[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Neil]

Has there been any indication that Harper can't keep the extremists in his caucus in line?

[viper37]

Is it really far-fetched, and conspiracy-theoristic, considering the iron fist with which Harper's entourage has managed the Commons agenda *and* party discipline so far (i.e., no one is saying anything of substance without the PM's direct approval, and that includes now government agencies), to think he's throwing a bone to his base without too much cost to what he expected to be his larger constituency? I have read the exact same thing from not-so-conspiracy-theorists political pundits (i.e. Chantal Hébert).

it did happen in the past and the MPs concerned were shutdown, or there was a 'free' vote on the subject.

[Jacob]

Has there been any indication that Harper can't keep the extremists in his caucus in line?

Well it's one of the following:

1) He can, but he doesn't consider bringing up abortion/ fetus legislation to be extremist.

2) He can and he does consider bringing up abortion/ fetus legislation to be extremist, but he considers there to be a worthwhile upside to giving the issue some play.

3) He cannot keep extremists in line and the bill is being introduced in spite of his wishes.

4) He can keep them in line in general, but the member from Kitchener wasn't to be dissuaded so he's going to be made an example of to keep the other extremists in line.

I'm curious which one it is.

[jimmy olsen]

Good, you $$, not mine

Fine, I'll rob you then.

I'm well armed, for a Québécois

Are they on the gun registry?

I thought the conservatives got rid of the gun registry.

[Malthus]

I can't follow the fellow's statistical analyis - all Greek to me - but I simply cannot buy that any meaningful conclusions can be drawn where there is no way of knowing how many such calls were actually made, and how many people actually did not vote because of them, other than mere guesswork.

Well, from a quick skim it seems that the methodology is to look at ridings where robo-calls were alleged and compare voter turnout to those where there are no robo-calls alleged, and comparing. I guess it's not that far fetched (if other factors are controlled for) to conclude that voter turnout was lower amongst certain groups in places where robo-calls are alleged to have taken place, without knowing the exact number of robo-calls happened.

It's guesswork, attributing any observed difference to a cause one hasn't established is in fact causative, let alone the extent of its influence. It begs the question, since the ostensible cause - that folks were annoyed with the Libs and stayed home - matches the cause imputed to the nefarious robo-calling, which allegedly happened only in those ridings where Libs stood a chance.   

You see the same reasoning applied all the time by plaintiffs in product liabilty class actions. Any increase in cancer observed in the general population must be the result of people using Brand X sunscreen, because studies in rats have shown Brand X may cause cancer in rats.

[Josephus]

God, you talk like a lawyer sometimes, Malthus. 

[Neil]

Has there been any indication that Harper can't keep the extremists in his caucus in line?

Well it's one of the following:

1) He can, but he doesn't consider bringing up abortion/ fetus legislation to be extremist.

2) He can and he does consider bringing up abortion/ fetus legislation to be extremist, but he considers there to be a worthwhile upside to giving the issue some play.

3) He cannot keep extremists in line and the bill is being introduced in spite of his wishes.

4) He can keep them in line in general, but the member from Kitchener wasn't to be dissuaded so he's going to be made an example of to keep the other extremists in line.

I'm curious which one it is.

It's also possible that the member from Kitchener wasn't to be dissuaded, but since it's a private member's bill and the member from Kitchener is already on the fringe of the caucus in every respect, there isn't much Harper can do (as he's not going to eject someone from caucus for putting forward a private members bill, especially one that a small but active faction of his party wants to see).  The truth is, as it usually is, somewhere in the middle of your absolute options.  I don't know if you saw Star Wars III, but there I learned that only a Sith deals in absolutes, Darth Jacob.

This situation is like a theoretical NDP government where the assorted crazy insano-lunatics that get elected as NDP MPs would put forward all kinds of fucked up private member bills to make union memebership mandatory, put all Jews in concentration camps, purge the kulaks and to change the Criminal Code so that all sex is rape.  Unless the government adopts these bills, I'm not going to say that it's a conspiracy where PM Topp or Mulcair is floating trial balloons so that he can institutionalize the Holocaust.  If you're the Tories or the NDP, and you're striving to be a big-tent party that draws from either the right or the left, sometimes you get ideological types who won't change their mind and can't change the subject.

[Josephus]

See Neil, when you post more than one sentence you actually make sense. 

[Jacob]

Neil - I absolutely didn't see Star Wars III.

Your analysis (once we're past your colourful metaphors) makes sense. To rephrase:

Harper doesn't really care, in part because he can't do much about it at this point and in part because it isn't going anywhere (unless Harper throws his support behind it, which he won't do), so he's letting anti-abortionist boys be boys. The whole thing will fade away soon enough, signifying nothing.

Sounds fair enough.

I wonder if CC agrees with you assessment and is going to remain consistent in applying it to the NDP as well.

[Malthus]

God, you talk like a lawyer sometimes, Malthus. 

This is, at base, a legal-type question. Wrongdoing is alleged and evidence is offered. What I'm saying is that the evidence doesn't sound convincing on its face (though I admit I have no idea about the maths used).

How can someone know that wrongdoing had a particular impact, if you can't know how much of it occured and there are plenty of non-wrongdoing causes that could have been responsible?

[Jacob]

God, you talk like a lawyer sometimes, Malthus. 

This is, at base, a legal-type question. Wrongdoing is alleged and evidence is offered. What I'm saying is that the evidence doesn't sound convincing on its face (though I admit I have no idea about the maths used).

How can someone know that wrongdoing had a particular impact, if you can't know how much of it occured and there are plenty of non-wrongdoing causes that could have been responsible?

Well, if the maths are done correctly then they can. That's the whole point of controlling for variables in stats, isn't it?

[crazy canuck]

but I expect that you'll maintain the same stance in the face of whatever hippie flavoured private bills that individual NDP members of parliament put forth as well

Why wouldnt I? 

[crazy canuck]

.

I wonder if CC... is going to remain consistent in applying it to the NDP as well.

Sometimes you can be a real jerk.

[Jacob]

Why wouldnt I?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

I just expect that that there'll be some flakiness from the NDP in the future, and that you and I will have more than one conversation about whether the NDP is suitable as a governing party. I just want to be able to say "well, it's a private members bill and you said that those do not reflect on the party or leadership whether it's the Conservatives or the NDP" should it apply.

[crazy canuck]

Why wouldnt I?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

Fuck you.