Wednesday, September 15, 2010

"Tories thrilled"

That's how Don Martin describes the mood in the CPC caucus after Layton's declaration that he has saved the long gun registry. His (or Funke's) analysis is spot on. The opposition should have let the registry die. The Conservatives never wanted to win this fight, and Layton (and Ignatieff for pushing him) played right into their hands. Which is bizarre because my dog saw through this little nugget of political strategy... and he's a Lab.

Others saw this coming a mile away.


  1. Martin's column just goes to show that he is well and truly qualified to be deep in the heart of Harperland.

    Martin has the core Conservative competence of ill-numeracy -- he can't count.

    Or does it make sense to give up 11 seats in Quebec to gain ZERO more seats in Alberta?

    PS I figured I better spell out '0' for Martin so he can read this '.'

  2. Paid Liberals strategists will suggest this is a set back for the Tories.

    Bloggers and Martin may be in somewhere in the middle.

    If you remove the splinter what do you bitch about?

    The CBC ran an NRA linkage story to help the Liberals invoke the anti-americanism on cue.

    It worked for Parrish as well.

  3. Paid Liberals strategists will suggest this is a set back for the Tories.

    And of course if you read Kinsella's latest, he is right on cue, LOL.

  4. "If you remove the splinter what do you bitch about?"

    Easy... an entirely different splinter. C'mon these people love to bitch, if you removed the LGR as a solisitation hook they'd just replace it with Senate Reform, or Taxes, or the CBC, any other of the things they love to piss and moan over. Saying that they wanted the PMB to fail is just poppycock if they wanted it to fail they wouldn't have gone through the "Private Member Bill" shannagans and just made it a government bill without confidence attached thus making it easier for the opposition to whip their caucas.

  5. Don Martin is way off. Having grown up and lived on the Prairies for 40 years of my life, I saw the vitriolic rise of the Reform Party. They are a "bumper-sticker party", and their bumper sticker had 3 causes on it:
    1) No the gun registry
    2) No to the Senate
    3) Kill the Wheat Board

    That's it.
    That's all this current crop of so-called "conservatives" have ever been about. If anyone thinks there weren't NRA talons attached to the Conservatives hides on this, you're dead wrong. I was in gun shows in Regina in the early 90s where the NRA stamp was everywhere (as were Reform rank-and-file and MPs).

    Like one commenter said, losing this does not help them. They've already logged all the more vitriolic of their flag-carriers. The debate has actually done more to galvanize the gun control groups.

  6. I don't buy this "Harper is giving up his urban seats" line. Are there really people out there that thought the CPC was anti-guns in the last federal election?

  7. The Reform Party does not exist. Liberal paid strategists like to use that label.

    In 2000 Central Canada rewarded the Liberals with 136/189 seats with over 50% (ON) of the popular vote.
    In 2008 Central Canada the political landscape is very different.

    The West or Quebec did not leave Liberals in 2008. They left years ago and it was not over a failed leader.

    The Democrats have recovered from their collapse in 2000 8.5%. The Green party has 0.5% in 2000.

    Paid Liberals strategists keep blaming the West and Conservatives.

    The CPC have grown their urban numbers steadily since CA+PC merger. Ontario voters decided in popular vote and seats to reward the CPC.

  8. I really don't see what the above (by Candian Sense) has to do with the discussion at hand.

    Really the idea that this is some scheme to create a favorable wedge issue is laughable. I mean... where are the seats that this would deliver? looking over the 4 NDP votes that are known to have changed I see two where the Liberals finished 2nd (and by a large margin) two where the Tories finished 2nd and of those two one of them had them finishing with about 1/4th the total vote count of the NDP winner. Allen is the only one who had a close vote with the Tory candidate. That makes what... maybe two or three seats that Harper might pick up, and I'm not convinced that what he may pick up wouldn't be met or exceeded by what he might lose on the opposite side of the "wedge".

    Let's be realistic here. As the authors of the original bill creating the registry the Grits are not going to lose any seats because any seats that can be lost on the sole basis of the registry (if any) have already been lost. Dipper vote bleeding is at least as likely to produce a non-tory win, and if nothing else it will remind some urban voters that their Tory MP does not support something that they (as a whole) do... this is bad issue for them to bring up from an electoral standpoint, it's part of their platform so I believe them obligated to try and push the issue (albeit, the sneaky backdoor way they tried to is distasteful) this is not some scheme to produce the majority they want... it's just a failure to push through policy.

  9. Nothing CanadianSense ever says about anything has anything to do with the topic being discussed. Don't be too surprised.

  10. Yes, curse that CBC for helping Liberals fuel anti-Americanism .

    Anyway, Don Martin's thesis could be used as an analogy to how SSM was approached. I think the benefit for the Conservatives is less ambitious. This will no doubt encourage a round of fundraising, which will then provide resources for another campaign angle to swing voters in close ridings. On cost-benefit, there is little political penalty for losing this vote for the Conservatives much in the same way there was little shift or fallout when Harper's government lost on a free vote when they introduced their own bill restoring the traditional definition of marriage in the beginnings of his government.

    I just don't think that there will be a backlash enough for the Conservatives to lose their urban ridings. I think they took a calculated risk because when new funds come in, they will be ably to mitigate any negative effects of this move by focusing on another issue and deflect back onto Iggy.

    Don Martin's main point is still relevant: This was more about politics than policy. Conservatives constructed the conditions to exploit advantage even if they lost; hence, keeping it a 'free vote' allowed them to hedge their bets. If they won, they could say could drum up populist slogans to ignite their base and middle votes, and if they lost, they would still ignite their base yet have greater resources to find another issue to lure voters.

  11. *they could drum up populist slogans

  12. I really don't think it is win/win for the Tories. I mean, just like I don't think it's defeat (Presuming it happens) will swing seats towards the Conservatives I likewise don't think it'll swing seats to opposition benches. Really thou, the Tories will have taken a very public loss, were rightly mocked for their transparent attempt to dress up government business as a PMB, lost (IMO) the PR battle, were exposed as being offside with law-and-order Policemen, displayed a certain amount of... let's call it distasteful zealotism, while spending a bunch of money promoting it, while causes the Gun Control folk to get energized. Hardly a win, sure it'll get the base all lathered up and they'll undoubtably raise some dough off of it but on balance I can hardly call it a win.

    FYI: found some electoral information on the prior supporting NDP'ers. Sault Ste Marie + Allen's riding are the only ones really close between the Dippers and Tories. Maybe the Western Arctic but NWT politics are an entirely different beast (Don't be surprised if the Liberals are competative up there next election, their candidate is the former Premier).

    Niki Ashton - 47.4%
    Lib - 28.8%
    CPC - 20.4%

    Thunder Bay-Rainey River
    John Rafferty - 40.3%
    Lib - 32.2%
    CPC - 23.5%

    Thunder Bay-Superior North
    Bruce Hyer - 37%
    Lib - 28.3%
    CPC - 26%

    Carol Hughes - 45.5%
    Lib - 32.5%
    CPC - 17.6%

    Timmins-James Bay
    Charlie Angus - 56.5%
    Lib - 22.1%
    CPC - 18.2%

    Nickel Belt
    Claude Gravelle - 46.5%
    Lib - 26.2%
    CPC - 21.6%

    Sault Ste Marie
    Tony Martin - 40.4%
    CPC - 37.6%
    Lib - 16.7%

    Glenn Thibeault - 35.6%
    Lib - 30.5%
    CPC - 25.8%

    Yvan Godin - 57.4%
    Lib - 21.9%
    CPC - 18.5%

    Western Arctic (also very close)
    Dennis Bevington - 41.4%
    CPC - 37.6%
    Lib - 13.5%

    Skeena-Bulkley Valley
    Nathan Cullen - 49.7%
    Con - 36.5%
    Lib - 5.5% (Wow. That's LOW.)

    British Columbia - Southern Interior
    Alex Atamanenko - 47.7%
    Con - 35.6%
    Lib - 6.87

  13. Thanks for that Anon. Guess the facts don't exactly fit our narrative!

  14. Please note that I'm not going to be allowing CS to comment here. The last comment it made has been deleted. I'm really not very patient.