Tips on Beating Down the Conservative Menace
This wouldn't be an issue, if Liberal MP's actually supported the policy.
Actually, if the Libs voted to demolish this Cretin boondoggle it might be an indication that they have really put their lying, scandal ridden, pork barreling past behind them. Iggy can show us he is an independent thinker and vote to kill it.
That's too funny hearing a Conbot decry pork
Here is the sound of Liberals surrendering. A personal fav of Kinsella I'm told.
For what it's worth, I do think it's worth keeping the registry around.I'm on the fence about the free vote, since it feels like the Tories are whipping it...
The leader whips what the leader wants whipped. The Bloc is whipping their vote. The Tories are whipping their vote. The NDP and Libs are using "tradition" to give their act of craven cowardice political cover.
yiks! try that againDanny's 6 were not whipped,and that was a confidence vote...
"The NDP and Libs are using "tradition" to give their act of craven cowardice political cover."Or maybe Nathan Cullen doesn't support the registry, and he's representing the 90% of people in his riding who feel the same. Why do we have to call it cowardice, just because you have a different perspective?
Well, the only consolation is that homicide rates are highest in areas of greatest gun enthusiasm and since those areas tend to vote Conservatives, all the right people are being killed.
http://impolitical.blogspot.com/2009/11/for-gun-registry-part-iii.htmlGood points here.
wilson - these votes had nothing to do with whether or not the budget would pass.You whip when you need to whip.
Or if you don't agree with me, you're a bad person? Maybe that's your Liberal Party, but it's not mine. And you may want to reconsider the merits of giving the finger to many thousands of party members who feel the same way.
C'mon Jeff. This is just another Liberal "throw this against the wall and see if it sticks" attempt.It won't. The Conservatives will just move on to the next piece of legislation that gets everyone pandering to the rustics.
Shouldn't the party be bigger than a handful of MP's?I think allowing the registry to fall will probably hurt the party more than whipping the vote. They are just handing this issue to the CPC and getting absoluntely nothing out of it for the LPC, and the millions of people who voted for them who support the registry.
Shouldn't the party be bigger than a handful of MP's?This isn't just about a handful of MPs. It's about their constituents, and hundreds of thousands if not more Liberal supporters in held and upheld ridings across the country that oppose the registry.You can't just dismiss their views as invalid or wrong. Is the CPC playing politics here? Of course. But that doesn't change the fact there's a divide amongst the party base on this issue, a divide we've ignored, a decision that now comes back to bite us.Allowing MPs to vote their concise is the logical decision, unless you want to just say fuck-you to a big chunk of the party. C'mon Jeff. This is just another Liberal "throw this against the wall and see if it sticks" attempt.How so? We're talking about how we should vote on a CPC private member's bill.
"Shouldn't the party be bigger than a handful of MP's?"Why do we have to be so absolutist here. Why should a party vote with 100% support, when it doesn't enjoy said support from its membership, it's consistuents, it's ridings.Take the Cons and Bloc whipped vote out of the equation. If you have a handful of NDP MP's vote against the registry, isn't that an accurate reflection of opinion, within that party. If all parties voted thusly, then I think you would mirror society much more, than you do now with forcing people to support things they don't, based on their own thought process and feedback.In terms of representing opinion, on a complex issue, a "handful" of MP's should be allowed to dissent, because that dissent exists and has merit.It's all optics, the appearance of weakness and division. There is substantive logic to forcing people to support what they don't support. We elect MP's, we don't elect one person to tell everyone else what to think.Besides, I didn't hear much complaining, when Liberal MP's went with the NDP on the climate change speed up. That was commendable, as I recall. What's the difference, actual vote aside, because it's the same dynamic really.
Jeff, I understand what you are saying, but what about the membership that does support the registry? Their voice is lost because the CPC are whipping the vote. These LPC votes are not just a few dissenting votes - they are THE votes that will determine whether the registry lives or dies.I am not a member of any political party, but it seems pretty obvious to me all parties involve trade-offs. Not everyone gets everything they want. Does the majority of the LPC support the registry? If so, then why allow it to die?The LPC cannot even campaign on trying to save the registry in ridings where it is supported - though in fairness in most of the country neither can the NDP.In Quebec, however, Duceppe will be able to ride this one.
BCLis again dead bang on.The CPC are using this wedge issue very effectively to split the parties. The Private members Bill publicity in those ridings saw an effective campaign that got the attention of those MP's who have taken a position.Now it is time for those MP's to show up and vote.Jack is a retail politician and would not like to face a split in is party. Same with MI.This is a face saving move by each party leader.CPC are whipped to kill it. This Bill is only the beginning.If internal/external Polls, fear of backlash did not matter, the opposition would remove confidence in a heartbeat.This will be a "teaching" moment for the opposition parties.The Senate will delay this Bill like so many. The CPC will use this Bill again to show why Senate reform is needed.
Steve V, this is not a philsophical discussion, and the Libs aren't doing this because they have embraced some new political philosophy. I believe (because a few people have hinted at this) that they simply see it as a way out of the issue. Which is to say, they see it as a way of abandoning a principle, not upholding one.I also see it as a disaster from a purely political standpoint, as it basically will piss off their last and firmest supporters.
"If all parties voted thusly, then I think you would mirror society much more, than you do now with forcing people to support things they don't, based on their own thought process and feedback."Sure, but they don't."It's all optics, the appearance of weakness and division."Yes it is - and those optics are sticking to the LPC and have stuck to the LPC for years now. I am not sure how allowing the registry to die does anything but reinforce that.Look - the LPC is not my party. I am not a member and thus have no say in what they do. I do donate, but I assure you that will stop if the registry dies because the LPC allowed it to do so. I hardly think my money is that important to them, but it is important to me. I caved and was willing to donate again after the fiasco in December, and I stuck with it after all the crap in September and October, but allowing the registry to die makes me finally throw my hat in with the people who wonder what the hell the LPC stands for anymore.It is not just the anti gun registry people who feel strongly about this issue.
How so? We're talking about how we should vote on a CPC private member's bill....to see whether the Liberals can score any points from it. Otherwise, and despite your claim that hundreds of thousands of Liberals in Liberal ridings oppose it, isn't gun control a firmly-held conviction of normal, (ie. non-Conservative) Canadians?
BCLSo, if some Liberal MP's vote against, it's because they believe it's a way out of the issue? I find that hard to believe. So, Ignatieff tells a few to vote against, in some backdoor attempt to neutralize the issue?GayleJust because they don't, doesn't mean it isn't valid.
If he lets them vote against, its because he sees it as a way out of the issue (he and his "team").
This isn't just about a handful of MPs. It's about their constituents, and hundreds of thousands if not more Liberal supporters in held and upheld ridings across the country that oppose the registry.All this does is move the "fuck-you" from the rural voters to the urban ones.
All this does is move the "fuck-you" from the rural voters to the urban ones.No, it lets each MP vote according to their own view and that of their constituents. The majority will be against ending the registry, as the majority of the MPs are from urban ridings.You can either whip it one way, whip it the other, or leave it free. The third is comprimise, and if an FU to anyone, its an FU to everyone. To say "everyone has to vote my way or else" is just childish....to see whether the Liberals can score any points from it.No, because its the least sticky option amongst a pile of shitty ones. There won't be any points for the Liberals here. It will be a net loss any way we go. Whip it pro-registry, piss off rural supporters and risk losing rural MPs. Whip it anti-registry, let's not be silly. Let it be free, urban supporters will be pissed. I don't see how there's any Liberal points to be gained anywhere here.but what about the membership that does support the registry? Their voice is lostNo, there voice isn't lost, their voice is a majority of the party and the majority of the caucus, the majority of which will vote for the registry. With a free vote both sides are heard, whip it and only one is.
"Just because they don't, doesn't mean it isn't valid."What is the point of being "valid" if all that does is ensure you are never able to accomplish anything. Here they are facing a whipped vote. Being "valid" just means they lose.It's like that caution my parents used to give me about making sure the car stops before I cross the road - I may be "right" but I will still be dead.
"No, there voice isn't lost, their voice is a majority of the party and the majority of the caucus, the majority of which will vote for the registry. With a free vote both sides are heard, whip it and only one is."Well I beg to disagree because the LPC are facing a whipped vote on the other side of the House.I accept that our party system means the views of an MP's consituents are brought to the table in caucus, but once they vote in the House that vote should reflect the views of the majority of the party.Again, I get your point, and I hope you are right, but I fear this move will cost the LPC dearly.
Just a quick note. As the next post demonstrates, Iggy was happy to consider a whipped vote on this issue as of April. So, again, the appeal to democratic principles is specious.
Just to add Jeff - there are a number of people in this country who support the LPC either through donations or party membership who do not have an LPC MP or will ever likely have one - at least if you live in Alberta.Are these people not to be represented? What is the point of supporting a party that does not care about your views because they cannot get elected in your riding?
Post a Comment