridings" are all against the bill, since many of those ridings contain a large component of urban and suburban votes.

            Let's see your proof that the people of Nepean, the people of Fort Richmond, and the people of Charleswood are against the registry though. This is a free vote, after all, and Baird, Bruinooge and Fletcher should be voting according to the wishes of their constituents.

          • s_c_f

            The proof is that I was not born yesterday.

            As for the riding not being sufficiently rural LOL Clearly you've never been to Sackville. It doesn't get more rural than that.

            Let's check out the latest poll:

            Guns
            Do you support or oppose scrapping the long gun registry?

            Urban Rural
            support 44% 53
            oppose 40 36
            not sure 15 11

            Nationwide, 53% in rural areas want to scrap as opposed to 36% want to keep it. Yet you're saying that these ridings Fort Richmond, Baird, Sackville, etc, which are as rural as it gets (Nepean is semi-urban), these riding are somehow exceptional, and by coincidence they also happen to be the NDP ridings.

            Wow, that's incredible.

          • Reverend_Blair

            I'm not particularly interested in when you were born. Your apparent lack of knowledge of the ridings held by members of the party you support is interesting though.

            The ridings I listed though…Nepean, Fort Richmond, and Charleswood are all suburban ridings held by Conservative MPs.

            Fort Richmond houses a lot of university students and profs due to it being close to the U of W. It also contains many, many white collar workers.

            Charleswood is one of Winnipeg's wealthiest areas of town. Not a lot of farmers or duck hunters there…in fact I would wager that the number of gun owners in the neighbourhood is likely less than the number of retail outlets. It's the kind of neighbourhood where many people don't even mow their own lawns, never mind farming. Those from that neighbourhood who camp tend to do it in large RVs with TV sets and flush toilets. Not exactly "as rural as it gets."

            Also, I never said Baird was a riding. I mentioned him as a Conservative MP, along with Bruinooge and Fletcher, who is very likely not representing the wishes of his constituents on the gun registry.

          • Style

            I like the idea that somebody thinks John Baird is as rural as you get. From now on, whenever someone says rural, I'm going to picture Baird leaving his Nepean home on his way to an Ottawa gala, smooching his boyfriend goodbye…

          • Pulsetaker

            Who's his boyfriend? Ken Mehlman – Bush's 2004 campaign manager? They'd make a good pair – both pretty ugly.

          • Dave

            Sackville, Nova Scotia? The one-time suburb of Halifax, the Nepean of Halifax, the Ajax of Halifax, the Laval of Halifax that got amalgamated with Halifax? Rural?

          • s_c_f

            I thought his riding was the Sackville at the NB border.

          • Dave

            That Sackville is actually at the NS border, since it's in NB.

          • s_c_f

            It's the same border.

          • brooster

            I think you're probably right…there's likely an inherent selection bias, making his methodology no more reliable than a voluntary long form census will turn out to be.

          • s_c_f

            People are not idiots. They know what is really going on.

          • Orson Bean

            What's going on in Dipperland is that this is a whipped vote masquerading as a non-whipped vote. Or, if you like, a de jure wipped vote that's a de facto whipped vote. Jack is applying the thumb screws.

          • s_c_f

            Exactly. As I've said before, at least Ignatieff is honest. Layton is being backhanded and deceptive.

            Each one of these different MPs is giving a different reason for switching their votes, all of them not terribly plausible. So far they've used up "I'm switching because of annoying Conservative tactics (but my constituents don't matter)", "I'm switching because my constituents want me to switch (but I cannot provide proof)", "I'm switching because it can be fixed without killing it (but I just now came to this opinion despite having already voted for killing it)".

            There is no way on this green earth that all of these people are suddenly switching their minds for any other reason than pressure from Layton.

            Meanwhile, we have Wherry cheer-leading this behavior – MPs ignoring their constituents and being whipped on a private member's bill but not having the guts to be honest about it.

            This is the same Wherry who cries out for parliamentary reform. LOL

          • Mike T.

            You can be amusing, i will give you that.

  • Style

    Peter Stoffer and Charlie Angus should be nominated for Parliamentarians of the year for their speeches on this issue. We'd benefit from more MPs that are willing to go to such lengths, eloquence and humility in explaining themselves to their constituents.

    • Jenn_

      But we don't get to vote on that, do we? And when it results in making others look bad in comparison, well, that isn't really a great vote-getting strategy, is it?

      Now, if we gave a 'Macleans commenters' Parliamentarian of the Year Award, I'd be down with that. Hey, how about one per month?

      • Style

        I don't know, I get lots of votes on here every time I use a comparison to make a Liberal politician look bad. Mostly negative votes, of course, so maybe that's not really a refutation…

        • Jenn_

          Good one, LOL.

    • s_c_f

      You mean we need more MPs who lie? It's impossible for Stoffer to know that 62% in his riding are in favour of the registry. In fact, it's highly unlikely, considering most rural areas are against it, so I find it hard to believe that his riding is somehow exceptional. http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/blog/post/639826
      He's just giving himself cover to satisfy Layton's demands behind the scenes. How commendable.

      • Style

        Yes, how could anyone ever know, 19 times out of 20, what percent of a population is in favour of something?

        • Mike T.

          Apparently, you need to ask every single person or it isn't statistically valid and you have to resign or something!!!!

          • Style

            And they have to answer voluntarily, because if they're coerced in anyway, the results are statistically invalid (no matter what Stats Can or the Bank of Canada say).

        • Green

          If you read the article s_c_f linked, you'll see that the 62% figure was not arrived at using any scientifically accepted methodology.

          • Style

            If I read his comment though, s_c_f says it's impossible to know what percentage support it. Is there some reason to believe people who want to get rid of the registry have been shy about contacting this MP?

          • s_c_f
          • Dave

            Neither was the CTV online "poll", yet the Conservabots have been quoting it like crazy these past 24 hours.

      • Green

        Also, it's easy for him to cave to Jack's demands. Since he won the last election with a 40.7% plurality, he's got more to fear from his party leader than anti-registry voter backlash.

        • s_c_f

          True. Yet at the same time, he cannot admit he's caving to Layton because that would blow the cover on what's realy happening with the other ridings that are switching their votes.

  • Tceh

    My favourite Stoffer moment:
    [youtube GUnH9JUXvuk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUnH9JUXvuk youtube]

  • Green

    Reposting my comments from the Swing Votes thread:

    I'm noticing a simple electoral algebra at work in the votes of the 12 NDP members who previously voted in favor of C-391. Here are their margins of victory in the 2008 election, from Elections Canada

    Now voting against C-391:

    Allen, Malcolm: 0.6%
    Angus, Charlie: 34.4
    Ashton, Nikki: 18.7 *
    Gravelle, Claude: 20.2
    Hughes, Carol: 13
    Thibeault, Glenn: 4.9
    Stoffer, Peter: 40.7 *
    [* indicates undeclared, but since they won by handy margins, they probably want to keep their nomination to run in the next election so I'm counting them against]

    Voting for C-391:

    Bevington, Dennis: 3.8%
    Cullen, Nathan: 13.5%
    Hyer, Bruce: 8.7%
    Maloway, Jim: 5%
    Rafferty, John: 8%

    I see a pattern here, with the only outliers being Allen and Thibeault. I wouldn't count on either of their votes, especially Allen's since it would almost certainly end his political career.

    • Richard_S_Argent

      A couple notes about your figues:

      Malcom Allen represents Welland – I'm not so certain that the long gun registry is foremost in the minds of the electorate. Glenn Thibault's nearest rival in the last election was the Liberal candidate – he beat the Conservative candidate by 10%.

      cheers

      • Green

        Thanks for your reply, but I stand by my comments regarding Malcolm Allen. Admittedly I know absolutely nothing about Welland, but I wouldn't discount the ability of even a small number of angry voters to swing a mere few hundred votes. I think his vote to keep the registry will be his retirement notice.

        As for Thibeault, point taken.

    • Style

      You have an analysis of 12 MPs that doesn't explain the votes of four of them (Allen, Thibeault, Hughes and Cullen). With one-third unexplained and two outliers (Angus and Stoffer's margins of victory are incredibly high)), it's hard to see what this actually supports. Does it make sense that popular MPs are less responsive to their voters? Wouldn't you expect the causation to go the other way – MPs that effectively represent their constituents become popular?

      • Green

        In the interests of debate, I'll try to clarify my assumptions:

        First off, I think Layton is "persuading" his MPs to vote against C-391 using some form of threat or coercion. Second, his persuasion is less effective on those who fear losing their seats if they vote his way (i.e., those who won by a small plurality).

        Regarding your specific points: Hughes and Cullen are above the point I would normally consider vulnerable and I admit they are troublesome in my analysis. I can advance two possible explanations for their votes: First, one or both of them may be taking a principled stand on the issue; or, second, the fact that Hughes won essentially a two way race with a Liberal and Cullen a two way race with a Tory has some impact.

        As for Angus and Stoffer, I don't consider them outliers at all. The fact that they won by such huge margins probably means the NDP could elect Satan in their districts. This potentially makes them more, rather than less, vulnerable to the whip.

        • Style

          If I have a slim margin of victory, I need party resources to hold the seat. So I could be very susceptible to pressure from the leader's office. However, that slim margin might mean I need to break with the party line on a specific issue, so the leader's office might need to be very flexible with me. If I win by a large margin, it might be my personal popularity, which would give me a lot of leverage with the leader's office. Or it could be because these are incredibly safe NDP seats, in which case the leader's office would have a lot of leverage over me. If your numbers strongly supported one of these arguments, you could run with it. But the numbers don't and neither does logic. It's true Jack Layton would like more NDP MPs to vote to preserve the gun registry. But you haven't provided much evidence that he isn't doing this through persuasion and compromise. The individual MPs, on the other hand, are explaining at length how they've come to change their positions.

        • Marion

          I think both Angus and Stoffer have such large margins due to their personalities.

          Since Stoffer's riding was created when he started running (from parts of one riding that was almost always conservative, and one that was a bit more colourful), it would be hard to tell for sure, but considering how much is share of the vote has gone up with each election(30.3% in 1997 to 61.4% in 2008), I think he could run for any party and win, not the other way around.

          And Angus took the seat from the Liberals in 2006. It's hard to get much of a picture, as the riding was only formed two elections prior, but if you consider how many more votes he got than the previous NDP candidates, I'd say personality is at play here too.

      • Crit_Reasoning

        I think Green is suggesting that popular MPs who won by wide margins tend to have more of a "cushion" in the next election in case they face an electoral backlash in their ridings for reversing their positions on the gun registry.

        He called Allen and Thibeault "outliers" because they changed their position on the registry even though they don't have much of a cushion.

        If Layton was trying to ensure that C-391 fails while minimizing damage his to rural MPs who have previously opposed the registry, it makes sense that he would "persuade" MPs like Stoffer to switch, since their healthy margins/larger cushions make it more likely that they will survive any voter backlash.

        • Style

          The numbers just don't hold up. As Dave points out, two of the three weakest MPs are switching their votes. Another two are tied but one is switching and the other isn't. Two are personally very popular and have been for a while – they could probably switch parties or run as independents and still win (and Stoffer is apparently considering quitting). Twelve is a small set and having six of the observations fail to support your argument makes the argument look quite weak.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            You're absolutely correct that twelve is a small set and one can't really draw conclusions, especially when several different factors (margins of victory, riding characteristics, personal convictions of MPs) are at play.

            Regarding your point that two of the three weakest MPs are switching their votes, Thibeault has the least to fear from a Conservative challenger, as Richard S. Argent points out. Meanwhile, Allen's riding (Welland) is essentially an urban one, and it's possible that the NDP have calculated that Allen stands to gain more than he'll lose by switching his vote.

            Personally, I suspect that Jack Layton has carefully engineered the whole thing, particularly the gradual trickle of MP defections into the pro-registry camp. Of course, it's impossible to prove one way or another. The impressive-sounding explanations by MPs like Stoffer may be genuine, or they may be totally contrived. I guess we'll never know for sure, unless an NDP insider writes a tell-all book years later.

          • Style

            Just because something is working doesn't mean it was a plan. Jack Layton looks good today because things seem to be going his way – but last week he and his party looked to be in some trouble. I think the best thing to come out of this was Andrew Coyne's article pointing out that the gun registry is a small part of Canada's firearm program and we should all calm down about whether it survives or not. It's actually a pretty small stakes policy issue that MPs should be able to deal with in less stark terms.

          • 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…

    • Dave

      In other words (Yea or Nay to the registry, not the bill). Sorted by margin of victory in 2008:

      Allen0.6Yea
      Bevington3.8Nay
      Thibeault4.9Yea
      Maloway5.0Nay
      Rafferty8.0Nay
      Hyer8.7Nay
      Hughes12.9Yea
      Cullen13.4Nay
      Ashton18.6Yea
      Gravelle20.1Yea
      Angus34.2Yea
      Stoffer40.5Yea

      Two of the three slimmest margin earlier NDP supporters of C-391 are now against it.

      • Green

        And all of those with margin of over 10%, except Cullen, are now against it.

        • Style

          And half of those with magins below 30% are now against it. There's not much of a trend here…

          • Green

            You made some good points before, so why the need to be obtuse or deceptive here? You know very well that I chose 10% as a rough measure of vulnerability. Feel free to argue that figure rather than spouting off bogus counterarguments.

          • Style

            Why 10%? If you take 5%, half of the vulnerable seats are switching their votes. The point is there is not much correlation between seat safety and vote intentions. The most vulnerable and the least vulnerable MP are voting the same way – that's a pretty good indication that seat vulnerability isn't a strong determining factor.

          • Green

            I'm not entirely convinced Allen will vote as indicated. He won the last election by less than 300 votes in a strongly contested vote in a district without a strong tradition of NDP support. He could very easily lose his seat on this issue.

            As for the rest, I think there's a pattern and you don't – fair enough. As Crit said above, we'll never really know for sure what's really motivating these NDP members to change their votes.

            Anyway, I was hoping for more discussion on my second post about which of the Liberals may defy the whip on Wednesday, since that's the real question.

          • Style

            Whether there's a pattern should be an objective question. Part of the problem might be that you aren't looking at all the rural ridings of the NDP, just the ones that previously supported C-391. But when you have 12 observations that are either Y or N, with wildly different vote margins giving the same result, your model isn't doing much better than a random distribution.

          • Green

            Why 10%? Of the 29 non-independent incumbents unseated in the 2008 election, 14 were beaten by a plurality of 5% or less, 10 by 5-10%, 3 by 10-15%, and 2 by 15-20%.

            Given the right conditions, a 10% swing is not unlikely, but more than 10% is rare. Less than 5% excludes half of all 2008 swing seats.

    • Marion

      Pundit's Guide has a very interesting analysis of the impact of their vote, and a table with the votes and who was contesting each riding in 2008:
      http://www.punditsguide.ca/2010/09/whip-las-elect…

      All the northern Ontario ridings had Liberals come in second. If enough voters switch from NDP to Conservatives, they might end up giving Iggy a government!

      • Green

        Interesting link. Thanks.

  • s_c_f

    If Wherry were truly interested in parliamentary reform, he would be condemning this backhanded behaviour from Stoffer and the rest of the NDP, who are clearly bowing to pressure from Layton to whip their votes unofficially, and then lie about the reasons, hoping their constituents fall for the ruse.

    At least Ignatieff is honest about it.

    The voters of these riding were not born yesterday.

    • Mike T.

      yes, this is truly the absolute lowest point that Canadian politics could ever have reached and the worst thing that ever ever happened.

  • Mike T.

    Dude, it's a private members bill. They have absolutely nothing to do with it and have the cleanest hands ever.

    it's not like harper said just the other day htey would do everything in their power to get rid of it the same day baird said they wouldn't bury it in a confidence omnibus bill.

    yes, the obvious issue here is hte possibility the smallest party in the house is being influenced by its leader.

    Geez.

    • Dave

      Riiiiiiiiiiighhhht.

  • s_c_f

    The Tory position has never changed. Killing the gun registry is in the Tory platform. There is nothing unofficial about it.

    Iggy has whipped the Liberal votes and said so. Fair enough.

    Layton is the deceptive one here, trying to feign a whipped vote as a non-whipped vote.

  • Derek

    "As for the riding not being sufficiently rural LOL Clearly you've never been to Sackville. It doesn't get more rural than that. "

    Actually, I have been to Sackville – it is a PART OF HALIFAX. It is a 100% urban, rather densely populated older suburb. I think that Stoffer's riding is about 95% urban and 5% rural.

    • Reverend_Blair

      So I guess s_c_f is batting zero on facts about ridings today, since he also thought that Charleswood and Fort Richmond were rural ridings held by the NDP when they are, in fact, suburban ridings held by Conservatives.

      • s_c_f

        So why did you bring them up? I'm talking about the NDP MPs who previously voted for the bill. Those ridings are rural. I'm not gonna waste my time looking them all up. YOu're the one who brought up Charleswood and Fort Richmond, where-ever the heck those places are.

        • Reverend_Blair

          I brought them up because they are ridings where it is quite doubtful that the Conservative MPs who represent them are actually representing the views of their constituents on the long gun registry. I use to live in Charleswood and my in-laws live in Fort Richmond. I know these ridings fairly well and they do no fit what the Conservatives are claiming for them.

          You can't have it both ways, claiming on one hand that the NDP have to oppose the registry because of your questionable interpretation of what their constituents are saying, then turn around around and say that the Conservatives don't have to vote according to the wishes of their constituents. There are about 20 Conservative-held ridings across the country where it is very possible that the majority of constituents support the registry, yet all Conservative MPs are voting to kill the registry. It's apparent that your MPs are being forced to support the registry instead of representing the views of the majority of their constituents.

          • s_c_f

            I'm not having it both ways. I'm saying the NDP is being deceptive and dishonest. I'm not talking at all about which MPs vote which way, you're making that up. I'm saying that Stoffer is lying and so are the rest of the NDP, they've all been whipped, they're saying things that are flat-out lies, and Layton is lying about the NDP position.

            I mean, c'mon, it's obvious the Cons and Libs are whipped, and it's obvious that at least one Con or Lib MP is voting against his constituents wishes. That's ridiculous obvious. I don't know why you're even talking about it.

            You're making up a whole lot of things I never said. Go back to my argument and read it again. I'm not talking about representing constituents, I'm talking about the NDP falsely misrepresenting themselves.

          • Reverend_Blair

            Yes you are trying to have it both ways. You have absolutely no evidence for your claims. Stoffer's explanation sounds far more plausible than yours. Jim Maloway isn't changing his vote, after all, and I doubt Niki Ashton will change hers, although I understand she's still talking with her constituents. Both of them have far less power to stand up to Layton if he institutes some secret whip. Your claims just don't make sense given the dynamics of the party.

            You are, I think, trying to project the inner workings of your own party onto the inner workings of the NDP. That simply doesn't work. Each party has a different way of doing things. If Layton were to try to impose such an edict from on high, it would only remain secret for about six minutes. The NDP has never been very good at keeping secrets, and that is especially true when the rural portion of the party faces off with the urban portion.

            Your accusation is based on your partisanship though (which is fine as long as everybody knows it), so by ignoring the fact that several of Harper's MPs are voting to kill the registry despite the wishes of their constituents even while they accuse others, you are trying to have it both ways. Harper isn't having a free vote on this, but you attack Layton for not having a free vote? That, my friend, is trying to have it both ways.

          • s_c_f

            Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem. I'm not "ignoring the fact that several of Harper's MPs are voting to kill the registry despite the wishes of their constituents". Why you keep repeating that is beyond me, you're lying, I've never ignored that fact, in fact I've never even brought up the topic, yet you keep repeating it as if that will somehow make it true.

            Stop lying. I've aknowledged your assertion that "several of Harper's MPs are voting to kill the registry despite the wishes of their constituents" and I've never said the slightest hint otherwise. The Conservatives have not said otherwise, I've not said otherwise, in fact it's ridiculously obvious, no self-respecting idiot would argue otherwise, yet you keep repeating that line over and over and over and over and over again. That fact has absolutely nothing to do with what I've been talking about.

            Can you please learn to read?

            I'm not attacking Layton for not having a free vote. I'm attacking him for claiming to have a free vote when in fact he's not. Should I repeat that line 10,000 times for you to understand? I'm attacking the NDP for lying about their motives. It's obvious they are playing a deceptive game with the voters.

          • Reverend_Blair

            I read just fine, my little buckaroo, and my posts are my honest appraisal, so quit the hysterical screaming about me being a liar. Are you channeling Deanie del Mastro or what?

            Now consider the weakness of your claims. Layton is whipping the vote of 12 of his MPs according to you, right? Except that 6 of those 12 aren't being whipped. So he's only whipping six of them. But some of those six that you claim he's whipping have enough stature both within the party and within their ridings that they could withstand any punishment Layton could mete out. Meanwhile some of the six that he's not whipping lack stature and could more easily be disciplined.

            Also, the party leaks like a sieve when there's dissension, especially when the discord is between rural and urban factions, but nobody has gone to the press saying that Layton threatened to discipline them.

            So you, or whoever sends you your talking points, has concocted a little drama about Layton playing the heavy and forcing his MPs to change their votes. The problem is that your scenario doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I suggest you contact the strategist who wrote your little story and tell him that the public aren't buying it.

    • s_c_f

      Fair enough. I got confused with Sackville, NB which is on the NS border.

    • s_c_f

      By the way, if you want to reply to me, then reply to ME, don't go to the bottom of the page for whatever ridiculous reasons you chose to do so.

  • Orson Bean

    As there are no doubt Liberal MPs who are doing the same thing. But at least the Tory and Liberal positions are clear and able to be discerned. The NDP "position" on this is utterly opaque and shifty. I guess the most accurate term for it would be "mostly whipped". But of course you'll never hear Jack or any Dipper MP actually admit that.

  • s_c_f

    Yes, it's entirely possible. It's also ridiculously unlikely that all of these NDP MPs have suddenly discovered all sorts of unique reasons for them to change their vote. Wow, what a coincidence. Fancy that. Go figure. What a coincidence. Lightning strikes twice I guess. Three times even. Four times. Stoffer found his reason, just like the others found a reason. Stoffer, after 15 years and one vote to kill the registry, suddenly discovered what his constituents want. Better late than never. All the NDP MPs managed to find reasons that are remotely plausible. I guess they must be true then, none of the reasons are completely impossible. A series of non-impossible events is also not impossible. So there you have it.

    The voters are not idiots.

    The fact that I'm not getting the usual -10 thumbs down on this leftist blog shows me that even Wherry's faithful partisan acolytes are not that stupid.

    • Style

      Yes, you've revealed that many MPs are re-examing their positions on a contentious issue just before a decisive vote. Shocking. Even more shocking, the arguments for scrapping the registry turn out to be weak (it cost $2B to set up, it will (assuming unspecified future political events) lead to an authoritarian dystopia) or riding-specific (most rural residents oppose the registry, but not in Sackville). It's a conspiracy of the highest order. And you're attacking the NDP so the usual Liberal thumbists are ignoring this thread.

  • WDM

    As a slight aside, I do hope the Liberal motion fails. While I'm one of the many who feel getting rid of the gun registry after the fact seems rather pointless, I do think that this bill has generated enough interest and opinion it deserves to be voted on and not shut down by an Opposition motion. Parsing hairs I suppose.

  • Dave

    Yay, Pepto-Bismol!

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Maybe we're both parsing hairs, but I agree with you.

  • Style

    I hope the Liberal motion fails on a tie vote, with Milliken voting it down. That's not hair-splitting, I suppose, as much as mischieviousness.

  • Mike T.

    But everything has pretty much been said. the issues have been made clear, at least one party doesn't appear to want to compromise, and nobody is above using the issue to their advantage. It's not like high-minded discourse is being carefully wieghed and appropriate results reached.

    Just get it over with -stay go or compromise.

Previous

Next

From Macleans