Hyer wants back in caucus

173 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I think Hyer's a bit of a loose cannon. I'd be wary of bringing him back.

 

toaster

Anyway, I do think it was a knee jerk reaction.  But I do believe he "deserved" to be in the shadow cabinet.  Also, I am completely against whipping votes, as it is totally undemocratic.  If Hyer runs (as an independent), I expect the Conservatives to come up the middle and win.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

toaster wrote:
  If Hyer runs (as an independent), I expect the Conservatives to come up the middle and win.

Is this in relation to the next federal election?

Stockholm

No, that's the last thing he would ever do. He needs to be an MP until 2014 so he can collect his pension. There is no way he would give up his salary and take the risk of being blamed for forcing a $100,000 byelection and then where would he raise any m,oney from. If he did that he would probably come in fourth and end up having to file for bankruptcy protection.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Does anybody here think Hyer's petty enough to resign his seat and force a snap byelection over this(in which he would stand as an independent) just to stick it to Mulcair?

JeffWells

toaster wrote:
 Also, I am completely against whipping votes, as it is totally undemocratic.

I disagree. In a system such as ours, I want and expect it on matters of policy. Party discipline is why voters can place their confidence in virtually unknown candidates. And without it, individual memebers can be vulnerable to influences perhaps stronger than their conscience, and we could easily end up with a farce much like the US congress.

toaster

Boom Boom wrote:

toaster wrote:
  If Hyer runs (as an independent), I expect the Conservatives to come up the middle and win.

Is this in relation to the next federal election?

Yes.

JeffWells wrote:

toaster wrote:
 Also, I am completely against whipping votes, as it is totally undemocratic.

I disagree. In a system such as ours, I want and expect it on matters of policy. Party discipline is why voters can place their confidence in virtually unknown candidates. And without it, individual memebers can be vulnerable to influences perhaps stronger than their conscience, and we could easily end up with a farce much like the US congress.

See, I disagree.  Epecially within the NDP party, there is a big urban/rural divide.  NDP supporters in Thunder Bay, Timmins-James Bay, Churchill, etc., have quite different views on many issues compared to NDP supporters in Toronto Danforth and Ottawa Centre.  In the case of Thunder Bay-Superior North, I don't believe Hyer was a "virtually unknown" candidate.  He campaigned on voting against the gun registry, and the people of TB-SN supported him on that issue.  Voters "placed their confidence" (to use your words) in Hyer to vote a specific way on the gun registry, which was not the same as most of his caucus.

Unionist

toaster wrote:
  He campaigned on voting against the gun registry, and the people of TB-SN supported him on that issue.  Voters "placed their confidence" (to use your words) in Hyer to vote a specific way on the gun registry, which was not the same as most of his caucus.

Can you name one single other issue where Thunder Bay voters think differently from Toronto Danforth? You say there is a "big urban/rural divide". Other than the long-gun registry, name one other issue. You can name two or three, but I'd be interested in hearing any other one of importance, please.

 

thorin_bane

Most of his voters should have known how the NDP planned to vote wrt to the LGR. For one they intended on fixing it. You don't waste a lot of money on something and just scrap it, try fixing it at least once. Second like most things your rep may not always mirror your every view. Sorry I know my NDP MP, or almost any MP didn't represent the overwhelming majority of canadians that didnt want to bomb libya. But its a nice fairy tale that we live in a democracy.

janfromthebruce

thorin_bane wrote:

Most of his voters should have known how the NDP planned to vote wrt to the LGR. For one they intended on fixing it. You don't waste a lot of money on something and just scrap it, try fixing it at least once. Second like most things your rep may not always mirror your every view.

I agree the idea was to try to fix it and if those amendments had gone through I think we all rural/urban could have lived with them. Sadly the HarperCons wanted nothing to do with "fixing" anything - they are intent on destroying anything associated with Liberals. And it's true your rep may not represent your every view; it's totally impossible as no riding is an homogeneious group of people.

Wilf Day

toaster wrote:
Epecially within the NDP party, there is a big urban/rural divide.  NDP supporters in Thunder Bay, Timmins-James Bay, Churchill, etc., have quite different views on many issues compared to NDP supporters in Toronto Danforth and Ottawa Centre.

"The NDP party?" Are you a Liberal or a Conservative?

Thunder Bay is a metropolitan area with 121,596 residents (2011 census), of which 108,359 are in the large urban area of the City of Thunder Bay, and 13,237 in the suburbs. Thunder Bay District has 146,057 residents, of which 24,461 (17%) live outside the metropolitan area. Northern, yes. Rural, not very. Far more urban than Timmins-James Bay and Churchill, where our MPs managed.

Furthermore, John Rafferty evidently told Tom Mulcair that the long gun registry vote was a one-off, he accepted his discipline, he would accept the whip in future, and he wanted to help the caucus develop a new gun registry policy that his constituents could live with. Bruce Hyer, a very able and intelligent fellow, has made it clear to Mulcair that he would like to reserve the right to reject the whip from time to time on future issues, and Mulcair has made it clear (on Don Martin's program where I heard him, and no doubt elsewhere) that this is not possible for a shadow cabinet member. Hyer could have stayed in caucus with his views, but unwisely sulked off. I hope he will come back.

toaster

Call it urban/rural, north/south or whatever you want to call it. There is a difference.  Sure Thunder Bay the city itself is urban, but they are surrounded by bush where those people go hunting.  Usually a short 15 minute drive and you can hunt.  In Toronto you'd have to drive a few hours any direction to get anywhere you can hunt.  Much more people in Northern Ontario (or other "rural" or surrounded by "rural" ridings) hunt (per capita) than people in Southern Ontario.  Also, to Unionist, support for the NDP is more labour-populist in these "rural/surrounding rural" ridings compared to the urban ones.    A number of NDP supporters in these rural areas are actually quite socially conservative.  To insist that NDP supporters everywhere in Canada all believe in the exact same thing just isn't right.

Unionist

Aha. So now we're getting somewhere. "socially conservative", eh?

Let's see. Tough on crime? Not crazy about abortion on demand? Still trying to get their heads around same-sex marriage? Think welfare recipients should get a job? Uncomfortable about the old ways being put into question with all these new immigrants?

See, people have a right to be socially conservative, whatever that code word means to you. They have a right to vote for representatives who they believe share and will reflect those values. Where their right stops is the expectation that some MP should have the right to defy his party policy and decision on such questions.

I'm quite sure Bruce Hyer doesn't have any intention of voting the wrong way on the issues I've just mentioned. But he appears to want to maintain a 5% right to defy his caucus. He should have the plain decency and transparency to spell that out, right now, in advance. If he can't, or won't, he should have a nice day.

 

KenS

Unionist wrote:

Aha. So now we're getting somewhere. "socially conservative", eh?

Let's see. Tough on crime? Not crazy about abortion on demand? Still trying to get their heads around same-sex marriage? Think welfare recipients should get a job? Uncomfortable about the old ways being put into question with all these new immigrants?

I watch people changing on all those issues. On all of them, most of my neighbours arent the same people they used to be.

But the LGR touchstone is different- even though the bulk of the males dont hunt any more.

'More socialy conservative' can be very nuanced and shifting, but still be tangible. So a lot of my neighbours are still less sure about what they think on most of the issues in that list- it just isnt as cut and dried as they used to think. So, no, they dont oppose abotion on demand, and.... But their overall frame is still more conservative.

And then there is the LGR, which overlaps all of that.... but is also a touchstone all of its own.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

toaster wrote:

 

Boom Boom wrote:

toaster wrote:
  If Hyer runs (as an independent), I expect the Conservatives to come up the middle and win.

Is this in relation to the next federal election?

Yes.

 

JeffWells wrote:

toaster wrote:
 Also, I am completely against whipping votes, as it is totally undemocratic.

I disagree. In a system such as ours, I want and expect it on matters of policy. Party discipline is why voters can place their confidence in virtually unknown candidates. And without it, individual memebers can be vulnerable to influences perhaps stronger than their conscience, and we could easily end up with a farce much like the US congress.

See, I disagree.  Epecially within the NDP party, there is a big urban/rural divide.  NDP supporters in Thunder Bay, Timmins-James Bay, Churchill, etc., have quite different views on many issues compared to NDP supporters in Toronto Danforth and Ottawa Centre.  In the case of Thunder Bay-Superior North, I don't believe Hyer was a "virtually unknown" candidate.  He campaigned on voting against the gun registry, and the people of TB-SN supported him on that issue.  Voters "placed their confidence" (to use your words) in Hyer to vote a specific way on the gun registry, which was not the same as most of his caucus.

It's not as if, had the NDP come to power with a majority of one in the last electiion, and the Liberals and whatever remained of the Bloc had suddenly decided that their political salvation lay in ending the LGR(it wouldn't be the first time the Liberals decided they needed to destroy something they themselves had built in the past, after all, and possibly the Bloc would have reasoned, in this scenario, that scrapping the LGR would have helped them make the case to Quebec  voters that Canada was now too bloodthirsty to remain part of), the voters of Hyer's riding would have expected him to bring down the new governmnent over the issue. 

After all, their decision to vote for ANY NDP candidate would have been based on a total rejection of the Harpercrite agenda just as the voters in Danforth or most of Quebec rejected it.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The other thing about the LGR issue is...if registration is such a threat to long gun ownership, how do they explain the fact that there hasn't been mass confiscation of handguns in Canada?  Those have had their own registry for years.

The LGR was never going to stop anybody from hunting.

adma

Consider, too, that the labour-based nature of such "rural" NDP support means that one can easily perceive something of a brown/green divide btw/it and the urban base...

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

There's that...which is one reason the NDP needs to get really REALLY serious about "green jobs".  Unless they do, the Harpercrites will always be able to siphon off rural working-class voters on "extraction means jobs" promises(the BC Socreds were also able to do this in logging areas, as have been the Alberta PC's in the oilpatch).

Bacchus

Ken Burch wrote:

The other thing about the LGR issue is...if registration is such a threat to long gun ownership, how do they explain the fact that there hasn't been mass confiscation of handguns in Canada?  Those have had their own registry for years.

The LGR was never going to stop anybody from hunting.

 

No but the repetitive costs every year and paperwork was deadly to those that use the LG for food, since they couldnt afford it in the first place. A simple registry with no costs after the initial registration would have been fine

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Agreed.  And it's not as if the NDP was opposed to that, as far as I know.

I think it was only the Liberals who were taking a "no change to the LGR at all" position.

And that's mainly because there's no such thing as a Liberal supporter anywhere in rural Canada.

Loretta

Bacchus wrote:

 

No but the repetitive costs every year and paperwork was deadly to those that use the LG for food, since they couldnt afford it in the first place. A simple registry with no costs after the initial registration would have been fine

 

And that's exactly what has been in effect for several years.

Bacchus

Too little too late. The LGR was tainted with the previous issues. It would have to be a new creation of simple registration and hopefully no costs

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

In other words, it would have to be something that an NDP government could come up but not a Liberal government.

Aristotleded24

Ken Burch wrote:
In other words, it would have to be something that an NDP government could come up but not a Liberal government.

Mulcair boxed himself in when he committed to bringing back the gun registry on the dubious premise that it "saves lives." He's tied himself to the unpopular Liberal program. He should have said something along the following lines:

"Gun control is a serious issue, but unfortunately the Liberals and Conservatives have poisoned the issue by dividing people for political gain. We intend to look seriously at gun control, to strengthen it where necessary, but we will do so in a way that is respectful of the legitimate concerns of legal gun owners."

Wilf Day

Aristotleded24 wrote:
He should have said something along the following lines:

"Gun control is a serious issue, but unfortunately the Liberals and Conservatives have poisoned the issue by dividing people for political gain. We intend to look seriously at gun control, to strengthen it where necessary, but we will do so in a way that is respectful of the legitimate concerns of legal gun owners."

That's almost exactly what he said, if you substitute "registry" for "control."

Aristotleded24

Wilf Day wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
He should have said something along the following lines:

"Gun control is a serious issue, but unfortunately the Liberals and Conservatives have poisoned the issue by dividing people for political gain. We intend to look seriously at gun control, to strengthen it where necessary, but we will do so in a way that is respectful of the legitimate concerns of legal gun owners."

That's almost exactly what he said, if you substitute "registry" for "control."

That substitution is an assumption which cannot be made.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

There's nothing in what Mulcair has said that ties him to re-instituting the program EXACTLY as it was.  He has plenty of latitude with which to create a more palatable form of the registry...unless you think the NDP will somehow lose votes by promising to do away with a fee.

Wilf Day

Ken Burch wrote:

There's nothing in what Mulcair has said that ties him to re-instituting the program EXACTLY as it was.  He has plenty of latitude with which to create a more palatable form of the registry...unless you think the NDP will somehow lose votes by promising to do away with a fee.

When he was on Don Martin's program commenting on Hyer, he was very specific: it will NOT be the Liberal registry, which he said was flawed; and he said the NDP caucus would be working on designing the better model. Including Rafferty (and Hyer if he comes back.) 

janfromthebruce

good to know Wilf

Brachina

I hope Hyer comes back so that he can influence the NDP's registery.

janfromthebruce

same here Brachina - that's why she got elected - to get the job done!

Brachina

janfromthebruce wrote:

same here Brachina - that's why she got elected - to get the job done!

I though Hyer was a dude?

janfromthebruce

ha ha ha - I meant he!

Caissa

Maybe he should join the Marijuana Party. He's got the name for it.

Vansterdam Kid

Wilf Day wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

There's nothing in what Mulcair has said that ties him to re-instituting the program EXACTLY as it was.  He has plenty of latitude with which to create a more palatable form of the registry...unless you think the NDP will somehow lose votes by promising to do away with a fee.

When he was on Don Martin's program commenting on Hyer, he was very specific: it will NOT be the Liberal registry, which he said was flawed; and he said the NDP caucus would be working on designing the better model. Including Rafferty (and Hyer if he comes back.) 

Exactly. And in any case, lest it be repeated again: Canada is not the USA. No one has an actual constitutional right to own a gun. So the historonics over the very concept of a gun registry are quite foreign and bizzare. If there are so many one issue voters out there that will base their entire electoral decision on what sort of procedures they must follow to lawfully own a gun here then let them join the Bruce Hyer Party, which apparently agrees with the NDP on 95% of the issues except that Bruce Hyer should always be in cabinet (or at least shadow cabinet) and that Canadians ought to be a lot better armed than they currently are. Wink

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

Maybe he should join the Marijuana Party. He's got the name for it.

Surely you mean the Beer* Party?

 

* Brews.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

Well, I remember back in grad school...

Well done! I'm not even able to construct a credible sentence that contains both those terms ("remember" and "school").

Scribe

It is a mistake to assume the urban/rural divide exists between regions or ridings - there is a population centre of city size (10 000) in pretty well every part of Canada barring the Far North, to my knowledge.  The divide exists within ridings - the NDP still does better in cities within Northern and rural ridings than it does in the outlying communities found there in, only the divide is less noticeable there because of the proximity of the bush and wilderness and the blending of urban/rural lifestyles.  IMO Hyer quit caucus not because of decision to exclude him from the shadow cabinet, but because his pick for leader (Cullen) did not make the top spot - does anyone think he would have left NDP caucus had Cullen won?  That's just me though - as far as I can tell his main gripes are with the leaders since Layton, ie Turmel and Mulcair. 

Stockholm

Scribe wrote:

It is a mistake to assume the urban/rural divide exists between regions or ridings - there is a population centre of city size (10 000) in pretty well every part of Canada barring the Far North, to my knowledge.  The divide exists within ridings - the NDP still does better in cities within Northern and rural ridings than it does in the outlying communities found there in, only the divide is less noticeable there because of the proximity of the bush and wilderness and the blending of urban/rural lifestyles.  IMO Hyer quit caucus not because of decision to exclude him from the shadow cabinet, but because his pick for leader (Cullen) did not make the top spot - does anyone think he would have left NDP caucus had Cullen won?  That's just me though - as far as I can tell his main gripes are with the leaders since Layton, ie Turmel and Mulcair. 

Except that Hyer announced that while Cullen was his first choice, he said at the same time that Mulcair was his second choice and Dewar his third choice and that he would be happy if either Cullen, Mulcair or Dewar became leader...so go figure!

KenS

Scribe wrote:

It is a mistake to assume the urban/rural divide exists between regions or ridings - there is a population centre of city size (10 000) in pretty well every part of Canada barring the Far North, to my knowledge.

As has benn pointed out at least twice before in this thread... for purposes of this discussion it is NOT a rural/urban divide, if you are using the StatsCan definition of urban. Its a [big] CITY versus rural/small town divide ....with the sensibilities of much of the smaller cities having a great deal in common with the rural/small town. Which has to do with both the literal locational proximity of people in small cities to 'the country'  ...but even more, to the close and recent family ties of the small city residents [like Saskatoon and Halifax, let alone the more obvious Kelowna and Lethbridge].

So for all intents and purposes, along this measurable difference in typical sensibilities, we have a few whole provinces where in no centres do most people fit into what is loosely called the "rural" / "urban" divide.

Caissa

I see no reason why those two parties can't merge. Well, I remember back in grad school...

David Young

Scribe wrote:

It is a mistake to assume the urban/rural divide exists between regions or ridings - there is a population centre of city size (10 000) in pretty well every part of Canada barring the Far North, to my knowledge.  The divide exists within ridings

Exactly the situation here in South Shore-St. Margaret's, Scribe!

Almost all of the support that Gordon Earle received in the 2011 election came from south of Highway 103, which runs the length of this constituency from Halifax to Yarmouth.  Gerald Keddy won almost all of the polls north of Highway 103, the 'rural' part of this riding, which heavily favoured the removal of the Gun Registry.  The coastal communities depend on fishing, manufacturing, and tourism, so the Registry wasn't a big factor in those polls.  And the Conservatives knew this, and strategically targeted the residents north of the 103 with anti-Gun Registry propaganda, and swung a lot of Liberal voters their way.  Otherwise, the NDP would've had a much greater chance at winning this riding.

We can expect the Conservatives to repeat this tactic in ridings like here.

I hope Hyer does come back into the NDP fold.

 

Very Far Away
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I agree with all four of his points.

josh
socialdemocrati...

... well good luck with that.

janfromthebruce

Hyer didn't quit b/c of his four point plan but b/c he didn't get a shadow caucas position. And he is on record in stating that. The other rubbish above is trying to make him look like he was saintly in this regard. I noticed in reading the comments that are now closed in that long ago huff post article is that they weren't very flattering to him.

And as someone pointed out in comments, Hyer could have made some of those suggestions at the policy convention but did not. Anyway, the NDP riding association there has long ago cut ties with Hyer and will field a great candidate. It has lots of resources and members and it is very much a working class riding with lots of union membership. The NDP is very strong there and holds the seat provincially.

In the last election, the Greens got about 3%. Considering that they are at 3% nationally, it doesn't look good for Bruce.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

lol. good luck bro.

janfromthebruce

To see Hyer's real reason with quote read Bruce Hyer Strikes While Iron is ... Abolished?

Here’s a clue,

First elected in 2008, Hyer was left out the NDP shadow cabinet announcement last week. “One of the jobs of any new Leader is to unite their party, and there are different ways to do that. Being excluded from any position was a clear message that my constituents will be muzzled.”

To end:

Or maybe he’ll cross the floor. Maybe even to the Greens.

Either way, this is hardly the principled  crusade he makes it out to be.

janfromthebruce

JeffWells wrote:

Well now, talking to local media about this, he sounds like he's eating his apology before he can apologize:

 

Quote:
“It’s very simple, and that would be contingent on one huge condition,” Hyer said, sounding anything but the apologetic MP national media are labeling him.

“And that condition is that I be allowed to vote for my conscience for my constituents. If and when that the party decide to do that, yes I’d consider that.”

...

“I went to Ottawa believing that I would be able to represent my constituents. Under Jack that worked reasonably well, but since Nycole and now Tom Mulcair, it’s clear that the party thinks that their MPs will do as the party and the leaders and the party says,” he said.

“What I did say to my riding executives and to my members is that if the party is willing to show some flexibility and some sensitivity to the needs of my constituents, then yes, I would – I don’t know if apologize is the right word – but I would try to reintegrate into the party and vote with them most of the time, which I’m usually comfortable with.”

In his letter to the riding association, Hyer was a little more conciliatory toward the party leadership.

http://www.tbnewswatch.com/news/206281/Hyer-reconsidering

So I think he and the party are back where they were last week. Except his apparent flakiness makes him seem damaged goods.

Remember Hyer left after the long gun registry vote. And others as mentioned above also voted against and are in critic pofolios. That said, this is kind of funny in hindsight:

Green Party urges NDP to vote for long gun registry

Anyway, I'm just rereading the comment section in which all his bogus reasons tried to mask his real reason which was he didn't get a critic position and was miffed, stormed off in a huff.

Pages