(no subject)
Here comes the abortion debate! Everybody got their popcorn?
Yes, Harper has been effective at shutting up his backbenchers--and some of his frontbenchers--when they step out of line. (I see you, Cheryl Gallant! You too, Diane Ablonczy! And how could I forget Maxime?!) However, I would argue that this is a special case.On issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, [...] the Conservative Party acknowledges the diversity of deeply-held personal convictions among individual party members and the right of Members of Parliament to adopt positions in consultation with their constituents and to vote freely.
(Conservative Platform, 2008.)
No mention of abortion is made in any of their 2011 campaign materials, so carrying over the position from their prior platform seems to be the most logical approach.
Promising a free vote is a bit of a fig leaf. I'd remind you of the 2004 same-sex marriage vote. The Conservatives had a free vote then, too, and 95% of their caucus voted in opposition. (Two members abstained, only three voted in favour.) The Conservative party as an institution might not have had a formal position on the matter, but it was still pretty clear which side their bread was buttered on, and I think we can say it was pretty obvious that, unless you were talking about a candidate who had explicitly stated otherwise, voting for a Conservative meant voting in opposition to same-sex marriage.
Similarly, although the party might be institutionally neutral on abortion, suggesting that the caucus or membership is genuinely split on the question seems a bit of a stretch, especially now that Quebecois membership in the Conservative caucus (Quebec being Canada's pro-choice heartland) has cratered.
More recently, the Conservatives have promised not to put forward or encourage any government measure on this matter. But this is the curious thing: the backbenchers are what are causing the problems. More and more backbenchers are whispering or mooting that they would like to see action on this issue, and the whips have not been able to rein them on or silence them even as they successfully quash the backbench on literally every other imaginable issue. This suggests that the backbenchers in question are either so morally invested in this issue that they're willing to brave the consequences for speaking out, or that they believe that, ultimately, they're going to win.
Which is curious, because there is most likely not an anti-abortion majority in the House of Commons--or, for that matter, in the Senate. There is virtually no hope that binding legislation could be passed by the next election, and if abortion is raised as a major issue in the interim, this is, on the surface, unlikely to favour the Conservatives at the polls.
Yes, Harper has been effective at shutting up his backbenchers--and some of his frontbenchers--when they step out of line. (I see you, Cheryl Gallant! You too, Diane Ablonczy! And how could I forget Maxime?!) However, I would argue that this is a special case.On issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, [...] the Conservative Party acknowledges the diversity of deeply-held personal convictions among individual party members and the right of Members of Parliament to adopt positions in consultation with their constituents and to vote freely.
(Conservative Platform, 2008.)
No mention of abortion is made in any of their 2011 campaign materials, so carrying over the position from their prior platform seems to be the most logical approach.
Promising a free vote is a bit of a fig leaf. I'd remind you of the 2004 same-sex marriage vote. The Conservatives had a free vote then, too, and 95% of their caucus voted in opposition. (Two members abstained, only three voted in favour.) The Conservative party as an institution might not have had a formal position on the matter, but it was still pretty clear which side their bread was buttered on, and I think we can say it was pretty obvious that, unless you were talking about a candidate who had explicitly stated otherwise, voting for a Conservative meant voting in opposition to same-sex marriage.
Similarly, although the party might be institutionally neutral on abortion, suggesting that the caucus or membership is genuinely split on the question seems a bit of a stretch, especially now that Quebecois membership in the Conservative caucus (Quebec being Canada's pro-choice heartland) has cratered.
More recently, the Conservatives have promised not to put forward or encourage any government measure on this matter. But this is the curious thing: the backbenchers are what are causing the problems. More and more backbenchers are whispering or mooting that they would like to see action on this issue, and the whips have not been able to rein them on or silence them even as they successfully quash the backbench on literally every other imaginable issue. This suggests that the backbenchers in question are either so morally invested in this issue that they're willing to brave the consequences for speaking out, or that they believe that, ultimately, they're going to win.
Which is curious, because there is most likely not an anti-abortion majority in the House of Commons--or, for that matter, in the Senate. There is virtually no hope that binding legislation could be passed by the next election, and if abortion is raised as a major issue in the interim, this is, on the surface, unlikely to favour the Conservatives at the polls.