I will be fascinated to see if Mr. Ignatieff will be able to successfully whip his caucus on the gun registry vote, in his first attempt at forced party unity since the botched foreign abortion funding vote. I find it interesting that ever since Dan McTeague defied Iggy's whip, he seems to be getting selected by Liberal handlers for more and more face time on television. He is making regular appearances in Question Period and on the political talk show circuit. Is this how Ignatieff handles party discipline? When MPs are defiant, best to raise their profile and delegate more responsibility. That sends the message to caucus that defying the party will lead to more Question Period questions and more guest spots on the Soloman Show.
The long gun registry is well intentioned in principle; the problem is that it doesn't work. Illegal hand guns are responsible for the majority of gun crimes in Canada. It costs a lot of money to administer this program, and does nothing to control the real problem. Professor Zsohar may think this a sexy issue to get behind, but for what it costs and what it does for us, the long gun registry is a net loser. I think that people should have to undergo a criminal background check before legally purchasing a gun, but a permanent registry is not the answer.
It's a clear case of ideological boilerplate. With the Conservatives running TV ads in the ridings of MPs who previously voted against the long gun registry, some of them may not be able to afford not to.
ReplyDelete"Professor Zsohar may think this" is factually incorrect.
ReplyDelete"Professor Zsohar" is ill advised, lacking any political smarts has laid another trap that may blow up in his face.
Remove discretion and ability of his rural MP's to vote in the interests of their ridings for the benefit of Toronto urban ridings. This is Plan B save the progressive vote in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. The rest may be expendable. (The Bloc and NDP are going to siphon on the vote in large cities).
One of the worst problems with the long gun registry,is that it allows the government into estate disposal.
ReplyDeleteI know an elderly lady in a small town here in B.C. whose husband died a few years back. Her husband left quite a collection of legally owned hunting rifles.
She didn't know what to do with them, so called the RCMP. The police very nicely took charge of the guns and the lady had no more worries.
BUT, the guns were very valuable, worth several hundred dollars each,and she had about a dozen of them.
The lady is a pensioner on a very small income and the five or six thousand dollars the guns would have fetched on the open market would have come in mighty handy.
The local auto repair shop owner cut up a couple of the guns, and the rest mysteriously disappeared into the hands of private collectors. Some people suspected a couple of the local cops were among the lucky recipients.
Had there been no registry, locals would have bought the guns and the widow would be that much better off. Instead, perfectly legal property was seized by the government,with no compensation offered a person who needed it.
The long gun registry is as much about property rights as it is about crime prevention.
DMorris
Good idea with the criminal record check. Those things only cost around $15 (at least in rural areas). That system seems to be run in a much more efficient fashion.
ReplyDeleteWhy not defy Iffy? So far anyone who has done so has gotten off without a scratch.
ReplyDeleteYeah Prof. Zzzzz, hows that party discipline thingy working out?
ReplyDeleteMr. Zsohar is running out of lives.
ReplyDeleteIs this whipped vote a chance for him to show that the tiger has teeth?
He's gambling when he doesn't have to.
This isn't his hill to die on, unless he wants to.
If he thinks it's a wedge, he's gonna drive it into his own party.
I wonder, since we know the Bloc will vote against it and the Liberals say they will vote against it, why he would leave the decision to Jack Layton?
The Zsohar has shown that he is all bullying bravado before.
Only to retreat when reality punches him in the nose.
I don't think he's got control of his caucus.
He's never had it and he never will.
He might claim to be the boss, but he's never demonstrated that he is the boss.
And I think that's because his strategy is always to adopt the most antagonistic posture. And he seems to think that if he does this against the will of some of his MPs that he can wriggle off the hook by granting exemptions.
He's playing the optics of his broadcasted stance against party discipline.
Relaxing party discipline has allowed him to say whatever he wants on stage without having to pay for it.
And I don't think that I can ever recall the PM ever doing that when he was in Opposition.
Maybe I don't get it.
But this Liberal strategy to keep flinging mud at the wall until something sticks is tiresome.
I wouldn't play the game that way.
Sure, I'd criticize, but I would wait for the kill shot.
When you are in Opposition, you have to acknowledge, even in a minority parliament, that the government's got the puck. And that you are going to lose some ground on things like raising the age of consent to 16 from 14.