Bruce Hyer leaves NDP caucus to sit as Independent

[train]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120423/house-of-commons-back-in-session-120423/

As MPs returned to work after a two-week break Monday, the NDP learned that Bruce Hyer has left caucus to sit as an Independent.

Hyer, MP for Thunder Bay-Superior North, said that while he has "much respect for most Members in this House," he criticized what he called "mindless solidarity, where political parties are always right and voters are always wrong."

Hyer broke ranks with the NDP on the recent gun registry vote, siding with the Tories to scrap the registry.



Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120423/house-of-commons-back-in-session-120423/#ixzz1sxlvTHF6

This was so predictable after Mulcair took the leadership. I'm posting it because even if it was predictible it's at least more interesting than the Ford drivel threads of Anbarandy or the post count booting Khadr threads of fuji where he endlessly repeats his errors in thinking. I think he is down to boring everyone but one member now.

 

[blackrock13]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120423/house-of-commons-back-in-session-120423/



This was so predictable after Mulcair took the leadership. I'm posting it because even if it was predictible it's at least more interesting than the Ford drivel threads of Anbarandy or the post count booting Khadr threads of fuji where he endlessly repeats his errors in thinking. I think he is down to boring everyone but one member now.

If it was that predictable, did you predict it? It happens often and from interviews, the doors still open for a return. There's not that much acrimony on either side.

 

[train]

If it was that predictable, did you predict it? It happens often and from interviews, the doors still open for a return. There's not that much acrimony on either side.

Yes, I actually did predict that if the NDP elected Mulcair as leader some of the Ontario Dippers would rebel.

Not that much acrimony you say ? I think it's rather obvious to most that you don't do this unless there is some - at least on Hyer's part. If you reverse your decision in short order you just end up looking like a bigger dweeb do you not?

Regardless of the publically stated reason, the defection came almost immediately after the shadow cabinet was announced. Hyer didn't get anything, not even the role that the rookie ex-pub manager got. Yes I think you can pretty much count on there being some acrimony.

 

[wigglee]

Of course , Sid Ryan and the union hardcore types are pissed that they no longer control the bigger tent.... as for Hyer, he was just kissin' gun lobby ass.

 

[blackrock13]

Yes, I actually did predict that if the NDP elected Mulcair as leader some of the Ontario Dippers would rebel.

Not that much acrimony you say ? I think it's rather obvious to most that you don't do this unless there is some - at least on Hyer's part. If you reverse your decision in short order you just end up looking like a bigger dweeb do you not?

Regardless of the publically stated reason, the defection came almost immediately after the shadow cabinet was announced. Hyer didn't get anything, not even the role that the rookie ex-pub manager got. Yes I think you can pretty much count on there being some acrimony.

It is one NDP'er crossing, not the deluge that you would think from your statement. As for his not getting a shadow position, with 100+ in the parliament, they all can't get one right at the start. When she starts to screw up then you can dump on her.

 

[cunning linguist]

Mulcair has publicly stated that he would try to resurrect the LGR if, by some miracle, Team Orange ever formed a majority Federal Government. Good on Hyer for breaking ranks and voting in the interest of his constituents.

 

[The Options Menu]

Yes, I actually did predict that if the NDP elected Mulcair as leader some of the Ontario Dippers would rebel.

Why?

He's a bit of an oddball MP, taking heat from rural constituents, he got slapped by the interim leader, then he was one of the few MPs who didn't get assigned a shadow portfolio. He also fancies himself something of a maverick. Even then, he still basically votes with the NDP, and will continue to do so. There are a number of bellwether NDPers to watch, he's not one of them...

The only real 'snub' there is that he didn't 'phone first'. His protestations that he didn't feel 'snubbed' himself at not getting a shadow portfolio ring a little hollow given that he mentioned that specifically in his letter. If you're expecting a caucus revolt in Ontario, I wouldn't hold your breath. Andrea Horwath just got a 70-some percent thumbs up on her leadership review despite some grumbling about not showing enough skin to the provincial unions (and instead focusing on mitigating damage to the actually poor), and being 'new'. Remember, one party, one membership, and her and Mulclair are of a type.

I think most modern NDPers have strong labour sympathies, but most already recognize that well established unions have delivered their members to the middle or upper middle class, so if push comes to shove between them, and the 'actually poor', we should side with the poor if given little in the way of alternatives. Also, most modern NDPers recognize that to be a party of government means that you actually have to be able to pragmatically negotiate with your unionized workforce when it comes to workers who have been delivered into the middle class... And frankly, despite the preponderance of people in union administration who are NDPers, most of them recommend high level pragmatism as well. Labour doesn't need a special privileges in a democratic party, especially when they are and will remain a natural constituency.

 

[The Options Menu]

Good on Hyer for breaking ranks and voting in the interest of his constituents.

As somebody from a very rural place-- Now the issue is politicized, and has to go away for a while, but it wasn't the actual registry that got people up in arms (for the most part). The Liberals blew a lot of money setting it up, it had stupid fees, and stupid renewals. This made people 'ideological' about it as window dressing. If the issue went away for a decade, or was set up initially to: a) have no fees, b) have no renewals other than at the point of transfer of ownership or destruction, it wouldn't have been an issue to anything but a narrow fringe. That was pure Liberal stupidity to make people pay a fee on something they already owned and then to have the cops on your door if you forgot to renew (I have family that happened to)... Dumb, dumb, dumb... Especially given the number of people who inherited guns and suddenly had to start paying and renewing.

Any future registry has to be just that, and have no fees and no paperwork unless you transfer ownership, or the gun is lost / destroyed. It really is that simple. Any member of my family who has guns but doesn't hunt (inherited, but often kept for vermin, or to shoot the odd vegetable with their kids) has simply said they'd never register again given the cost and PITA.

 

[train]

Why?

.

The reasoning simplistic:
1) Easy to predict some friction between the old guard NDP caucus and the newbies from Quebec who take full credit for the NDP upswing. With a Quebec leader the old guard, who had things pretty much to themselves since forever will get new marching orders;
2) Mulcair has a bit of a rep, hinted at by various people during the leadership race, as having a bit of a temper.

I think the Quebec thing will be the larger of the two issues, particularly if they don't hold onto substantially all those seats the next time around.

 

[cunning linguist]

As somebody from a very rural place-- Now the issue is politicized, and has to go away for a while, but it wasn't the actual registry that got people up in arms (for the most part). The Liberals blew a lot of money setting it up, it had stupid fees, and stupid renewals. This made people 'ideological' about it as window dressing. If the issue went away for a decade, or was set up initially to: a) have no fees, b) have no renewals other than at the point of transfer of ownership or destruction, it wouldn't have been an issue to anything but a narrow fringe. That was pure Liberal stupidity to make people pay a fee on something they already owned and then to have the cops on your door if you forgot to renew (I have family that happened to)... Dumb, dumb, dumb... Especially given the number of people who inherited guns and suddenly had to start paying and renewing.

Any future registry has to be just that, and have no fees and no paperwork unless you transfer ownership, or the gun is lost / destroyed. It really is that simple. Any member of my family who has guns but doesn't hunt (inherited, but often kept for vermin, or to shoot the odd vegetable with their kids) has simply said they'd never register again given the cost and PITA.

There's way more wrong with the Registry and Firearms Act than that. What about seemingly arbitrary classifications and re-classifications, and the threat confiscation? What about the criminalization of every offense, no matter how minor, in the Firearms Act? A future registry had no business existing as it provides absolutely zero public safety and exists as a means to harass a specific segment of law abiding citizens.

 

[fuji]

The criminalization of every offence is the real problem. I never found the laws to be objectionable in principle but some of them are very poorly written and ambiguous yet the penalties are severe--criminal record.

Forgetting to renew your license or incorrectly storing something should always have been a non criminal fine in ordinary cases where no one was hurt.

Even the registry would have been no big deal if failing to register earned you an administrative fine rather than a criminal record.

 

[cunning linguist]

Classifications are down right wacky, why make distinctions between certain brands or styles of rifles, especially when the playing field has already been leveled with silly magazine capacity limits? Does a .223 Remington magically hurt more when fired from an AR-15 than when it is fired from a Mini-14?

 

[The Options Menu]

Classifications are down right wacky, why make distinctions between certain brands or styles of rifles, especially when the playing field has already been leveled with silly magazine capacity limits? Does a .223 Remington magically hurt more when fired from an AR-15 than when it is fired from a Mini-14?

Yeah, combine that with what I said-- It was a shitty implementation. Period. That made it easy for people to get 'ideological' about it where a less stupid implementation wouldn't have wrankled near as much.

Oh, and back to Hyer:

"Hyer tells riding association he's ready to apologize and return to NDP caucus"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...gize-and-return-to-ndp-caucus/article2418486/

With a similar story in The Star.

I guess he discovered:
a) His riding association was for the NDP and not for him.
b) His constituents voted NDP and not for him.

 

[Don]

I don't know too much about this particular MP but is his only issue that he is in a rural riding where his constituents are in favor of firearms? Otherwise he toes the rest of the NDP line?

 

[The Options Menu]

I don't know too much about this particular MP but is his only issue that he is in a rural riding where his constituents are in favor of firearms? Otherwise he toes the rest of the NDP line?

No... It was more, 'I don't like being whipped' (ie- on the gun registry), but it seemed more like sour grapes over not getting a shadow portfolio.

 

[John Galt 2012]

Since the dippers are just sock puppets for their union masters you can see why Hyer was miffed. he's been in the mob for a long time and therefore has seniority. As good union toadies shouldn't the dipps put him in the shadow cabinet ahead of a more qualified person simply because he has that seniority. Odd that they don't put into practice what they bleat about endlessly come contract time. The oldest serving slugs get the soft jobs while the newbies bide their time.

two faced twerps.


.

.

 

[John Galt 2012]

Surely some of TERB's limper 'members' would like to take a crack at explaining away the dippers 'do as we say, not as we do' policy. Just cut and paste from your union screed, thats a good bunch of drones.


.

 

[fuji]

No... It was more, 'I don't like being whipped' (ie- on the gun registry), but it seemed more like sour grapes over not getting a shadow portfolio.

And maybe a little bit of fear that the platform his party was following was going to cost him his seat in the next election. He won by about 20% over the Conservative candidate in the last election, but that in part is because he'd previously been able to successfully fend off the Conservative's attempts to use the gun registry as a wedge issue. Being whipped to vote for it put him in a tough spot.

It's true he probably can't win the seat as an independent--some large fraction voted for the party rather than him. But what's also not clear is whether an NDP candidate who toes the gun registry line could win it either, if issues like that remain hot topics in that riding.

 

[The Options Menu]

It's true he probably can't win the seat as an independent--some large fraction voted for the party rather than him. But what's also not clear is whether an NDP candidate who toes the gun registry line could win it either, if issues like that remain hot topics in that riding.

As somebody from the north, the region, minus the immediate vicinity of North Bay, is a strong NDP area. With the Conservatives taking the gun registry off the table that should be a non-wedge-issue going forward. People say, "Conservatives are strong in rural areas". That's untrue. Conservatives are strong in rural AND HOMOGENEOUS areas. Blame the other works best when there is little 'other' around, and the places where Conservatives win tend to be places where they can get male voters to blame some 'other' for some perceived grievance. The crux of the Conservative vote is the 'likes a (usually fake) tough guy' / 'feels like a victim' male voting block, IMHO.

You beat Conservatives by:
-Pointing out their tough guys really aren't. That they'll call the cops at the drop of a hat and are the first to sue and lawyer up.
-By getting people who 'feel like victims' to not feel like victims.
-By getting people who 'feel like victims' to blame the actual causes of their problems instead of: 'Welfare Queens', or the tree huggers, or the faggots, or the (small 'l') liberals, or the n-bombs (or whatever even more disadvantaged group is being pointed at to take the fall).

edit: And by coming up with concise examples of Conservative corruption, incompetence, and mismanagement that the Conservatives would have a hard time muddying the waters on.