[Newsbot]

Title: Tories lose another NDP vote in bid to scrap gun registry
Category: Political
Posted By: hurley_108
Date: 2010-09-07 09:24:09
Canadian

[hurley_108]

But then we also have this comment from Robert Silver:

Robert Silver Robert Silver:

There has been much ink spilled over the last month, while I was away on special assignment for Silver-Powers, about the conundrum that Jack Layton finds himself in over the gun registry. If, as expected, the Liberal caucus votes unanimously against the "private member's bill" currently before the House (which might as well be a government bill) and Stephen Harper's caucus votes unanimously to gut it, the vote will come down to a divided NDP caucus.

While I hope as a matter of policy that Layton is able to convince enough of his members to vote to save the registry, as of today, that is far from a sure thing.

So let's assume that:

a. The Liberal caucus does follow Michael Ignatieff's direction and votes to save the registry;

b. The NDP caucus is divided; and

c. The bill passes with the handful of required NDP votes and the registry is thus dismantled.

I would argue, if this happens, this is bad news for the government. Huh? What? Stephen Harper gets what his party has long fought for (the end of the registry) and yet they are the big losers? How does that work, you may be asking yourself.

It is conventional wisdom at this point that the Conservative Party of Canada is the slickest political machine in modern Canadian history. That is of course very different from being even marginally competent at governing. They are particularly powerful at small donor, issues based fundraising -- a must under the current campaign finance laws.

This fundraising can't exist in a vacuum -- it requires hot-button policy issues that motivate their base. While I have no access to issue-by-issue fundraising data, I think it is a relatively safe assumption that no issue has raised the Conservative Party of Canada more money since the party's inception than the gun registry. Some issues have come and gone, others like the CBC are like bad pimples that return periodically to mixed results, but the Conservatives hatred of the gun-registry? That's political Viagra to their base and thus gold for their fundraising.

If they lose the issue, they lose some of the gasoline that powers their machine. People don't donate based on moot issues and the day after this vote, the issue is gone.

In terms of the long-game of defeating the Conservative Party, triangulating away core Conservative motivational issues like Senate reform and the Wheat Board is essential. This vote -- if it goes the way it currently looks, and again, I hope the gun registry is saved -- accomplishes that with Michael Ignatieff cementing the positives of his summer tour and leading a united caucus taking a principled stance to save the registry and stand with the police of this country.

So while no seats are likely to shift based on this vote (I would argue that any seat that was going to swing because of the gun registry has already swung), in terms of long-term political impact, Stephen Harper may prove to lose by winning the gun registry vote.

Link.

[hurley_108]

I think Silver's right on the money here. Why else would the Conservatives have waited this long to make an attempt to get rid of the registry? It's a solid vote-getter and fund-raiser of an issue for them.

So no matter which way third reading on C-391 goes, either the registry stays, or the Tories lose one of their biggest issues.

[uwish]

I agree Hurley...completely. A fact that I have brought up to my CPC MP many times. In fact, I am holding off any donations etc until there is action.

[BartSimpson]

Cool. Canada can spend another billion or so on a pointless gun registry that could be better spent on schools, health care, roads, defense, etc.

[kenmore]

You might want to check your numbers Bart. Its alot less. more tory propaganda.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Cool. Canada can spend another billion or so on a pointless gun registry that could be better spent on schools, health care, roads, defense, etc.

We'll only need to if this bill passes and a subsequent government wants to rebuild it, and bungles it again. As it is, it costs only 4 million per year to maintain. That's a far cry from 1 billion.

[hurley_108]

uwish uwish:

I agree Hurley...completely. A fact that I have brought up to my CPC MP many times. In fact, I am holding off any donations etc until there is action.

So you'll start donating once the registry's gone? I think that's the minority position.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Cool. Canada can spend another billion or so on a pointless gun registry that could be better spent on schools, health care, roads, defense, etc.

You're way off, it's somewhere between $1 million and $4 million annually (depending on the source).

By the time we spend another billion on this program (at 4 million per year, that's 250 years), the US will probably have spent quadrillions on corporate welfare to multi-national companies who are busy off-shoring jobs in Asia.

[hurley_108]

bootlegga bootlegga:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Cool. Canada can spend another billion or so on a pointless gun registry that could be better spent on schools, health care, roads, defense, etc.

You're way off, it's somewhere between $1 million and $4 million annually (depending on the source).

By the time we spend another billion on this program (at 4 million per year, that's 250 years), the US will probably have spent quadrillions on corporate welfare to multi-national companies who are busy off-shoring jobs in Asia.

Oh man, you totally went there!

[uwish]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

uwish uwish:

I agree Hurley...completely. A fact that I have brought up to my CPC MP many times. In fact, I am holding off any donations etc until there is action.

So you'll start donating once the registry's gone? I think that's the minority position.

I admit I may be in the minority position on that one, but lets not spread lies, while CURRENTLY it cost about less than 10 million a year to administer, it did cost over 1 BILLION to set up. The AG verified those numbers, so lets not start spreading false info.

And it is difficult to get a yearly operating budget number, I have heard 4 million, 6 million and 12 million.

[hurley_108]

uwish uwish:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

uwish uwish:

I agree Hurley...completely. A fact that I have brought up to my CPC MP many times. In fact, I am holding off any donations etc until there is action.

So you'll start donating once the registry's gone? I think that's the minority position.

I admit I may be in the minority position on that one, but lets not spread lies, while CURRENTLY it cost about less than 10 million a year to administer, it did cost over 1 BILLION to set up. The AG verified those numbers, so lets not start spreading false info.

And it is difficult to get a yearly operating budget number, I have heard 4 million, 6 million and 12 million.

Ever heard of the concept of sunk cost? If the money's already been spent and cannot be recovered, it's not a rational economic decision to factor that cost into future decisions. This is Econ 101 (literally, I took ECON 101 at university, and they taught it in that class).

Whether it's 4 million/year or 40 million/year, it PALES in comparison to what Harper wants to spend on prisons.

[uwish]

it isn't just a money issue, not for me Hurley. I am aware of sunk cost, it is no stranger to me.

Doesn't change my mind however.

[RUEZ]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Whether it's 4 million/year or 40 million/year, it PALES in comparison to what Harper wants to spend on prisons.

Let that criminal try shooting his unregistered gun while he's rotting in jail.

[hurley_108]

uwish uwish:

it isn't just a money issue, not for me Hurley. I am aware of sunk cost, it is no stranger to me.

Doesn't change my mind however.

You brought it up, but it's irrelevant now. Anyone who brings up the start-up costs is appealing to emotion, not reason.