So NDP can still kill registry.
But since vote is technically on not hearing report from committee, and not on bill itself, I suspect just enough NDP MPs will change their votes to stop it, save Layton's hide, and their colleagues, as there will be a direct correlation between winning margins in 2008 and those pro-gun NDP MPS who switch (the pro-gunners with biggest margins will switch, saving others)
But all this elaborate NDP gameplaying will still hurt them as those people and groups who are motivated by this won't be fooled, will remember, denounce them, and support Libs.
Twisted webs = bad times for NDP.
That was off the cuff evaluation, since I know how the Layton-NDP behaves. Pundits' Guide has a good little analysis of electoral consequences of vote, showing the LPC really is the idealistic party putting itself on the line for principle, and Layton NDP playing usual cynical games, in the hope it can leverage brand's historic reputation of fair play to get away with it (seemingly many reporters, who grew up in Douglas-Lewis-Broadbent-Mclaughlin-McDonough eras, remain influenced by their formative impressions of party, despite its complete transformation into TOT zombie party under Layton). But while Pundit's Guide gets some things, others are ignored, as extraneous to analysis, and while most who read this blog probably already understand these things, and frankly, explaining what seems obvious to me bores me, I figure I'd better explain how I was essentially right, but there are some clever details in face-saving have-cake-and-eat-it-too NDP plan. One should get it on the record, like so much of what I do, so at least once, somewhere on Earth, there is somewhere people might find themselves by happenstance to understand these things, like GG Johnston, etc.. As always, it's hard to distinguish between genuine and feigned ignorance.
So working off Pundit's Guide, here is the current situation for the 12 anti-registry NDP, with their margin of victory over nearest rival expressed in % and absolute terms, and who that rival was, lpc or cpc, with noted interesting Allen case, with three-way race, which is most intriguing for calculations on vote switching, as we'll see.
Voted against the registry but now support it:
— Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, Ont.) 4.9% 2125 lpc
— Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, Ont.) 34.4% 10 448 cpc
— Malcolm Allen (Welland, Ont.) 0.6% 300 cpc-lpc
— Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, Ont.) 20.2% 8273 lpc
— Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Ont.) 13% 4347 lpc
— Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, N.S.) 40.7% 16801 cpc
Voted against the registry and have previously said they will maintain their position
— John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Ont.) 8% 2889 lpc
— Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ont.) 8.7% 3104 lpc (2nded C391)
— Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, N.W.T) 3.8% 523 cpc
— Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkely Valley, B.C.) 13.5% 4658 cpc
— Jim Malloway (Elmwood — Transcona, Man.) 5% 1579 cpc
Voted against the registry but have been unclear about the final vote.
— Nikki Ashton (Churchill, Man.) 18.7 3445 lib
So here are the factors that were used by NDP to decide who could/would switch with two, possibly three exceptions.
A) Margin
Stoffer, Angus, Gravelle all have large pluralities, so they could switch without problem (bit sad to see Stoffer leverage his well-earned reputation as a good guy to play media so as to accept incoherent explanation - by Stoffer's supposed logic, there should now be any number of issues on which he'll now ignore NDP doctrine and act like a mindless automated voting machine for constituents, contra Burke. Cornellier already called out this nonsense. I have a good opinion of Delacourt and I'm a bit surprised she let Stoffer play her. He is a good guy. But his speech, touching as it was, was completely incoherent. He had to use the political capital of his good guy rep sometime, didn't he? He's a politician, after all. It would be like thinking some reporter was a such a good person that you could get them to go off the record and then show them definitive proof of CIA involvement in JFK hit or something. Nice guy or not, given huge scoop, reporter's gonna do what reporters do.)
B) If LPC the competition, the gun registry no threat to switch single-issue voters
Hughes and Thibeault both face LPC challenge. Since LPC whipped, no single-issue pro-gun voters going to switch from NDP to LPC. And 3rd-place CPC far enough behind to represent improbable threat.
C) If CPC the competition, & margin small enough, NDP candidate sticks to pro-gun line
Bevington, Cullen & Malloway all fit this situation. You may think Cullen is safe, but all it takes is a 6.75% NDP to CPC swing for him to lose seat.
D) The Principled/Intransigent
Hyer actually seconded C-391, and Rafferty seems determined to stick to his, ahem, guns, so though given above analysis, and the relative safety of their seats, they really are intransigent, or principled, depending on one's point of view.
E) Allen, a case study in game theory
At first glance, Allen from Welland seems incongruous. CPC 2nd after all. But as Pundits' Guide notes, very very close three-way race. And even a few Green switchers can affect everything. So question becomes multisided cost-benefit calculation. LPC whipping, Allen could lose votes to LPC over registry, allowing them or CPC to win, if he voted against registry. If he votes for registry, he could lose switchers from NDP to CPC, in that classic working- and lower-middle class CPC-NDP swing voter, esp in Southern Ontario. Welland: urban, suburban, ex-urban or rural? Bit of everything, depending on analysis. So who's voting CPC, NDP, LPC, etc? Also, as Pundits' Guide points out, economy top of mind in that area, given recent traumas, so Allen can hope registry won't be decisive: helps reduce NDP to CPC switch threat. We know from polls that NDP urban and female support hurt by incoherence on registry. Odds are CPC in Welland does well among CPC voters. Seems simplistic, but what I mean is if we're talking rural pro-gun voter, he's going CPC before he's going NDP, esp since other Dippers were pro-registry. Allen really really needs to keep female vote onside in Welland - they could easily go LPC. When LPC didn't whip, he could vote safely enough against registry: no reason for them to go LPC. But now LPC coherent, he had to choose between possible NDP to LPC switchers and NDP to CPC switchers. Even though CPC 2nd place, LPC right there, and he shares vote demographics with LPC much more than CPC. So bigger risk of losing voters to LPC than CPC. Hence, switched his vote. Interesting to observe.
F) Nikki Ashton, la pièce de résistance for NDP drama queens' staged passion play
Ooh ahh, whatever will Ashton do? As we've seen, given LPC 2nd and she's got a decent margin, why wouldn't she have been an early switch? Well, NDP wants to burn MPs as little as possible, that is, only need to make sure registry lives by one vote, and as many have noted, they have tried to roll out announcements as advantageously as possible. They're doing their own polling, apart from that we know of, and they have got to decide how best to keep their core vote onside, while not losing possible NDP to CPC switchers over guns. As expected, they are really hurting from diminished female support, especially urban.
So Ashton's vote is not strictly needed, in C-391 terms. But NDP always knew it was going to get killed over this by core female vote, and so it has tried to play "free vote" BS, but always knew it had to have a plan to hold on and win back support. Given, as noted, reporters' favourable biases to sweet little ole NDP of yore, they have tried to stage a little successful passion play/soap opera, letting reporters understand just how wrenching the whole has been, one by one, and even got Stoffer to leverage his reputation, which didn't fool Stephenson (locals always know when one is into blarney - none harsher on an Irishman than an Irishman, or a Scot on a Scot), but did fool Delacourt, and maybe other big city reporters who think of Stoffer as that sweet un-political politican from way away in the honest, true wilds of "real" Canada. Unconscious patronising, everyone does it ("aren't those Québécois such passionate, cultured social-democrats?" Dude! I love that shit, it's so bad)
So if you were writing/staging this play, and you needed to play the PPG, and through them, female voters, who would you pick as your final number? What, you mean to say there's a "cute small little girl", an innocent ingénue, from the sticks, way up North, whose seat may be in danger if she votes to keep the registry? You mean to say that right up to the last she hasn't made up her mind? You mean to say she can give an emotional press conference on the day of the vote, and speak to the women of Canada about how torn she was, but explain her decision, and through her, her party's? And maybe Jack can be there too, to give a hug, some support, and then they can go off and save the registry and save Canada, a happy family once again, all's well that ends well, aaaaaaah, ain't that cute. "I was angry at the NDP, but now we hugged and had a good cry, and we're all better again" BS. And insulting to the women of Canada, who are smarter than that.
Conclusions
1) The LPC has actually gone to the wall, idealistically, on this one. As Pundits' Guide pointed out, it the LPC that in micropolitical terms, is most at risk, although they have done well in macro terms, as people do when they respect their ideals. Its opponents hate the LPC so much, they underestimate its idealism, esp since Liberals have such a great sardonic sense of humour about themselves and their party. But people have to remember how tough it was to get the registry, the angry demonstrations of gun-toting gun owners on the Hill, the caucus divisions, Chrétien laying down the law, Allan Rock leaving pieces of his political hide, the LPC losing votes and seats over it in 1997. And then the cost-projections were out of whack, and we paid again, and it somehow became part of the 'corrupt Liberals' meme used by Reformers, etc.. The LPC has paid, and paid, and paid, to get and keep and defend the gun registry. And godammit to hell, we're freaking keeping it. We've paid our dues, in triplicate, and we're going to make any gameplaying little pieces of shit pay dearly for their crap. It's hard enough to get a large liner like the LPC turned around in the right direction, and doing the right thing. And then have the LPC, the party that has and will most pay for the registry, in measurable micropolitical terms, be denied its rightful glory for its idealism? Not having it. The LPC does enough wrong, often enough, for the wrong reasons, that when it does something completely right, for the right reasons, knowing it's going to pay for it, it deserves the credit. Believe it or not, the LPC is chock a block of idealism. It's just that we live in the world.
2) The NDP is rightly suffering for contemptible cynical have it both ways BS, and should continue to suffer for it, especially given their history of empty sanctimony. The Layton NDP is not the respectable NDP of the past. It is an empty soulless creature, and as a supposed left-wing party, pointless as a result. It is disgusting to see them try to leverage the good reputation earned through years of principled politics under their previous leaders for such squalid ends. Layton is throwing away his predecessors' legacy. And as a result, the next leader will be in the unenviable position of leading a party whose one claim to influence, its integrity, was thrown away. Just a terrible terrible decision, on all levels, for a supposed left-wing party. That's what happens when you put in charge drama queen airheads of limited vision, limited time horizon.
3) The parliamentary press gallery (PPG) is smaller than ever. Ottawa is smaller than ever. And perhaps it's the consequence of J-School etc., but there being less PPG members, and within a smaller more cozy atmosphere, of more homogeneous background, the members are more overworked than ever (there being less of them), esp. with all the platforms they have to use, and they have little or no time to think, reflect, coolly, on what is going on. And so even someone as experienced as Delacourt can have the wool pulled over her eyes. And for the reasons mentioned, there are few or none of the wild men of yore, which is both good and bad, but what is missing is their irascible nature. Charles Lynch, Marjorie Nichols, etc.. Of course, they were often quite hack-like, and grotesquely vicious, unfair, backbiting, backstabbing, etc.. But if we could somehow keep the irascibility without the bad bits, and with the ability to give credit where due, that would be an improvement. However, the PPG keeps getting smaller, so it seems unlikely. They need to keep on their toes though, aware of these realities, and not let that nice politico, who helps with charity and goes for drinks, manipulate them. Just as politicos are warned about journalists' supposed ethics.
4) Contrary to mindless reporting, ONLY 3, MAYBE 4 NDP SEATS COULD EVER BEEN THREATENED BY LGR VOTE, AND NOT ALL 12, MAKING NDP CRAP ALL THE MORE DISGUSTING. It is the LPC that is the idealistic one here, and may well pay the micropolitical price. But the upside is it has completely won the macropolitical war, distinguishing itself as the only alternative to Harper, and true idealists. As always with Topp & Layton, they were too clever by half. And as so often happens, they have morphed into their opponents: they are more a caricature of Harper micropolitics and LPC cynicism than either Harper or the LPC ever were.
PS. It's possible that Ashton's role be rewritten slightly, as a result of this post, and knowing no-one is fooled, and she sticks to pro-gun line, but still movingly, so as to connect to urban women. Or maybe because of that note, it'll be determined she should be as seemingly coldminded as possible. I recommend you go see the Mousetrap instead, it's a far superior example of the genre.
No comments:
Post a Comment