No, the long gun registry isn't done with as an issue by any stretch of the imagination.
But it may get a lot more interesting in the wake of today's vote rejecting a bill to scrap it. With the NDP and Libs both apparently wanting to work on addressing the concerns of registry opponents, will the Cons now fight against efforts to make it less intrusive? And if so, will their donor base start to recognize just how blatantly it's been used on the issue for the past 15 years? Stay tuned...
Showing posts with label c-391. Show all posts
Showing posts with label c-391. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
From no-win to win-win
The line that the long gun registry is a no-win issue for Jack Layton and the NDP has already been proven wrong to at least some extent. But a few Libs seem to be realizing the dangers of their choice to escalate the stakes - and the end result could be a decisive moment in discrediting the Libs as an opposition party for once and for all.
Keep in mind how the gun registry issue has played out. At the beginning, both the NDP and the Libs allowed free votes on C-391, which is why it's within one reading of passing the House of Commons.
But it was Michael Ignatieff who decided to suddenly reverse course by insisting that "leadership" means cracking a whip, while chiding Layton for allowing his MPs to think independently. The result has been constant pressure on the NDP - with no end in sight as long as the Libs could claim that with three parties having locked in their votes, it would be NDP MPs alone that would make the difference in whether C-391 would pass.
Now, though, it looks like Layton's leadership by persuasion rather than force has managed to flip enough votes that the registry would stay in existence if the Libs' whip holds.
And it's far from clear whether that will happen. After all, Michael Ignatieff's record on enforcing them is less than stellar - and there's some reason for doubt that at least a few of the Libs' MPs have actually bought into his position on the long gun registry.
Which means that we may not be far from what looks to be the NDP's best possible end result from a strategic standpoint.
If the registry gets voted down due to a failed attempt at a Liberal whip, then suddenly both sides of the vise will crumble: the Cons will no longer have the registry to fire up their base in Saskatchewan and Alberta, while the Libs will wear the registry's elimination in the urban centres where they've been playing up the issue. And what's more, the contrast between Layton's successful leadership by reason and Ignatieff's failed attempt at central control will offer an ideal contrast as Canadians decide whether they want to replace Harper's own brand of autocracy with merely a less-effective version of the same, or with a leader who doesn't insult the intelligence of MPs and voters alike.
Keep in mind how the gun registry issue has played out. At the beginning, both the NDP and the Libs allowed free votes on C-391, which is why it's within one reading of passing the House of Commons.
But it was Michael Ignatieff who decided to suddenly reverse course by insisting that "leadership" means cracking a whip, while chiding Layton for allowing his MPs to think independently. The result has been constant pressure on the NDP - with no end in sight as long as the Libs could claim that with three parties having locked in their votes, it would be NDP MPs alone that would make the difference in whether C-391 would pass.
Now, though, it looks like Layton's leadership by persuasion rather than force has managed to flip enough votes that the registry would stay in existence if the Libs' whip holds.
And it's far from clear whether that will happen. After all, Michael Ignatieff's record on enforcing them is less than stellar - and there's some reason for doubt that at least a few of the Libs' MPs have actually bought into his position on the long gun registry.
Which means that we may not be far from what looks to be the NDP's best possible end result from a strategic standpoint.
If the registry gets voted down due to a failed attempt at a Liberal whip, then suddenly both sides of the vise will crumble: the Cons will no longer have the registry to fire up their base in Saskatchewan and Alberta, while the Libs will wear the registry's elimination in the urban centres where they've been playing up the issue. And what's more, the contrast between Layton's successful leadership by reason and Ignatieff's failed attempt at central control will offer an ideal contrast as Canadians decide whether they want to replace Harper's own brand of autocracy with merely a less-effective version of the same, or with a leader who doesn't insult the intelligence of MPs and voters alike.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
A friendly reminder...
...for those trying to pretend that whether the Cons frame gun registry legislation as a private members' bill or a government bill should make a lick of difference in how the NDP handles it.
The NDP's position on the gun registry has always been to allow free votes - including on the Libs' government bill that implemented it in the first place. So merely saying that C-391 is effectively a government bill doesn't change anything in how the NDP approaches the issue.
In turn, in keeping with that long-time party policy allowing for free MP choice, a number of the NDP's MPs have been elected based on explicit promises to vote down the registry. And while it's easy for the Libs to say that MPs from other parties should match their own willingness to break promises on orders from their leader, I'd much rather see the NDP hold itself to a higher standard of trust between MPs and constituents.
Now, none of the above should be taken as approving of the Cons' slimy tactics in seeking to get the bill passed. And it's worth noting that the Cons may well refuse to take "yes" for an answer - as I remain highly skeptical that they'll let C-391 pass in the Senate if it means losing one of their most productive cash cows for the next election.
But history and principle are both on the side of the NDP allowing its MPs to decide how to vote on an issue where both the Libs and the Cons have done their utmost to leave no good options. And if the Libs want to convince anybody to vote to keep the registry, they'll need to try to appeal to the NDP's MPs on the merits rather than demanding that Jack Layton eliminate their ability to think for themselves.
The NDP's position on the gun registry has always been to allow free votes - including on the Libs' government bill that implemented it in the first place. So merely saying that C-391 is effectively a government bill doesn't change anything in how the NDP approaches the issue.
In turn, in keeping with that long-time party policy allowing for free MP choice, a number of the NDP's MPs have been elected based on explicit promises to vote down the registry. And while it's easy for the Libs to say that MPs from other parties should match their own willingness to break promises on orders from their leader, I'd much rather see the NDP hold itself to a higher standard of trust between MPs and constituents.
Now, none of the above should be taken as approving of the Cons' slimy tactics in seeking to get the bill passed. And it's worth noting that the Cons may well refuse to take "yes" for an answer - as I remain highly skeptical that they'll let C-391 pass in the Senate if it means losing one of their most productive cash cows for the next election.
But history and principle are both on the side of the NDP allowing its MPs to decide how to vote on an issue where both the Libs and the Cons have done their utmost to leave no good options. And if the Libs want to convince anybody to vote to keep the registry, they'll need to try to appeal to the NDP's MPs on the merits rather than demanding that Jack Layton eliminate their ability to think for themselves.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Off target
With all the talk over the last couple of days about the impending vote in the House of Commons on C-391, it's worth a bit of a reminder as to how we ended up in a position where the only options are to do nothing or to scrap the gun registry entirely.
When C-391 was first discussed, it actually didn't take long for the NDP and the Liberals to reach a public consensus that the best outcome would be to improve the gun registry rather than eliminating it. And supposedly that agreement within the Lib caucus made for part of the reason why Lib MPs wouldn't challenge a whipped vote on the bill.
From that starting point, one would have expected the Libs to try to actually work toward amending C-391 based on the principles that all opposition parties could agree on. But they've done nothing of the sort: not only have they apparently declined to present or discuss any amendments to the bill, they were the ones to move the motion that prevented the committee from doing so. And that's why we're now facing an all-or-nothing vote on the bill as presented by Candace Hoeppner, not an amended bill that preserves the registry while eliminating some of the irritants associated with it.
With the Libs having ensured that there's no possibility of a productive compromise, I'd think the NDP has less reason than ever to deviate from its longtime policy of allowing MPs to vote their conscience - even if the Libs have joined the Cons in making a mockery of the concept. And having chosen not to work with willing partners to preserve the registry in a form that could win support in the House of Commons, the Libs will be as culpable as anybody if C-391 passes as a result.
When C-391 was first discussed, it actually didn't take long for the NDP and the Liberals to reach a public consensus that the best outcome would be to improve the gun registry rather than eliminating it. And supposedly that agreement within the Lib caucus made for part of the reason why Lib MPs wouldn't challenge a whipped vote on the bill.
From that starting point, one would have expected the Libs to try to actually work toward amending C-391 based on the principles that all opposition parties could agree on. But they've done nothing of the sort: not only have they apparently declined to present or discuss any amendments to the bill, they were the ones to move the motion that prevented the committee from doing so. And that's why we're now facing an all-or-nothing vote on the bill as presented by Candace Hoeppner, not an amended bill that preserves the registry while eliminating some of the irritants associated with it.
With the Libs having ensured that there's no possibility of a productive compromise, I'd think the NDP has less reason than ever to deviate from its longtime policy of allowing MPs to vote their conscience - even if the Libs have joined the Cons in making a mockery of the concept. And having chosen not to work with willing partners to preserve the registry in a form that could win support in the House of Commons, the Libs will be as culpable as anybody if C-391 passes as a result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)